-Tj- its **** mate what i got on my 2500k + samsung greens .

Why ****? 35.8gb/s is not bad, originally its 2133mhz CL9 16gb 4x4 kit, was ~ 125€ a good year ago.. I OC'ed to 2400, can do 2666 too, but mobo sets avd. timings to loose. Btw your 5ghz per core perf. is like Haswell @ 4.5ghz. 🤓

Well, it's not the overclocker I had hoped. Will wait for Haswell E to arrive before deciding which way to jump!

These reviews always seem so skewed I dunno you never review products clock-to-clock speed of the previous chips Like Review a 4790K at the same clock speeds as a 4770K, and then note the performance differences etc, given that either chip is easily overclockable

It would score the same within marginal error, 4790k doesn't have anything new only higher base clock and better thermals @ 1.25-1.4v.

Like Review a 4790K at the same clock speeds as a 4770K, and then note the performance differences etc, given that either chip is easily overclockable

Obviously clock for clock the perf would be the same. Aside from marginal generation differences. If you are an overclocker then sure you can easily tweak that out. Fact remains though that you purchase a CPU with a base-clock of 4 GHz / 4.4 GHz Turbo whilst the 4770K does 3.5 GHz / 3.9 GHz. So it would be really unfair to do the benchmarks on a clock-for-clock basis. I do understand what you are getting at though. I'll see if we can add some clock-for-clock perf numbers per review at a set frequency just for comparisons sake.

Obviously clock for clock the perf would be the same. Aside from marginal generation differences. If you are an overclocker then sure you can easily tweak that out. Fact remains though that you purchase a CPU with a base-clock of 4 GHz / 4.4 GHz Turbo whilst the 4770K does 3.5 GHz / 3.9 GHz. So it would be really unfair to do the benchmarks on a clock-for-clock basis. I do understand what you are getting at though. I'll see if we can add some clock-for-clock perf numbers per review at a set frequency just for comparisons sake.

I agree that the performance would essentially same thus kinda useless but I think the temps would be interesting, just to see how much of an impact the improved design had.

If that's the case, why sell a new product? Why not just sell 4770K's with new TIM?

Because they are here to make money, and an old cpu naming will just not be as attractive as new number, besides intel releases a new number even its 100mhz speed bump. Either way the chip will sell fine, and its a nice chip, that many will skip in favor of Haswell E, but i have a feeling that wont oc that great either, so until AMD puts some pressure intel will continue to milk us slowly.

Obviously clock for clock the perf would be the same. Aside from marginal generation differences. If you are an overclocker then sure you can easily tweak that out. Fact remains though that you purchase a CPU with a base-clock of 4 GHz / 4.4 GHz Turbo whilst the 4770K does 3.5 GHz / 3.9 GHz. So it would be really unfair to do the benchmarks on a clock-for-clock basis. I do understand what you are getting at though. I'll see if we can add some clock-for-clock perf numbers per review at a set frequency just for comparisons sake.

I was wondering what kind of cooling did you use for this test? I did not see it listed in the hardware. The reason why I ask is because there might be a chance on hitting 5ghz on liquid cooling but If you all ready used Liquid cooling to test this then my theory is shot down.

^ Corsair H110 LCS ^^

Nice CPU but still not enough reasons for me to dump my lovely golden sample i7-920 C0 currently running @ 4.01 HT, without any problem capable for 4.2 HT, maybe even more, but above 4.2 HT is too much for my Corsair H70 Core push-pull mounted outside the case. Think I`m going to wait year, maybe even year and half for some next-gen 6 or 8 core Intel i7 price drop, with HT of course. Guess DDR4 will be widely adopted then by mobo manufacturers in mid to high end mobo class with prices in range with DDR3, guess maybe even less pricey than DDR3 year and half from now.

Thanks for this great review, Hilbert! And, tsunami, I know what you mean 🙂 Having 920 D myself, I have a feeling that it's old. It's one of greater periods that I had between upgrades. Well, I replaced graphics card, added some disks and replaced SSD after the old one died, but the CPU is still alive & kicking. I'm missing SATA 3 and USB 3 a bit

I solved that SATA3/USB3.0 problem year and half ago with Transcend PCIEx 4x 2.0 card with 2x SATA3 and 2x USB 3.0. Intel 520 series 120GB SATA3 SSD is running like a mad dog 🙂

....

Why reviewing an ES though? This could mean nothing to poor bloke with a CPU that can't get past 4.6

Why not? Hilbert has reviewed first CPU that dropped (sent from Intel) to his hands. Well known/visited sites like these (in most cases) are always reviewing ES CPU`s in high-end class. There is no retail samples of 4790K yet, or there is but I`m not aware of it.

^ Corsair H110 LCS ^^

well there goes my theory then.

1.45 V, ouch, that's a LOT of juice for a 22 nm chip.

That is my thoughts exactly I mean I only 1.35 to get 4.6 out me old Sandy. I thought Haswell would be much better on the juice TBH. That is really quite shockiing

It depends, there are some ok Haswell chips, but so were most if not all 4770k ES chips. I need this at 4.6Ghz @1.226v, cache 4.4ghz @1.168v http://i.imgur.com/r6UZP7H.png Maybe there will be some Retail 4790k like that, then 4.8-5Ghz np.

That is my thoughts exactly I mean I only 1.35 to get 4.6 out me old Sandy. I thought Haswell would be much better on the juice TBH. That is really quite shockiing

Yep. I can get 4.5 out of my old W3680 (think 980X) at 1.35 V, and no idea what my 3930K can do at that because of a crap motherboard. I've had it at 4.4 at 1.35 with HT off, but who wants that?

Nice Review. 😀 Looks like I will keep the 4820K in my Backup Rig a little longer. Hoping I will change it to 4790K for lower power consumption, but I guess I will wait for the next processor Intel will launch..:D

Nice CPU but still not enough reasons for me to dump my lovely golden sample i7-920 C0 currently running @ 4.01 HT, without any problem capable for 4.2 HT, maybe even more, but above 4.2 HT is too much for my Corsair H70 Core push-pull mounted outside the case. Think I`m going to wait year, maybe even year and half for some next-gen 6 or 8 core Intel i7 price drop, with HT of course. Guess DDR4 will be widely adopted then by mobo manufacturers in mid to high end mobo class with prices in range with DDR3, guess maybe even less pricey than DDR3 year and half from now. I solved that SATA3/USB3.0 problem year and half ago with Transcend PCIEx 4x 2.0 card with 2x SATA3 and 2x USB 3.0. Intel 520 series 120GB SATA3 SSD is running like a mad dog 🙂

Ha! Perhaps I should do the same. After replacing SLI graphics with a single card, there's plenty of room. My CPU isn't that great as yours. The max I tried was 4GHz with HT, VT-x and dynamic voltage/speed (yeah, I let it reduce voltage and speed when idling). It was working, but the noise with my Megahalems was uncool, and I had some stability issues with closed case and that SLI setup in summer. Then I replaced 3x2GB rams with 3x4GB. Running the at anything higher than 1750 was challenging. I managed to push them to something around 1900. But the CPU OC was a little more difficult. Then I decided that I hadn't got time for all that, declocked CPU to around 3.4, declocked RAM and it runs around 3.8-3.9 now I think. Can't even remember now. Nonetheless the idea with PCI-E USB/SATA controller sounds neat. Just now I'm on Samsung 840 Pro, and I've got Note 3 and USB 3.0 HDD enclosure, so they would benefit from such upgrade. I might also buy USB 3.0 flash drive. Let me know when you're upgrading you CPU, cause it looks like none of us will do anytime it soon 🙂 i7's are just too good 😀 I also have 3-year old i7-powered laptop. Actually I got one of the firsts quad core ones, not counting that crazy Bloomfield/X58 "laptop". It's one hell of a dev machine. Of course, the new laptops with 3k screens are awesome, but usually I have mine connected to the power line and an external 27" monitor, so it makes little to no sense to upgrade it. Well, 170W power brick could be lighter 🙂 By making i7 CPUs, Intel gave very little reason for upgrading once you get one. Not only i7's in fact... I had E8400-powered rig before, gave it to my brother and we replaced a CPU with Q6600, which does 3.6GHz at virtually no voltage bump, and 3.8 is easy, paired with dirt-cheap virtually noiseless Thermalright Macho. That's what I call a good deal. Of course, if you're a hardcore enthusiast and money is no concern, upgrade is always an option. Once I find a nice 4k screen capable of low-lag 120Hz+/adaptive v-sync FullHd playback, I might build a computer around it and perhaps it'll be driven by 4790K. But who knows when such displays are going to be around and at acceptable price? Perhaps by that time there will be 6xxx series of Intel CPUs or AMD will have a glorious comeback?

Wooo just what I was thinking. I was thinking 4.8ghz would be acceptable. 5ghz would have been nice, but this will do. I'm happy to see these results. Better than my 3770K can do. I'll be shooting for 4.8ghz no question. If I have to live with 4.7ghz on an okay chip, no problem. Either way it's an upgrade for me. As long as I can clock higher than I am now on an Intel chip, it's a win.

My 2600K had never get any problem to goes over the 5.3ghz under water for benching ... 5ghz minimum 24/24 stable with reasonable voltage. and this was not a good overclocker chip...( was completely unlucky with it, seeing like a wall after 5.4ghz ) ( the special gigabyte bios who was allow me unlimited multiplicator was not really useful ).. at contrario a 4930K with allready 130W stock speed ( 3.9ghz ), water seems to start show his limit after 5ghz..

Obviously clock for clock the perf would be the same. Aside from marginal generation differences. If you are an overclocker then sure you can easily tweak that out. Fact remains though that you purchase a CPU with a base-clock of 4 GHz / 4.4 GHz Turbo whilst the 4770K does 3.5 GHz / 3.9 GHz. So it would be really unfair to do the benchmarks on a clock-for-clock basis. I do understand what you are getting at though. I'll see if we can add some clock-for-clock perf numbers per review at a set frequency just for comparisons sake.

Please consider it just for sake of science! Performance gains by boosting base clock are pointless really especially with K chips which are going to be pushed anyway. Real benefits like Clock-for-Clock speeds is what's on every OC'rs mind and should be included in every CPU review. It's the only test that's missing (although most can guess by looking at the graphs) but still it would be nice to know whether the new guy can outrun it's older brothers without getting a piggyback. At last thx for the review.