Intel Devil's Canyon i7 To Be 4GHz Out of the Box?

I agree, I need to have a good upgrade path for my aging 3930k system.
 
So the stock speed will be about 30% faster than my 4 year old air cooled overclocked i860, and 40% faster if I over clock it on air

Not much of an improvement considering it's been over 4 years. I used to upgrade my system every time I could get at least another 30%, which use to be ever couple years.
 
filezz said:
I agree, I need to have a good upgrade path for my aging 3930k system.
Click to expand...

Same here. I've been looking at Haswell-E to replace it, because I need the PCIe lanes, but with a PEX8747 bridge, like in the Asus Z97-WS, I wouldn't need to go with another LGA2011 system. This one is looking like the right one for me.
 
nutzo said:
So the stock speed will be about 30% faster than my 4 year old air cooled overclocked i860, and 40% faster if I over clock it on air

Not much of an improvement considering it's been over 4 years. I used to upgrade my system every time I could get at least another 30%, which use to be ever couple years.
Click to expand...

A stock speed 4770k is almost twice was fast as the i7 860 at most benchmarks according to this: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/108?vs=836

Clock speed doesn't tell the whole story
 
Whish they would at least do a hex core on this socket. I'll just stick with my 3930k for a few more years. But I am glad they are going to change the thermal paste back to soldering it. Make it much better when over clocking systems for my customers .
 
Makeroflostsouls said:
Whish they would at least do a hex core on this socket. I'll just stick with my 3930k for a few more years. But I am glad they are going to change the thermal paste back to soldering it. Make it much better when over clocking systems for my customers .
Click to expand...

Yeah but what if you want to delid it?
 
Depending on pricing I might replace my 4770K with one of these just to see how the overclocks go. I'll probably grab one if Microcenter runs their CPU deals on this and it's in the $250ish range.
 
Devil Canyon...Skulltrail...I'm pretty sure that Intel's marketing department came out of Chi Town and I'm waiting for them to announce a Death's Head Transport and Spider Skull Walker.
 
5 ghz is awesome. I let the pioneers take the arrows (high prices) and then I can come in in the fall hopefully with a price cut :)
 
I've been hanging with my 3770k for the past couple of years. It seems as of late, the next gen CPUs aren't so much about clock speed or tick tock improvements but more in lines of chipset improvements for motherboard manufacturers (faster I/0, USB 3.0, mPCI-e). I may hold out another year for DDR4 before building a new machine.
 
MrLonghair said:
Eight cores standard, please, already.
Click to expand...

Meh,

For most people this is a waste.

I regret having wasted the money I did on my i7-3930k over a comparable 4 core Ivy, instead of the 6 core Sandy. If I did a lot of rendering/encoding it would have been worth it but I don't.

I'm probably dropping down to a quad core next time I upgrade.

Cause, in order to get the extra cores you are not only paying more for the CPU and the motherboard, but since Intel's high end cores are so delayed compared to the regular desktop lineup, you are usually also a generation behind, and the motherboards have older features as well, and they generate a lot more heat, resulting in needing more cooling and achieving lesser overclocks...

I've thought this over a lot over the last 2 years since I got my 3930k, and as much as the hardware enthusiast in me really wants the top end chip, I feel like I probably would have been better served by a 3770k, at much less of a cost... (both in system investment AND in room air conditioning :p )

I really like the rumor that they are FINALLY solving the poor TIM issue though. Hopefully this will work it's way into the quad cores in time for my next upgrade.
 
nutzo said:
So the stock speed will be about 30% faster than my 4 year old air cooled overclocked i860, and 40% faster if I over clock it on air

Not much of an improvement considering it's been over 4 years. I used to upgrade my system every time I could get at least another 30%, which use to be ever couple years.
Click to expand...

That's like saying a Pentium 4, which came stock clocked at 3Ghz is only 15% slower than a 4770.

Don't be ignorant. Clock cycles between generations of chips aren't comparable and they haven't been for years.
 
pgaster said:
A stock speed 4770k is almost twice was fast as the i7 860 at most benchmarks according to this: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/108?vs=836

Clock speed doesn't tell the whole story
Click to expand...

Agree, there is more being done than just an increase to the frequency. There are many more advantages like increased number of transistors, cache, lower voltage on smaller die. Some may not see a huge increase depending on what your application is.

Only thing I'm torn over is whether to wait and save money for Winter 2014 when DDR4 and EE CPU's release. Then again I'm still using a core 2 duo E6700 and DDR2 memory. :confused:
 
86 5.0L said:
Aging 3930k?

Thats cute

:p
Click to expand...

Well, there was a time (~1999 to 2005) when a new CPU/motherboard every year and a new video card every 6 months was a requirement in order to keep up, but that just isn't the case anymore.

My 3930k is still trucking, and I haven't had a reason to upgrade yet, other than, I wouldn't mind having something that produces a little less heat. When I fire up a game (or just turn on the computer) my office gets real hot in a hurry. Not too bad in the winter, but now that it's spring, I could use something that sips the power and is cooler :p
 
Might be a worthy upgrade for my aging 920. I don't see any point in getting anything currently unless it can easily do 4.5+ GHz out of the box.
 
demingo said:
Depending on pricing I might replace my 4770K with one of these just to see how the overclocks go. I'll probably grab one if Microcenter runs their CPU deals on this and it's in the $250ish range.
Click to expand...

Don't, the devil's canyon won't work in a Z87 motherboard I believe- allegedly there's some power delivery changes they made to improve higher stock/OCing on the Z97 chipset, so you would need to pair it with z97.
 
I'd get this if it was a 6 w/ HT. I doubt we see an 8 core on this socket.
 
Pheesh said:
Don't, the devil's canyon won't work in a Z87 motherboard I believe- allegedly there's some power delivery changes they made to improve higher stock/OCing on the Z97 chipset, so you would need to pair it with z97.
Click to expand...
Any source to back that up? Everything I'm seeing shows storage as being the only real change. I find it hard to believe that this chip won't be able to run on z87
 
Pheesh said:
Don't, the devil's canyon won't work in a Z87 motherboard I believe- allegedly there's some power delivery changes they made to improve higher stock/OCing on the Z97 chipset, so you would need to pair it with z97.
Click to expand...

Do you have any links to tech docs for this? From everything I have heard they will run fine on the Z87 chipset.
 
Intel could have released 4Ghz+ stock processors years ago. They purposely don't to prop up the overclocking market so they can simply charge more for special "K" version processors. Its kind of boring when for 3 generations the speeds come out just about the same and overclock just as equal.
 
It was like that before 1999 too....But for speed increase, it would quintuple every 4 years and I would upgrade. I went from a 386 20MHz to 100MHz Pentium in 1995, 500MHz Pentium III in 1999, and 2.4GHz (overclock it to 2.5, if you will) Pentium 4 in 2003. Now that lacking (but not in heat) Netburst architecture let AMD finally take the lead, and they realized that just upping clock speeds like mad wasn't the answer (didn't Intel predict 10 - 12GHz Northwoods? Dewey defeats Truman!)

But if it had held, we'd have 12.5GHz in 2007, 50GHz in 2011, and by next year, we'd all be happily using 250GHz processors :D.....And another 4 years to desktop terahertz processors sure wouldn't be bad!
 
Unless my Sandy at 4.8 dies I see no reason to upgrade. If anyone is wondering why enthusiasts aren't buying its because of these are not better. We haven't had a "tock" since Sandy Bridge. Ivy/Haswell/Haswellrefresh. Yawn.

If DDR4 broadwell is another 5 10% stock jump after the delay I'll really be sad. I used to upgrade regularly. This is the longest I've held a platform because there's nothing worth the $$$. Is intel going to make us wait till skylake to get 50% more performance overclocked? AMD shitting the bed is making this a boring hobby.
 
undercoverDrunk said:
Unless my Sandy at 4.8 dies I see no reason to upgrade. If anyone is wondering why enthusiasts aren't buying its because of these are not better. We haven't had a "tock" since Sandy Bridge. Ivy/Haswell/Haswellrefresh. Yawn.

If DDR4 broadwell is another 5 10% stock jump after the delay I'll really be sad. I used to upgrade regularly. This is the longest I've held a platform because there's nothing worth the $$$. Is intel going to make us wait till skylake to get 50% more performance overclocked? AMD shitting the bed is making this a boring hobby.
Click to expand...

Well, there is more to computers than just CPU's.

Ever since the launch of the GPU it has been more important to game performance than CPU's have, and we still have plenty of growth there.

I - personally - don't expect to ever see good competition driving a performance race on the desktop CPU front again. It might get a little bit better once AMD develops their next architecture post bulldozer/piledriver/steamroller/excavator, but I wouldn't count on it. They will probably consider to focus on low end APU and mobile parts.

That being said one could also argue that in the desktop space, CPU's are already doing everything we need from them, so there is less of a pressing need for an upgrade.
 
undercoverDrunk said:
Unless my Sandy at 4.8 dies I see no reason to upgrade. If anyone is wondering why enthusiasts aren't buying its because of these are not better. We haven't had a "tock" since Sandy Bridge. Ivy/Haswell/Haswellrefresh. Yawn.

If DDR4 broadwell is another 5 10% stock jump after the delay I'll really be sad. I used to upgrade regularly. This is the longest I've held a platform because there's nothing worth the $$$. Is intel going to make us wait till skylake to get 50% more performance overclocked? AMD shitting the bed is making this a boring hobby.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how you can say that Devil's Canyon is "not better" than your Sandy.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Devil Canyon...Skulltrail...I'm pretty sure that Intel's marketing department came out of Chi Town and I'm waiting for them to announce a Death's Head Transport and Spider Skull Walker.
Click to expand...

AMD needs to release their Triax models in response.


Nice reference btw. ;)
 
pgaster said:
A stock speed 4770k is almost twice was fast as the i7 860 at most benchmarks according to this: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/108?vs=836

Clock speed doesn't tell the whole story
Click to expand...

And picking specific benchmarks doesn't tell the whole story either.

I looked at that bechmark, and don't see 2x the speed, at least not in any benchmark that would matter to my usage.

The overall sysmark 2007 score is only 1.53% faster (50% is much closer to my 30% than it is to your almost double the speed). There are some benchmarks that are double, but there is one that is only a 6% difference. Even the over-clock is basically the same (2.8Ghz to 3.5 Ghz, and 4.0Ghz to 5.0 Ghz are both 25%), so the benchmarks on a overclocked system would have the same ratio when compared.

Yes, the newer chips are faster per clock cycle, but the i860 is still an i7 chip, so there is not that big of a difference as compared to the earlier chips. The faster memory on the new chips also helps. My point is that it's taken over 4 years to get to a point where it might be worth considering upgrading my system.
 
Liger88 said:
Intel could have released 4Ghz+ stock processors years ago. They purposely don't to prop up the overclocking market so they can simply charge more for special "K" version processors. Its kind of boring when for 3 generations the speeds come out just about the same and overclock just as equal.
Click to expand...

Same problem with laptops. 6 years ago I was buying laptops with 2.5Ghz i5 dual core processors. Now the best I can get is 2.9 Ghz i5's. That's only a 16% increase. The quad core laptop CPU's run at a lower clock, are much more expensive, and wouldn't make much difference to the apps we run. Main reason we had to upgrade from the older models is that they only supported 8GB of ram, and we needed 16GB.

I've seen much more improvement in the Server CPU's. From basic quad cores to now 8 cores with hyper threading, along with support massive amounts of memory (up to 1TB).
 
88W TDP is kind of nice at 4GHz. I wonder how much the 2600k uses at 4.4GHz.
Hmm. There's that whole new AVX-2 compared to SB as well, but overall I still find it hard to justify that sort of expense for a completely new platform given the average performance increases.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040824886 said:
He probably means not sufficiently better to warrant spending money on an upgrade.
Click to expand...

If we were to assume that Devil's Canyon continues Intel's generation by generation ~5% IPC improvement, and we also assume these rumored clock speeds, the top K quad core model ought to be ~33% faster than a Sandy Bridge 2600K when stock, and if the rumors regarding the better TIM are accurate, the benefit when overclocking could be huge (unless you are into delidding)


Code: 
		turbo	IPC	Turbo	overall
		clock	incr	incr	
sandy	2600k	3.8	-	-	1
ivy	3770K	3.9	4.00%	2.63%	1.067368421
haswell	4770k	3.9	5%	0.00%	1.120736842
Devils	unk	4.4	5%	12.82%	1.327642105

Compared to the golden days (1999 to 2005) when we had competition, this isn't much, especially considering Sandy was launched almost 3.5 years ago, but 33% also isn't nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top