i7 7700K worth buying after all those Over Heats Dilemma?

[Keullo-e]

Delidding is the right thing to do. Here in Finland many users are willingly to pay a little more for a delidded CPU instead of delidding themselves.

I'd pay ~20 euros extra for that it's already delidded and also if the CPU is a good overclocker.

 

[Vya Domus]

You really shouldn't have to delid a CPU that should have had the IHS soldered in the first place. Intel has cheaped out on their products when they shouldn't have since they charge a premium for them. There is no other way of putting it nicely.

 

[EarthDog]

Yeah.. it does cut down on overclocking headroom. Otherwise, a non issue.

 

[trog100]

in the end overclocking headroom seems to me at least to be governed by a common belief that anything over 80 C is too hot.. simply by letting the temps go up by 10 or 15 C with a 7700K chip seems to be good for another couple of hundred mhz..

i recon that over time we have let ourselves be brainwashed into believing that these chips need to be kept cooler than they really need to be..

trog

 

[Shou Miko]

I run a i7-6700k srsly it's not a big difference I even do it on a Z270 chip board because this were available when I build a new black/white/blue system and was one of the few boards I could find with onboard Creative Core3D audio on.

As others suggest change out ur GTX 970 instead if u wanna put money somewhere or save em up for later for smth else.

 

[FireFox]

My CPU is capable of 5 GHz. I run 4.7 ghz on all cores, 4.8 on three, 4.9 on two, and 50 on one, done using the turbo profiling,

I have never tried that, is there any Pro and Cons?

 

[sneekypeet]

@EarthDog Thank you for pointing out my mistake. I extremely sorry for my nubidity. I can assure it won't happen next time.


@cadaveca Thanks for your suggestion. Anyway which highend cooler you are suggesting for 7700K? People using 240mm rad AIO like CM Master Liquid 240, Corsair H115i, DeepCool Captain 240 etc and still they are getting Temp Spike. Aren't these any good? Or you are suggesting LN cooling for 7700K?

Second warning, since I am still editing your posts! Any more of this multiple posting and it will result in a loss of posting rights.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Intel has purposely designed these CPUs to overheat to protect themselves before damage.

Ummm, no. No processor is designed to overheat. They are designed to operate with a specific operating range - which may, or may not be the same as the "published" operating range. CPUs are also designed with self-protection features to prevent them from actually overheating. That is, they are designed to shutdown or throttle back before damage occurs.

That does not mean they cannot get hot - just too hot.

 

[trparky]

I can understand why people get all upset at Intel over this TIM crap because it eats into their overclocking headroom. It's like people think that they are entitled to the ability to massively overclock these chips. Um... nope, you're entitled to jack squat.

4.4 GHz is about the best you're going to be getting. Be happy.

 

[Gasaraki]

Hello Good People,
Good Day.
Going to buy a new set up soon. Mainly for gaming. In cpu sector i'm planning to get i7 7700K with Z270 and 240mm AIO.
Question is will it (7700K) be a safe choice? I'm deeply concerned and worried about all those user complain at Intel User Community regarding temp spike issue.
Please help me out.
Thannk You

EDIT:
Actually currently I’ve an i7 6700K set up (which you’re seeing in my System Specs). But planning to build my 2nd set up with 7700K.

EDIT:
Its been almost 24 hours since i started this thread. Few number of Gentleman already have given their opinion and made me choosing the best possible thing. Thanks everyone for that.
I just want to let you know waiting for Intel 8th Gen probably the best thing for me. 7700K still a very very good gaming cpu but i don't want to take any risk and hassle. Either i will be waiting until 8th Gen release or 7700 instead of 7700K.

What overheat dilemma? You got to stop listening to people. There are no overheating issues with the 7700K.

 

[Vya Domus]

Only a company like Intel would say their CPU's are designed to overheat , alongside them saying that the K series processors should not be overclocked.

Any piece of circuitry is designed to work as intended within certain intervals with regards of operating parameters because the real world is always different from paper and you need a level of tolerance. You never design something to stay right at the edge of those intervals , that would defeat the purpose of any form of reliability.

Saying it is designed to overheat would infer 1) really bad design 2) you're just trying to find an excuse. I wonder which is closer to the truth.

 

[EarthDog]

4.4 GHz s about the best you're going to be getting. Be happy.

I'd be mad too if I got less than stock speeds on my 7700K. Remember, its a 4.2 Ghz baseclock chip that boosts to 4.5 GHz. If you aren't getting 4.8 GHz+ out of it with adequate cooling, something isn't right...

I've had 3 7700K's to play with and all of them, before delidding, did 5Ghz (3x120mm water loop). After delidding I was 5.1-5.2GHz.

 

[trparky]

But isn't the 4.5 GHz clock speed limited to only a certain number of cores? When running all cores at higher than stock speed is when things can probably heat up.

 

[EarthDog]

Yes. I believe all cores boost to 4.3 or 4.4 and one does 4.5. Many Z170/Z270 boards go to 4.5 with all cores by default. So, to expect 4.4 is woefully underestimating and within boost clocks... this isn't Ryzen who 95/100 cant past its own boost clocks. If you get 4.4 Ghz, you haven't tried, like, at all. That is misinformation only expecting 4.4 GHz out of a 7700K.

 

[cadaveca]

Only a company like Intel would say their CPU's are designed to overheat , alongside them saying that the K series processors should not be overclocked.

Any piece of circuitry is designed to work as intended within certain intervals with regards of operating parameters because the real world is always different from paper and you need a level of tolerance. You never design something to stay right at the edge of those intervals , that would defeat the purpose of any form of reliability.

Saying it is designed to overheat would infer 1) really bad design 2) you're just trying to find an excuse. I wonder which is closer to the truth.

The guy said that they needed to be able to simulate failure without actually doing any damage, as that's the only way they could properly analyze what was happening, since it is quite hard to test a broken chip.

But isn't the 4.5 GHz clock speed limited to only a certain number of cores? When running all cores at higher than stock speed is when things can probably heat up.

Yes, one core. 4.3 GHz to all cores. That's also Turbo, which is only supposed to work when temperatures and such are all within their pre-defined limits.


But let me say this; OC with is dead. Long dead. Want proof? Set a higher than stock multi, and you'll see the pre-programmed voltages for that multiplier. Pop in a different CPU, set same multi... the automatic voltages will change. These CPUs have already been tested to their real limits, and are already programmed to be able to run them.

Yes. I believe all cores boost to 4.3 or 4.4 and one does 4.5. Many Z170/Z270 boards go to 4.5 with all cores by default. So, to expect 4.4 is woefully underestimating and within boost clocks... this isn't Ryzen who 95/100 cant past its own boost clocks. If you get 4.4 Ghz, you haven't tried, like, at all. That is misinformation only expecting 4.4 GHz out of a 7700K.

Yeah, but for me, you should be able to expect at least 4.6 GHz. I have had one chip that would not do more without "overheating" because it required voltage that was too high.

Ummm, no. No processor is designed to overheat. They are designed to operate with a specific operating range - which may, or may not be the same as the "published" operating range. CPUs are also designed with self-protection features to prevent them from actually overheating. That is, they are designed to shutdown or throttle back before damage occurs.

That does not mean they cannot get hot - just too hot.

It's not designed to "overheat" per se, but it is designed to throttle when certain temperatures are reached, and part of ensuring those temperatures are equal across all CPUs is using that chalky TIM. So yeah, exactly what you said.

I have never tried that, is there any Pro and Cons?

Cons? None with SkyLake/KabyLake.

Pros? Temperature control. You can also set in BIOS a lower multi for AVX loading, so that you can control temperatures for that load, too.

 

[trparky]

But let me say this; OC with is dead. Long dead. Want proof? Set a higher than stock multi, and you'll see the pre-programmed voltages for that multiplier. Pop in a different CPU, set same multi... the automatic voltages will change. These CPUs have already been tested to their real limits, and are already programmed to be able to run them.

Yeah, I'm thinking the same thing here. Overclocking (that is what most people think overclocking is) is dead. The CPUs are already being pushed as far as they can go when coming out of the Intel factory. This isn't the days of Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge where you could easily get a GHz overclock without even trying. It was like that back then because they were purposely underclocked.

 

[EarthDog]

I wouldnt say its dead so much as there isnt as much headroom as in generations past.

I wpuld say you need a lot less skill these days to overclock on ambient temps though.

 

[Vya Domus]

The guy said that they needed to be able to simulate failure without actually doing any damage, as that's the only way they could properly analyze what was happening, since it is quite hard to test a broken chip.

I honestly don't buy any of that. OK , they used crap TIM for testing purposes to make it overheat without any damage , makes sense , but there is no reason to leave that on the finished product. Delided CPUs are clearly working perfectly fine even when they do not constantly hit 90-100C , it's obvious they are engineered to work normally like every other CPU. I'm am doubtful Intel found out some ingenious engineering trick by using TIM instead of solder that others didn't.

The only reason they left it on there is to cut cost , every other explanation coming from them is nothing more than an excuse. Of course , they'll never admit that.

 

[EarthDog]

The only reason they left it on there is to cut cost ,

I can see how pennies on each processor would make a big dent....

(sarcastic, note)

 

[Vya Domus]

(sarcastic, note)

As pathetic as it sounds it seems to be the reality of things , I just fail to see any other reason on why they did that ( and still do it). Can you ?

 

[cadaveca]

I honestly don't buy any of that. OK , they used crap TIM for testing purposes to make it overheat without any damage , makes sense , but there is no reason to leave that on the finished product. Delided CPUs are clearly working perfectly fine even when they do not constantly hit 90-100C , it's obvious they are engineered to work normally like every other CPU. I'm am doubtful Intel found out some ingenious engineering trick by using TIM instead of solder that others didn't.

The only reason they left it on there is to cut cost , every other explanation coming from them is nothing more than an excuse. Of course , they'll never admit that.

Well, the obvious thing to me is that if they put solder, it is possible to push the chip to the point where it breaks. They've eliminated that, meaning less RMAs, and THAT is how this might save them some money. I mean, they can make chips that last forever, if they wanted to. There'd be huge overhead in clocks, but with how tech changes so fast, and how old tech becomes "irrelevant", they lose little by having a product that is good and safe from any sort of issues.

As pathetic as it sounds it seems to be the reality of things , I just fail to see any other reason on why they did that ( and still do ). Can you ?

I can. It's just that the reasoning for doing so isn't as nefarious as some would like to present it. I will agree easily that money plays a role in it, for sure. That's business.

Yeah, I'm thinking the same thing here. Overclocking (that is what most people think overclocking is) is dead. The CPUs are already being pushed as far as they can go when coming out of the Intel factory. This isn't the days of Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge where you could easily get a GHz overclock without even trying. It was like that back then because they were purposely underclocked.

Nah, they were pushed to the limit with prescott. Intel learned their lesson with that one.


Like, why did they change cache design so drastically with SkyLake-X? I mean, I totally geek out over this stuff. When I get new CPUs, I push them to their limits; under air, water, and LN2. I also push limits in all ways, high CPU, low mem, the opposite, changing cache speeds at different clocks, etc... All I can say is that Intel is doing a far better job than some want to admit. That's not to say they are doing a better job than AMD; but I hold the opinion that AMD and Intel are not in direct competition, because they have completely different ways of running their business. AMD is an IP company for silicon products. AMD does not make any products; other companies do that using their designs. Intel is a silicon product manufacturer, and they build their own products. As such, I have different expectations from each of them.

 

[Vya Domus]

Well, the obvious thing to me is that if they put solder, it is possible to push the chip to the point where it breaks. They've eliminated that, meaning less RMAs, and THAT is how this might save them some money. I mean, they can make chips that last forever, if they wanted to. There'd be huge overhead in clocks, but with how tech changes so fast, and how old tech becomes "irrelevant", they lose little by having a product that is good and safe from any sort of issues.


I can. It's just that the reasoning for doing so isn't as nefarious as some would like to present it. I will agree easily that money plays a role in it, for sure. That's business.

I never said their reasoning was evil. With the way their CPUs are shipped you can't really use them to their fullest potential without some hassle. They chose to make it like this , it wasn't any engineering limitation and it's obvious that they struggle to deny it. Now that's fine , after all they can never go out and say that they just want the highest profit and that had something to do with it. What I find unusual though , is why people don't want to accept that what they have done is clearly detrimental for the product they paid for.

 

[EarthDog]

Because no overclocking is guaranteed...

 

[cadaveca]

What I find unusual though , is why people don't want to accept that what they have done is clearly detrimental for the product they paid for.

Well, you know, that's what you might have to assess when you purchase a product of any sort. I mean, being straight on topic, judging that for some does determine if a product is worth buying or not.

For me, I do not agree that it is detrimental. I prefer it this way; there is considerable overhead in Intel CPUs, without solder. There is very little overhead in AMD CPUs, with solder. I'd rather buy the chip with the added overhead, and if need be, because of how this all works, you can de-lid and "fix" that problem easily enough, or as someone else mentioned, you can purchase one that has already been delidded for you. I like those options, which aren't present in AMD CPUs. AMD had NO CHOICE but to use solder, IMHO.

Because no overclocking is guaranteed...

Yeah, and THAT. You don't buy a chip for OC potential. You buy it for it's stock specs. At least that's what the majority do, even when they are considering OC as part of the determining factors for purchasing.

I'm not sure why anyone would want to buy a "K" SKU from Intel, just because it OC's? But the non-K chips have far lower power consumption... (65W vs 91/95W) and usually, better temps thanks to that. They also offer ZERO OC-ability.

Like, keep that in mind when considering TIM used... "K" chips are allowed to draw more power than the "non-K" parts. "K" chips, technically, are ALREADY OC'ed. There is ZERO reason for them to use solder on a 65W chip currently. It just doesn't matter because the power draw is so low. So why would they spend MORE money to re-tool production and solder just TWO SKU's out of the platform that 7700K is in? THAT does not make sense.

 

[FireFox]

I have thought people moved on with this 7700K temps issue thing but unfortunately i was wrong move on people.