# Are 4790k easily stable at 4.5ghz?



## iamajunky (Nov 21, 2014)

I just recently got a new setup: Intel 4790k, MSI z97 gaming, Patriot Viperx ddr3 1866, and H100i cooler. I was just wondering how easy is it to get to 4.5ghz stable with this setup and if anyone has any tips for me. I use to have a q9450 and could not get it past 3.4ghz stable and I just want to jump right into my setup as perfect as I can get it.


----------



## erocker (Nov 21, 2014)

Well, it runs boost at 4.4 stock, so it should do 4.5 just fine.


----------



## iamajunky (Nov 21, 2014)

Is it recommended to turn off turbo boost to have it always at 4.5 ghz i'm very new to this hyperthreading turbo boost stuff coming from q9450


----------



## Tallencor (Nov 21, 2014)

iamajunky said:


> Is it recommended to turn off turbo boost to have it always at 4.5 ghz i'm very new to this hyperthreading turbo boost stuff coming from q9450


That's what I do. So long as your within an acceptable temp range you should be fine. But it really all depends on how you intend to use your p.c. I guess. When the power bill comes in kinda thing. When I'm not crunching I'm gaming. So I run 4.4 constant. I tell the wife that it's the washer and dryer that's eating up all the power so she thinks she will get a new one. lol. I am also to lazy to research performance diff's overall tbh. I have been at 4.3 or 4.4 for well over a year and my chip seems more than fine.
Does anyone else oc with turbo enabled?


----------



## erocker (Nov 21, 2014)

I OC with turbo enabled on Intel chips. There's not a single reason not to.


----------



## iamajunky (Nov 21, 2014)

I don't want the wife to chew me out so I'll stay on turbo boost and try for 4.5 or .7 ghz


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 21, 2014)

iamajunky said:


> Is it recommended to turn off turbo boost to have it always at 4.5 ghz i'm very new to this hyperthreading turbo boost stuff coming from q9450



These newer CPUs OC with Turbo only. Even if you turn Turbo off, it'll automatically enable turbo if you select multis higher than what "stock" is.

The difference now is that previously, turbo would only increase the speed of one or two cores, or whatever Intel said was default for turbo, but modern CPUs allow for full adjustment of Turbo multis, so you can set all cores to the same speed, no problem.


----------



## ehume (Nov 21, 2014)

I bought a Gigabyte GA-Z97X Gaming 7 board to go with my new 4790k. The "Optimized Default" automatically OC'd the chip to 4.4 GHz, without Turbo-Boost. I observed the VID, set the VID to 1.19v. Now I run the thing at 4.5 GHz with VID of 1.19v and the Vcore at 1.21v. So I'd say yeah, 4.5 GHz is an easy reach at a low Voltage, with HT totally not needed.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 21, 2014)

ehume said:


> The "Optimized Default" automatically OC'd the chip to 4.4 GHz, without Turbo-Boost.




ROFL.


No, it didn't. You CANNOT override the max base CPU multiplier without turbo. This ratio is locked at factory, and what the "K" at the end of the CPU's model number indicates that that "Turbo" settings are unlocked.

Here's how it works:



> Note that all of the overclocking on Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge and Haswell happens through the turbo multipliers. Effectively, it means that when overclocking any of these platforms, you are always configuring the turbo mode. Even when you apparently “disable” turbo mode! Actually, by disabling turbo mode in the BIOS you force the P-state to always be P0. *Therefore, maybe a bit ironically, by disabling the turbo, you are actually enabling it permanently.*




http://hwbot.org/news/9347_intel_haswell_overclocking_fully_disclosed_theory_for_core_i7_4770k/




ehume said:


> with HT totally not needed.



Shoulda saved some cash and bought the 4690K then.


----------



## ehume (Nov 21, 2014)

Actually, I meant TB was not needed. Sorry for the typo. 

As for the rest of what you said: all I know is that you set the multiplier to X, and it goes to X. A default chip installation would be at 4 GHz, and run up to 4.4 GHz on load. In the case of the GA-Z97X Gaming 7 board, the speed was around 4.4 GHz from the start. Now it is about 4.5 GHz. So ROFL all you want. You may be correct, but only technically. I haven't had to set the TB to get max OC since the i7 860. The i7 875k involved setting the multiplier, much like the i7 4770k and the i7 4790k. So call it turbo boost if you want; it doesn't work like turbo boost.

In any case, to re-answer the OP's question, while you roll on the floor getting dirty: yes, one can safely run this chip at 4.5GHz.


----------



## Tallencor (Nov 21, 2014)

cadaveca said:


> ROFL.
> 
> 
> No, it didn't. You CANNOT override the max base CPU multiplier without turbo. This ratio is locked at factory, and what the "K" at the end of the CPU's model number indicates that that "Turbo" settings are unlocked.
> ...





ehume said:


> Actually, I meant TB was not needed. Sorry for the typo.
> 
> As for the rest of what you said: all I know is that you set the multiplier to X, and it goes to X. A default chip installation would be at 4 GHz, and run up to 4.4 GHz on load. In the case of the GA-Z97X Gaming 7 board, the speed was around 4.4 GHz from the start. Now it is about 4.5 GHz. So ROFL all you want. You may be correct, but only technically. I haven't had to set the TB to get max OC since the i7 860. The i7 875k involved setting the multiplier, much like the i7 4770k and the i7 4790k. So call it turbo boost if you want; it doesn't work like turbo boost.
> 
> In any case, to re-answer the OP's question, while you roll on the floor getting dirty: yes, one can safely run this chip at 4.5GHz.


Some glad I am not in the middle of this one. Wish I had some beer. If Dave even bothers that is. lol.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 21, 2014)

ehume said:


> Actually, I meant TB was not needed. Sorry for the typo.
> 
> As for the rest of what you said: all I know is that you set the multiplier to X, and it goes to X. A default chip installation would be at 4 GHz, and run up to 4.4 GHz on load. In the case of the GA-Z97X Gaming 7 board, the speed was around 4.4 GHz from the start. Now it is about 4.5 GHz. So ROFL all you want. You may be correct, but only technically. I haven't had to set the TB to get max OC since the i7 860. The i7 875k involved setting the multiplier, much like the i7 4770k and the i7 4790k. So call it turbo boost if you want; it doesn't work like turbo boost.
> 
> In any case, to re-answer the OP's question, while you roll on the floor getting dirty: yes, one can safely run this chip at 4.5GHz.


You're very right, it doesn't work like Turbo Boost...it's Turbo Boost 2.0. When the socket changed, so did how Turbo Boost operates, and in a big way. Intel is far more friendly to end user BIOS modifications with this iteration of Turbo Boost.

But please, don't get me wrong... I'm not laughing at you, at all. I'm laughing that the OEMs like Gigabyte aren't more clear about things like this when changing options, and how they think that automatically forcing all core to run the same speed and not leaving it up to the end user is a good idea. Yet, at the same time, since you have a "GAMING" product, I understand WHY it does it what it does. Take a look at the list of motherboard reviews posted to the front page here, and note who the author is. These board makers should have noted on the outside of the box that this is how it works, that there are automatic speed boosts, and memory modules should state that when enabling XMP on most modern motherboards, and automatic multiplier increase will be applied.


----------



## erixx (Dec 4, 2014)

Just to add to the fun (at least I am having fun now with the 4790K!):

I have been messing around with tons of settings and voltages, get no good results, went back to default (=4400 turbo).
But since a couple of days I am having happy sensations with this: I just uppd the multi to x48 and the voltage to adaptive 1.275v (only core volt, all the other settings left to AUTO) and -
WOOT - I am stable and happy, cool temps, big results. Voltage hoovers from 1.2 to 1.3 v when in 4800 Mhz mode.

i just can't believe this. Seems like indeed, like CADAVECA says, this newest family of processors is the bomb! It does all for you!

EDIT: not so quick little parrot: Battlefield 4 crashessssss


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 11, 2014)

erixx said:


> i just can't believe this. Seems like indeed, like CADAVECA says, this newest family of processors is the bomb! It does all for you!


 
This is what I'm starting to dislike about Haswell after just a week back into the game. I enjoy it NOT being so easy. Oh well. Guess it's just the way of things these days. It just diminishes some of the "magic" of the tweaking hobby.


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 11, 2014)

Paulieg said:


> This is what I'm starting to dislike about Haswell after just a week back into the game. I enjoy it NOT being so easy. Oh well. Guess it's just the way of things these days. It just diminishes some of the "magic" of the tweaking hobby.


Oh dont be like that Paul, these chips are barrels of fun 

theres alot of tweaking options for these chips.


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 11, 2014)

fullinfusion said:


> Oh dont be like that Paul, these chips are barrels of fun
> 
> theres alot of tweaking options for these chips.


 
LOL. I don't think anyone who has been playing with hardware for 10+ years would disagree with me. I'm not saying it isn't still fun. I'm just saying that the overclocking hobby has changed to become more inclusive. In some respects, I think that is a good thing. In others, it is not. This sort of shift always makes things easier, and if the best part of a hobby is the challenge, then the satisfaction is inevitably diminished.

I digress. Nothing like a moderator derailing a thread. Carry on.


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 11, 2014)

Paulieg said:


> LOL. I don't think anyone who has been playing with hardware for 10+ years would disagree with me. I'm not saying it's not still fun. I'm just saying that the overclocking hobby has changed to become more inclusive. In some respects, I think that is a good thing. In others, it is not. This sort of shift always makes things easier, and if the best part of a hobby is the challenge, then the satisfaction is inevitably diminished.
> 
> I digress. Nothing like a moderator derailing a thread. Carry on.


lol, yeah I agree. This isn't as fun as clocking an AMD chip however the hasswell is better (more complicated) then sandybridge for sure.


----------



## Sasqui (Dec 11, 2014)

erocker said:


> I OC with turbo enabled on Intel chips. There's not a single reason not to.



Amen.



cadaveca said:


> The difference now is that previously, turbo would only increase the speed of one or two cores, or whatever Intel said was default for turbo



Dave, can you qualify that?  I thought that only applied to mobile chips, where power saving really *is* critical.  I'm pretty sure my IB turbo's all cores when under full load (@ stock).


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Dec 11, 2014)

iamajunky said:


> Is it recommended to turn off turbo boost to have it always at 4.5 ghz i'm very new to this hyperthreading turbo boost stuff coming from q9450





Tallencor said:


> That's what I do. So long as your within an acceptable temp range you should be fine. But it really all depends on how you intend to use your p.c. I guess. When the power bill comes in kinda thing. When I'm not crunching I'm gaming. So I run 4.4 constant. I tell the wife that it's the washer and dryer that's eating up all the power so she thinks she will get a new one. lol. I am also to lazy to research performance diff's overall tbh. I have been at 4.3 or 4.4 for well over a year and my chip seems more than fine.
> Does anyone else oc with turbo enabled?



Why turn it off? Do you need that kind of speed when its sitting there at the desktop, not to mention shortening the life of the chip while not processing much of anything? 

I OC with turbo enabled so that at idle and browsing it runs at like 1.8ghz, which is perfectly fine, and once i start applying load and what not from gaming or video editting, itll boost to my OC setting when I need it.


----------



## Tallencor (Dec 11, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Do you need that kind of speed when its sitting there at the desktop, not to mention shortening the life of the chip while not processing much of anything?


You have a very good point. For me, my chip is always running @ 100% for crunching with no down time other then while I game.
"_Depends on how you intend to use your p.c. I guess. When the power bill comes in kinda thing_" That's why I mentioned this. Even with turbo on or off it matters little for my daily usage scenario.
A 3770k running at 4.4 on 1.25 volts staying under the 80 threshold should be fine for longevity or so I have been led to believe.


----------



## cadaveca (Dec 11, 2014)

Paulieg said:


> LOL. I don't think anyone who has been playing with hardware for 10+ years would disagree with me. I'm not saying it isn't still fun. I'm just saying that the overclocking hobby has changed to become more inclusive. In some respects, I think that is a good thing. In others, it is not. This sort of shift always makes things easier, and if the best part of a hobby is the challenge, then the satisfaction is inevitably diminished.
> 
> I digress. Nothing like a moderator derailing a thread. Carry on.


It's not really derailing the thread though. To sum it up in a way that rolls it all together, Intel has purposefully adopted overclocking as a sales item, specifically with the "K" CPUs. On any given week, all CPUs sold under the "K" moniker should clock identically, and Intel has tuned their process specifically for this, so they know where on the wafers to go to in order to get us decent chips to play with. They will also replace a chip "killed' under OC with no questions asked, for a small fee (ie, $25 USD), so you can get a CPU, clock the snot out of it, and then return it for a fresh one that still carries the standard warranty.

Anyway, part of that is the CPU clock speed, since this is part of what most "enthusiasts" seem concerned about. That 4.6 GHz clock that I've been talking about in my own reviews for some time is kind of the base line Intel shoots for, although some weeks it's only 4.5 GHz, or maybe it goes higher yet, @ 4.7 GHz. The voltage required to get there may vary, too, but the end power consumption should be equal. What that leaves us, for the skill-based side of OC, is cache speed and memory tweaking. Unfortunately, since DDR3 is old, and already greatly exploited, there's not left there to play with. Most "pro" clocks have their good sets of PSC and Samsung ICs, and maybe a set of Hynix MFR for high clocks, and current chips have let memory scale far higher than ever before, but it's not like we hear about records being broken any more.

So, the normal user gets a decent OCing platform, that's easy to use, and forgiving, and us older die-hard clockers did the R&D for it. We get to be the gurus that help people out, who then get great results, and everyone is kind of happy, since it's all backed by a decent warranty.




MxPhenom 216 said:


> Why turn it off? Do you need that kind of speed when its sitting there at the desktop, not to mention shortening the life of the chip while not processing much of anything?
> 
> I OC with turbo enabled so that at idle and browsing it runs at like 1.8ghz, which is perfectly fine, and once i start applying load and what not from gaming or video editting, itll boost to my OC setting when I need it.




Everyone OC's with Turbo enabled. When you "disable" Turbo, you are actually forcing Turbo to be ON, permanently, as I posted above. There's no need to be concerned with CPU longevity these days. A chip will overheat and throttle long before you're putting it in a state where that'd be a concern, as long as you haven't de-lidded. People have complained about hot-running CPUs, but really, this is a safety factor that will keep your CPU safe. We just need to not be so concerned about operating temperatures, and push right to the limit.


----------



## Tallencor (Dec 11, 2014)

cadaveca said:


> We just need to not be so concerned about operating temperatures, and push right to the limit.


Straight from the horses mouth. I like what I am hearing. So is it safe to run @ 100% in the low 90's for Ivy. Lets say I try 4.6 @ 1.2x and during IBT I max temp to 93 am I safe to crunch with that so long as it's "stable"?


----------



## cadaveca (Dec 11, 2014)

Tallencor said:


> Straight from the horses mouth. I like what I am hearing. So is it safe to run @ 100% in the low 90's for Ivy. Lets say I try 4.6 @ 1.2x and during IBT I max temp to 93 am I safe to crunch with that so long as it's "stable"?


Yeah. I mean, at stock on a stock cooler, you can expect these temperatures anyway. If it was a problem, the stock cooling would not allow this. Temperatures don't kill. They have other effects. And the "Poor TIM" of these chips is there to ensure you cannot push to unreasonable current levels, and if you do, the warranty is there to cover that.

You can find a video on YouTube of Intel reps stating this, even.


----------



## vega22 (Dec 12, 2014)

intel would not have an agenda for us shortening the lifespan of hardware which forces users to upgrade every 4 or 5 years would they?


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 12, 2014)

I was just going to comment to @MxPhenom 216 about his comment about sitting at full clocks but I see @cadaveca summed it up 

I trust the Dave and when he says it can run at whatever clock at idle and not hurt anything I trust his knowledge 

lol it's all good, shit... I sit here @ 4.6ghz all day but at only 1.184v and the rest, yeah it's all good


----------



## cadaveca (Dec 12, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> intel would not have an agenda for us shortening the lifespan of hardware which forces users to upgrade every 4 or 5 years would they?


You mean 3 years? When most modern electronics other than PC parts have a warranty of 90 days or a year at most, I don't see this as a problem that is worth worrying about.


----------



## vega22 (Dec 13, 2014)

so you're saying you think running intel cpu near their tj will shorten their life to only 3 years?


----------



## erixx (Dec 13, 2014)

Update! Contrary to what I said above 4800 is easy (depending on fab week etc) and it does not crash BF4! What made BF4 crash was Afterburner OSD... Gonna test some more 
Deleting the Real Temp Server directory is the savest 

edit: plays BF4, but after 1 hour playing crashes... maybe 1.3 v is too little for 4800 mhz


----------



## hat (Dec 14, 2014)

For me, the easyness of it isn't the concern. In fact I welcome it. It's the fact that I have to buy a $300 processor (or $200 in the case of the i5) to be able to overclock. For example, it's not the price difference between i5 4690 and i5 4690k, it's the difference between the non-overclockable i5 4440 and the i5 4690k, or the i3 4150 and the 4690k (why is there still no i3 k part?). (I'm aware of the overclockable Pentium, but it does not have hyper-threading, which, as a cruncher and as someone who does a moderate amount of video conversion, I would use).

Overclocking, for me, has always been about taking a lower and CPU and clocking it up to surpass the performance of the high end CPU. Not buying a high end CPU and pushing beyond that.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 15, 2014)

cadaveca said:


> No, it didn't. You CANNOT override the max base CPU multiplier without turbo.


You can however overclock using BCLK straps while disabling turbo. That's the only way my 3820 can do 4.5Ghz because at 125Mhz bclk, it's not a multiplier high enough for turbo to even be enabled and the multi doesn't go up high enough at 100mhz BCLK to hit 4.5 on that alone. Just thought that was worth throwing out there.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Dec 15, 2014)

Paulieg said:


> LOL. I don't think anyone who has been playing with hardware for 10+ years would disagree with me. I'm not saying it isn't still fun. I'm just saying that the overclocking hobby has changed to become more inclusive. In some respects, I think that is a good thing. In others, it is not. This sort of shift always makes things easier, and if the best part of a hobby is the challenge, then the satisfaction is inevitably diminished.
> 
> I digress. Nothing like a moderator derailing a thread. Carry on.


I remember the days when 600$ worth of cooling paired with a 300$ chip was the way to go. Then you would spend half the year continuously tweaking that setup for more and more juice until it finally hits its max mere days before something new came out. Now a 300$ chip, a 50$ cooler, and XMP + Turbo will do ya...


----------



## spirodave (Jan 5, 2015)

iamajunky said:


> I just recently got a new setup: Intel 4790k, MSI z97 gaming, Patriot Viperx ddr3 1866, and H100i cooler. I was just wondering how easy is it to get to 4.5ghz stable with this setup and if anyone has any tips for me. I use to have a q9450 and could not get it past 3.4ghz stable and I just want to jump right into my setup as perfect as I can get it.


I just bought my i7-4790k and by default is set to 4.6Ghz turbo clock . Even within the Intel Tuning Software it states that 4.6Ghz is the default turbo clock speed. I see it listed everywhere as being 4.4 . Did I win the silicon lottery or is yours showing the same.  It does boost to that speed and has done so since I popped it in the socket. Any Ideas?



Aquinus said:


> You can however overclock using BCLK straps while disabling turbo. That's the only way my 3820 can do 4.5Ghz because at 125Mhz bclk, it's not a multiplier high enough for turbo to even be enabled and the multi doesn't go up high enough at 100mhz BCLK to hit 4.5 on that alone. Just thought that was worth throwing out there.


Mine straight out of the box was set to 4.6Ghz turbo clock speed. Also in the Intel Tuning Software it states that 4.6 is the default. Im not sure why its advertised as 4.4Ghz when Intel recommends 4.6 as the default Turb clock Speed with mine but advertises different?It was like this out of the box and is completely stable set to this . It does boost  to that speed also and has since it was installed and I have not made any adjustments at all. Is yours the same.



ehume said:


> Actually, I meant TB was not needed. Sorry for the typo.
> 
> As for the rest of what you said: all I know is that you set the multiplier to X, and it goes to X. A default chip installation would be at 4 GHz, and run up to 4.4 GHz on load. In the case of the GA-Z97X Gaming 7 board, the speed was around 4.4 GHz from the start. Now it is about 4.5 GHz. So ROFL all you want. You may be correct, but only technically. I haven't had to set the TB to get max OC since the i7 860. The i7 875k involved setting the multiplier, much like the i7 4770k and the i7 4790k. So call it turbo boost if you want; it doesn't work like turbo boost.
> 
> In any case, to re-answer the OP's question, while you roll on the floor getting dirty: yes, one can safely run this chip at 4.5GHz.


My 4790k was set to 4.6Ghz max turbo right out of the box. Why is it advertised as 4.4 . Even within the Intel Tuning Software it says the default TB is 4.6Ghz and it does boost to that . I am running the stock cooler and the stock board that came with my desktop that containd an i5-4430 to begin with . Im just a little confused to why my max TB default is 4.6Ghz when its supposed to be 4.4
I know I posted this reply a few times to different members so ill stop at this . This has been driving me crazy and I really havent found any reason why its this way online because it says 4.4GHZ for everyone that has it


----------



## erocker (Jan 5, 2015)

@spirodave  Did you reset the CMOS and/or update the motherboard bios? List your system specs please.


----------



## RealNeil (Jan 5, 2015)

marsey99 said:


> which forces users to upgrade every 4 or 5 years would they?



They accomplish this with all of the new releases they churn out. It makes us WANT them. 
As far as lifespan, my 2600K is still rocking along @ 4303MHz and seems like it hasn't degraded at all


----------



## Nordic (Jan 5, 2015)

If I have read cadaveca's reviews right, some motherboards auto overclock your cpu by 2-300mhz. That could explain spirodave.


----------



## Nullifier (Jan 5, 2015)

RealNeil said:


> They accomplish this with all of the new releases they churn out. It makes us WANT them.
> As far as lifespan, my 2600K is still rocking along @ 4303MHz and seems like it hasn't degraded at all



I'm still on X58, upgraded from I7 950 to x5660 xeon earlier this year. 
I bet I get a few more years out of it yet.


----------



## revin (Jan 5, 2015)

Not in any hurry to switch either.  4.8-5+Ghz  Almost 3 yrs. now
loved to have got the *Intel DZ87KLT-75K "Kinsley Thunderbolt" **, *seems getting a chip, *and* to O/C it pretty good just not quite it.
Now getting a Devil's Canyon on it, and  4.6-5.0 Ghz, well that's another story !
Graphics is best upgrade for me, but yes not any issues


----------



## RealNeil (Jan 5, 2015)

Xorium said:


> I'm still on X58, upgraded from I7 950 to x5660 xeon earlier this year.
> I bet I get a few more years out of it yet.



I'll be keeping my 2600K for a few year too. I have other, newer CPUs here, but why get rid of something that works so well?


----------



## Henkenator68NL (Jan 5, 2015)

Overclocking an 4790K on Z87 or Z97 packs a real nice extra besides the CPU and Cache speed: it Rocks at overclocking DRAM far beyond XMP specs, better than al other systems I have tortured.

Running 2400MHz cl9 kit at 2800MHz cl9 is not uncommon (depends on the brand and the IC's).

When rendering a bulky 3D Image in photoshop or rendering a movie the extra dram efficiency saves a lot of time.  Besides that it is great for producing very nice Benchmark results in any memory hungry crunch test (like Super Pi,  Wprime, XT120,  Cinebench etc).

Most 4790K 's don' t need a lot of volts to reach 4800Mhz (the trick resides in the additional voltages..., research those before nuking the Vcore


----------

