• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Gibbo wasn't lying, 2700k @ 5.2ghz

Associate
Joined
17 Oct 2010
Posts
86
Hi Guys,

From the another thread a couple of members asked for my overclocking findings upgrading from my 2600k to the new 2700k.

My 2600k would be stable @4.6 using 1.38ish vcore with HT enabled,
It would boot into windows HT enabled @4.8 but needed upto 1.45 vcore to be stable and 1.39 to run super pi.
It would boot into windows @5ghz with HT disabled using 1.408-1.424 vcore to run super pi but upto 1.48 to be stable.
This was all using offset voltage.

My new 2700k, so far looks stable for 5ghz @ upto 1.39 vcore using offset voltage and HT ENABLED.
I'm currently testing 5.2ghz using upto 1.424 vcore HT enabled using offset voltage.

This is with an Asrock P67 Professional mobo.

Want to know anymore just ask.
 
You might have gotten lucky with a good chip though. Anyone else with a 2700K receiving similiar overclocks and voltages?
 
wait, your doing this with offset voltage? with my very limited knowledge of offset voltages that means your increasing the vcore if the lower vcore isnt stable, which means its going to be 5Ghz at silly voltages. (unless your doing negative offset)

very happy to be proved wrong here though
 
wait, your doing this with offset voltage? with my very limited knowledge of offset voltages that means your increasing the vcore if the lower vcore isnt stable, which means its going to be 5Ghz at silly voltages. (unless your doing negative offset)

very happy to be proved wrong here though

Not at all, it means when the system isn't under load it goes down to 1.6Ghz using about 1.1vcore. As soon as the cores get fired up it goes upto whatever you have set the max vcore to be. Roughly a balance between the +/- over the chipos VID and the LLC level set, I think!

Using cpuz and hwmonitor while stability tests and games are running it seems 5ghz now and then edges onto 1.4vcore and 5.2ghz edges onto 1.43vcore.

I have attempted 5.3 but I had bsod as windows was starting, was using 1.425 fixed voltage for this though.
 
You might have gotten lucky with a good chip though. Anyone else with a 2700K receiving similiar overclocks and voltages?

More people are more likely to be lucky with a 2700k than a 2600k though arent they. Its common sense that any chips that can hit 100mhz more @ stock than a 2600k are a higher bin.
 
Why is it common sense?

I doubt that there's a 2600K out there that can't do the extra 100MHz at stock volts.

Just seems logical to me that if something is released with an unlocked multi of 35 rather than 34, its done for a reason. Otherwise it'd be a 2600k?

Do all 2600k processors go to 4ghz? As they're all supposed to turbo to 3.8ghz arent they.

Which would mean 2700k processors go to 3.9ghz. Which is what we should take as a starting point for an overclock in reality as they're guaranteed to be stable at that.

Like you say 100mhz is nothing, So we can assume we get 4ghz with no pressure what so ever.

So now if we have adequate cooling, we're only looking for 1ghz. and we havent even touched voltage yet!

I cant see the 2700k's failing, just like I cant see the 2600ks failing. But the point is, they will probably inch further. Because of that easily acquired extra 100mhz/200mhz.
 
Last edited:
Just seems logical to me that if something is released with an unlocked multi of 35 rather than 34, its done for a reason. Otherwise it'd be a 2600k?

Do all 2600k processors go to 4ghz? As they're all supposed to turbo to 3.8ghz arent they.

Which would mean 2700k processors go to 3.9ghz. Which is what we should take as a starting point for an overclock in reality as they're guaranteed to be stable at that.

Like you say 100mhz is nothing, So we can assume we get 4ghz with no pressure what so ever.

So now if we have adequate cooling, we're only looking for 1ghz. and we havent even touched voltage yet!

I cant see the 2700k's failing, just like I cant see the 2600ks failing. But the point is, they will probably inch further. Because of that easily acquired extra 100mhz/200mhz.

Manufacturers release clock bumped chips all the time without the chips themselves being any different.

The extra 100MHz is no proof that the average i7-2700K is better then the average i7-2600K.

This particular batch may be better at overclocking, for whatever reason, but that doesn't mean it's a given that they all will be.
 
You tell me this 4 hours after I decide the i7 isn't worth it and order a 2500K? :(

/sadpanda
It isn't. Having higher clock isn't gonna give you better frame rate on a 6870...it MIGHT make a difference if it was something high-end like SLI GTX560Ti/CF6950 and above. The only situation you might see a little better frame rate with the higher clock is if you are playing games that are more CPU demanding than GPU demanding that runs in less than 4 cores, such as WOW.
 
Beast chip by the sounds of it, luck bugger! :p

Though are Intel consistent with their yields? I.e 80% or so out of a batch of 100 will get the same results? Sorry but i've not had an Intel based system in a years so don't know.
 
If you look at a list of high overclocks for sandybridge you will see 2500k's and 2600k's randomly ordered. So its not the name or even the batch affecting these chips, just plain luck of the draw.

While just playing around i've cleared IBT with standard, high and very high on my 2500k with the stock cooler at 3.8GHz while undervolted to 1.14v.
If the lowest unlocked version of these chips can do that, then the default specs are so conservative they could maybe bring out a 2800k or 2900k version without binning them I think.

Unless solid confirmation of speed binning is happening with the 2700k's we are none the wiser and no hints come from the chips specs compared to a 2600k.
 
Is this the actual load voltage, rather than the BIOS setting?

Also what are you using to test stability?

Yes mate, load voltage using 20 runs of IBT at high level. I've also done an hour of prime to check and load voltages were the same. Since I posted that though i've got it down to 1.376v under load. No sign of a loss in stability so far. This also completed 20 runs of IBT set to high.
 
Here's my 5ghz IBT 20 runs at high.

2700k5ghzIBT.png


2700k5ghzIBTcomplete.png


This is using an Asrock P67 Professional motherboard and 8gb od Corsair C8 dram at 1.5v

Bios settings
Offset voltage set to +0.60
LLC set to level 3

As you can see under load its 1.376vcore.
 
Back
Top Bottom