Intel "Devils Canyon" Launch - Reviews, OC Info, Availability

[GLeeM]

Microcenter (other than the one in OC darnit) is now showing them in stock and changed the release date to 6-3

The Twin Cities, MN store web page now says: Available on Jun 30, 2014
Yesterday it said July 4, 2014

 

[Bman123]

I know a MC somewhere screwed up and someone got one early

 

[BFG10K]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yko_rV0ZwAA

In the comments:

Peter Anfindsen

1 day ago

what does any pcper person think of devils canyon pentium..i was thinking of using it for a basic system .....

pcper
13 hours ago

We are starting testing of it today!

 

[rtsurfer]

I can vouch for that. By the way, it's really cool how Haswell increases voltage without you touching it if you overclock. :whiste:

I am pretty sure Motherboards handle the Voltage supplied to CPU.

Also the voltage only increases in stress tests, i.e Prime 95, Aida64, etc.
Real world apps are not affected.
Lastly if you are using anything other than Manual Voltage to test OC stability on Haswell, you don't know how to OC.

Don't blame Intel for it.

 

[BFG10K]

First review in! http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-Devils-Canyon-Review-and-Overclocking

 

[Galatian]

I am pretty sure Motherboards handle the Voltage supplied to CPU.

Also the voltage only increases in stress tests, i.e Prime 95, Aida64, etc.
Real world apps are not affected.
Lastly if you are using anything other than Manual Voltage to test OC stability on Haswell, you don't know how to OC.

Don't blame Intel for it.

Offset overclocking for the win! ;-)
Seriously: barely anybody uses it, but I had much better results with it and have yet to hear an explanation why it would be worse.

 

[MisterMac]

First review in! http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-Devils-Canyon-Review-and-Overclocking

Am i the only one confused by his wording and lack of actual description of testing cooler as well?


4.7 @ 1,36 maybe alot of voltage ..... but alot of original haswells didnt even stretch that far... and on the stock cooler?
I'm confused wether to be positive or negative over that OC review -_-

 

[AtenRa]

Am i the only one confused by his wording and lack of actual description of testing cooler as well?


4.7 @ 1,36 maybe alot of voltage ..... but alot of original haswells didnt even stretch that far... and on the stock cooler?
I'm confused wether to be positive or negative over that OC review -_-

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Proces...view-and-Overclocking/Overclocking-Experience

It is on the OC page

Both processors were run on the ASUS Z97-Deluxe motherboard with a Corsair H80 self-contained water cooler.

 

[Homeles]

So we've got two data points so far... 4.7 and 4.8... about a 300MHz bump from the original lineup. Not bad. Was hoping for a little better, though. Guess we'll see.

 

[rtsurfer]

Offset overclocking for the win! ;-)
Seriously: barely anybody uses it, but I had much better results with it and have yet to hear an explanation why it would be worse.

Offset OCing has a flaw.
See this video, start @ 12:30.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CHs5_TdpXE

Adaptive is to be preferred for day to day use.

 

[tviceman]

Offset OCing has a flaw.
See this video, start @ 12:30.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CHs5_TdpXE

Adaptive is to be preferred for day to day use.

Youtube wont' allow me to fast forward that video. What is the reasoning behind using adaptive instead of offset and/or fixed?

 

[Homeles]

Youtube wont' allow me to fast forward that video. What is the reasoning behind using adaptive instead of offset and/or fixed?

Fixed wastes power at idle and low load. Offset wastes power as well, but not as much as fixed. Adaptive just changes the voltage in the overclocking range.

 

[skipsneeky2]

I know a MC somewhere screwed up and someone got one early

Got a gtx280 from Frys almost a whole week early.Nvidia didn't even have drivers and i almost returned it. Was better then the plans of trying to get a 8800 ultra.:biggrin:

 

[frozentundra123456]

I have been thinking, can they really bin this chip? I mean it has different capacitor configuration and different TIM than the regular chips, so will they have to use all the chips manufactured for DC for that? Or can they bin the chips before adding the modifications?

If they cant bin the chips, they might have been better off to just bin the original ones. They would have had a much wider selection of chips to use to find cherry ones.


Edit: Nice increase in stock clocks, but kind of meh overclocking results so far. I was hoping for 4.8 to 5.0 easy, but 5.0 sounds like it will take a top of the line chip.

 

[cytg111]

Edit: Nice increase in stock clocks, but kind of meh overclocking results so far. I was hoping for 4.8 to 5.0 easy, but 5.0 sounds like it will take a top of the line chip.

Yea, about the same we've seen from delidding.
It is a K chip. Unlocked. For overclocking. Called "Devils Canyon". That overclocks just like the rest (give it 200Mhz more?).
I fail to see the relevance of this product? Relevance of naming scheme? Nothing devilish going on here, just meh.

 

[Techhog]

So we've got two data points so far... 4.7 and 4.8... about a 300MHz bump from the original lineup. Not bad. Was hoping for a little better, though. Guess we'll see.

It still means that Intel lied. 5GHz on air is only possible on a single core.

I also want to remind you that original Haswell review samples were above average, so it's really a 100-200MHz bump. If you have a Z87 board, it'll be 0-100MHz.

 

[TerryMathews]

I have been thinking, can they really bin this chip? I mean it has different capacitor configuration and different TIM than the regular chips, so will they have to use all the chips manufactured for DC for that? Or can they bin the chips before adding the modifications?

If they cant bin the chips, they might have been better off to just bin the original ones. They would have had a much wider selection of chips to use to find cherry ones.


Edit: Nice increase in stock clocks, but kind of meh overclocking results so far. I was hoping for 4.8 to 5.0 easy, but 5.0 sounds like it will take a top of the line chip.

My guess is that Intel knows which parts of the wafer are best at this point and the ones that don't make the grade end up as 4690k or Pentium Anniversary Edition.

 

[ehume]

Fixed wastes power at idle and low load. Offset wastes power as well, but not as much as fixed. Adaptive just changes the voltage in the overclocking range.

I looked for an adaptive Voltage on my mb and couldn't find it. I asked tech support, and what I got back causes me to believe that adaptive Voltage is built into the offset Voltage function. I know that when I took this chip up to 5GHz, I was using a Voltage offset of 0.399; the Vcore I ended up with was 1.56v.

At lower Voltages I was still seeing offsets climb as load went up. Since I didn't want that, I asked around and people said that using fixed Voltage would prevent Adaptive Voltage from starting. So that's what I use now.

Bottom line a year ago was that if you had Offset, you had Adaptive as part of the deal. Is that wrong?

 

[frozentundra123456]

It still means that Intel lied. 5GHz on air is only possible on a single core.

I also want to remind you that original Haswell review samples were above average, so it's really a 100-200MHz bump. If you have a Z87 board, it'll be 0-100MHz.

Not sure intel ever said 5.0 ghz was a routine overclock or under what conditons. Besides marketing is marketing, everybody does it, just like AMD promoted the first 5.0ghz processor, but that was only turbo. Intel might have been better served though to just bring out the improvements with less hype. At least they didnt try to jack up the price.

 

[jpiniero]

Not sure if relevant, but Intel is showing that VT-d and TSX is enabled on the 4790k. This isn't the case for the 4770k or earlier models.

So we've got two data points so far... 4.7 and 4.8... about a 300MHz bump from the original lineup. Not bad. Was hoping for a little better, though. Guess we'll see.

Sounds about right. Intel is already pushing the limits really hard, and new packaging alone is not going to change things. Expectations that DC would be an easy 5 Ghz overclock were simply not realistic.

 

[RaistlinZ]

4.8Ghz range may be the norm with this chip. Not bad. Nice to see better thermals. Otherwise bring on the 8c/16t mainstream processors!

 

[Homeles]

It still means that Intel lied. 5GHz on air is only possible on a single core.

This is completely false. There are definitely people out there with 5GHz Haswell samples with all 4 cores enabled, running at ~1.3V on air. It's called the silicon lottery.

I also want to remind you that original Haswell review samples were above average, so it's really a 100-200MHz bump. If you have a Z87 board, it'll be 0-100MHz.

You're still basing this on an extremely small sample size... a terribly unscientific thing to do.

 

[Kristijonas]

I'm looking forward to the new unlocked Haswell Pentium (I'm from a third world country). Is it already known when they will be out?

 

[cytg111]

... There are definitely people out there with 5GHz Haswell samples with all 4 cores enabled... a terribly unscientific thing to do.

Unscientific? People out there with 5GHz?
Common man, does not sound like your statistics is ready for review either .

I share Techhogs (unscientific) oppinion, it seems that engineering-review samples clocked rather well compared to the final product where people have trouble hitting even 4.5 no less 5.0 on air.

 

[Bman123]

This CPU was aimed at the non OC mainstream market. 4ghz base and 4.4 turbo is the best you can get from intel. They have the lead hands down when it comes to IPC. It's a damn plug n play part honestly, they should of released it without it being a K part and sold it for less, I think it would do really well at a lower price point.
The i5 should be the hot seller if it will over clock good