lots of voltage will make any chip go fast
1.4 is hardly safe
and 1.22 for a meer 3.6
LOLNO

BigMack70Have fun waiting 10+ years for that... current pace of CPU performance increases is to take 10 years+ o get 100-200% performance improvement per core.

I'd prefer not to wait a decade for my next CPU upgrade, so I just wait until I can get something noticeably better than what I have.

I will absolutely enjoy it! The most CPU intensive game I have right now it BF4 MP and with Mantle it only uses 50% of the cpu to run it at 120 FPS! I will be just fine, especially with DX12 in the pipeline.

But I don't think it will be 10 years+. Zen will likely force intel to bring 6 or 8 core cpu's to the main stream motherboards and that brings with it a massive increase. Still I won't be worth it until my cpu is a notable bottleneck and I just don't see that happening for at least another 4 years.

pikunsiaA wise decision IMO; Skylake (14nm or 10nm) should be the way to go, we need to buy a new mobo (LGA 1151) though.

Soonest I expect to upgrade is cannon lake or 10nm Zen in all honesty.

buildzoidSo this looks like intels manufacturing consistency has dropped even further. Which isn't all that surprising since 14nm is absolutely tiny. Also 1.4V will most likely cause significant degradation so that OC will be stable for a year or maybe a couple months and then need a bump in voltage.

There's no such thing as a drop in manufacturing consistency. INTEL isn't screening for overclocking headroom in the CPUs. it is literally a luck of the draw. Add to which, part of the reason why Sandy-Bridge clocked so well was because for the process, it was a relatively simple CPU, with an IMC was that was very limited, hence it's sub 2,400MHz memory wall.

I won't be upgrading my i7-4770K until I can get a cpu that is AT LEAST 2-3 times stronger.

CPUs don't magically scale in performance by 50% let alone 100 or 200%. Software needs to be written differently. In a way as to make use of those advancements in the CPU instructions or parallelism. For performance to scale 2 - 4 times, it would mean finding a single program that was entirely CPU bound, not relying on the system bandwidth, GPU, APIs etc. in essence, it is an unrealistic expectation to have of CPUs since the advent of multi-core processors. It is the equivalent of expecting a 600Bhp car to be twice as fast as a 300Bhp car, based on solely on that single measurement.

@Knoxx29 take a look !!

TheDeeGeeMy 4770K currently does 4,5 GHz @ 1.175 volts.

erixxMy 4970K does 4,4 Ghz at 1.175v (adaptive, during stresstest).

Yea i have 4.5 profile for 1.20volts, haven't really pushed to test if i could go lower which i probably could.

Captain_TomI will absolutely enjoy it! The most CPU intensive game I have right now it BF4 MP and with Mantle it only uses 50% of the cpu to run it at 120 FPS! I will be just fine, especially with DX12 in the pipeline.

But I don't think it will be 10 years+. Zen will likely force intel to bring 6 or 8 core cpu's to the main stream motherboards and that brings with it a massive increase. Still I won't be worth it until my cpu is a notable bottleneck and I just don't see that happening for at least another 4 years.

Dude, your expectations are completely off the charts. I completely agree with you that if you have a Sandy Bridge processor from 4 years ago, it's still stupid to even upgrade. And the reason for that is that Intel has a clear monopoly in the industry, and are being huge cocksuckers by feeding us peanut upgrades. Think about it; the i7 2600K came out 4 years ago, and it still performs more or less excactly the same as a modern i7 5770K in gaming, and in other task is maybe 10-15% worse in performance. 15% in 4 years. I would generally consider 60% a relevant increase, and with the pace that Intel is going, you won't need to change your CPU until at least 16 years. That sound stupidly long time, and we can assume that the terrible pace will be improved from Intel one way or other (because that's how naively optimistic we consumers are). Let's assume that the Zen-processor are actually as good as AMD promises, and forces Intel to make a bigger (even if small) push to keep it quite a bit ahead. Let's say AMD knock it out of the park and shorten 16 to 8 years. That's still a lot!

And you might think 8 years still is too much. But think about it: I have the i7 2600K. It has been 4 years, and I'm still able to overclock it as well as your processor and run games like BF4 in more or less the exact same FPS as yours, whereas your CPU is maybe 10% (hardly anything) in video editing programs.

This hype about Skylake is stupid and is something that I see every year from commentators about "the next Intel processors"; they never are any relevant improvements. Why the fuck do people say that they are "waiting for Skylake", when even the performance numbers Intel give us (which usually are best-case scenarios in certain specific areas) is hardly relevant?

Oh and btw, your processor is already a bottleneck, thanks to Intel nothing giving a fuck about improving technology ever since 2010. That's why you got Mantle and DX12, and probably other improvements too in the future. Because when Intel don't do their job, someone else will (in some way or other). Mantle and DX12 gives a percentage-wise upgrade to games on CPUs (especially the old ones) that you get by going from a 5 year old intel processor to a new one. That's what happens when you get 30-40% increase in GPUs and only 5-10% increase every year.

It's getting to a point where I get frustrated even hearing or reading about Intel. It's bad enough to watch reviews upon reviews of "Intel's newest chip" on hardware sites that don't do the processor the justice by slaughtering them and giving them deserving bad scores -- knowing very well that it also might have an impact on Intel. But to see general, smart and talented people on forums like these -- people whose integrity I trust more than that of reviewers -- talk about how they are excited about Intel's new chip or that it is impressive, makes me depressed.

The i7 2600K is my last and final Intel chip, no matter what. I don't even fucking care if AMDs Zen processor end up becoming only as good as the 2600K (which is a triumph in itself for AMD) and not any upgrade for me. There is no fucking way I'm supporting 1 cent of my money on Intel anymore, not for the way they have been acting. They have literally deleted half a decade of potential development of processor chips, the way I see it. Excusing it as market strategy and reality in our neoliberal world is not good enough argument in my book.

/endrage

*awaiting the shitstorm*

Captain_TomSoonest I expect to upgrade is cannon lake or 10nm Zen in all honesty.

I think is okay too <Captain_Tom> as the i7-4770k is a powerful CPU and not problem at all to run your games and other programs until the late 2016 or the early 2017. Maybe I gonna take you advice.

pikunsiaI think is okay too <Captain_Tom> as the i7-4770k is a powerful CPU and not problem at all to run your games and other programs until the late 2016 or the early 2017. Maybe I gonna take you advice.

Why would it suddenly become an issue in 2017? The i7 2600K came out 4 years ago (2011), and still has no more issues running games than a modern i7 5770K. I don't imagine it to having any trouble in 2017 either.

Even i7 920 is still a descent processor.

BigMack70How much vcore you need for a given clock speed is more dependent on silicon lottery than manufacturing process node.

Yeah, agree! Luckily my CPU overclocking very well but I use it @ 4.7GHz to avoid high temps. (>80C) at full load, which is enough to run what you want.

btarunrthe chip was able to reach 5.00 GHz clock speeds with ease on air-cooling, and a core voltage of 1.419V.

1.419v is "with ease"? That's a lot of juice.

La MentheWhy would it suddenly become an issue in 2017? The i7 2600K came out 4 years ago (2011), and still has no more issues running games than a modern i7 5770K. I don't imagine it to having any trouble in 2017 either.

The 2600K is one of the best releases Intel has had in a long time. I got a lot of use out of mine.

I'm taking mine out and replacing it with an i5-4690K , but the 2600K is going straight into my wife's computer.

RealNeilThe 2600K is one of the best releases Intel has had in a long time. I got a lot of use out of mine.

I'm taking mine out and replacing it with an i5-4690K , but the 2600K is going straight into my wife's computer.

Why are you doing this? You are hardly gaining any actual improvements by this "upgrade". And this is even looking past the fact that you dropping multithreading.

Multithreading included, you are basically giving your wife the better CPU...

La Mentheyou are basically giving your wife the better CPU

Is that you, Bill_Bright?

La MentheWhy would it suddenly become an issue in 2017? The i7 2600K came out 4 years ago (2011), and still has no more issues running games than a modern i7 5770K. I don't imagine it to having any trouble in 2017 either.

It is probable you're right <La Menthe> but we can't discard the advances that for sure it will come in the next two years about hardware as well as in software, so those trends will tell us whether we need a new hardware or not. But also you know very well that there is a lot of people buying every novelty even though there is not a real necessity to buy it. Of course, this comment has nothing to do with what we are discussing, just saying how some people lives buying new electronics/computer devices.

xorbeIs that you, Bill_Bright?

Maybe you should instead focus on answering my question to you further up? Or do you have trouble doing it?

pikunsiaIt is probable you're right <La Menthe> but we can't discard the advances that for sure it will come in the next two years about hardware

What advances are these?

La MentheWhy are you doing this? You are hardly gaining any actual improvements by this "upgrade". And this is even looking past the fact that you dropping multithreading.

Multithreading included, you are basically giving your wife the better CPU...

Yeah, I'm upgrading her PC. She deserves it. Her's is a Pentium-D setup that works fine, but it's slow.
She's been refusing to let me do an upgrade for the past year, but she just spent a day on the 2600K system and now she wants it.

As to multi-threading performance, I'll be OK with my i7-4790K and the i7-5930K that I'll be building in a few weeks. :D

I have to be honest, I can't wait to pick a 5775C up to replace my 4790K.

yeah whatever. Waiting for skylake

La MentheDude, your expectations are completely off the charts. I completely agree with you that if you have a Sandy Bridge processor from 4 years ago, it's still stupid to even upgrade. And the reason for that is that Intel has a clear monopoly in the industry, and are being huge cocksuckers by feeding us peanut upgrades. Think about it; the i7 2600K came out 4 years ago, and it still performs more or less excactly the same as a modern i7 5770K in gaming, and in other task is maybe 10-15% worse in performance. 15% in 4 years. I would generally consider 60% a relevant increase, and with the pace that Intel is going, you won't need to change your CPU until at least 16 years. That sound stupidly long time, and we can assume that the terrible pace will be improved from Intel one way or other (because that's how naively optimistic we consumers are). Let's assume that the Zen-processor are actually as good as AMD promises, and forces Intel to make a bigger (even if small) push to keep it quite a bit ahead. Let's say AMD knock it out of the park and shorten 16 to 8 years. That's still a lot!

And you might think 8 years still is too much. But think about it: I have the i7 2600K. It has been 4 years, and I'm still able to overclock it as well as your processor and run games like BF4 in more or less the exact same FPS as yours, whereas your CPU is maybe 10% (hardly anything) in video editing programs.

This hype about Skylake is stupid and is something that I see every year from commentators about "the next Intel processors"; they never are any relevant improvements. Why the fuck do people say that they are "waiting for Skylake", when even the performance numbers Intel give us (which usually are best-case scenarios in certain specific areas) is hardly relevant?

Oh and btw, your processor is already a bottleneck, thanks to Intel nothing giving a fuck about improving technology ever since 2010. That's why you got Mantle and DX12, and probably other improvements too in the future. Because when Intel don't do their job, someone else will (in some way or other). Mantle and DX12 gives a percentage-wise upgrade to games on CPUs (especially the old ones) that you get by going from a 5 year old intel processor to a new one. That's what happens when you get 30-40% increase in GPUs and only 5-10% increase every year.

It's getting to a point where I get frustrated even hearing or reading about Intel. It's bad enough to watch reviews upon reviews of "Intel's newest chip" on hardware sites that don't do the processor the justice by slaughtering them and giving them deserving bad scores -- knowing very well that it also might have an impact on Intel. But to see general, smart and talented people on forums like these -- people whose integrity I trust more than that of reviewers -- talk about how they are excited about Intel's new chip or that it is impressive, makes me depressed.

The i7 2600K is my last and final Intel chip, no matter what. I don't even fucking care if AMDs Zen processor end up becoming only as good as the 2600K (which is a triumph in itself for AMD) and not any upgrade for me. There is no fucking way I'm supporting 1 cent of my money on Intel anymore, not for the way they have been acting. They have literally deleted half a decade of potential development of processor chips, the way I see it. Excusing it as market strategy and reality in our neoliberal world is not good enough argument in my book.

/endrage

nice post i agree in every single word
This is what MONOPOLY means
WE MUST WAKE UP SOME TIME!!
We can figure out that Monopoly conspiracy with the upcoming DX12!!
HOLY shit, 8 years to configure a way to use all core/threads in a cpu! WTF technology MASTERMINDS!!!
NO WAY just this year was the appropriate time(financial management reasons) to release it........!!!

BorisDGEven i7 920 is still a descent processor.

Oh yeah assuming it is overclocked to near 4 GHz I wouldn't consider upgrading that for a while either.

RealNeilThe 2600K is one of the best releases Intel has had in a long time. I got a lot of use out of mine.

I'm taking mine out and replacing it with an i5-4690K , but the 2600K is going straight into my wife's computer.

Yeah that's not even an upgrade lol. The 4690K is like 15-20% faster clock-for-clock at most, and the loss of hyperthreading eliminates those gains (Or makes it a net loss).

Captain_TomYeah that's not even an upgrade lol. The 4690K is like 15-20% faster clock-for-clock at most, and the loss of hyperthreading eliminates those gains (Or makes it a net loss).

It's still going to be a good gaming machine. (a fast quad-core with two R9-280X OC GPUs in Crossfire, 16GB 2133Mhz RAM, 480GB SSD for the OS)

I have three gaming PCs here. I have sons and grandsons that visit me and we can play LAN games while they're visiting. We have fun with it.

And, why shouldn't I give my wife the i7 CPU?

RealNeilIt's still going to be a good gaming machine. (a fast quad-core with two R9-280X OC GPUs in Crossfire, 16GB 2133Mhz RAM, 480GB SSD for the OS)

I have three gaming PCs here. I have sons and grandsons that visit me and we can play LAN games while they're visiting. We have fun with it.

And, why shouldn't I give my wife the i7 CPU?

I just don't see the point of you switching. If your wife needs a cpu - buy her a new one. If you want an upgrade - get a cpu that is actually an upgrade lol.