7700k Tested at Tom's Hardware

Sampsy · 29 Nov 2016 at 17:06

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews...00k-overclocking-performance-review,4836.html

Essentially it performed like a slightly overclocked 6700k, but was hotter and not as energy efficient as expected. It might have been an engineering sample, or a retail unit, but they weren't sure.

RavenXXX2 · 29 Nov 2016 at 17:13

Sampsy said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews...00k-overclocking-performance-review,4836.html

Essentially it performed like a slightly overclocked 6700k, but was hotter and not as energy efficient as expected. It might have been an engineering sample, or a retail unit, but they weren't sure.

Yawn, still can't hit 5ghz and runs super hot. Intel lazy ****, hopefully soon to get a good kicking.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 29 Nov 2016 at 17:14

AMD has the best chance they had for a very long time with Zen - so I really hope they can get something reasonable released!! Its literally Intel giving them a chance by still using 14NM and Skylake desktop CPUs.

kaku · 29 Nov 2016 at 17:15

So it's... an overclocked 6700k with a different IGP (that nobody will use aside from troubleshooting anyway).

I hope Zen is decent.

abui1806 · 29 Nov 2016 at 17:19

I got 4790K flashbacked.

233 · 29 Nov 2016 at 17:33

still cant justify upgrading from my clocked 2600k

give me a beastly octocore chip running at a decent clip and i'll be all over it,

Minstadave · 29 Nov 2016 at 17:34

Shock as Intel churn out another marginal performance increase.

Martini1991 · 29 Nov 2016 at 18:03

Dave2150 · 29 Nov 2016 at 18:06

Something can't be right here, I doubt Intel are stupid enough to release a CPU so energy inefficient compared to the previous generation.

I suspect there was an issue with the BIOS version on his Z170 board, probably some bug.

Hilariously disappointing if not though.

BluD · 29 Nov 2016 at 18:39

I guess we have to wait for more reviews, maybe they just got a dud.

Sampsy · 29 Nov 2016 at 19:19

BluD said:
I guess we have to wait for more reviews, maybe they just got a dud.

To be clear this isn't a review. The chip hasn't been released yet - I guess somebody in the supply chain got a hold of this one and sent it to them. It may be an engineering sample instead of an engineering unit. They may have been running early, crappy firmware on their z170 board. In other words, there are lots of reasons that the actual retail 7700k may perform better than this.

gavinh87 · 29 Nov 2016 at 19:38

Sampsy said:
To be clear this isn't a review. The chip hasn't been released yet - I guess somebody in the supply chain got a hold of this one and sent it to them. It may be an engineering sample instead of an engineering unit. They may have been running early, crappy firmware on their z170 board. In other words, there are lots of reasons that the actual retail 7700k may perform better than this.

What makes you so sure that this isn't representative of a retail CPU?
Intel are hardly known for massive performance increases between generations.

Sampsy · 29 Nov 2016 at 20:05

gavinh87 said:
What makes you so sure that this isn't representative of a retail CPU?
Intel are hardly known for massive performance increases between generations.

I'm not sure - that's the point really. If I had to guess I'd say that their results are probably fairly accurate, but they might not be.

los · 29 Nov 2016 at 20:21

It's also on passmark
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-7700K+@+4.20GHz&id=2874
Not the best comparison in the world, but can give you an idea!

gavinh87 · 29 Nov 2016 at 20:29

Think I'll wait for Zen, worst case scenario is 6700k's may drop in price.

DragonQ · 29 Nov 2016 at 20:38

los said:
It's also on passmark
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-7700K+@+4.20GHz&id=2874
Not the best comparison in the world, but can give you an idea!

The i7-4790K is listed as being faster than the i7-6700K so I don't think those scores are terribly trustworthy. Presumably people submit scores all the time with different clocks and that doesn't get factored in properly.

MegaMasher · 29 Nov 2016 at 20:42

Well that was a bit of a let down

Dougsnake · 30 Nov 2016 at 10:39

MegaMasher said:
Well that was a bit of a let down

Indeed so glad I got the 6700k in February

Brazo · 30 Nov 2016 at 10:42

DragonQ said:
The i7-4790K is listed as being faster than the i7-6700K so I don't think those scores are terribly trustworthy. Presumably people submit scores all the time with different clocks and that doesn't get factored in properly.

I think your right in that they are average user scores. That said the two cpus 4790 and 6700 are so close in performance they are 'identical'.

The kaby lake one does seem a little better than the usual tiny increase though.

IvanDobskey · 30 Nov 2016 at 10:46

Cpus have been improving at such a pitiful rate in the last 5 years

I can't believe i still have my 2500k bought for £150 about five years ago!

I thought we'd at least have mainstream 6 and 8 core chips by now even if the ipc and frequency hadn't changed much.

I'm planning to get a 7700k though, as much for the more modern platform as pure cpu performance.