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

[VirtualLarry]

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

This I find highly doubtful. I'm pretty sure they come off the same assembly line.

 

[aviat72]

2700K has a larger L3 cache. So unless they also disable the extra cache on the 2600K this is a different tapeout.

 

[AdamK47]

The ES screenshot in the first post shows 8MB.

 

[mrjoltcola]

2700K has a larger L3 cache. So unless they also disable the extra cache on the 2600K this is a different tapeout.

Do you have a link to that info? Everything I've read says 8mb L3, same as 2600K.

 

[blackened23]

2700K has a larger L3 cache. So unless they also disable the extra cache on the 2600K this is a different tapeout.

source please

 

[aviat72]

Regarding the L3 cache, the newer reports area all saying 8MB so I was mistaken. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[bryanW1995]

Intel does have a very precise binning procedure, and they'll certainly put higher-binned chips into the "2700k" box, but keep in mind that the higher binning is no guarantee of a long-term stable overclock for end users on a 2700k vs a 2600k. It would be an enormous waste of energy for intel to run ibt/linx/etc for 24 hrs, much less use a chip like we do over a period of weeks/months/years. And even then, everybody's usage pattern is different. I run DC 24/7, but many of my friends game for an hour or three per day and leave the computer off or in sleep mode otherwise. The best that we can hope for with a new chip like 2700k on the same old stepping is a reasonable assumption that an extreme overclocker will, on average, gain an extra 50-100mhz at the absolute top end, which may or may not be long-term stable.

edit: anybody have a solid release date on 2700k? I'm hoping that 2600k will drop a bit, maybe I'll be able to get one of those instead of settling for 2500k if the price drops enough.

 

[lol123]

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.

Lol, what an ironic post. When I made an exactly identical description of the binning process on these forums a couple of months ago, I remember you making a response to the effect that I didn't know what I was talking about. Which means that either you are way off in your post here or you were completely incapable of comprehending what I wrote.

 

[GammaLaser]

This I find highly doubtful. I'm pretty sure they come off the same assembly line.

Indeed, it's a lot cheaper to fuse features off based on individual chip capability/market demands than to have a separate mask set for every possible combination of features.

 

[rgallant]

just thinking.
I would not be buying a 2600k now , as most of the high\easy over clockers are being binned\cherry picked for 2700k's.