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....

Well, the piece of news mentioned water cooling so one could guess a 280mm or bigger.

I expect 5,2 GHz in realistic conditions from i7, but not as much from i9. i7 and especially i9 will run very hot, so probably safer to just leave them at 5 GHz if you can reach that. This time water cooling is not a necessity, but I doubt something like Thermalright Macho B Rev 2 can keep i7 under 80 C with a clock of 5 GHz. If i7-9700K costs under 400 €, then it will be a fine deal if you are prepared with a good air ventilation and cooling solution. Over 400 € it's just not worth it and you can go straight with R7 2700X. i5-9600K is probably a decent buy for very competitive gamers who want maximum FPS in their games and for those who just want 144 FPS all the time in games at the cost of graphical quality. i5 might be the real deal here, since it offers marginally something that AMD does currently not, but the more expensive options are for who? Content creators got to be real serious with their business if they are willing to pay for those chips and cool them properly at the same time.

5.5Ghz on Regular w/c now that is Impressive! The fastest ive ever had was 4.7Ghz on my old Fx 9370 I cant even begin to Imagine how fast that things is wow! Intel for sure winning the clock-speed war!

I like how solder is magically ok now when they defended using tooth paste because of micro cracks or some bs with solder on such a small lithography.

nizzen:

No HT. 250p singlecore 9700k , and 2700x?

2700x @4.4GHZ 183pts

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.

Its only because AMD their 6 and now 8 core cpu are available for mainstream without AMD they will be stucked completly not only on 14nm but on 4c/8t too.

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.

this is exactly what you would expect, an 8600k (6cores without hyperthreading)@5ghz gets 1250~ points, this cpu has 8 cores(no hyperthreading) so roughly (1/3) more cores which equates to an estimated 1670~ points roughly at 5.0ghz then we take the frequency difference (5.5/5.0) 10% more frequency , means roughtly 1830~ points, which is right where this lands. I love cinebench its so predictable.

user1:

this is exactly what you would expect, an 8600k (6cores without hyperthreading)@5ghz gets 1250~ points, this cpu has 8 cores(no hyperthreading) so roughly (1/3) more cores which equates to an estimated 1670~ points roughly at 5.0ghz then we take the frequency difference (5.5/5.0) 10% more frequency , means roughtly 1830~ points, which is right where this lands. I love cinebench its so predictable.

The math adds op correctly yes, i guess i am just shocked that Hypertreading/SMT makes up for the more then 1000MHz handicap the AMD 2700x has, compaired to the 9700K.

ToxicTaZ:

My 8700K @5.1GHz @1.41v with 75c load Cooled by EK

Glad for you. At least you able to tell others you got high numbers.

It’s amazing what a bit of solder can do too bump up frequencies.