Hardware & Technical Users System Specs

[Wolfs Spirit]

yeah i am aware that i need at least 2400 ram , i can overclock the processor tho to 4.8 , seems at most oc forums 4.9 will be unstable and 4.8 is stable.
What i meant is that i can overclock ram to 3000 , but i am aware that 1866 ram won't be able to get that 3000 , you need at least 2400 for that to have it stable.
besides i should need some watercooling for both ram and processor , the one i ordered now won't be enough , i have realy no intention to overclock it for the moment , but curious as i am i went all over the internet to see what can be done and is stable.
You are aware that.. i think 2 weeks ago.. not sure ... they managed to overclock to 8 Ghz right ? i thought they did with liquid nitrogen at minus 170 celsius.

noticed some typos with previous post.. 4.8 should be stable.. 4.9 isn't (yet)
also noticed it depends on the cpu.. you have to be lucky to get a good one , if your less lucky you still be able to OC to 4.5 tho.. so thats not that bad

anyhow if you are interested : http://www.overclockers.com/intel-i7-4770k-haswell-cpu-review
long story tho

 

[Zieman]

noticed some typos with previous post.. 4.8 should be stable.. 4.9 isn't (yet)
also noticed it depends on the cpu.. you have to be lucky to get a good one , if your less lucky you still be able to OC to 4.5 tho.. so thats not that bad

anyhow if you are interested : http://www.overclockers.com/intel-i7-4770k-haswell-cpu-review
long story tho

I've read that article too, and a few others.
IIRC the consensus seems to be that you have about 50/50 chance to OC i7-4770K to 4.5-4.6 GHz and still call the system 'stable', and even then you need luck to have for example 2400 RAM runnig at 2400 MHz, this with GOOD air cooler or decent liquid cooler. Maybe the situation has improved since November 2013?

Anyhow, I wasn't so lucky, I had to push quite high voltages (uncomfortably high IMO) to get the system booted up to Windows without BSOD at 4,4 GHz and my 2400 RAM at 1600 MHz, and even then I wouldn't really call the system 'stable'. At those voltages & core speeds my Corsair H90 had trouble keeping the i7 cool, core temps climbed to uncomfortable levels again.
4.2 GHz & 2400 MHz worked fine, passed stress tests for several hours & benchmarking without hiccups -stable or even 'rock solid' OC IMHO. But this also needed forcing higher voltages for CPU & getting too warm for my tastes under load, so I stick to stock speed & the 2400 MHz XMP profile for now.

 

[Wolfs Spirit]

I hear ya.
As i said i have no intention to overclock anytime soon and realy the difference between 4.3 and 4.8 isnt realy that big .. well... 500 mhz lol
I won't be risking my new system to anything like that , even tho the new haswell has overclocking / throttle protection.
For now what's important for me i have running a good fast system that can go through the next years .. by the time my system becomes old and slow i will start messing around with it.

Reality is , i don't realy need a 4.5 Ghz processor for any game on the market , i will be more interested in overclocking videocards , as thats what i did for a long time and am anyway more experienced in.
As long as i don't play games (or programs)that need high cpu calculations , there's little to no use in overclocking my system and even then i probly go for ramdisks first before messing with my cpu .

I remember way back when i had my first pentium intell dualprocessor ( yes before dual processor/dualcore came out) it had 2 physical processors of 700 mhz running on a board with a rediculous cooling haha and at stockspeeds it ran faster as the dualcore processors when they came out.
I realy messed that one up almost overclocking .. go figure at the time my system costed 11000.00 using expensive videocards from diamond and ram was very very expensive also at the time , a 16mb block costed at the time around 1.000.
I still have that system and it still works.

 

[Evilroco]

Is it just me or .....

Is it just me or is the spreadsheet blank ,as a Beta have looked in to see how different specs perform and get an idea of what sort of performance I will get ,but this time no details in doc on either link I,ve found :S

 

[Zieman]

Is it just me or is the spreadsheet blank ,as a Beta have looked in to see how different specs perform and get an idea of what sort of performance I will get ,but this time no details in doc on either link I,ve found :S

Some genius had filtered out all GFX cards...

EDIT: all should be visible again