# Intel Core i7-4770K Overclocked to 7 GHz



## btarunr (May 3, 2013)

Launch of Intel's Core i7-4770K "Haswell" processor may be a month away, but the chip has been in circulation for some time now. An overclocker going by the handle "rtiueuiurei" managed to get an engineering sample of the chip past the 7 GHz mark, 7012.65 MHz to be precise. A base clock of 91.07 MHz, multiplier of 77.0x, and a staggering 2.56V core voltage, unless CPU-Z read it wrong. A single 2 GB memory module was used; no other details were revealed. Core i7-4770K and a fleet of compatible socket LGA1150 motherboards launch around the first week of June.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Nihilus (May 3, 2013)

Looking awesome - seems ivy bridge-E will be a waste of time for intel.


----------



## 15th Warlock (May 3, 2013)

Holy crap!!! 2.65V???!!! That can't be right, CPU-Z must definitely be reading that wrong, there's just no way a CPU that complex can take that much voltage, not even on N2O 

As for the OC, other current CPUs have reached higher clocks, so unless Haswell has a much higher IPC throughput, I hope this is not the limit of its potential. 

Impressive still considering this is an ES.


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 3, 2013)

15th Warlock said:


> Holy crap!!! 2.65V???!!! That can't be right, CPU-Z must definitely be reading that wrong, there's just no way a CPU that complex can take that much voltage, not even on N2O
> 
> As for the OC, other current CPUs have reached higher clocks, so unless Haswell has a much higher IPC throughput, I hope this is not the limit of its potential.
> 
> Impressive still considering this is an ES.



The question is what mobo can provide 2.65V ???????


----------



## D4S4 (May 3, 2013)

+1, i think it should explode at that voltage


----------



## SIGSEGV (May 3, 2013)




----------



## NeoXF (May 3, 2013)

15th Warlock said:


> Impressive still considering this is an ES.



Yup. But let's be fair and forward here... it's a CHERRY-PICKED ES sample...


Pretty nice, but what I'm more inclined to look at is the huge multi vs the downclocked BCLK.


----------



## drdeathx (May 3, 2013)

Either a cherry picked sample or just a plane lie. i side with the lie..... Noway can any board handle that voltage and I am sure there is no board that will even come remotely close in the bios settings


----------



## pjl321 (May 3, 2013)

*Voltage readout error*

As you can see from this slightly more in-depth article, 2.65v must have been a mistake as you can hit 6.2GHz on just 1.2v.

Plus for those that were asking this was gone on a ASUS Maximus VI*Extreme Edition.


http://wccftech.com/intel-core-i7-4...ds-including-asus-maximus-vi-extreme-spotted/


----------



## NeoXF (May 3, 2013)

drdeathx said:


> Either a cherry picked sample or just a plane lie. i side with the lie..... Noway can any board handle that voltage and I am sure there is no board that will even come remotely close in the bios settings



Yeah... whatever with these claims (even tho I think the voltage is a display error to begin with). Let's wait for real tests from real people with real production chips... for some real numbers. Especially on AIO water loops and high-end air.


----------



## HumanSmoke (May 3, 2013)

drdeathx said:


> Either a cherry picked sample or just a plane lie. i side with the lie..... Noway can any board handle that voltage and I am sure there is no board that will even come remotely close in the bios settings


1.62 is a pretty old version of CPU-Z, so likely incorrect reporting considering there are already Haswell OC results that are nowhere near that voltage (albeit not 7GHz)


----------



## LDNL (May 3, 2013)

That overclocks  with such low voltage


----------



## Bo$$ (May 3, 2013)




----------



## HammerON (May 3, 2013)

pjl321 said:


> As you can see from this slightly more in-depth article, 2.65v must have been a mistake as you can hit 6.2GHz on just 1.2v.
> 
> Plus for those that were asking this was gone on a ASUS Maximus VI*Extreme Edition.
> 
> ...



Did you see the memory oc's from the article linked:
"Haswell Achieves 3322 MHz Memory Overclock

The most important thing to note is that the APACER memory on the Core i5-4670T rig was overclocked to an impressive 1661 MHz, which means an effective clock speed of 3322 Mhz. This is quiet impressive since these speeds are similar to what we would be looking at when DDR4 becomes standard in 2015.

You can check out the validations below for yourself."


----------



## Jacez (May 3, 2013)

I assumed that at 2.5v, the silicone would just explode, regardless of cooling.


----------



## Roadrunner (May 3, 2013)

*lol*



SIGSEGV said:


> http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/37484233.jpg



ROFL! Nice one, really made me laugh =D


----------



## stasio (May 3, 2013)

Hey guys,watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=playe...e&v=ChZ3ZQ7rksc


Haswell push to 8 GHz !!


----------



## Steven B (May 3, 2013)

with the same version of cpuz 1.62 which reads Vin instead of VCC, and which seems to be fun with haswell... lol...

Why not update CPUz, new cpuz shows vcore instead.


----------



## RejZoR (May 3, 2013)

High clock overclocks are useless. And if DICE or LN is involved it's just pointless. Make a every day 24/7 system and post a high clock. Water cooling is freely allowed. Now thats what i always get impressed about. Ppl who run highly clocked systems 24/7.

While 7GHz may sound impressive, it's just that, a worthless high clock you can't use for anything.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (May 3, 2013)

stasio said:


> Hey guys,watch this:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=playe...e&v=ChZ3ZQ7rksc
> 
> ...



Is he just pressing the plus sign on some in windows tuner app? Should have gone till it froze.


----------



## buggalugs (May 3, 2013)

RejZoR said:


> High clock overclocks are useless. And if DICE or LN is involved it's just pointless. Make a every day 24/7 system and post a high clock. Water cooling is freely allowed. Now thats what i always get impressed about. Ppl who run highly clocked systems 24/7.
> 
> While 7GHz may sound impressive, it's just that, a worthless high clock you can't use for anything.



 I agree, this happens whenever a new CPU comes out, I can even remember Celerons being overclocked that high under the right conditions. Its pretty much normal with the right equipment.

 24/7 overclocks are much more important to me.


----------



## Aquinus (May 3, 2013)

drdeathx said:


> Either a cherry picked sample or just a plane lie. i side with the lie..... Noway can any board handle that voltage and I am sure there is no board that will even come remotely close in the bios settings



I'm 100% for this. On every modern motherboard I've owned in recent years the caps on the VRMs can handle no more then 2.1v. This would make caps on almost any board pop if the VRMs for the CPU ran that high. I'm inclined to say that it is fake or the readout is wrong, but there is no way that CPU is running 2.5v.


----------



## RejZoR (May 3, 2013)

SIGSEGV said:


> http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/37484233.jpg



It should just say: "I charged the Haswell with 2,65 volts."


----------



## stasio (May 3, 2013)

RejZoR said:


> It should just say: "I charged the Haswell with 2,65 volts."



On CPU-Z 1.62 from October 2012.


----------



## EarthDog (May 3, 2013)

Le sigh.... I wish I could add to this conversation...


----------



## nickbaldwin86 (May 3, 2013)

8Ghz is better 

http://www.overclock.net/t/1388003/yt-intel-4770k-8ghz-new-world-record


----------



## cadaveca (May 3, 2013)

nickbaldwin86 said:


> 8Ghz is better
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1388003/yt-intel-4770k-8ghz-new-world-record



Invalid link = fake.






EarthDog said:


> Le sigh.... I wish I could add to this conversation...





But you cannot. Too bad.


----------



## TheHunter (May 3, 2013)

Yeah that 2.56V is fake, cpu-z bug. 

One user from OC kingpin cooling who posted this info at guru3d forums said so.. I take his word for granted, becasuse he's no noob ^^

And if you look at that quad  6.2Ghz @ only 1.21v



Anyway I can't wait to get my hands on 4770K, looks like 5.4ghz won't be a problem, probably 6.2 ghz for sure, woot! :]


----------



## m1dg3t (May 3, 2013)

Am i stupid, or this was single channel only? LoL


----------



## EarthDog (May 3, 2013)

m1dg3t said:


> Am i stupid, or this was single channel only? LoL


Not stupid... but it isnt relavent either.


----------



## m1dg3t (May 3, 2013)

Sure it is, easier on system... Dual channel or GTFO! LoL


----------



## Aquinus (May 3, 2013)

m1dg3t said:


> Sure it is, easier on system... Dual channel or GTFO! LoL



Pfft. More dimms and moar power! Quad-channel or get out.


----------



## RejZoR (May 3, 2013)

I'm on triple channel so i'm cooler. Ménage à trois.


----------



## EarthDog (May 3, 2013)

m1dg3t said:


> Sure it is, easier on system... Dual channel or GTFO! LoL


Right, but that (clearly) isnt a 24/7 thing... so, who cares how many DIMMs it ran. Just like who cares how many cores it was running to get there (as people moan "zOMG thats only on two cores...."). 

Things are a bit different with Haswell, it seems, compared to SB and IB overclocking.


----------



## Aquinus (May 3, 2013)

I think I should also point out that last I heard Haswell's max multi was 63, not 77 on k-edition CPUs. 
I wish I caught that sooner even though I already knew the vcore was bogus, now I know the entire thing is bogus.


----------



## hat (May 3, 2013)

"With unlocked "-K" chips, you get the freedom to step up base clock multiplier for the CPU cores all the way up to 80.0x for 100 MHz, up to 64.0x for 125 MHz, and up to 48.0x for 166 MHz; which if used right, could result in some awesome CPU clock speeds in the neighborhood of 8.00 GHz."


----------



## EpicShweetness (May 4, 2013)

Did anyone take note that this was done with just hyperthreading turned off (and a single DIMM, but still)? Most of these extreme overclocks only allow 1 or 2 cores to reach speeds in excess of 6-6.5GHZ, mostly due to stability. But this little gem did it with all 4 physical cores! 
Maybe that's why CPU-z reads 2.62v, hmmmm.


----------



## Aquinus (May 4, 2013)

hat said:


> "With unlocked "-K" chips, you get the freedom to step up base clock multiplier for the CPU cores all the way up to 80.0x for 100 MHz, up to 64.0x for 125 MHz, and up to 48.0x for 166 MHz; which if used right, could result in some awesome CPU clock speeds in the neighborhood of 8.00 GHz."



So I gut into the multiplier deal a bit more and I don't see anything that confirms those multiplier numbers. Those are from the rumor mill according to TomsHardware.com and hasn't been confirmed. I'll save the speculation until we get some real facts.



EpicShweetness said:


> Maybe that's why CPU-z reads 2.62v, hmmmm.


Or maybe it means that it is fake...


----------



## Eric_Cartman (May 4, 2013)

drdeathx said:


> Either a cherry picked sample or just a plane lie. i side with the lie..... Noway can any board handle that voltage and I am sure there is no board that will even come remotely close in the bios settings



Of course it is a cherry picked sample, that is pretty given.

And have you ever seen some of the extreme shit these extreme overclockers do to their motherboards?

They add phases, bridge phases from other motherboard into one, etc.

Have you never seen that?

This was a suicide run, obviously, and they'll do crazy shit just to get a CPUz screenshot before the system dies.


----------



## Aquinus (May 4, 2013)

Eric_Cartman said:


> They add phases, bridge phases from other motherboard into one, etc.
> 
> Have you never seen that?



Yeah, that's how they double current, not voltage. 

The point is that you would need to at least replace all of the caps with ones that support twice the voltage (which could easily translate to caps that are twice in size.) Now that you've swapped out the caps you would need to hack the BIOS because the caps *will* burst if you even attempt to run VRMs at this voltage. Also if the capacitance of any of the different phases changes, you need more than a custom bios, you need to update it to handle the hardware changes you've made.

Also the addon board you speak of I've only seen for Kepler-based GPUs since voltage control is locked. I've yet to see this for the motherboard and CPU power phases, but once again there is a different reason for that.



Eric_Cartman said:


> This was a suicide run, obviously, and they'll do crazy shit just to get a CPUz screenshot before the system dies.


It would have died the second it booted with a voltage like that. LN2 doesn't let you overcome physical limitations like the breakdown voltage of the caps. You'd pop the caps (haha!) before the VRMs could even charge.


----------



## cdawall (May 4, 2013)

Interesting as I said in the AMD thread not a single nay-sayer about an Intel chip clocking high in a completely useless LN2 infused scenario.


----------



## RejZoR (May 4, 2013)

Maybe there wasn't but my opinion is, in a nutshell the same. If they cripple the CPU just to get a huigh clock it' worthless. So disabling L2/L3 caches, HT and cores falls into that category.


----------



## jihadjoe (May 4, 2013)

CPU-Z says 4 cores, just with that it's already a lot more impressive than that FX record OC that turned off 7 of the 8 cores.


----------



## Jorge (May 4, 2013)

It looks like Intel is trying to sway public opine because Haswell only delivers 5%-10% improvement over Ivy Bridge, which was barely better in performance than Sandy Bridge.


----------



## hat (May 4, 2013)

But if it can be overclocked to 6GHz so easily, with an even higher IPC than Ivy Bridge, it could cause quite a stir in the enthusiast world. Think of all the people who will be rushing to get one of these, even people already sitting on the top end. There's a lot of people like me who are sitting on much older yet still very capable hardware who may want to upgrade as well.


----------



## Aquinus (May 4, 2013)

Jorge said:


> It looks like Intel is trying to sway public opine because Haswell only delivers 5%-10% improvement over Ivy Bridge, which was barely better in performance than Sandy Bridge.



Yeah, pair that with overclocks in the 5Ghz-5.5Ghz range and you have a substantial increase in performance. I suspect Haswell will overclock better than IVB does.


----------



## HumanSmoke (May 4, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> I think I should also point out that last I heard Haswell's max multi was 63, not 77 on k-edition CPUs.
> I wish I caught that sooner even though I already knew the vcore was bogus, now I know the entire thing is bogus.


Well done. Excellent research.
From TechPowerUp three weeks ago:


> With unlocked "-K" chips, you get the freedom to step up base clock multiplier for the CPU cores all the way up to 80.0x for 100 MHz, up to 64.0x for 125 MHz, and up to 48.0x for 166 MHz; which if used right, could result in some awesome CPU clock speeds in the neighborhood of 8.00 GHz.


----------



## Aquinus (May 4, 2013)

HumanSmoke said:


> Well done. Excellent research.
> From TechPowerUp three weeks ago:



I said last time I heard and said nothing about doing research. I stand corrected but there are nicer ways to come about saying it. Don't be a smart ass.


----------



## HumanSmoke (May 4, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> I said last time I heard and said nothing about doing research. I stand corrected *but there are nicer ways to come about saying it*. Don't be a smart ass.


So true. Does this example work better? Say change...


Aquinus said:


> I think I should also point out that last I heard Haswell's max multi was 63, not 77 on k-edition CPUs.
> I wish I caught that sooner even though I already knew the vcore was bogus, now I know the entire thing is bogus.


to...


Aquinus said:


> I think I should also point out that last I heard Haswell's max multi was 63, not 77 on k-edition CPUs. Is this correct ?
> I wish I caught that sooner even though I already knew the vcore was bogus, now I'd question the validity of the result if I'm correct regarding the 63x multi.



i.e. turning the comment into a question rather than accusing rtiueuiurei of falsifying their benchmarking results based on your incomplete knowledge base.

I don't know, but if you're throwing out words like "bogus" and "now I know", wouldn't you at least spend 30 seconds making sure you were standing on solid ground ?


----------



## Aquinus (May 4, 2013)

HumanSmoke said:


> So true. Does this example work better? Say change...
> 
> to...
> 
> ...



I already said that I got it wrong and you don't have to go about saying how else I could have said it. All you're doing is fishing for me to lose my cool and it's about the most immature thing someone can do on these forums can do. How about you stop trying to piss me off already. If you can't act like a civil human being you can take you bantering and self-righteous attitude to GN where it will be welcomed.


----------



## HammerON (May 4, 2013)

Alright you two. Points made by both and so it is time to move on.


----------



## erocker (May 5, 2013)

I suggest that both of you put each other on ignore and leave each other alone. Nobody wants to see this and if it continues something will be done about it. I'll leave it to you two to behave like adults and cease this bickering on the forum.

Thank you.


----------



## cdawall (May 5, 2013)

jihadjoe said:


> CPU-Z says 4 cores, just with that it's already a lot more impressive than that FX record OC that turned off 7 of the 8 cores.



Click the link in my post 8.1x with 8 cores enabled and dual channel memory. Which is more enabled than this chip...


----------



## Vlada011 (May 5, 2013)

I hope Intel will improve platforms little faster with new features.
Example now is time and for Intel fans to think on more than 4 cores. HT help but better 6 cores.
Than I decide to wait Haswell Extreme. More and more games would be better on 6 core, platform stay and for next 2-3 years better to think on that way.
Other things is real progress not instructions, that's talking about SATA Express, DDR4 and with some 6 core that's real good stuff for gaming in next years. For me is better waiting that than now sell and upgrade on similar performance.


----------



## D007 (May 5, 2013)

Still running my i7 960 @ 4 ghz.. Gimme a reliable 5 ghz + and I might upgrade...
But it's not making me feel particularly urgent..
Still nice though.


----------

