Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Could be a more fundamental design issue or problem with the sky-high default clocks of these chips, time will tell as they have only been on the market for a little over a few months.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Intel responds to i7-7700K high temp. issue tells owners they shouldn't overclock
- Thread starter ·feist·
- Start date
Could be a more fundamental design issue or problem with the sky-high default clocks of these chips, time will tell as they have only been on the market for a little over a few months.
MetaCircular
Member
How widespread is this issue?
There is always an element of randomness in the cpu manufacturing process, so not every chip will have the same ability to overclock, and some will run hotter than others. All intel has to ensure is that it runs at the stock clocks.
It's too bad that some will get burned by getting one from the bad end of the curve, but it's statistically inevitable.
There is always an element of randomness in the cpu manufacturing process, so not every chip will have the same ability to overclock, and some will run hotter than others. All intel has to ensure is that it runs at the stock clocks.
It's too bad that some will get burned by getting one from the bad end of the curve, but it's statistically inevitable.
Celcius
°Temp. member
Can confirm - the 7700k is the hottest cpu I've ever owned. I remember discussing it with a few members in the PC thread back in February once I got around to overclocking it and someone else had the same temp results with the same cooler as me.
I like my cpu and definitely plan to keep it but I hope Intel finds a better thermal solution for upcoming chips.
fyi I'm running mine 24/7 at 4.7ghz with a NH-D14.
I like my cpu and definitely plan to keep it but I hope Intel finds a better thermal solution for upcoming chips.
fyi I'm running mine 24/7 at 4.7ghz with a NH-D14.
The bolded. Ryzen gets flaks for its lack of overclocking headroom, but it's a fact that Intel also pushed its chips closer to the reasonable limit of the node with each gen just to have some visible improvements. The result is that where e.g. 2500K had tons of overclocking headroom 7700K is already pretty close to it with default clocks (not dissimilar to e.g.1800X and 1600X).
Pop-O-Matic
Banned
So does this mean we're gonna get a "refresh" a la Devil's Canyon?
texhnolyze
Banned
Even I know that the K models are meant to be overclocked lol.
It's like they're looking down at their customers.
It's like they're looking down at their customers.
Finaika
Member
Wow I just RMA ed my 6700K and ordered a 7700K to replace it.
Should've waited for the 8700K.
TatteredHat
Member
More reason to go for Ryzen instead, I suppose.
Jampsuliini
Member
I was just going to upgrade to the 7700k this month what do I do now...?
what do I do now...?
Caayn
Member
Knowing Intel, the 8700K would require a new motherboard as well because reasons.
The K stands for Kelvin.
If you don't have a high framerate monitor and are just going to be running games at 60fps, Ryzen chips are probably better. If your monitor is super high resolution like 4K or whatever, you probably should also get a Ryzen unless you have a Titan XP or something. I think for the majority of gamers Ryzen is a better deal, and the power differential between Ryzen and 7700k for gaming will probably lessen somewhat over time as games become more multi-threaded in the future.
If you're in the minority that has a high framerate monitor AND buys extremely expensive graphics cards, disregard all of this.
If you're in the minority that has a high framerate monitor AND buys extremely expensive graphics cards, disregard all of this.
Watch out, with talk like that you'll soon find yourself hired as Intel's new marketing director!
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Why are people buying 7700k's when the Ryzen 1700 exists and can be had for $300 and has had a vast array of BIOS updates, fixes and a new microcode that have incrementally improved performance even more since launch?
In fact, why are people buying 4-core CPUs in 2017 full stop? :/ At least get 6-cores people.
In fact, why are people buying 4-core CPUs in 2017 full stop? :/ At least get 6-cores people.
Probably, it's because the 7700K gets the highest fps in games today. Whether more cores will make a difference later on, we will have to wait and see.
Diablohead
Member
i'd have bought a ryzen if they were out 13 months ago, I only had enough cash for pc parts and a 6500 which is doing it's job fine for now.
what does their stock price have to do with decision to buy their new cpu? Lets even disregard what their stock crash was based on (overinflated price) and their stock is at highest since 2007.
I guess everyone should have bought XB1 instead of PS4 since MS stock was performing much better?
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Is this really true? Linus did a CPU round up test last year about how many Cores you need; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toZ_t88bPBU&t=481s
And the thing is that performance still seems to favor higher clockspeed over more cores. Even in intensely computational heavy games like Cities Skylines, which is probably the most CPU bound game, most of us have (maybe Total War as well?)
Back in 2010 I remember people said that Quad Cores were a good future proof upgrade, but even today, you still have multitudes of new games that are specifically coded for dual cores. And if you look at the steam stat breakdown of what CPU people have, the vast vast vast majority of people are still on Dual Cores. This explains the incentive for developers to code their games and productivity apps to keep running most efficient on dual core over quad core.
The games I care the most about would retain higher frames with a 5 GHz 7700k, than a 6 or 8-core CPU that cost 2 or 3 times as much.
And it's a goddamn shame, because more cores are awesome. It seems to be a question of adoption, not because of power?
Because the 7700k is still the fastest processor right now for the vast majority of tasks? Why the hell would I buy a 6 core processor when it's useless in 95% of tasks I might do in Adobe Photoshop, ESRI ArcGIS or whatever CAD suite I might use? Rendering/encoding is not where professional tasks start and end, in fact rendering times are meaningless for me because I multitask and go do something else if my workstation is tied up.
In my use cases, single threaded performance is absolutely king and I don't buy processors for the future but right now.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
'Faster' maybe but I'd challenge anyone to notice the difference. Total platform cost for Ryzen is much cheaper. More important than that though is AM4 is a chipset that will last two more generations so upgradeability is there but not with a Kabylake. This is key.
Also, when applications do make use of more than the paltry 4C/8T on the 7700K, Ryzen is significantly faster.
llien
Banned
With major consoles being weak 8 cores (6-7 cores available to games) I wonder how those new games fare on them.
Even Blizzard bothered optimizing Overwatch for 6 cores, consoles are on jaguars for years to come, I don't see viable multi-plats that don't go heavy multi threading.
Outrun
Member
Customers: I can't overclock further!
Intel: k
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
You can easily see a 22+ fps difference.
And, by the time I upgrade my cpu, I start over fresh so lasting 2 gen means nothing for me.
What is truly irritating about Intel's stance on this is that they will "encourage" reviewers and evangelists (see some even in this thread,we know the names) to compare Ryzen to Intel 7700k overclock variants (obviously!), while discouraging the users from doing so -even while taking the extra money for that K tag.
Horrendous.
Horrendous.
This is true for now, though I have hopes for this month's AGESA update.
MadJackChurchill
Banned
If Intel keeps up with the poor quality TIM, I'm definitely budgeting a delidding kit + liquid ultra for my next build.
https://rockitcool.myshopify.com/
https://www.caseking.de/en/der8auer-delid-die-mate-2-fsd8-019.html
It's that simple now? Amazing.
Alter_Fridge
Member
Overclocking = overcooking
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
You can easily see a 22+ fps difference.
And, by the time I upgrade my cpu, I start over fresh so lasting 2 gen means nothing for me.
Yes but most people don't own a card on the level of a 1080, 1080 Ti, or Titan X and game at 1080p at the same time to expose these performance gaps. I think you do so you're in the minority where differences may be noticeable. This is important.
People with cards below those and/or who game at 1440p/4K and the CPU is less of a bottleneck. I'd challenge anyone to tell the difference between 90fps and 98fps.
I'm waiting in excitement
Corronchilejano
Member
Does this problem also affect their 7600k line? I was about to get one this week.
So you reasoning is when the GPU is bottlenecking @ 1440p / 4K, AMD 1700 / 1800 is the way too way. GAF never seems to amaze me...
The goop they glued ivy bridge CPUs with was so terrible, I delided that motherfucker the second I got it and had much much better thermals at 4.6ghz.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Why? Hyper-Threading is not a new technology, and mutli threaded development is not new for consoles either. Remember, Cell in the PS3, is a chip released in 2006. I wonder how much more incentivized developers are to utilize HT than they where 10 years ago, though at least, it's been a while since I've had to disable HT just to not have a performance penalty.
If you look at Steams Hardware Adoption rate for CPU cores, it's pretty clear that 4-core CPUs is still the largest growth, for all but Linux users; http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/?sort=chg < 8 cores adoption is also growing, but much slower.
And here is the thing- If it's true that we might see ULVs at the end of the year with 4 cores (FINALLY) that could be a big deal. Because 4-core ULV processors have been underway for so so so long. If we- In the next 2-3 years will see the default ultrabook and subnotebook have Quads, then I think the tendency will be for for everything to be phased out towards 4 cores / 8 threads.
A performance uptick of 15 percent over the current generation of Kaby Lake processors is likely via further optimizations in the architecture and manufacturing process. Perhaps the biggest change to the next generation could be the addition of quad-core SKUs in the 15 TDP U-class family of processors. Thus far, these ULV processors have been limited to only two full cores. If true, the upcoming Kaby Lake successor could be a huge boon to ultra-thin notebooks especially if Hyper-Threading remains.
It would be incredible exciting if it meant we could see the next Surface Pro or Macbook Air or Lenovo Yoga with a quadcore. It would be a big step towards adoption rate, as Laptops are by far the most sold computers today. It only makes sense that developers code their apps to reflect the majority.
But here is the thing: If you want to argue that these gains are negible, then you're changing the conversation. Same thing goes that if you'd argue that the performance gains of higher clockspeeds over more cores is negible because it doesn't affect a majority of consumers.
Think about how many apps and games that are at the forefront currently in popular mainstream culture, who are lightly threaded? As someone who relies on productivity apps like Photoshop and Illustrator, the performance gains with a higher clockspeed are significant.
Really, the true test for Ryzen is how it compares to the Intel Core i7 7700K since that is currently the best CPU available for Photoshop. Unfortunately, Ryzen simply can't keep up with the i7 7700K which is both cheaper and significantly faster. In general tasks and photomerge the i7 7700K is around 23% faster than Ryzen on average. Interestingly, the 1800X does pretty well when creating HDR photos, although it was still around 13% slower than the i7 7700K for that task.
Overall, if you are looking for a Photoshop workstation we would advise you to skip Ryzen and stick with the Intel Core i7 7700K. Not only is it more affordable and on a more established platform, but it should also be significantly faster for pretty much any task you might perform in Photoshop.
And I don't think this is a misnormer to Pohotoshop. InDesign, Illustrator, Acrobat, Lightroom and After Effects (since they removed the abillity to render multiple frames) are all lightly threaded applications. And it's not like that Adobe can just re-code these programs from the ground up. And this has been a general theme for many many years.
I'd like to be future proof, but I am struggling to think of games and apps beyond 3d modelling and rendering that benefit from more Cores than 4. And I don't see that changing with the way 4 Core is being adopted to the default, phasing out Dual core, over the next 5 years.
The essence in this discussion is weather or not someone is better off with more cores or with fewer cores at a higher clockrate (basis for discussion about overclocking). Even nearly every upcomming game I can think of that pushes the technological limits like Star Citizen are designed for 4-cores / 8 threads.
Still though, you cannot help but wish that more cores would be more widely adopted, as theoretically, they are more powerful. It's always a disassatisfying feeling that you have a powerful device that has untapped power due to the pragmatic reasons of developers catering to the dual core users.
Still though, of the more than 2 billion computers currently in curculation all over the world, the vast vast vast majority runs on a single or dual core CPU. And as more and more small and thin devices continue to exist, the power users who want to have the benefits of 4> cores, are tiny tiny tiny.
We've known things would go this way for a long time. They committed themselves towards portable, energy efficient computing a long time ago. Hench why people are going nutty over Ryzen and something new finally happening in a old, boring and stale market that used to be so exciting. I think most Intel fans are rooting for AMD to really make Intel sweat again and make things more interesting.
But it's hard for me to see the logic of Ryzen for non-video editing / non-3d Modelling workflows.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
I wouldn't buy a 4-core CPU right now as I expect any CPU to last 3-4 years. But continue trying to justify your 7700k by all means...