Intel 3770K Overclocked to 4.6Ghz - Gameplay Thermal Testing

Virt McPolygon · 7 May 2012 at 03:47

So I decided to overclock my 3770k to 4.6Ghz at 1.27v and after priming for half an hour I noticed the temps were mid 70's to 80's.

I wondered what the temps would be like during gameplay so I made this video recording the temps during Battlefield 3, DiRT 3, Crysis 2 and Grand Theft Auto IV.

Thought I'd share as it may be of interest to some people and I was quite surprised with the results.

Intel Core i7 3770K Overclocked (4.6Ghz) Gameplay Heat Tests.

Here is my rig in more detail if anyone is interested.

Intel Core i7 3770k @ 4.6Ghz, Z77 & GTX 680 SLi Upgrade

MrViper · 7 May 2012 at 15:17

This video has been removed by the user.

Buchanan0204 · 7 May 2012 at 15:29

Is this normal temps for ivy? Seems hot to me especially at that voltage.

MonsterMoshi · 7 May 2012 at 16:20

Very normal for Ivy but certainly not unacceptable.

mauserk98 · 7 May 2012 at 16:28

MrViper said:
This video has been removed by the user.

Go to the other vid and you will see the missing one listed on the right in utube

Alkalinepro5 · 7 May 2012 at 19:27

Ivybridge = Bulldozer II

555BUK · 7 May 2012 at 21:42

Alkalinepro5 said:
Ivybridge = Bulldozer II

but with ~20% faster performance and at half the watts.

Agree on temps though. Intel need to lick this when the rev B 22nm cores tape out. Half the wattage on a core half the size equals similar heat output. 22nm just seems too small to dissipate all the heat.

Ollie1132 · 7 May 2012 at 21:44

The temps aren't really that bad... Ivy actually doesn't make much heat. It just struggles to dissapate it through the chip. Also remember how many times are you going to run CPU at 100% when NOT stress testing? I mean really I doubt you'll go over 60%..

trickynickyuk · 8 May 2012 at 00:03

really dont liker the temps like intel defo need to do something about them also disappointed with the overclocking side as well and for the price i would have expected more than 15-20% performance improvement quite a let down for me think i will stick with my phenom 2 1090t for now

Ollie1132 · 8 May 2012 at 02:53

trickynickyuk said:
really dont liker the temps like intel defo need to do something about them also disappointed with the overclocking side as well and for the price i would have expected more than 15-20% performance improvement quite a let down for me think i will stick with my phenom 2 1090t for now

Each to their own. If haswell ends up as "bad" as most people think IB is which IB is not at all "bad" I will laugh myself to death.

Tonester0011 · 8 May 2012 at 05:04

trickynickyuk said:
really dont liker the temps like intel defo need to do something about them also disappointed with the overclocking side as well and for the price i would have expected more than 15-20% performance improvement quite a let down for me think i will stick with my phenom 2 1090t for now

I swapped from a 1100t > 3770k. Overclocked my IB from 3.5 > 4.4 on stock voltage - prime stable for 6 hours (enough for me)

Rendering out with Vegas and AE are at least 3 times as quick compared with my 1100t @4.0. Gaming the frames are more consistent and recording is a lot smoother (no fps drops etc)

Temps are mid 60s when rendering and mid 50s when gaming (H100)
It's not till you up and swap to Intel you find out first hand how bad AMD are.

Ollie1132 · 8 May 2012 at 05:07

Tonester0011 said:
I swapped from a 1100t > 3770k. Overclocked my IB from 3.5 > 4.4 on stock voltage - prime stable for 6 hours (enough for me)

Rendering out with Vegas and AE are at least 3 times as quick compared with my 1100t @4.0. Gaming the frames are more consistent and recording is a lot smoother (no fps drops etc)

Temps are mid 60s when rendering and mid 50s when gaming (H100)
It's not till you up and swap to Intel you find out first hand how bad AMD are.

Ahah. AMD are just lagging behind. Even with their GPU's Nvidia has them pegged miles behind them and with the 670 release AMD are going to need to pull a miracle to even bother competing in the future of either processing or GPU's.

kitch9 · 8 May 2012 at 09:12

Tonester0011 said:
I swapped from a 1100t > 3770k. Overclocked my IB from 3.5 > 4.4 on stock voltage - prime stable for 6 hours (enough for me)

Rendering out with Vegas and AE are at least 3 times as quick compared with my 1100t @4.0. Gaming the frames are more consistent and recording is a lot smoother (no fps drops etc)

Temps are mid 60s when rendering and mid 50s when gaming (H100)
It's not till you up and swap to Intel you find out first hand how bad AMD are.

I know, it amazes me how a brand new £250 CPU is better than a 3 year old CPU that was what £180 at launch?

Ollie1132 · 8 May 2012 at 09:19

kitch9 said:
I know, it amazes me how a brand new £250 CPU is better than a 3 year old CPU that was what £180 at launch?

Performance wise the Bulldozer is about equal to the 2500k. I say "about" it's still a bit behind just and just.. but for AMD's meant to be lead processor that's kinda bad.

Krono5 · 8 May 2012 at 09:24

Ollie1132 said:
Performance wise the Bulldozer is about equal to the 2500k. I say "about" it's still a bit behind just and just.. but for AMD's meant to be lead processor that's kinda bad.

Since they've been getting thier ass kicked for the best part of a decade their focus has switched away from high end desktop chips which is a shame as Intel badly need some competition.

Ollie1132 · 8 May 2012 at 09:25

True, but they aren't doing too well GPU wise either are they? Intel Nvidia are just too good.

Krono5 · 8 May 2012 at 09:44

I thought they were doing very well GPU-wise, just so many Nvidia fanboys and Nvidia are so good at seemingly marketing unlike AMD. AMD from my knowledge have had the better GPU's for most of the last 5 years, yet only have 40% of the market share because people seem to want to buy Nvidia despite this.

Moeks · 8 May 2012 at 09:50

Krono5 said:
Since they've been getting thier ass kicked for the best part of a decade their focus has switched away from high end desktop chips which is a shame as Intel badly need some competition.

The ass kicking didn't start until the Core 2 Duo came out, which was 2006 iirc. Prior to this, the boot was on the other foot.

Ollie1132 · 8 May 2012 at 09:53

Krono5 said:
I thought they were doing very well GPU-wise, just so many Nvidia fanboys and Nvidia are so good at seemingly marketing unlike AMD. AMD from my knowledge have had the better GPU's for most of the last 5 years, yet only have 40% of the market share because people seem to want to buy Nvidia despite this.

If you look at the results we can see from the 670 atm if they turn out to be true AMD are going to have to pull a card out of thin air to compete and it would have to be priced damn cheap as well.

Krono5 · 8 May 2012 at 10:15

Yes, but the 7970's been out longer giving NV time to bring the 680/70 to market. Shame Sea Islands isn't due out until 2013 so there's not a lot they can do about it unless 7990/the Ghz 7970 perform better than expected.

On the other hand didn't i read somewhere that you won't be able to overclock volts on the 670? If so it's a problem for overclockers and the 7970 would still be the better option if it's price drops a little to £350ish.