Intel Core i7-9700K Overclocked to 5.5 GHz on Water, Cinebenched

[btarunr]

Intel's upcoming Core i7-9700K processor is the first Core i7 SKU to lack HyperThreading, but that isn't stopping the chip with 8 physical cores from edging past its predecessor posting strong multi-threaded performance. Chinese publication ZOL managed to overclock the chip to 5.50 GHz under liquid cooling with all its cores enabled, by simply dialing up the unlocked multiplier to 55.0X, and a rather high 1.535V core voltage.

The overclocked i7-9700K was put through Cinebench R15, where it scored 250 points in the single-threaded test, and 1827 points in the multi-threaded one, a 7.31x multiprocessing ratio. A current-generation 6-core/12-thread Core i7-8700K typically manages around 1550 points at stock speeds (at least 4.30 GHz all-core Turbo Boost frequency), in the multi-threaded test. The i7-9700K could hence be less ahead of its predecessor than hoped. It's the 8-core/16-thread Core i9-9900K, which could grab enthusiasts' attention (and monies).



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[dj-electric]

Core i7-8700K typically manages around 1550 points at stock speeds

A typical stock 8700K will score 1220-1275 points in CB R15 today. MCE will make it go to 1400-1450 area.

This 5.5Ghz is a nice POC OC, showing temperature is more controllable with the new STIM.

 

[R0H1T]

The annual hit job PR spin from Intel, we've seen this with 4790k, 5775c, 7700k, 8700k.
What Intel won't tell you, obviously, is that only a handful of these chips will ever get close to 5.5GHz even with exotic cooling

 

[RejZoR]

Cinebench results are rather meaningless for this CPU which is clearly aimed at gamers. 8 real cores, no HT, stupid high clocks with water. Would be much more interesting seeing how it performs in games than Cinebench, compared to older gen CPU's like 8700K or 7700K...

 

[Zubasa]

The annual hit job PR spin from Intel, we've seen this with 4790k, 5775c, 7700k, 8700k.
What Intel won't tell you, obviously, is that only a handful of these chips will ever get close to 5.5GHz even with exotic cooling

This chip is running well over 1.5V for that OC, not really a usable OC either way.

 

[HTC]

This chip is running well over 1.5V for that OC, not really a usable OC either way.

Keep in mind they say "on Water" but fail to specify if it's "regular" or "chilled" water cooling: in light of that of that famous 28 cores @ 5GHz presentation, i'd bet it's the latter, albeit with a "smaller" chiller, specially considering that voltage.

 

[RejZoR]

This chip is running well over 1.5V for that OC, not really a usable OC either way.

Still, if it hits 5GHz at lower voltages, it is a good choice for gamers if priced properly.

 

[kastriot]

Intel is really trying hard to impress us but in reality he is failing miserably due to inability to pull head out of *ss.

 

[The Von Matrices]

Still, if it hits 5GHz at lower voltages, it is a good choice for gamers if priced properly.

The chip's turbo speed is 4.9GHz, so if it's like other Intel CPUs I've used, you can just set the all-core turbo multiplier 49 and it will work flawlessly at stock turbo voltage. An additional 100MHz shouldn't be that hard to achieve.

 

[RejZoR]

It's not exactly the same voltage. Coz even on Auto, it'll bump it up by itself. But generally, if board isn't some cheap crap, it would work rather easily with that setting.

What AMD needs to do now is release CPU with 2 full CCX units (8 cores), no HT and clock it higher. This seperation of gaming and productivity CPU's is smart on Intel's part. Games always need higher clocks. So, tweak gaming grade CPU's to deliver that. Productivity feels comfy with lower clocks but many threads. Obviously, it's hard to achieve both on same CPU.

 

[Vayra86]

Still, if it hits 5GHz at lower voltages, it is a good choice for gamers if priced properly.

I dont see why it would. 9th gen is just a tweaked CFL for +2 cores and the solder keeps it further away from Tjmax which allows one to push destructive volts through. 1.5v is exceeding Intel max spec and far beyond recommended.

 

[$ReaPeR$]

useful for people running 1080p @ 120/140Hz only gaming configs. everyone else is fine with ryzen.

 

[I No]

I dont see why it would. 9th gen is just a tweaked CFL for +2 cores and the solder keeps it further away from Tjmax which allows one to push destructive volts through. 1.5v is exceeding Intel max spec and far beyond recommended.

The max voltage Intel is mentioning in their documentation for 8th gen CPUs is 1.52 (https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...core/8th-gen-core-family-datasheet-vol-1.html), of course that wouldn't be safe for 24/7 usage but still. The leaked bench is dodgy, but even so, if it hits 5Ghz across 8 cores this would still be impressive.

 

[Danielegiangregoreio]

New CPU and new GPU generations but when PCI-E 4.0 will start appearing on motherboards ?

 

[Dimi]

A typical stock 8700K will score 1220-1275 points in CB R15 today. MCE will make it go to 1400-1450 area.

This 5.5Ghz is a nice POC OC, showing temperature is more controllable with the new STIM.

At stock speeds (4.3ghz) i get 1350 with a bunch of chrome tabs, steam and a few other programs open...

 

[I No]

New CPU and new GPU generations but when PCI-E 4.0 will start appearing on motherboards ?

If it does PCI-E 5.0 is due in Q2 2019 so 4.0 would be short lived. No point, there aren't any GPUs for consumers to saturate PCI-E 3.0 anyway.

 

[Prima.Vera]

a rather high 1.535V core voltage

"rather" high????

 

[R0H1T]

If it does PCI-E 5.0 is due in Q2 2019 so 4.0 would be short lived. No point, there aren't any GPUs for consumers to saturate PCI-E 3.0 anyway.

I doubt we'll get PCIe 5.0 in consumer space quickly if Intel/AMD launch the 4.x revision anytime in the next year or two. PCIe 4.0 will suffice for the vast majority whilst PCIe 5.0 could be relegated to enterprise, again depending on when the next revision (5.x) comes out.

 

[GorbazTheDragon]

200+ watts coming down on your cheapo motherboard VRMS!!!

 

[srsbsns]

My Ryzen 2700X that is 100% stock does 1830 in multi thread. Good catching up.

 

[Dan848]

Cores and more cores for gaming. How many cores are needed? Six cores seems to be the sweet spot. Because AMD has hammered Intel over the head with good performing multi-cores Intel is going nuts trying to figure out how to respond.

What is next? You need 32 cores to play WoW!

 

[GorbazTheDragon]

Yes, really the optimal I'd say is around where the current 6 core i7s are. Keep hyperthreading of course... 8 cores without HT will use more power and from this looks to be slower too, intel really trying to push people up to the new price brackets where the i9 sits.

Unfortunately, while the 2700x is a very good chip it is out-haloed by this i9 just because of intel's advantage in IPC per core. That said power draw is of course better for the AMD stuff, but if you know history you will know that AMD sticking to a cheaper, inferior product just will not work. Ryzen sold so well early on because it was better than anything intel offered, now a lot of people will probably just go back to the same perception that AMD's products are cheap, second class things so people with more money than time to read reviews will just snatch up the intel stuff and pay whatever they get asked.

 

[John Naylor]

I think that Ryzen and TR are very significant technical achievements ... But what I am finding is that the area where AMDs shines are not the tasks that most folks use their PCs for. As a result, their accomplishment just isn't having a significant impact on the market place. Yes, Ryzen was better in a small market niche (i.e. I game a lot and spend 30% of my time video editing) and certainly pent up demand for anything "red" led to a nice bump in sales ... but it was short lived.

When the olympic silver medalist finishes 0.1 seconds behind the gold, no one can even remember the silver medal winner's name a month later. That's an amazing accomplishment, but folks will remeber who won the Gold as, if for nothing else, his name and picture are on the Wheaties Box. The problem is, for the tasks that PCs are far and away most used, Intel has the edge. It's not a big edge .... but the result has not been good for AMD which had 10.7% more market share in Q3 2017 (22.30%) then they do now in Q3 2018 (20.15%)