Why so slow? Very low clocks? 7700K is a tiny little minnow but I'm seriously sticking with it unless they allow Coffee Lake 4-6 cores to be plopped into higher end z270 boards. Edit: 2.51ghz only - It could well still clock to 4.2ghz for all we know on 240mm AIOs. Will reserve judgement. It would be nice to have a 16 core for a lot of tasks but then able to run a few cores ultra high like gaming on my 7700k but it's just not possible.

Why so slow? Very low clocks? 7700K is a tiny little minnow but I'm seriously sticking with it unless they allow Coffee Lake 4-6 cores to be plopped into higher end z270 boards. Edit: 2.51ghz only - It could well still clock to 4.2ghz for all we know on 240mm AIOs. Will reserve judgement. It would be nice to have a 16 core for a lot of tasks but then able to run a few cores ultra high like gaming on my 7700k but it's just not possible.

The 2.5 GHz clock speed makes sense, considering that the 12-core 7920X is rumored to have a 2.9 GHz base clock (14 core should be around 2.7 GHz, and the 18 core should be 2.3). It might boost up to 3 GHz or so with a powerful cooling solution though. Note that Geekbench isn't the most reliable benchmark. After all, they rank the A9X chip used in the iPad Pro to be just as powerful as a Core i5 (aggregate tests ranks it behind the last-gen Core m3). It also showed low scores for the 1950X so it could be that it just doesn't scale that well beyond a certain number of cores. As with all rumors of this sort, take it with a hefty grain of salt.

Funny - my i7-4930K ( 6/12 core ) / LGA2011 / X79 system running at a moderate 4.2Ghz overclock and built in 2014 produces a geekbench score of 4271 / 22463 ( single / multi ) cpu did cost me €500 back then...

Why so slow? Very low clocks? 7700K is a tiny little minnow but I'm seriously sticking with it unless they allow Coffee Lake 4-6 cores to be plopped into higher end z270 boards.

Because its supposed to be reliable and safe to run at stock speeds. The CPU is overclockable so the stock speeds are kind of irrelevant anyway. Honestly, I think the only reason Intel uses such high stock speeds for products like the 7700K is to make reviews look better. Many reviewers do a lot of their testing via stock speeds (where OC results may only have a page or 2 of content) so the only way for Intel to make each generation look better is to maintain a high base clock. What I personally don't understand is why Intel doesn't just ditch base clocks entirely and have the turbo speed reach some obscenely high value (in terms of from-factory specs) like 5GHz. Turbo Boost at this point is designed to adjust for your power delivery, cooling, and workload. So why have a base clock anymore? Why not just have the CPUs run as fast as reliably possible? If power consumption is your concern, just use a weaker heatsink - problem solved. Or instead, maybe the motherboard can detect if you're using a 4-pin or 8-pin CPU power connector, where it will limit the clocks based on which one you're using. Against AMD, this could be a serious win for Intel since there's no way to directly compare the CPUs (without handicapping the Intel), and AMD doesn't have a CPU that can clock so high. I guess the main downside to this idea is Intel has been doing such a crappy job at improving IPC lately, so if they decided to go this route every generation, people would be even less convinced to upgrade.

Because its supposed to be reliable and safe to run at stock speeds. The CPU is overclockable so the stock speeds are kind of irrelevant anyway. Honestly, I think the only reason Intel uses such high stock speeds for products like the 7700K is to make reviews look better. Many reviewers do a lot of their testing via stock speeds (where OC results may only have a page or 2 of content) so the only way for Intel to make each generation look better is to maintain a high base clock. What I personally don't understand is why Intel doesn't just ditch base clocks entirely and have the turbo speed reach some obscenely high value (in terms of from-factory specs) like 5GHz. Turbo Boost at this point is designed to adjust for your power delivery, cooling, and workload. So why have a base clock anymore? Why not just have the CPUs run as fast as reliably possible? If power consumption is your concern, just use a weaker heatsink - problem solved. Or instead, maybe the motherboard can detect if you're using a 4-pin or 8-pin CPU power connector, where it will limit the clocks based on which one you're using. Against AMD, this could be a serious win for Intel since there's no way to directly compare the CPUs (without handicapping the Intel), and AMD doesn't have a CPU that can clock so high. I guess the main downside to this idea is Intel has been doing such a crappy job at improving IPC lately, so if they decided to go this route every generation, people would be even less convinced to upgrade.

Base clocks show guaranteed minimum performance in all scenarios. If there weren't any base clocks then there would be no guaranteed performance level. Intel think of Turbo Boost as a "nice to have" if your system & conditions can handle it, but not a necessary. Although myself & many others wouldn't accept an Intel CPU that couldn't reliably hold max Turbo Boost!

Base clocks show guaranteed minimum performance in all scenarios. If there weren't any base clocks then there would be no guaranteed performance level. Intel think of Turbo Boost as a "nice to have" if your system & conditions can handle it, but not a necessary. Although myself & many others wouldn't accept an Intel CPU that couldn't reliably hold max Turbo Boost!

But that's the thing - they don't guarantee anything. CPUs will thermal throttle, which is really the inverse of what Turbo Boost does. The first gen of TB used to be a fantastic and really practical feature, where it would only push 1 or 2 cores past the base frequency. This was nice because the CPU remained at the same wattage while offering more performance for single-threaded tasks. Now, TB applies to all cores so in actuality, it is the base clock and anything below that is technically thermal throttling. At this point it is just a marketing gimmick and an excuse for Intel to ship inadequate heatsinks (AMD used to also do this but their Ryzen heatsinks are legitimately good).

Funny - my i7-4930K ( 6/12 core ) / LGA2011 / X79 system running at a moderate 4.2Ghz overclock and built in 2014 produces a geekbench score of 4271 / 22463 ( single / multi ) cpu did cost me €500 back then...

Mines running 5ghz 24/7 and completely stable. Will not be changing for a good while yet

Because its supposed to be reliable and safe to run at stock speeds. The CPU is overclockable so the stock speeds are kind of irrelevant anyway. Honestly, I think the only reason Intel uses such high stock speeds for products like the 7700K is to make reviews look better. Many reviewers do a lot of their testing via stock speeds (where OC results may only have a page or 2 of content) so the only way for Intel to make each generation look better is to maintain a high base clock. What I personally don't understand is why Intel doesn't just ditch base clocks entirely and have the turbo speed reach some obscenely high value (in terms of from-factory specs) like 5GHz. Turbo Boost at this point is designed to adjust for your power delivery, cooling, and workload. So why have a base clock anymore? Why not just have the CPUs run as fast as reliably possible? If power consumption is your concern, just use a weaker heatsink - problem solved. Or instead, maybe the motherboard can detect if you're using a 4-pin or 8-pin CPU power connector, where it will limit the clocks based on which one you're using. Against AMD, this could be a serious win for Intel since there's no way to directly compare the CPUs (without handicapping the Intel), and AMD doesn't have a CPU that can clock so high. I guess the main downside to this idea is Intel has been doing such a crappy job at improving IPC lately, so if they decided to go this route every generation, people would be even less convinced to upgrade.

The base clock is what the CPU is rated at for its TDP. It is the baseline specs, which guarantees a certain level of performance, and needs to be specified somewhere. Don't forget that OC is dependent on the CPU (silicon lottery) and the cooling, and Intel cannot sell their products based on what's theoretically possible from their silicon and with third-party coolers and such. Overclocking is running a CPU beyond spec, and Intel takes no responsibility for it, and for good reason - to do what you are suggesting would mean Intel would be responsible for any damages that happen and would be liable (the lawsuits would be unending!). It would be an absolute disaster for Intel. Also, most people do not overclock, and want reliable and consistent performance for their products - like any product, there needs to be a guarantee in order for consumers to have confidence in a product.

The base clock is what the CPU is rated at for its TDP. It is the baseline specs, which guarantees a certain level of performance, and needs to be specified somewhere. Don't forget that OC is dependent on the CPU (silicon lottery) and the cooling, and Intel cannot sell their products based on what's theoretically possible from their silicon and with third-party coolers and such.

I understand that, but if my idea were to be done then consumers would basically just pick the heatsink and/or PSU that best suits the TDP they're willing to have. Like I said, this would be based on a clock that can be reliably achieved, so basically Intel would take the worst-case scenario of a CPU on liquid cooling, drop the frequency 100Mhz or so, and that would be the maximum speed of the CPU (without overclocking). Silicon lottery is becoming less and less relevant for the average user. I get the impression most 7700Ks can reach 5GHz when adequately cooled. In some perspective, you could say Intel is already doing my idea, since most people don't buy a K or X series CPU and not overclock it. But my point is by blurring the line of how the CPU is supposed to run, that could give Intel a marketing advantage.

Overclocking is running a CPU beyond spec, and Intel takes no responsibility for it, and for good reason - to do what you are suggesting would mean Intel would be responsible for any damages that happen and would be liable (the lawsuits would be unending!). It would be an absolute disaster for Intel. Also, most people do not overclock, and want reliable and consistent performance for their products - like any product, there needs to be a guarantee in order for consumers to have confidence in a product.

I don't think you're understanding my idea. This isn't considered overclocking, and the CPU would be officially running within its specs. 2 years ago, the turbo frequency of a 7700K would be considered an overclock, and yet it is still fully reliable. It isn't hard to push one slightly harder without causing any stability issues. The CPU drops the turbo when it is on the verge of being unstable. The only difference between my idea and what Intel does now is there would be no base frequency (because it is literally meaningless when you account for thermal throttling) and the "turbo speed" would be a little bit higher.

The vast majority of people buying cpus do not OC at all. There has to be a guaranteed spec min spec.

The vast majority of people buying cpus do not OC at all. There has to be a guaranteed spec.

That doesn't change anything. Take a non-K i7 for example: it comes with a puny heatsink that is capable of adequately cooling the CPU at its base frequency. It will allow for bursts of turbo speeds if ambient the temperature is cool enough, too. The end result is exactly the same, except with my idea people might be able to get slightly more performance. All CPUs that turbo have no consistency in their performance; the only guaranteed speed is the base frequency, and that's only assuming the stock heatsink isn't clogged with dust, or if you're not running the PC in the middle of a desert (because then it will thermal throttle). In other words, guaranteeing a speed isn't possible.

I understand that, but if my idea were to be done then consumers would basically just pick the heatsink and/or PSU that best suits the TDP they're willing to have. Like I said, this would be based on a clock that can be reliably achieved, so basically Intel would take the worst-case scenario of a CPU on liquid cooling, drop the frequency 100Mhz or so, and that would be the maximum speed of the CPU (without overclocking). Silicon lottery is becoming less and less relevant for the average user. I get the impression most 7700Ks can reach 5GHz when adequately cooled. In some perspective, you could say Intel is already doing my idea, since most people don't buy a K or X series CPU and not overclock it. But my point is by blurring the line of how the CPU is supposed to run, that could give Intel a marketing advantage.

We all know what Intel's stance on overclocking is. Although the K-series is unlocked for easy overclocking, overclocking is still not officially supported. Again, this is done for liability reasons, as Intel does not want to be held liable for overclocks that go bad. Also, a baseline means a frequency that is well under the maximum potential clock (a 100 MHz buffer is far too small).

I don't think you're understanding my idea. This isn't considered overclocking, and the CPU would be officially running within its specs. 2 years ago, the turbo frequency of a 7700K would be considered an overclock, and yet it is still fully reliable. It isn't hard to push one slightly harder without causing any stability issues. The CPU drops the turbo when it is on the verge of being unstable. The only difference between my idea and what Intel does now is there would be no base frequency (because it is literally meaningless when you account for thermal throttling) and the "turbo speed" would be a little bit higher.

Running a CPU at its boost speed as the base would raise its TDP massively, which has ramifications for board designers and third-party coolers (not to mention Intel's stock cooler). It would add additional costs and make the chips and boards more expensive, which would have to be passed down to consumers. I really can't see this ending positively for Intel. Although I get what you are saying, you are looking at it from an enthusiast or overclocker's perspective. Most people do not overclock their CPUs, and having their CPUs automatically run at a higher clock or boost themselves based on cooling would be of little consequence (and if it means having to get a more expensive cooler or more fans then it would be a definite negative).

We all know what Intel's stance on overclocking is. Although the K-series is unlocked for easy overclocking, overclocking is still not officially supported. Again, this is done for liability reasons, as Intel does not want to be held liable for overclocks that go bad. Also, a baseline means a frequency that is well under the maximum potential clock (a 100 MHz buffer is far too small).

Again - my suggestion isn't considered an overclock. I don't know why you keep ignoring that point.

Running a CPU at its boost speed as the base would raise its TDP massively, which has ramifications for board designers and third-party coolers (not to mention Intel's stock cooler). It would add additional costs and make the chips and boards more expensive, which would have to be passed down to consumers. I really can't see this ending positively for Intel.

No, it wouldn't - again, the limit is up to the user and/or other hardware. The TDP Intel advertises is the TDP of the base clocks, but we all know it doesn't stay running at the base clocks. So what's the difference? Also like I said before, there could still be other factors to limit the maximum speed such as the CPU power connector.

Although I get what you are saying, you are looking at it from an enthusiast or overclocker's perspective. Most people do not overclock their CPUs, and having their CPUs automatically run at a higher clock or boost themselves based on cooling would be of little consequence (and if it means having to get a more expensive cooler or more fans then it would be a definite negative).

Most people who don't OC still take advantage of boost clocks. If they don't like how their CPU doesn't stay boosted, they have to get a new heatsink anyway. Nothing changes. Except for CPUs that don't turbo, there is literally no difference between my idea and what Intel is already doing now, except the base clock disappears (because it is literally and inarguably irrelevant) and the max clock would be slightly higher.

Just because you can tweak turbo with your motherboard, does not mean that it is designed that way. You are moving out of specs when you tweak turbo. Also, even if you can fine-tune turbo, it is still faster and probably easier to just OC normally, and it is consistent. As for OCing this 12+ core chips, I would not expect too much. What is puzzling to me is that some reviewers pushed current X CPUs beyond their limits in reviews. Maybe CPUs were stable and did not crashed, but having amazing OC with just little or no benefits at all in scores is not representative at all...

Just because you can tweak turbo with your motherboard, does not mean that it is designed that way. You are moving out of specs when you tweak turbo. Also, even if you can fine-tune turbo, it is still faster and probably easier to just OC normally, and it is consistent.

If turboing is out of specs then why is it offered? The idea of OCing such a CPU would be to exceed the turbo limits. And yes, OCing would offer more consistent performance, at the price of your CPU's lifespan. If you have adequate cooling, the turbo speeds would be consistent. EDIT: If you're questioning the tweaks to my idea, keep in mind that's so the CPU runs slower than it's specified max, not higher. So it'd still be within specs.

What is puzzling to me is that some reviewers pushed current X CPUs beyond their limits in reviews. Maybe CPUs were stable and did not crashed, but having amazing OC with just little or no benefits at all in scores is not representative at all...

I don't think the reviewers pushed the CPUs beyond their limits, but rather the cooling (of either the CPU or VRM). The X series seem pretty capable of OCing but the VRMs need active cooling (which is reasonable) and many people seem to forget that heatsinks have a thermal limit ceiling, where once you exceed a certain TDP, they fail to operate properly. Most heatsinks stop at 180W and then they can no longer cool properly, so the CPUs themselves are not the problem when it comes to OCing.

schmidtbag is completely right. for intel it would make sense (marketing/sales wise), as product appears to be "faster" as lots of ppl still compare clocks, and go with the higher one. and its not ocing, as max limits are given by intel already (e,g, thermal throttling), and just need to be "adjusted" for each chip. same way i can buy a Golf with the same 2.0 TSFI doing between 180-300HP, yet Audi selling the same engine with 340HP. still doesnt mean it was aftermarket tuned (vs the stock one).

schmidtbag is completely right. for intel it would make sense (marketing/sales wise), as product appears to be "faster" as lots of ppl still compare clocks, and go with the higher one. and its not ocing, as max limits are given by intel already (e,g, thermal throttling), and just need to be "adjusted" for each chip. same way i can buy a Golf with the same 2.0 TSFI doing between 180-300HP, yet Audi selling the same engine with 340HP. still doesnt mean it was aftermarket tuned (vs the stock one).

But in your analogy, you've still given a base HP, 180. I mean this whole point is easily dismissed by pointing out that a car with no oil has zero HP, but I don't expect my manufacturer to advertise an "undefined" gas mileage estimate just because the engine can seize up. Any horsepowers below 180, in this case, should be considered varying levels of component failure. If your CPU is throttling below the base clock, something has ****ed up. That's the intent. The base clock is there so you know, even in kind of bad situations, even pushed up to the limit, this is what you should expect. Below that, you have a problem.

If your CPU is throttling below the base clock, something has ****ed up. That's the intent. The base clock is there so you know, even in kind of bad situations, even pushed up to the limit, this is what you should expect. Below that, you have a problem.

Fair point, but how often do people know that? Most people don't check their current frequency, let alone remember what the base clock is. Most people dismiss a thermal-throttled CPU as "this PC is junk" and some think it's legitimately dying, when really all they need is the HSF cleaned. If your HSF is that clogged, it doesn't matter what the base clock is and how far off you are from reaching it - you have a problem that needs to be addressed. In other words, on a CPU with turbo support, the base clock is still ultimately meaningless.

Fair point, but how often do people know that? Most people don't check their current frequency, let alone remember what the base clock is. Most people dismiss a thermal-throttled CPU as "this PC is junk" and some think it's legitimately dying, when really all they need is the HSF cleaned. If your HSF is that clogged, it doesn't matter what the base clock is and how far off you are from reaching it - you have a problem that needs to be addressed. In other words, on a CPU with turbo support, the base clock is still ultimately meaningless.

I don't disagree on the whole, but there's no alternative. The alternative definitely is not to just advertise the highest number, almost no one will ever hit it. Like for example, I'm ordering a server right now basically, 32 cores, 2.6Ghz. If I get that server and all the cores are at 1.8, we have a problem, the minimums I need aren't met, and my bosses aren't going to be content with "Well the package says 4ghz". If they're all at 3.4, we're good. If they all hit 2.6, we're good. Consumers and businesses need to know what they're guaranteed. If I have nothing misconfigured, this is what I get. Guaranteed. If there's headroom above that, great, I'll take it. If not, then that's fine, I paid for 2.6.

Like for example, I'm ordering a server right now basically, 32 cores, 2.6Ghz. If I get that server and all the cores are at 1.8, we have a problem, the minimums I need aren't met, and my bosses aren't going to be content with "Well the package says 4ghz". If they're all at 3.4, we're good. If they all hit 2.6, we're good.

I completely get what you're saying there, though I wasn't really thinking Intel would do this for all of their products, and absolutely not for servers. It is very important to have guaranteed consistency in servers (particularly mainframes) as they are heavily dependent upon thermal control and predictability. This is why server chips (to my knowledge) don't have boost clocks, and make a BIG deal about thermal throttling.

Consumers and businesses need to know what they're guaranteed. If I have nothing misconfigured, this is what I get. Guaranteed. If there's headroom above that, great, I'll take it. If not, then that's fine, I paid for 2.6.

Businesses yes, but not so much the average consumer. Keep in mind even for turbo'd CPUs, the stock heatsink Intel ships is what's supposed to guarantee your performance. Basically what Intel could do is drop base clock and say "this heatsink will guarantee you up to 2.6GHz in ideal conditions". Again - they're pretty much already doing what I'm saying, they're just advertising it differently.