Intel Core i7 9700K Spotted Overclocked on Z370 to 5.5 GHz
Click here to post a comment for Intel Core i7 9700K Spotted Overclocked on Z370 to 5.5 GHz on our message forum
user1
good score, though it looks like the voltage could be past 1.5v , not exactly "safe" volts
.
Jagman
Impressive, but what's the street price gonna be?
(out of my range for certain)
Matt26LFC
Be great if they can do those clocks on Normal cooling, though I'm skeptical about that. I Imagine the price will be in excess of £500 as they'll for sure clock higher than 8 core Skylake X parts thus outperforming them, so they're unlikely to cheaper than a 7820X. My guess is 549.99 in UK at best
Neo Cyrus
Forget safe, it's not even realistic if it's at all comparable to past Intel CPUs.
If it is, how many people are going to have the cooling to maintain that voltage 24/7 without the CPU rapidly degrading and becoming unstable? Hell, even the cooling wouldn't matter much at 1.5V as far as degradation goes; exposed to that much voltage over a long period of time will cause noticeably accelerated degradation.
MK80
+1.5Volt o_Oo_Oo_Oo_Oo_O Sorry my bad
the punctuation is also nothing special ... I suspect it does the same score as the 8700k with the same OC.
user1
It not impossible that intel could produce a variant of 14nm that could handle higher voltages, though i would agree it is highly unlikely, i wouldn't be surprised if the 5.5ghz run was under a chilled water loop, the heat density will be really bad on a such a small chip.
RzrTrek
I suppose that's a good thing for the vast majority of games, but it will come at a "premium" price...
Petr V
And ?
There is no hyperthreding plus it is overpriced.
I just wait for zen 2
nizzen
Wait for whatever you want. We don't care 😉
Solfaur
If I had this proc or the 9900K, or any of the new Ryzen CPUs, I would be hard pressed to even bother trying to overclock it. It just seems to me as both AMD and Intel pushed to get as much juice as possible with factory clocks, that the exponential heat and power required for the little OC room that's left, is simply not worth it anymore.
TLD LARS
This looks wrong, only a single digit faster then a stock 2700X, I hope the memory is running at a low speed or it is thermal throttling or something, because this does not look good.
Borys
Owwww... they just forgot to tell what Chill or LN2 was used... and more... how many cores was at 5.5GHZ...
Its ridiculus how Intel try (and can) to deceive their fanboys....
reix2x
Neo Cyrus, i'm running my CPU at 1.4V since 2013, rendering every day with a very standard heatpipe cooler, no degradation on here.. do you think 1.5 could be that different? just asking
Petr V
Intel just trolling they need to show how good dat new cpus are but they will be just the same as the older ones.
They add 2 more cores and better memory support 😀
Humanoid_1
Yup, 1.4v should be fine, I believe up to 1.425 is about max, whereas 1.5v let alone the 1.53v this chip is running at will eat away the guts of a chip leading to degraded performance and eventual chip death (all too soon at those voltages)
EDIT:
bear in mind some motherboards put out more vcore than they indicate especially when selecting much of a v droop type setting, Gigabyte are especially known for this... leaving you feeling good while the chip fries :s
nizzen
No HT.
250p singlecore 9700k , and 2700x?
Neo Cyrus
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Even though you haven't noticed anything, there's bound to be some degree of degradation, just not enough that would matter. As for 1.5V+, based on everything I've read about past Intel CPUs that's beyond the threshold where the degradation accelerates enough to become noticeable over time.
But as user1 said in his reply, it's definitely possible that Intel have a variant where 1.5V is safe for long term usage, it just seems highly unlikely.
labidas
Good old times with 100%+ overclocks.
D3M1G0D
Might as well, hyperthreading is apparently a security risk. :/
Arbie
I agree with Petr V. Why give up multi-threading (eight of them!) and patronize the company that has held back progress so long, when you can buy much more advanced chips from AMD? For an invisible FPS difference in some game that's probably played 1% of the time?
I say: buy AMD if you possibly can. They've worked a miracle, are delivering real features on every front, and deserve every benefit of the doubt - and we need them in the market!. Don't be swindled by Intel's endless marketing tricks and misinformation, which they rely on more every year.
