Saturday, October 11th 2008

Core i7 965 XE Races Through to 4.20 GHz

It's high time to break the dogma. Core i7 965 Extreme, Intel's next generation flagship desktop processor based on the Nehalem architecture, does indeed overclock satisfactorily. IT OC Taiwan overclocked the chip, which sports an unlocked FSB multiplier, to a respectable 4.20 GHz, at a FSB speed of 200 MHz, and multiplier value of 21.0xFSB. A vCore setting of 1.72 V was used, which is above the danger-mark, taking Intel's own warnings into account. The CPU was aided by dual-channel DDR3-1600 memory operating at timings of 8-7-7-24. It provided a tested bandwidth of close to 16,000 MB/s. The CPU took 3DMark Vantage for a spin, with 3596.76 plans/s in CPU Test 1, and 32.87 steps/s in Test 2. The chip used in the attempt was an engineering sample.


Source: IT OC Taiwan
Add your own comment

70 Comments on Core i7 965 XE Races Through to 4.20 GHz

#1
ShadowFold
1.720v holy crap thats terrible!
Posted on Reply
#2
DOM
1.72v :wtf: that seems way to much

also what cards is it with ?
Posted on Reply
#3
$ReaPeR$
this looks real enough to me. but i wonder if the chip can last for a long period of time under that oc.. taking into account intels own restrictions.nice findings though btarnur!! very well done!
Posted on Reply
#5
Monkeywoman
1.72v's include the CPU and MEM controller. ALSO the max recommended by intel is ~1.6, and we all know whatever is recommended isn't the max.
Posted on Reply
#6
ascstinger
by: Dark_Webster
Why it doesn't look too impressive?
same thoughts here... and why does it need such a high multi. a q9650 has been known to hit almost 5.0 on 1.6vcore, and thats a locked chip
Posted on Reply
#7
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
That's because the rated FSB of a Bloomfield isn't anywhere close to that of a Yorkfield. Essentially, OC'ing a Bloomfield is like OC'ing a Phenom. Just that you start off from 133 MHz FSB.
Posted on Reply
#8
$ReaPeR$
i wonder what the hell is intel trying to do with this chip...
Posted on Reply
#9
ShadowFold
If these things need 1.7v to get 4ghz then this is not a overclockers cpu. Thats seriously gotta be a PITA to cool..
Posted on Reply
#10
mlupple
1.72 volts o.O that's just a little bit more than one AA battery!
Posted on Reply
#11
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
by: mlupple
1.72 volts o.O that's just a little bit more than one AA battery!
1.72 V, and >120 A.
Posted on Reply
#12
Recoba
because of NDA so i cant say too much
but my i965 con run 4400mhz with 1.5v with LN2, bench 3D vantage.
hope i can do better
Posted on Reply
#13
zOaib
these new chips want me to stick with my qx9650 for as long as i can =)
Posted on Reply
#14
$ReaPeR$
by: zOaib
these new chips want me to stick with my qx9650 for as long as i can =)
hope i had one of those.........:( if i didnt knew better i would say that intel is trying to commit suicide.:confused:
Posted on Reply
#15
unclewebb
RealTemp Author
Does anyone see a pattern here? Pentium III, great. Pentium 4, not so great. Core 2 Duo, great and then some. Core i7, .........????

A well overclocked Core 2 Duo based Dual or Quad core processor is a lot of bang for the buck these days and it might be 6 months or longer before Core i7 is really worth upgrading to for the enthusiast. It looks pretty pricey at the moment for what you get.
Posted on Reply
#16

by: unclewebb
Does anyone see a pattern here? Pentium III, great. Pentium 4, not so great. Core 2 Duo, great and then some. Core i7, .........????

A well overclocked Core 2 Duo based Dual or Quad core processor is a lot of bang for the buck these days and it might be 6 months or longer before Core i7 is really worth upgrading to for the enthusiast. It looks pretty pricey at the moment for what you get.
i see the pattern, same what happened with Nvidia

NV4 good, NV5 fail,

G80 and G92 good, G200 fail
Posted on Edit | Reply
#17
Octavean
Even if the Core i7 doesn’t OC well it doesn’t mean that its not worthwhile tech. there may be a number of artificial or quasi artificial reasons the i7 is held back but its not like Intel has never considered using anti OC techniques. Hell I recall hearing about Intel going for an anti OC patent.

If the i7 doesn’t OC well its more of an issue for enthusiasts (you and me) and that’s hardly a world market. Considering where AMD is now performance wise I don’t think the world is going to turn tail on Intel over OC potential.
Posted on Reply
#18
zithe
by: Octavean
Even if the Core i7 doesn’t OC well it doesn’t mean that its not worthwhile tech. there may be a number of artificial or quasi artificial reasons the i7 is held back but its not like Intel has never considered using anti OC techniques. Hell I recall hearing about Intel going for an anti OC patent.

If the i7 doesn’t OC well its more of an issue for enthusiasts (you and me) and that’s hardly a world market. Considering where AMD is now performance wise I don’t think the world is going to turn tail on Intel over OC potential.
The new Phenoms require slightly less voltage, it seems..

Both seem equally enticing in my current position. I'll probably go with what's cheaper.
Posted on Reply
#19
dalekdukesboy
by: wolf2009
i see the pattern, same what happened with Nvidia

NV4 good, NV5 fail,

G80 and G92 good, G200 fail
g200 fail? lol...I think that's only applicable at it's original 500+ price tag, but once the price cuts came into effect I can hardly say that the g200 isn't a good gpu...considering it takes 2 of ati's best cpus on one card (4870x2) to beat it...
Posted on Reply
#20
marsey99
dont bother arguing with fanbios, they drag you down to their level.


so they dont go boom once you get above 1.6v thats cool but are they any faster? 4.2ghz on a wolfdale is a 10sec superpi can i7 beat it?

we dont need more cores, just faster ones.....
Posted on Reply
#21
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Please stay on topic. We're not even remotely discussing GPUs here. Thanks!
Posted on Reply
#22
Octavean
by: zithe
The new Phenoms require slightly less voltage, it seems..

Both seem equally enticing in my current position. I'll probably go with what's cheaper.
I hear you but I said the “world” referring to a global market with respect to market shares. I don’t think we will see a fundamental shift to AMD over this. I could see any individual user here and in similar forums making the switch to AMD over this but not the vast majority of the overall market.

Most of the computing world simply doesn’t care about overclocking.

I care about OCing, as I trust many here do, but I dont pretend that the rest of the world does. The business sector expects their computers to work, work hard, work fast and be reliable. OCing doesn’t even enter into the equation.


***edit***

This is also very new hardware. There may be newer revisions in short order that update the i7 core to overcome its limitations.

For example, earlier versions of the Athlon 64 processors had a limitation that dropped the memory speed when all DIMM slots were populated. Who’s to say that a Core i7 OC killer now isn’t fixed in the next stepping?
Posted on Reply
#23
zithe
by: Octavean
I hear you but I said the “world” referring to a global market with respect to market shares. I don’t think we will see a fundamental shift to AMD over this. I could see any individual user here and in similar forums making the switch to AMD over this but not the vast majority of the overall market.

Most of the computing world simply doesn’t care about overclocking.

I care about OCing, as I trust many here do, but I dont pretend that the rest of the world does. The business sector expects their computers to work, work hard, work fast and be reliable. OCing doesn’t even enter into the equation.


***edit***

This is also very new hardware. There may be newer revisions in short order that update the i7 core to overcome its limitations.

For example, earlier versions of the Athlon 64 processors had a limitation that dropped the memory speed when all DIMM slots were populated. Who’s to say that a Core i7 OC killer now isn’t fixed in the next stepping?
Similar things could be said for the Phenoms. People don't seem to take that into account.

...I know it doesn't look like I do, either.
Posted on Reply
#24
farlex85
Finally some oc'ing. It's certainly no core 2, and that's the extreme chip. :eek: Wonder how the lower bloomfields will do. It seems like the others may indeed have locked multis, which will probably seriously limit the others. Definitely not very impressive, if AMD can pump out a phenom that matches these clock for clock they should be neck and neck and we get some good prices maybe. :rockout:
Posted on Reply
#25
Tatty_One
Senior Moderator
I can get 4.2gig on 1.35v :D .....taking into account that Nahlem is of course faster than Wolfdale clock for clock, lets say I can get 4.4gig on 1.425v ;) This kinda worries me abit, mainly cause it suggests to run at say 4gig 24/7 you are still gonna need like 1.6V.....thats just un-realistic.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment