Core i7 2700K OC'ed to 5GHz with 1.384V

[BlueBlazer]

Engineering sample of Core i7 2700K >> [LGA 1155] 32nm 22nm Sandy Bridge Ivy Bridge »XtremeSystems first Core i7 2700K 3.5 GHz. More interesting stuff this October month........

Seems to hint that its not necessary to play around with internal PLL voltage? :hmm:

 

[AdamK47]

Super PI and CPUMark 99 stable apparently, which doesn't mean much. I'm willing to bet you'd see a BSOD or at least an error within ten minutes of running LinX or Prime95. There can be a huge gap between what is Super PI stable and what is actually stable.

 

[psolord]

Super PI and CPUMark 99 stable apparently, which doesn't mean much. I'm willing to bet you'd see a BSOD or at least an error within ten minutes of running LinX or Prime95. There can be a huge gap between what is Super PI stable and what is actually stable.

Well said.

On a sidenote, I see it's not a new stepping either.

 

[Idontcare]

I don't quite understand what is so surprising about this, just for giggles I checked my 2600K and it runs these apps at 5GHz with only 1.360V.

 

[grkM3]

idk mine was like that also but now needs way more volts.Everyone thought the 2700k was going to be a new stepping but it looks like its just an overclocked 2600k.

 

[Hulk]

What are stock non-turbo and turbo speeds for 2700k? Do we know that yet?

 

[grkM3]

What are stock non-turbo and turbo speeds for 2700k? Do we know that yet?

its just 100mhz more than a 2600k witch is nothing since most 2600ks will do 4.4-4.5 on stock cooler.

I knew it wasnt going to be a new stepping and just a re banded 2600k

 

[blackened23]

Super PI and CPUMark 99 stable apparently, which doesn't mean much. I'm willing to bet you'd see a BSOD or at least an error within ten minutes of running LinX or Prime95. There can be a huge gap between what is Super PI stable and what is actually stable.

I wouldn't dismiss it so quickly. Obviously the 2700 is binned to operate at a higher clockspeed with better stability than 2500/2600k so its completely plausible for it to overclock to 5ghz at a reasonable voltage. Consider that 4.6 - 4.7 is easily obtainable in the 1.35v range on *most* 2600's, for a better binned chip 5ghz at 1.38 doesn't seem unreasonable.

Of course, true stress testing to confirm would be nice too so you're right in that regard. I'm anxious to see how the silicon lottery with 2700k plays out, considering its reasonable cost.

 

[grkM3]

I wouldn't dismiss it so quickly. Obviously the 2700 is binned to operate at a higher clockspeed with better stability than 2500/2600k so its completely plausible for it to overclock to 5ghz at a reasonable voltage. Consider that 4.6 - 4.7 is easily obtainable in the 1.35v range on *most* 2600's, for a better binned chip 5ghz at 1.38 doesn't seem unreasonable.

Of course, true stress testing to confirm would be nice too so you're right in that regard. I'm anxious to see how the silicon lottery with 2700k plays out, considering its reasonable cost.

Do you honeslty think intel will waste there time binning a 2700k over a 2600k? its not a 4,500 xeon chip.

10 bucks says these all clock just like 2600ks do,start out strong and hit 5ghz with ease and the more you push them the more volts they will crave.

a 100mhz boost is NOTHING and I dont think there is a single sandy bridge chip on this plannit that wont run 100mhz faster than stock.

Intel will not waste there time binning these since most sandys do 4.7ghz on all 4 cores and will do 100mhz more on one core with ease,heck you could even under volt it and hit a 100mhz over clock.

Its just a matured sandy now and they upped the clocks,even the stepping is the same as my 6 month old 2600k

 

[Hulk]

Hmm I'm not an expert by any means on binning but if the testing procedure is not simply a GHz line to be passed, but more of a max frequency for each piece of Si at a given voltage then it seems logical that the 2700k's might be the best Si right?

I'm more interested in this part if it brings down the price of the 2600k but I have a feeling pricing below it will stay the same and this chip will fill that $500 niche.

 

[grkM3]

Hmm I'm not an expert by any means on binning but if the testing procedure is not simply a GHz line to be passed, but more of a max frequency for each piece of Si at a given voltage then it seems logical that the 2700k's might be the best Si right?

I'm more interested in this part if it brings down the price of the 2600k but I have a feeling pricing below it will stay the same and this chip will fill that $500 niche.

you have a 2500k no? I would wait it out untill 1155 ivys come out.That will be worth the upgrade since they will be on 22nm and clock alot higher

 

[blackened23]

a 100mhz boost is NOTHING and I dont think there is a single sandy bridge chip on this plannit that wont run 100mhz faster than stock.

bridge chip on this plannit

plannit

Intel doesn't relabel CPU's. Overclocking headroom also has little bearing on the binning process. Rest assured that 2700k will be binned differently than 2600k.

 

[smakme7757]

Sorry to be a downer, but 5Ghz isn't impressive at all.

 

[blackened23]

Sorry to be a downer, but 5Ghz isn't impressive at all.

Right. The 1.35vcore was, though. Typically, unless you win the silicon lottery 1.35 @ 5ghz is nearly impossible with existing 2500/2600k parts. Although this part wasn't fully stress tested with linx...promising if true, though.

 

[aphelion02]

If I understand, the 2700k is just the 2600k with a higher rated stock speed due to process maturity right? If so, I'd expect a slight improvement in overclockability among the general population, but nothing you can reliably predict on a sample-to-sample basis.

 

[imaheadcase]

It won't be much of a improvement, Intel does not want to steal its thunder from the SB-E chipsets which are for o/c.

 

[blackened23]

If I understand, the 2700k is just the 2600k with a higher rated stock speed due to process maturity right? If so, I'd expect a slight improvement in overclockability among the general population, but nothing you can reliably predict on a sample-to-sample basis.

Again -Intel does NOT relabel CPU's.

Grossly over simplified explanation of how clockspeed is determined: A newly fabbed CPU is connected to a special "tester" machine. This machine controls all of the pins to the CPU, and specially-written test programs are played onto the pins (with expected results). The clock and voltage are increased until the point of failure, and this determines which bin it makes.

This is a very precise process and the result of this test determines whether the product is binned as a 2500k , 2600k, 2700k, or any other CPU. Intel does not simply relabel a 2600k to be a 2700k.

Its plausible that a 2700k could overclock slightly better than 2600k because it is binned a premium CPU with better voltage tolerances. Like you said , the difference is probably minimal but I'd love it if 2700k overclocks to 5ghz in the 1.3vcore range. That is nearly impossible for current 2500/2600k CPU's unless you win the silicon lottery and get the golden cpu.

 

[grkM3]

a 2500k is a whole different chip with a diffrent stepping and revision,it has less cache and does not have hyper threading.

totally differnt waffer and not built anywhere near a 2600k.
there is no binning between 2500-2600 they are different chips

a 2600k and 2700k have tghe same revision and stepping so it means they can come off the same production wafer.

please tell us what voltages determines witch one get a 100 mhz bump on just one core over the other.

intel does relable chips,you can buy a 50 dollar upgrade patch from them and turn a mobile cpu into another chip that even has more cache and mhz boost.

just like you thought sandys idle at 50+watts and anything over 70c will degrade chips you are wrong on this.

its not a 5000 dollar xeon e7 sandy bridge where that chip needs to be 100% stable even at 1c under its tmax where the client pays the 4500 dollar premium over the regular chip.

these will clock just like 2600ks people,once we see a new stepping we can asume these will clock the same way.

 

[aphelion02]

Again -Intel does NOT relabel CPU's.

Grossly over simplified explanation of how clockspeed is determined: A newly fabbed CPU is connected to a special "tester" machine. This machine controls all of the pins to the CPU, and specially-written test programs are played onto the pins (with expected results). The clock and voltage are increased until the point of failure, and this determines which bin it makes.

This is a very precise process and the result of this test determines whether the product is binned as a 2500k , 2600k, 2700k, or any other CPU. Intel does not simply relabel a 2600k to be a 2700k.

Its plausible that a 2700k could overclock slightly better than 2600k because it is binned a premium CPU with better voltage tolerances. Like you said , the difference is probably minimal but I'd love it if 2700k overclocks to 5ghz in the 1.3vcore range. That is nearly impossible for current 2500/2600k CPU's unless you win the silicon lottery and get the golden cpu.

No where in my post did I say that Intel was relabeling chips. I said that process maturity let Intel sell the higher binned 2700k and phase out the 2600k, and that architecturally they are identical besides higher clockability.

 

[PreferLinux]

a 2500k is a whole different chip with a diffrent stepping and revision,it has less cache and does not have hyper threading.

totally differnt waffer and not built anywhere near a 2600k.
there is no binning between 2500-2600 they are different chips

a 2600k and 2700k have tghe same revision and stepping so it means they can come off the same production wafer.

please tell us what voltages determines witch one get a 100 mhz bump on just one core over the other.

intel does relable chips,you can buy a 50 dollar upgrade patch from them and turn a mobile cpu into another chip that even has more cache and mhz boost.

just like you thought sandys idle at 50+watts and anything over 70c will degrade chips you are wrong on this.

its not a 5000 dollar xeon e7 sandy bridge where that chip needs to be 100% stable even at 1c under its tmax where the client pays the 4500 dollar premium over the regular chip.

these will clock just like 2600ks people,once we see a new stepping we can asume these will clock the same way.

Wrong. It is the same chip made on the same wafer as a 2600(K), with the cache and HTT disabled.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Is the 2700K an Ivy Bridge? Sorry to be out of touch on this. Not sure where the utility of this would be for a couple hundred extra megahertz. I'd like to hit 5 GHz on my next OC. But I wouldn't sell my soul for it.

 

[zlejedi]

It's still SB, IB will be out somewhere in Q1 2012 iirc.

 

[grkM3]

Wrong. It is the same chip made on the same wafer as a 2600(K), with the cache and HTT disabled.

that proves my point that intel does infact relable chips.

If they wanted to they could put out an upgrade patch for people with 2500ks to turn into 2700ks

I would upgrade if it were priced right instead of buying a new chip down the road.

 

[blackened23]

that proves my point that intel does infact relable chips.

If they wanted to they could put out an upgrade patch for people with 2500ks to turn into 2700ks

I would upgrade if it were priced right instead of buying a new chip down the road.

 

[smakme7757]

that proves my point that intel does infact relable chips.

If they wanted to they could put out an upgrade patch for people with 2500ks to turn into 2700ks

I would upgrade if it were priced right instead of buying a new chip down the road.

What do you think Nvidia and AMD do? They create X amount of chips per wafer, sort them and then sell them for what they can do. They dont have a 2600 wafer and a 2600K wafer and a 2500k wafer etc. Same with other manufactures.

Sent from my HTC Vision using Tapatalk