I7-3930K and ASRock x79 Extreme 4 goes 5Ghz

I dont know why any ever doubted these chips anyways. Their top of the line. And when put on very high end boards what else do you expect?
 
Ace.KIA. said:
I Test it today and runs good :D

Click to expand...

Can you please list your machine stats besides the processor? LIke what kind of cooler are you running etc... and 1.3x volts at that frequency is exceptional. Im so excited I might not have to pump 1.4+ vcore to get mine up there.
 
1.55 for mine but i have mine to throttle offset mode, dont want a constant overclock, rather it throttle back n forth
 
cant see ur pics, and its wanting me to install some garabage to view it
 
tangoseal said:
I dont know why any ever doubted these chips anyways. Their top of the line. And when put on very high end boards what else do you expect?
Click to expand...

I expect it to overclock higher than my 2600K @ 5.1ghz on a midrange Asus board.

The 6 cores was a mistake IMHO. Intel should've gone for a 6ghz+ quad core part for the $1000 cpu market. That would have turned heads.
 
spine said:
I expect it to overclock higher than my 2600K @ 5.1ghz on a midrange Asus board.

The 6 cores was a mistake IMHO. Intel should've gone for a 6ghz+ quad core part for the $1000 cpu market. That would have turned heads.
Click to expand...

LOL @ your remark. Please think about what you are saying. Clock speed matters none with current GPU technology past 4.0-4.2ghz. Everything past that is just benchmark power. You will NOT notice a difference. I cant tell a difference between 4.5 and 5.0 on my 2500K.

Ask anyone who knows anything about high performance computing and they will tell you, including me, that more cores is better than less at a higher clock.

And let me ask this, dont answer please, but what did Intel do wrong? This guy is running 6 cores at 5ghz. What mistake was made? Dont answer.

Sorry not going to argue this further.
 
tangoseal said:
LOL @ your remark. Please think about what you are saying. Clock speed matters none with current GPU technology past 4.0-4.2ghz. Everything past that is just benchmark power. You will NOT notice a difference. I cant tell a difference between 4.5 and 5.0 on my 2500K.

Ask anyone who knows anything about high performance computing and they will tell you, including me, that more cores is better than less at a higher clock.

And let me ask this, dont answer please, but what did Intel do wrong? This guy is running 6 cores at 5ghz. What mistake was made? Dont answer.

Sorry not going to argue this further.
Click to expand...

I like your approach to discussion, very open.

Anyone here can tell you 6 cores are pointless right now. Games, a major focus on these forums, do not benefit from it.

Higher frequency is beneficial, however, especially so in single threaded applications, and there many instances where even in multi-threaded applications, there are processes that just unavoidably require long single threads. In these cases raw frequency wins.


Bottom line:
For day-to-day usage there are more single threaded apps that would benefit from higher frequency than multi-threaded apps that would benefit from 6+ cores.

A 6 core SB-E @ 5ghz will perform the same as a SB @ 5ghz in most games. However, a 6ghz SB would win over all. Disagree?
 
spine : you have been here for 8.8 years my friend... the [H] way is not always whats needed, but more like what the bug is telling you.
hahaha..
 
I think people misunderstand what the SB-E is all about: the 'E' part: Enterprise. Very few 'enterprises' will pay for better frame-rates in BF3. Heavy rendering and content creation, however, DOES benefit from extra threads, and shaving down a render time by 33% can mean a huge amount of work efficiency. Getting a sandy up to 6 ghz would be awesome, but I don't think it A; it would be feasible, seeing as how the 2700k manages to put out a 0.1ghz upgrade for a significant amount of more cash. or B; practical, because in order to increase productivity by 50%, you can add two cores and get rid of the built-in video, or you can keep the quad-core silicon and bin the hell out of it until you have SOMETHING that can keep 6.0 ghz at a 140w TDP.
 
 
spine said:
I like your approach to discussion, very open.

Anyone here can tell you 6 cores are pointless right now. Games, a major focus on these forums, do not benefit from it.

Higher frequency is beneficial, however, especially so in single threaded applications, and there many instances where even in multi-threaded applications, there are processes that just unavoidably require long single threads. In these cases raw frequency wins.


Bottom line:
For day-to-day usage there are more single threaded apps that would benefit from higher frequency than multi-threaded apps that would benefit from 6+ cores.

A 6 core SB-E @ 5ghz will perform the same as a SB @ 5ghz in most games. However, a 6ghz SB would win over all. Disagree?
Click to expand...

The advantages from going to dual core to quad core are the same as going from quad to six cores. So by your logic we should just run 8GHz Dual Cores.....

KazeoHin said:
I think people misunderstand what the SB-E is all about: the 'E' part: Enterprise.
Click to expand...

The E stands for Enthusiast. Enterprise is XEON and carry a different name.
 
KazeoHin said:
I think people misunderstand what the SB-E is all about: the 'E' part: Enterprise. Very few 'enterprises' will pay for better frame-rates in BF3.
Click to expand...


If you would have taken 3 seconds to go to Intel.com you would see this on the main SB-E page:

2h5tzb5.png
 
Okay Im flustered to know how you got 190+GFlops @ 4.8 when my 3930K with HT at 4.5 only pulled 79GFlops?

Umm you must be using some really specialized version or something because that makes no sense to me at all?
 
tangoseal said:
Okay Im flustered to know how you got 190+GFlops @ 4.8 when my 3930K with HT at 4.5 only pulled 79GFlops?

Umm you must be using some really specialized version or something because that makes no sense to me at all?
Click to expand...

disable HT.
 
I want to know what the warranty is on this board, says 1 year on newegg. But the z68 extreme pci 3.0 which should technically be a lower end board is 3 years. Thats basically the one thing holding me back from asrock x79 boards atm.
 
tangoseal said:
Okay Im flustered to know how you got 190+GFlops @ 4.8 when my 3930K with HT at 4.5 only pulled 79GFlops?

Umm you must be using some really specialized version or something because that makes no sense to me at all?
Click to expand...

Win 7 SP1 you need,HT off and the newest LinXPacks.
Or what Stanfiem say the newest Version of photoshop :)
 
tangoseal said:
Okay Im flustered to know how you got 190+GFlops @ 4.8 when my 3930K with HT at 4.5 only pulled 79GFlops?

Umm you must be using some really specialized version or something because that makes no sense to me at all?
Click to expand...

yeah that's interesting. its almost 50% faster than an SR2 with dual hex cores at 3 Ghz.
 
When your GFlops numbers are way too low using LinX with the up-to-date Linpack binary, it usually means your overclock is unstable. This is just a quirk of stability testing with Linpack. Even if your system can run a LinX for hours or even days without any crashes or errors, if the reported GFlop numbers are themselves inconsistent or significantly too low compared to similar systems, your overclock isn't truly stable.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top