[LoneWolf121188]

Originally Posted by xander89

big bunch of fail , for the regular person/ overclocker this chip has turned into a massive disappointment. I thought the early temp results were exaggerated but having seen this review it seems like intel have shot themselves in the foot

The regular person is NOT an OCer. The stock temps are fantastic, as is the GPU performance. Not to mention the insane Quick Sync performance. When the mobile chips drop, the regular person is going to love their new laptops.

Don't forget we aren't even 1% of 1% of Intel's market. The fact that they ship unlocked chips at all is still surprising to me. Intel made some solid improvements that paved the way for Haswell, and those improvements came at a reduced tolerance to Vcore, something that's the least of their worries.

[hokiealumnus]

Originally Posted by Frakk

It seems if you already have a SB this is not realy a step up worth that extra money, but good news for those who like to freeze them.

Take nothing away from it it is a good chip and an improvement over SB.

Yep, that's about my view as well. Good summation of my ~6,000 words.

[Eldonko]

Great job man

[elari20]

Great review and great charts

[hokiealumnus]

Originally Posted by Eldonko

Great job man

Originally Posted by elari20

Great review and great charts

Aww, I'm all out of "Thanks" for the day (limited number), but thanks guys.

[LancerVI]

Thanks for the review. Great write up!! Sounds like a good proc but.....

....here I am with my i920 X58 setup and I've got the serious upgrade bug!!! But I just can't pull the trigger. If anything, I'd go X79, put a 'low-end' SB-E in there and hope the IB-E's, when they come out, are tip top and OC well. Let's face it....I come here because it's called OVERCLOCKERS.COM and IB just doesn't appear to fit the bill.

I've got my waterloop and rig spec'd out! Everything is tight; but I just can't see spending the money on this for SB or IB. If I do, it's clearly because I just have the bug for a new build!

Maybe it's time for new 120hz monitor or discrete raid controller.

[Raymo1]

Nice review... I think it was a little confusing having the 3970 and 980x with all the comparisons when the true test was with the 26k stock and overclocked.. One HOT MF!!
Break out the cold...

[xander89]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf121188

The regular person is NOT an OCer. The stock temps are fantastic, as is the GPU performance. Not to mention the insane Quick Sync performance. When the mobile chips drop, the regular person is going to love their new laptops.

Don't forget we aren't even 1% of 1% of Intel's market. The fact that they ship unlocked chips at all is still surprising to me. Intel made some solid improvements that paved the way for Haswell, and those improvements came at a reduced tolerance to Vcore, something that's the least of their worries.

I think that is a massive understatement. The % of people buying a high end unlocked processors are people like us. What percentage of intel's processors sold do you think are high end processors like this? The people who fork out in the 300 mark are generally those who either have an insane amount of cash or are enthusiasts. I doubt well be seeing many dell desktops with this processor in it.

I am not bad mouthing the whole line but rather this specific processor. The majority of people forking out for processors like these are people like us. And of those people only a very small percentage are sub zero over lockers.

I do see where you are coming from. But I think you are also taking my gripe the wrong way. As an indervidual chip this will not sell. Unless they mark it at the same price as the 2700k. Laptops out of the picture here. Also I'd be interested to see temps compared to old i7 laptops considering they would literally burn a hold in your lap after 15 mins XD

['Cuda340]

Step out for a couple hours & look what i miss.......

Thanks for the write up

[Owenator]

Nice write up Hokie!

I'm more than a little disappointed that it doesn't run cooler than my 2600K. I have a pretty stout system for, now so I'll keep saving for my next upgrade.

Great review and good info!

[Jman13]

"The hottest core measurements are 46% higher with Ivy Bridge."

Arghh....No they are not. The Ivy Bridge core maxes out 7.8% higher in temperature than Sandy Bridge. You CAN NOT USE CELSIUS (or Fahrenheit) for percentage comparisons in temperature. You MUST use Kelvin. Anything else is flat out wrong. I am seeing it all over the place with these IVB reviews and forum posts.

Would you say when it's 1C and it rises to 2C that the temperature doubled? What about 33.8F to 35.6F...is that a 5.3% increase in temperature? Because, well...those are the exact same temperatures. (1C to 2C is 33.8 to 35.6 in F). Of course, the real answer is 1C to 2C is a 0.3% increase. (274.15K to 275.15K).

How about 0C to 4C? Wait, that's an INFINITE increase in temperature right? What about -3C to 6C?

I'd expect better from a technical article.

[Owenator]

Originally Posted by Jman13

"The hottest core measurements are 46% higher with Ivy Bridge."

Arghh....No they are not. The Ivy Bridge core maxes out 7.8% higher in temperature than Sandy Bridge. You CAN NOT USE CELSIUS (or Fahrenheit) for percentage comparisons in temperature. You MUST use Kelvin. Anything else is flat out wrong. I am seeing it all over the place with these IVB reviews and forum posts.

Would you say when it's 1C and it rises to 2C that the temperature doubled? What about 33.8F to 35.6F...is that a 5.3% increase in temperature? Because, well...those are the exact same temperatures. (1C to 2C is 33.8 to 35.6 in F). Of course, the real answer is 1C to 2C is a 0.3% increase. (274.15K to 275.15K).

How about 0C to 4C? Wait, that's an INFINITE increase in temperature right? What about -3C to 6C?

I'd expect better from a technical article.

Interesting. I missed that part myself. I just read about how much hotter it got. Percentages are not something I tend to look at because they can be misleading.

You are right about the temps needing to be in K or R (Rankine) for a scientific comparison. Luckily this isn't the journal nature, but I'm sure Hokie appreciates the peer review.

[hokiealumnus]

My statement is correct. So is yours. The hottest core measures 46% higher in degrees celsius than Sandy Bridge. That is a correct statement. You may be correct, on a Kelvin scale, the heat increase is only 7.8% in terms of kelvin, but if you're going to be technical, I will to.

I'm sorry to disappoint you.

...and yes, I guess 0°C to 4°C is an infinite increase in temperature.

[LancerVI]

Originally Posted by Jman13

"The hottest core measurements are 46% higher with Ivy Bridge."

Arghh....No they are not. The Ivy Bridge core maxes out 7.8% higher in temperature than Sandy Bridge. You CAN NOT USE CELSIUS (or Fahrenheit) for percentage comparisons in temperature. You MUST use Kelvin. Anything else is flat out wrong. I am seeing it all over the place with these IVB reviews and forum posts.

Would you say when it's 1C and it rises to 2C that the temperature doubled? What about 33.8F to 35.6F...is that a 5.3% increase in temperature? Because, well...those are the exact same temperatures. (1C to 2C is 33.8 to 35.6 in F). Of course, the real answer is 1C to 2C is a 0.3% increase. (274.15K to 275.15K).

How about 0C to 4C? Wait, that's an INFINITE increase in temperature right? What about -3C to 6C?

I'd expect better from a technical article.

The differences they note here are close enough to make a difference. Those few C's or F's could mean the difference between a stable system and one that isn't. At least in my experience that's the case.

I disagree with you completely. We're not trying to land a lunar module or anything. Just get a stable OC. Maybe I'm a simpleton.

[I.M.O.G.]

Good comment Jman13, I never stopped to think about it while reading. A simple oversight really, and probably something few people would think of. I would guess a percentage scale based in units people are used to working with makes the most sense at the end of the day. I don't know how much meaning people would derive from Kelvin units, when 99% of the audience isn't used to working in Kelvin.

[Eldonko]

I think a percentage increase in C is the way to go. Maybe stating the difference in kelvin is (more) correct but it doesnt mean anything to anyone. You have to speak in terms your audience speaks.

[hokiealumnus]

Originally Posted by Eldonko

I think a percentage increase in C is the way to go. Maybe stating the difference in kelvin is (more) correct but it doesnt mean anything to anyone. You have to speak in terms your audience speaks.

+1.

Jman13, your point is well taken but isn't applicable to our readers, who live in a world where no one measures processor temperatures in Kelvin. If I had broken out Kelvin in the review, there would have been twenty of your posts instead of just one from the other perspective.

Also, unrelated to temperatures, everyone should go check out Shamino's magic. Remember how I said the IMC on these things is insane. Look what happens when you pair it with equally insane memory on LN2.

[MattNo5ss]

The issue is the fact temperature and heat are two completely different things.

Heat is energy. Temperature is just a number that relates to average molecular motion (or kinetic energy of molecules).

The only temperature scale that is directly proportional to the average molecular motion is Kelvin.

So, when comparing temps you can use whatever scale you want, but to compare heat you have to use Kelvin temp scale or Joules.

@ RAM speeds/timings in link!

[hokiealumnus]

Superb link from eldonko @ XS (thanks man): http://youtu.be/bm6ScvNygUU . Very much well worth watching and applicable to the increased temperature issue.

[rustyfender]

hmm this thows into question what to replace my dead 4 month old 2500K with. a 2600K or a 3770K. Its not so cut and dry anymore. since i leave it folding when im not gaming the increased temperature could be a problem. (i have a similar w/c setup to hookie in this article but with more rad)