Intel i7 4790K Devil's Canyon CPU Review

Add Your Comments

The much anticipated release of Intel’s Devil’s Canyon CPUs were officially announced at Computex 2014, which we already mentioned in our launch day article. Review samples were a bit delayed, but we now have the i7 4790K on hand and can give you the performance numbers many of you have been waiting for. Make no mistake about it, the Devil’s Canyon processors are aimed at the overclocking and enthusiast crowd. With its higher base and turbo clocks, improved thermal design, and a more robust power delivery scheme, it certainly sounds good on paper. Let’s get started and find out what Intel has in store!

intel_i74790K (1)

Specifications & Features

I plucked the below specifications from Intel’s website, albeit a slightly condensed version. The big difference here is the base clock of 4.0 GHz and Turbo Frequency of 4.4 GHz. When compared to the i7 4770K, we have a 500 MHz increase in both of these values. That’s a heck of an increase for a “Refresh.”

Intel i7 4790K Specifications
# of Cores 4
# of Threads 8
Clock Speed 4 GHz
Max Turbo Frequency 4.4 GHz
Instruction Set 64-bit
Instruction Set Extensions SSE 4.1/4.2, AVX 2.0
Lithography 22 nm
Max TDP 88 W
Thermal Solution Spec PCG 2013D
Memory Specifications
Max Memory Size 32 GB
Memory Types DDR3-1333/1600
# of Memory Channels 2
Max Memory Bandwidth 25.6 GB/s
ECC Memory Support No
Graphics Specifications
Processor Graphics Intel HD Graphics 4600
Graphics Base Frequency 350 MHz
Graphics Max Dynamic Frequency 1250 MHz
Intel Quick Sync Video Yes
Intel InTru 3D technology Yes
Intel Insider Yes
Intel Clear Video HD Technology Yes
# of Displays Supported 3
Expansion Options
PCI Express Revision 3.0
PCI Express Configurations Up to 1×16, 2×8, 1×8/2×4
Intel Data Protection Technology
AES New Instructions Yes
Secure Key Yes
OS Guard Yes
Trusted Execution Technology No
Execute Disable Bit Yes
Anti-Theft Technology Yes

So, how was Intel able to get a 500 MHz speed increase over the i7 4770K? They will point you to two major improvements they implemented on the i7 4790K. The first being the additional capacitors used to smooth power delivery to the die. The other major improvement is the thermal design, in particular, the Thermal Interface Material. Intel says a new next-generation polymer TIM (NGPTIM) is now used that should give a greater amount of thermal headroom for overclocking.

intel_i74790K (2)

Other overclocking features include options to independently increase the iGPU graphics and DDR3 memory ratios, which the i7 4770K also supported.

intel_i74790K (3)

As expected, a quick glance at the Devil’s Canyon quad-core die map shows pretty much the same layout as the first generation of Haswell CPUs. We still have a 1.4 billion transistor count, and the die size remains constant at 177mm². The L3 Cache remains shared across all four cores and the on-chip graphics processor.

intel_i74790K (6)

Even though we’ll be concentrating our efforts on the i7 4790K in this review, it’s worth mentioning other newly released CPUs. There will be a Devil’s Canyon i5 4690K and a G3258 Pentium Anniversary Edition available for those on a tighter budget. Both of those are unlocked processors too… yes even the Pentium! The below slides give you a summary of features on all three of the new CPUs.

intel_i74790K (7)
intel_i74790K (8)
intel_i74790K (9)

Meet the Intel i7 4790K

Admittedly, a CPU isn’t the most glamorous component to photograph, but we’ll perform our due diligence nonetheless. Of note here is the last picture showing a side-by-side comparison with the i7 4770K, which gives you a good look at the additional capacitors found on the backside of the i7 4790K.

Engineering Sample Box

Engineering Sample Box

Intel i7 4970K

Intel i7 4790K

Intel i7 4970K

Intel i7 4790K

Intel i7 4790K

Intel i7 4790K

Intel i7 4790K Pads and Capacitors

Intel i7 4790K Pads and Capacitors

Intel i7 4790K Pads and Capacitors

Intel i7 4790K Pads and Capacitors

i7 4770K on Left - i7 4970K on Right

i7 4770K on Left – i7 4790K on Right

Test Setup

When we get to the benchmarks, the i7 4790K will be compared against the i7 4770K and the i7 4930K. Below is a list of the components used for all three CPUs.

i7 4790K i7 4770K i7 4930K
Motherboard ASUS Maximus VII Gene ASUS Maximus VI Formula EVGA X79 FTW
Memory G.Skill TridentX 2X8 GB
10-12-12-31
G.Skill TridentX 2X8 GB
10-12-12-31
G.Skill Trident 4X4 GB
10-12-12-31
HDD Samsung 840 EVO 500 GB Samsung 840 EVO 500 GB Samsung 840 EVO 500 GB
Power Supply Corsair HX1050 Corsair HX1050 Corsair HX1050
Video Card EVGA GTX 780 Ti Classified EVGA GTX 780 Ti Classified EVGA GTX 780 Ti Classified
Cooling EK-Supreme LTX Water Block
360 mm Radiator
MCP35X Pump
EK-Supreme LTX Water Block
360 mm Radiator
MCP35X Pump
EK-Supreme LTX Water Block
360 mm Radiator
MCP35X Pump
Operating System Windows 7 X64 Windows 7 X64 Windows 7 X64

Temperatures and Power Consumption

Before getting into the benchmark numbers, I want to provide a head-to-head comparison on temperatures and power consumption between the two Haswell CPUs. As previously mentioned, one of the improvements Intel implemented on the i7 4790K was a better thermal design. Even though the i7 4790K has a higher default core voltage and speed than its predecessor, the temperatures were still a bit lower when both CPUs were at stock speeds/voltages. This held true at both idle and when the CPU was under 100% load. I then tested both CPUs when set to an identical 4.6 GHz overclock using 1.35 V. Here again, the i7 4790K showed better temperatures. The difference isn’t huge, but better nonetheless.

i7 4790K vs. i7 4770K Temperatures
i7 4790K i7 4770K
Stock – Idle 28° C 29° C
Stock – Load 59° C 60° C
4.6 GHz OC @ 1.35 V – Idle
30° C 32° C
4.6 GHz OC @ 1.35 V – Load
76­° C 80° C

The i7 4790K carries a higher TDP of 88 watts versus 84 watts for the i7 4770K, which to no one’s surprise will mean higher power consumption. Couple that with a slightly higher default core voltage and you get roughly 10% higher wattage draw at the wall. Keep in mind that voltage is chip specific and will vary a bit from one CPU to the next. In the case of the two CPUs tested today, the default core voltage for the i7 4770K was 1.08 V, while the i7 4790K came in at 1.15 V (as read in BIOS). I tested both CPUs at their stock settings while idle and at 100% load. Keep in mind, the numbers below indicate total system draw, and your actual power usage will vary depending on components used.

i7 4790K vs. i7 4770K Power Consumption
i7 4790K i7 4770K
Stock – Idle 124 112
Stock – Load 211 189

So, we have better thermal performance and a little higher power consumption. The new NGPTIM seems up to the task of keeping the processor effectively cooled down, which comes as a welcome sight to Overclockers.

Benchmarks

Each test benchmark was run three times and the score averaged. All three CPUs used for comparison were left at their default speed and voltage with the memory set to 2400 MHz. Each graph is based on percentages with the i7 4790K being the basis, and thus always being 100%. A higher percentage is better on scored testing and a lower percentage is better on timed results. Below each graph is the raw data used to produce it.

The first set of benchmarks are the AIDA64 CPU, FPU, and Memory tests. What you’ll see throughout the AIDA64 suite of tests is the i7 4790K outperforming the i7 4770K, which is expected because of its faster clock speed. The i7 4930K comes out on top where its eight cores or quad channel memory support are taken advantage of. The AIDA64 CPU results show the i7 4790K beating the i7 4770K rather handily in these tests, but falling well short of the i7 4930K in the AES, Zlib, and Queen results. The Devil’s Canyon CPU did manage to beat out the i7 4930K in the Hash and Photoworxx runs.

AIDA64 CPU Benchmark Results

AIDA64 CPU Benchmark Results

AIDA64 CPU Benchmarks – Raw Data
CPU Queen PhotoWorxx Zlib AES Hash
i7 4790K 56243 22440 377.8 19979 4504
i7 4770K 49889 22363 335.9 17720 3998
i7 4930K 627857 21540 461.1 21102 4373

Other than the SinJulia test, the I7 4790K dominated the FPU benchmarks. Depending on the test, we see anywhere from an 11% to almost 20% advantage for the i7 4790K. The SinJulia test heavily favored the i7 4930X.

AIDA64 FPU Benchmark Results

AIDA64 FPU Benchmark Results

AIDA64 FPU Benchmarks – Raw Data
CPU VP8 Julia Mandel SinJulia
i7 4790K 7118 34882 18677 5607
i7 4770K 6310 30940 16563 4974
i7 4930K 6248 28492 15100 7275

As expected in the memory testing, the i7 4930K and its quad-channel memory support ruled the roost here. The two Haswell CPUs showed very little difference, but the i7 4790K did just a smidgen better. The biggest advantage for the i7 4790K was in the latency benchmark where it showed to be almost 4% better than the i7 4770K, and a whopping 47% better than the i7 4930K.

AIDA64 Memory Benchmark Results

AIDA64 Memory Benchmark Results

AIDA64 Memory Benchmarks – Raw Data
CPU Read Write Copy Latency
i7 4790K 36095 37663 34859 42.5
i7 4770K 36093 37667 34776 44.1
i7 4930K 41331 40927 40296 62.6

CPU rendering, compression, and video benchmarks will usually favor CPUs with more cores. The below Cinebench and 7Zip results bare that out with the i7 4930K coming out on top of all these benchmarks. The i7 4790K did outperform the i7 4770K by over 10% in all these tests, largely due to its frequency advantage. PoV Ray and x264 continue to show advantages for the i7 4930K, just as expected. The i7 4790K did come out on top in the x264 Pass 1 test, which is just a read only pass with no actual encoding performed.

Cinebench and 7Zip Benchmark Results

Cinebench and 7Zip Benchmark Results

Cinebench and 7Zip Benchmarks – Raw Data
CPU Cinebench R10
Cinebench R11.5 Cinebench R15
7Zip
i7 4790K 34395 9.67 905 27304
i7 4770K 30667 8.61 804 24439
i7 4930K 35077 10.94 969 32398
x264 and PoV Ray Benchmark Results

x264 and PoV Ray Benchmark Results

x264 and PoV Ray Benchmarks – Raw Data
CPU PoV Ray
x264 Pass 1
x264 Pass 2
i7 4790K 1831.70 211.53 54.99
i7 4770K 1622.95 181.98 49.01
i7 4930K 1962.41 185.97 58.95

2D benchmarks show a distinct advantage for the i7 4790K where single threaded testing is performed. The Intel XTU and SuperPi results show the i7 4790K coming out on top by as much as 21% over the other two CPUs. The wPrime testing showed the i7 4930K and its six cores with a sizable advantage.

SuperPi, wPrime, and Intel XTU Benchmark Results

SuperPi, wPrime, and Intel XTU Benchmark Results

Intel XTU, SuperPi, and wPrime Benchmarks – Raw Data
CPU Intel XTU
wPrime 1024M
wPrime 32M
SuperPi 32M
SuperPi 1M
i7 4790K 1118 164.473 5.333 429.282 8.159
i7 4770K 1017 185.408 6.004 483.834 9.344
i7 4930K 1082 137.999 4.612 521.961 9.469

Our suite of game benchmarks provides results just as expected. Most of these results show little difference between all three CPUs, which is based mostly on the fact the exact same video card was used. However, you will see the i7 4790K slightly outperforming the i7 4770K, which again is due to its faster frequency. For the most part, the Devil’s Canyon CPU also topped the i7 4930K. The graphs pretty much speak for themselves, so peruse at your leisure!

HWBot Heaven Results

HWBot Heaven Results

Heaven Valley Results

Heaven Valley Results

3DMark Fire Strike Results

3DMark Fire Strike Results

3DMark Vantage Results

3DMark Vantage Results

3DMark 11 Results

3DMark 11 Results

Batman: Arkham Origin Results

Batman: Arkham Origin Results

Battlefield 4 Results

Battlefield 4 Results

Bioshock Infinite Results

Bioshock Infinite Results

Crysis 3 Results

Crysis 3 Results

Final Fantasy XIV: ARR Results

Final Fantasy XIV: ARR Results

Grid 2 Results

Grid 2 Results

Metro: Last Light Results

Metro: Last Light Results

Overclocking

If you’ve read any of my Z87 or Z97 motherboard reviews over the past year, then you know I was able to get the i7 4770K stable at 4.6 GHz. I could get to the desktop at 4.8 GHz and run a quick pass of SuperPi 1M and wPrime 32M, but that’s about it. With the i7 4790K, I was able to get the CPU “AIDA64 Stress Test” stable at 4.8 GHz and still leave the memory set to 2400 MHz. This was accomplished with a core voltage of 1.35 V, however slightly higher voltage was required in order to complete a few of the benchmarks at this speed. I would imagine for complete stability across all benchmarks and stress testing upwards of 1.4 V would be required. Even better news is that the CPU temperatures hovered in the low to mid 70° C range, which is a good 10° C better than my i7 4770K using the same voltage at only 4.6 GHz. I’d say the improved thermals work pretty darn well.

In all honesty, I was hoping for a little higher stable overclock at this voltage. However, after reading around other review sites, it seems they’ve all pretty much landed right where I did. When you think about the i7 4790K basically being the same under the hood as the i7 4770K, the added capacitors and better thermal design do provide additional overclocking room and lower temperatures. At least in my case it has.

4.8 GHz / 2400 MHz Memory - Stable

4.8 GHz / 2400 MHz Memory – Stable

I went ahead and ran a few benchmarks at 4.8 GHz to illustrate the performance gains at that speed.

wPrime 32M / 1024M @ 4.8 GHz / 2400 MHz Memory

wPrime 32M / 1024M @ 4.8 GHz / 2400 MHz Memory

SuperPi 1M @ 4.8 GHz / 2400 MHz Memory

SuperPi 1M @ 4.8 GHz / 2400 MHz Memory

SuperPi 32M @ 4.8 GHz / 2400 MHz Memory

SuperPi 32M @ 4.8 GHz / 2400 MHz Memory

Cinebench R10 @ 4.8 GHz / 2400 MHz Memory

Cinebench R10 @ 4.8 GHz / 2400 MHz Memory

3DMark Fire Strike @ 4.8 GHz / 2400 MHz Memory

3DMark Fire Strike @ 4.8 GHz / 2400 MHz Memory

Pushing the Limits

Ok, it’s time to get stupid. Stupid voltages that is. Once past 4.8 GHz, this CPU required a lot of voltage to go any further. In order to get to the desktop and complete wPrime 32M and SuperPi 1m runs, the highest I could get was 4.9 GHz. That took 1.5125 V and dropping the memory down to 1600 MHz, but get there we did.

wPrime 32M @ 4.9 GHz / 1600 MHz Memory

wPrime 32M @ 4.9 GHz / 1600 MHz Memory

SuperPi 1M @ 4.9 GHz / 1600 MHz Memory

SuperPi 1M @ 4.9 GHz / 1600 MHz Memory

Conclusion

The Intel i7 4790K has probably taken this generation of CPUs about as far as they can go. The out-of-box 500 MHz speed increase is quite impressive in its own right. Being able to run faster at cooler temperatures alone makes this Devil’s Canyon CPU well worth the price of admission. Speaking of price, Intel has made this CPU available for the same cost of the i7 4770K ($339 at Newegg). A faster CPU that runs significantly cooler makes the choice between the two a no-brainer. You’ll have to wait a couple more weeks before the i7 4790K ships to customers, but it can be pre-ordered by following the Newegg link.

Should you run out and buy one of these if you’re currently sitting on a i7 4770K? Probably not, unless the 10% average performance boost is worth it to you. However, if you are building a new Haswell-based system, this is the go-to CPU right now and is definitely the way to go.

Overclocking will be CPU dependent with Devil’s Canyon processors, just as it is with its predecessor. Some people will get lucky with a “golden” piece of silicon, and others not so much. It’s just the nature of the game. My personal experience with the i7 4790K vs. the i7 4770K turned into a +200 MHz stable overclock, but that only tells part of the story. Even at the higher clock speed and same voltage, the i7 4790K ran much cooler. It’s hard to argue with that.

Wrapping things up here, Intel has done a good job tiding things over until Broadwell CPUs are released much later in the year. Until then, if you’re looking for the best Haswell-based CPU for a new system build, it’s right here.

Overclockers_clear_approved

Dino DeCesari (Lvcoyote)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Discussion
  1. rge
    yeah not your watercooling, just tim1 issue again. Be interesting to see what one of the good clockers do on cold, post your results if you do it. And even though you used 28.4 without fma3, wont take much more vcore to make up difference.



    My chip on dice looks like:

    ~5.3GHz ~1.45V Cinebench R15/11.5/XTU

    ~5.4GHz ~1.47V Cinebench R15/11.5/XTU

    ~5.5GHz ~1.50V Cinebench R15/11.5

    ~5.6GHz ~1.55V Cinebench R15/11.5

    ~5.7GHz ~1.62V some other benchmarks

    ~5.8GHz ~1.70V some various 1-2 core benchmarks or light 4c+HT like hwbot prime

    ~5.93GHz ~1.75V max clock and Spi1M

    All results with memory @2666-2800 10-12-12-26 CR1. My Samsungs can't run CL9 even at 2.05V.

    Cinebench R15 result below. Spi1M is somewhere on other drive so will post when I copy it.

    I was checking CPU up to 1.8V ( which was max for used BIOS ) but I couldn't make Cinebench pass at higher clock than 5.6GHz.

    I also noticed that on my mobo 1st slot is not working with memory at 2133+ and x28 ratio for memory is not working at all even though it was working when I got this mobo. x29.33 was too high for my memory so I had to use various straps to reach 2800+ memory clock.

    I have no idea what happened with my Z97X-SOC Force board but it's going to RMA soon. I already got ASUS M7G. So far max memory clock is slightly higher but have to work some more on settings.
    Looks good but when you run Prime95 28.5 then temps will hit 95-100*C. I have about the same. It's passing XTU ( which is like older Prime95 ) or AIDA64 at about 75*C but in the latest Prime95 temps are going up to the point where CPU is losing stability. Maybe your cooling can keep it at lower temps under full load.
    This is looking pretty good. :)

    I also ran AIDA64 for a couple of hours and temps were higher, mid to high 80's. but averaged in the high 60's and low 70's.

    Only really touched the high 80's occasionally. :) Did NOT hit 90+
    I cannot wait to put my new Devils Canyon under stress. I'm upgrading from a 5 year old CPU with 800 million flat transistors to a 1.4 BILLION 3D Trigate transistor monster...WOW!
    I already checked that my CPU doesn't need higher voltage in 28.5 as long as I keep low temps. 95*C+ causes 124 error after 1-2 mins of full load.

    Right now it looks like:

    4.5GHz 1.15V

    4.6GHz 1.17V

    4.7GHz 1.228V but in Prime95 28.5 it already reaches ~95*C and is crashing after some time.

    4.8GHz 1.267V but the same issue with overheating, passed 1h+ P95 28.4

    4.9GHz+ 101 blue screen and for now I'm not sure how to make it stable, have to test some additional voltages
    yeah not your watercooling, just tim1 issue again. Be interesting to see what one of the good clockers do on cold, post your results if you do it. And even though you used 28.4 without fma3, wont take much more vcore to make up difference.

    Funny, I have to change (release/renew) my ip address or use a proxy every time I try to visit this site...lol...the ip range of my carrier must be in this sites spam blocker.
    Your Dominators will be faster in every benchmark. These high clocked kits have low performance, just look good. 2400 CL10 kit will be as fast if not faster than 3000 CL12 in this case and you can set your memory to 2600+ CL10.

    I think that my CPU won't be so great afterall as I used prime95 28.4. In 28.5 it's crashing at the same settings with 124 error. I have to check it later if temp is too high or it needs higher voltage. Right now it's running above 90*C with only ~1.27V. My water cooling isn't great but it's enough to keep 4930K@4.7GHz 1.4V at 15*C lower temps.

    Edit:

    4.5GHz is running now for over 30 mins in prime95 28.5 at 1.15V so slightly undervolted ( stock is 1.17V ). Temps max ~80*C.

    I don't really care about stable work at 4.7GHz+. I will probably run it on cold for some benchmarks and later undervolted at 4.2-4.5GHz. It would be still nice to set it stable @4.9GHz+.
    yep 4.7 with 1.228v and 4.8 with 1.267v is a nice chip, temps arent too bad either. You can probably run most benches at 5+ as well....and dang I need your ram for my benching...lol....i probably should have gotten 8mb instead of 16mb for overclocking, since I dont use 16mb anyways.
    Finally better than average haswell.

    So far I made this:

    Almost all settings at auto. Vcore in BIOS at 1.228V. Memory settings from XMP @ 2933 C12 1.65V. Other voltages and LLC at auto.

    It also passed XTU @4.6GHz 1.17V which is stock VID.

    Edit:

    Little update - 4.8GHz 1.267V passed 1h prime95 and some other tests. I can't make 4.9GHz work stable. All the time error ( bs ) 101. I can make it boot @5.1GHz ~1.45V.
    OK finally got my CLU

    15C drop in temps using small's

    7C drop using blend.

    My rig was getting unstable due to two 780ti's pumping a lot of heat in my loop gaming. This stablilized it at 4.8
    well delidding added 100 mhz to my suicide shot as well. 5.25 was instant freeze up to 1.5 vcore prior to delidding.

    5.3ghz with 1.48v (base clock set to 100.05 to avoid cpuz bug).

    http://valid.canardpc.com/mxtq3m

    5.2 sp1m/sp32m 1.48v
    rge
    Idontcare at anandtech got 4C lower temps at 4.7ghz with bare die vs IHS, if you try it post the temp decrease, you have probably seen his testing. I have only done bare die for short times testing temps, pain removing bracket and back when I did it the PCB was thinner and difficult to get even pressure so it wouldlnt boot correctly everytime. I lost my taste for bare die then. Thought about doing it just to check the temp difference on mine, and if it werent for bracket removal would have already done so, but wont be running bare die 24/7.


    this guy put the mounting bolts back in to keep the backplate.

    seemed like a good idea.

    I could imagine it raises the poassibility for pin damage. you know that CPU will pull off when removing the waterblock.
    Idontcare at anandtech got 4C lower temps at 4.7ghz with bare die vs IHS, if you try it post the temp decrease, you have probably seen his testing. I have only done bare die for short times testing temps, pain removing bracket and back when I did it the PCB was thinner and difficult to get even pressure so it wouldlnt boot correctly everytime. I lost my taste for bare die then. Thought about doing it just to check the temp difference on mine, and if it werent for bracket removal would have already done so, but wont be running bare die 24/7.
    There is a guy over at evga that is running direct die CLU on water that is topped out 60C something, on the latest primi95 28. whatever

    he is running low voltage though to get to 4.8 1.25 I believe

    I may go naked myself.
    no, I didnt word that well, i meant to say prior to delidding. I am using CLP for tim1 (IHS to die) and pk1 for tim2 (wb to ihs).

    My temps dropped 23C after delidding and using CLP for tim1.... got about half that temp drop with pk1 for tim1 (while waiting for liquid metal to arrive). It didnt help my 24/7 settings, but definitely made benching 5ghz to 5.15ghz more stable with less vcore.
    rge


    And on another note, finally got 5.1ghz delidded stable enough for CB R15, never came close to this with ihs on.



    does that mean your running without the IHS on, or you swapped the tim between the 2?

    what was your temp change before and after?
    PolRoger
    Since Haswell was first released the VID/VCC for CPUZ has been switched/reversed.

    Interestingly if you go back one generation and monitor an IB cpu... CPUZ reports correctly:


    Yep, which is why having to use HWM for vcore now, otherwise miss the up to .02V increase with built in LLC logic.

    I was wondering same with fivr...maybe cpuz reading vid from cpu registers because either coder doesnt know register or access to info from fivr for vcore or whether HWM is reading vcore from mobo, like my fluke, and cpuz coder didnt want trouble of scan info for all mobos,....because otherwise dont understand why cpuz switched from vcore to vid. But then again, dont understand the persistent mhz/bclk bug either, when realtemp and older versions of cpuz 1.67 reads mhz just fine.

    And on another note, finally got 5.1ghz delidded stable enough for CB R15, never came close to this with ihs on.
    Since Haswell was first released the VID/VCC for CPUZ has been switched/reversed.

    Two posts by "Blameless" over on OCN discussing VID:

    http://www.overclock.net/t/1238019/what-is-cpu-vid#post_16875895

    http://www.overclock.net/t/1238019/what-is-cpu-vid#post_16876166

    Maybe it has something to do with the inclusion of on die VRM for 4th gen chips? I suppose for the sake of clarity... When people now discuss how much voltage they are running for a given overclock some confusion can occur since CPUZ isn't actually reporting vcore (VCC).

    Interestingly if you go back one generation and monitor an IB cpu... CPUZ reports correctly: