Acceptable temps to whom? TJMAX is 105C. Whats everyone's issue with the chip running 80-85C under full load? Obviously if it wasn't able to handle high temps the TJMAX wouldn't be that high.
I don't really see it that way. To get acceptable temps you need to get an oc at around 1.1V-1.15V, and most reviewers cannot get past 4.5ghz without 1.25V or more. At 1.1V it is already a lot warmer than sandy bridge, and once you get up to 1.25V-1.3V it starts hitting 85C to 90C.
Its a wonderful CPU for water coolers but for air coolers? Disappointing...just IMO. Not sure why BD is being brought up, we all knows its junk, intel is really competing with themselves as far as desktop CPU's are concerned...and Ivy bridge is the most disappointing tick that I can remember from recent years. I guess its okay at stock setting, but I was really hoping for better air overclocking headroom. Every new node/die shrink in the past 5 years has brought better overclocking headroom until now, thats my main reason for being really disappointed.
Acceptable temps to whom? TJMAX is 105C. Whats everyone's issue with the chip running 80-85C under full load? Obviously if it wasn't able to handle high temps the TJMAX wouldn't be that high.
As far as i'm aware, the TJMAX of 2600k is also 105C. It doesn't matter what the TJMAX is, if the temps are too high with overclocks you will get code x124 BSODs well before you hit a 105C mark.... The point being is that the temp of the Ivy Bridge ramps up with voltage exponentially higher than it does with Sandy Bridge. For example, at 1.3V the ivy bridge can be expected to hit 85-90C with a good aftermarket air cooler or H100 hybrid, while at 1.45V my 2600k stays at 63C or less at 4.8ghz during prime95 stress testing. Further, many reviewers did have difficulty with getting their IB review samples past 4.5ghz.
The TJMAX of the IB isn't really different than SB to my knowledge, but I do know the temp of the IB ramps up far far higher than it does with SB once you start pumping the vcore up.
Thats not to say the IB is a bad CPU -- it is better (even if marginally) than the SB at stock settings. But for overclockers on air, its just not what many of us were hoping for. I think i'll still buy one next week because I have an asus P8Z77 deluxe here, but these early reviews have left me really skeptical. If I can get 4.5ghz i'll be happy, but i'll have to get it with 1.1V. That is very very iffy from everything i've read so far.
On air with a Venom X. Those temps might not be acceptable to some but i don't have an issue with them at all.
Honestly if you're that worried about temps just get a rasa kit
Hmm, thats not too bad. Anyway, i'll probably nab a 3770k next week to see how it pans out. The current system does a 2600k at 4.8 at 63C or less, if I can get 4.6 out of the 3770k at 75C or less give or take i'd be happy. Otherwise RMA time
You sould RMA a prodcut because it dosn't reach the OC you have in mind?
Why should we help pay your OC-hobby?!
You sir..are something I cannot say out loud wothout getting an infraction! :thumbsdown:
Hmm, thats not too bad. Most reviews indicated that 1.25V would push temps around 80 or higher, not sure if HT affects that, guess its not as dire as I thought. How does Venom X compare to something like the H80 or 100? Anyway, i'll probably nab a 3770k next week to see how it pans out. The current system does a 2600k at 4.8 at 63C or less, if I can get 4.6 out of the 3770k at 75C or less give or take i'd be happy. Otherwise RMA time
Hulk, I agree that IVB should generate less heat, and the main problem is with the transfer of that heat away from the CPU.
However, I believe blckgrffn has a point with those fans.
If you have your system control the fans, they are typically tied to the temperature of your CPU cores.
Since IVB has trouble transferring the heat away as quickly/efficiently, even though it's producing less of it, it builds up and the cores start getting warmer. As a response, the system would ramp up the fan speed in an attempt to cool it down, but it's not as effective simply because the heat isn't making it to the heatsink very efficiently.
BD is a flop for everyone
IB is a flop for enthusiasts
I thought IB is a huge win for enthusiasts.
SB was pretty awful for everyone but air coolers.
Pretty much this. While I do have a nice 4.1GHz 920 rig at home, I took my office rig (X3 740 @ X4 3.6GHz) to a LAN party last weekend (same unlocked 2GB 6950s and 16GB DDR3 in both) and didn't notice too much of a difference in gaming. If I had an SSD in the office rig like I do in my main rig, there would be even less difference.In my view, processing power is so far beyond "good enough" for gamers, that the lower power consumption of IVB is a much more important factor than people are giving it credit for. I doubt the vast majority of games that people play running with everything completely maxed at very high resolutions even use 50% of the processing power of a STOCK 2600k. Overclocking is really just for fun when it comes to CPUs, it makes very little difference for what most of us actually use our processors for.
I thought IB is a huge win for enthusiasts.
SB was pretty awful for everyone but air coolers.
Pretty much this. While I do have a nice 4.1GHz 920 rig at home, I took my office rig (X3 740 @ X4 3.6GHz) to a LAN party last weekend (same unlocked 2GB 6950s and 16GB DDR3 in both) and didn't notice too much of a difference in gaming. If I had an SSD in the office rig like I do in my main rig, there would be even less difference.
This is why I'm debating even upgrading my CPU. I have 16GB of 1800 DDR3, an SSD, and my processor doesn't seem to really be holding me back. I'll see how I feel after the GPU upgrade, but my OC'ed 5870 is running at 100% in games, and my ancient Deneb at under 50%.
I'm not sure what people expected Intel to offer that would justify upgrading from Sandy Bridge. For people that are primarily performance minded, processors 2+ generations old are powerful enough that your average user would not see a difference, especially if they're able to run relatively high speed DDR3 already.
I know there are enthusiasts that like having the latest and greatest, and more performance for the sake of more performance, and I definitely won't throw stones at them, because that's a hobby just like any other, but when a 2500k is already well beyond adequate for any game made, I'm not sure what people expected. Would you really buy an Ivy to upgrade from your Sandy if it offered a 20% per clock boost instead of 5-10%, but not matter which you used, you'd still be seeing well over 60 FPS in any game you play (limited by GPU)? That doesn't describe the needs of every user, but I think it describes the needs of most on this forum.
When performance is already far beyond the needs of gamers who like having all the candy, isn't offering a small increase in performance for a significant decrease in power draw a GREAT improvement?
Uh-oh, next thing you know, you'll be recommending an AMD setup! (giving you a hard time... you better be ready to go if you do that round these parts )
In general, I agree. Back before I had been educated by those more informed than me here, I thought mainstream IVB had the potential to be hexacore. That would have been great (for me.) I would have been way more excited about its launch had that been true.
Now we have to accept that perhaps even haswell is going to be quad core on the mainstream desktop side. Without the increase in core count, we aren't going to see the 50-70% performance increases that really make upgrades "worthwhile."
My main is still a Q6700/HD 5870 setup w/SSD. Works great.
IVB k series is a dud for me. I will Save my money and get a deal on the 2500k/2600k
IVB k series is a dud. Save your money and get a deal on 2500k/2600k
By you cherry picking ONE benchmark out of all of them to proove your point that ivy isnt a flop.