** MORE 8 PACK PRE-BINNED CPU's AVAILABLE UPTO 5.2GHz!! **

Associate
Joined
21 Jan 2017
Posts
1
My i7 7700k retail goes to 4.8 no problem infact ive had it to 4.9 the only reason ive not had it higher is because of the temps im hitting 65c on stock and upto the 90c on 4.9 with a corsair hydro45 which is of course a basic cooler but i dont have much legroom so for me i purchased my i7 7700k abit early from OCuk as i would have purchased the 4.8 there selling due to the fact its delidded.
my motherboard is the gigabyte z270 ultra gaming and ram is the team group xtreem 3866mhz which seems to be a nice little overclocking build for the money.
 
Associate
Joined
30 Sep 2015
Posts
350
Location
London
Yay! Why the difference in price is so big? I've seen tests were the difference in performance between 4.8 Ghz and 5.2 Ghz was close to 0. £500 difference? Ay caramba! :)
Maybe someone would pay that but with £900 you can get a full Ryzen setup(CPU+Mobo+ram) pretty soon.
 
Associate
Joined
16 Jan 2010
Posts
360
Can I ask the way you tested the 5.2G bin ?
All is said is this but what does that mean? You passed ...what...8 hours of realbench or 48hours ? :D

"CPU 48hr Stress tests used:
- Real Bench
- None AVX Prime 95
- XTU with 3D running"


Also, is the 5.2G CPU delided ?


Elite Tier Customers or business buy this kinda CPU!!! Those who demand the best single threaded performance in games and other applications.
That one is 5.2ghz 1.325v All none AVX stress tests and 5.3ghz around 1.38v again full stress compliment none AVX.
ALL THE ABOVE CPU are Delidded and ready to rock with cooler running temps.
So you are saying that with adequate aio/watercooling you can pass 4 or potentionaly 8 hours of Asus RealBench at 5.3G _ 1.38v ?
 
Associate
Joined
2 Nov 2009
Posts
2,436
Location
Brum
Yay! Why the difference in price is so big? I've seen tests were the difference in performance between 4.8 Ghz and 5.2 Ghz was close to 0. £500 difference? Ay caramba! :)
Maybe someone would pay that but with £900 you can get a full Ryzen setup(CPU+Mobo+ram) pretty soon.

A certain amount of time and effort has to be spent in sorting out the CPUs to discover their maximum speeds. That time has to be paid for, plus a bit (or even a lot) of profit.

It's true that an extra £500 is a lot to pay for an extra ~400Mhz, and the majority of end users would likely not notice any real word performance improvement outside of benchmarks. Some people will be willing pay the premium though. It's a bit like high end HiFi, if you want the best, you have to pay what seems to be a disproportionate amount more for it.
 
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
A certain amount of time and effort has to be spent in sorting out the CPUs to discover their maximum speeds. That time has to be paid for, plus a bit (or even a lot) of profit.

It's true that an extra £500 is a lot to pay for an extra ~400Mhz, and the majority of end users would likely not notice any real word performance improvement outside of benchmarks. Some people will be willing pay the premium though. It's a bit like high end HiFi, if you want the best, you have to pay what seems to be a disproportionate amount more for it.

With high end hifi you won't be buying the exact same speaker as the one that is half the price.

This is the exact same cpu just slightly faster in terms of clock speed.
 
Associate
Joined
2 Nov 2009
Posts
2,436
Location
Brum
With high end hifi you won't be buying the exact same speaker as the one that is half the price.

This is the exact same cpu just slightly faster in terms of clock speed.

I understand that, but I think the analogy is a fairly good one. If you want the absolute best performance, you are paying a hefty premium for a not so hefty increase in performance.
 
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
I understand that, but I think the analogy is a fairly good one. If you want the absolute best performance, you are paying a hefty premium for a not so hefty increase in performance.

When it comes to audio though it's very subjective.

You will see for instance people pay up to £30,000 for Sennheiser Orpheous headphones which are no better than HD600's or HD650's they are just different.

In the headphone market especially when you go past the £250 price point your paying for subtle differences rather than slight improvements. HD600's are the pinnacle reference headphone however human ears prefer a darker warmer sound which is why the HD650 is recommended for a more natural sound.

Natural > Reference unless your an engineer.

Speaker technology again isn't that much different just a scaled up version of headphones. People pay a lot for snake oil within the market. Budget and Mid Range is the best for both markets IMO. At the higher end you pay a lot for "magic beans".
 
Associate
Joined
2 Nov 2009
Posts
2,436
Location
Brum
It wasn't double. I had just started work at an IT firm and they were paying £490 for the P90, I think the P100 was nearer £600 lol

~ 20% price increase for ~ 10% speed increase. That seems cheap compared to these 5.2GHz 7700Ks !

If people are willing to pay, you can't blame OCUK for taking their money.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Apr 2012
Posts
6,619
Location
Rannoch
~ 20% price increase for ~ 10% speed increase. That seems cheap compared to these 5.2GHz 7700Ks !

If people are willing to pay, you can't blame OCUK for taking their money.

True, but you could overlock the P90 to 100mhz, every single chip we tried did it no problem at all. Over 100 in total.
 
Associate
Joined
17 Apr 2015
Posts
299
Location
London
Associate
Joined
16 Jan 2010
Posts
360
well pretty much 3 out of 4 chips can get 4.9G with decent cooling and voltage and selling 4.8G(All chips can get it) as a premium chip is .....not adequate ?
 
Back
Top Bottom