Testing Ivy Bridge: Intel Core i7-3770K Reviewed

I would love to see the i7 920/930/950 @ 3.5Ghz against the i7-3770k.
I have a i7 930 @ 4.0Ghz and results like these make me happy I haven't upgraded yet.

With Intel firmly in control of the market and no one pushing thier architecture but themselves, they are free to release newer CPU's at a slow, unmotivated money eating pace.

Looks like we have a "Guest" spamming the board for OC3D- thought they wouldn't need the traffic after their last giveaway competition.

Comparison at ABT : 3770K vs 920 with both clocked at 4.2

@ Linked Kube: Your avatar looks like prOn for Q*Bert
/shows age
//shows self out

^ This.

It is assumed that temperature results are part of a CPU review. Especially with the temperature controversy surrounding Ivy bridge. Please do not act ignorant. And please understand I appreciate the time spent to do the review, it was still somewhat helpful, although omitting the temperature results was disappointing.

Maybe they should be...if the review used the stock heatsink fan that comes packaged with the retail CPU. Know how many reviews used the stock HSF? Two. Hardware Secrets and Hot Hardware out of ~40 reviews that took an in depth look at the 3770K.

You could also argue, I suppose, that stock clocked + stock heatsink fan temps should be included. Now, I'd take a couple of points into consideration:
1. What workload do you use to load the CPU that provides equal loading across cores (including turbo), is indicative of real world usage, takes into account the differing Vcore of individual CPU's, the differing board requirements for stable voltage, and represents a standard for chassis cooling?
1a. How do you compare systems that don't utilise the same HSF ? (AMD systems, SB-E ). There is a large enough difference when comparing the stock cooler to an average aftermarket air cooler with the same CPU.
2. How many 3770K users are going to be using the CPU at stock clocks and be using the useless chunk of aluminium that takes up most of the box.

So, how do you make any relevant comparision when you have a raft of differing OC's, voltages and cooling? Just as a cross section of the reviews I can see:
5.0-5.05GHz (voltages range from 1.35-1.50v) Lab501 (NH-D14 cooling), Hardware Heaven (H100), Bit and Chips (unknown)
4.9GHz (voltages range from 1.35-1.52v) TechSpot (Super Mega), HardOCP and BSN (watercooled), Guru3D (Noctua ?), OCLab.pl (NH-D14), KitGuru (Phanteks TC14PE), Tech Report and Hardwareluxx (unknown)
4.8-4.85GHz (voltages range from 1.26 -1.50v) Two reviews used watercooling, one used the Intel RTS2011LC, 2 were unspecified, the others used air coolers ranging from entry level Cooler Master to the not-available-everywhere Alpenfohn K2.
You have temps ranging from 75ºC for a Corsair A70 air cooler (4.8 @ 1.35v at Hexus) to 88ºC for a better air cooler in the Havik 140 running slower with less voltage at X-bit (4.6 @ 1.2v)

Again dividebyzero proves that he knows what he is talking about. Ohh and for the record we were not supplied with an Intel heatsink which is why I tested with the Prolimatech cooler.

@abysal - I am not acting ignorant, this is the same format we have used to test new CPU's on launch day for a long time now and I see no reason to change this. If we post an Ivy Bridge overclocking article then yes you can expect to see detailed info on cooling setups and temperatures.

Thanks Steve. I keep this up I'm giving myself a promotion...the days of trainee n00b will be behind me- long live Complete n00b !!!

Prior to the official launch I was reading the review that awardfabrik put up. They compared sixteen IB's:

For overclockability, voltage, temp etc. (using some very reasonable kit):

And found what most people expected: Namely, that the variance in a launch CPU step/revision is all over the place -since backed up by the mainstream reviews. Amazing how short some people's memories are- I have distinct recollections of exactly the same lack of standardization for Sandy Bridge, Bloomfield and Bulldozer.

For sure IB runs hotter once you start getting above 1.25-1.3v, but from what I understand that is a product of transistor density (so people should get used to it unless they plan on being on 45/32nm forever). Intel have obviously taken some of this into account since IB's Tjuncture max (throttling) is now 105C -up from Sandy's 98C.
Interested to know what Intel's "safe 24/7" core temp is, although with thermal throttling being so pervasive it probably makes it largely a moot point

Perhaps ignorant was too harsh a term, my apologies, as I had not considered that you did not receive a stock heat-sink for a base line temperature reading. I appreciate the fact that a temperature reading from a 3rd party heat-sink fan combo could be misleading, so it makes sense to do a separate section regarding overclocking and temperatures. It's just you guys had some of the first reviews on Ivy Bridge and I found it odd that temperatures were not mentioned. Either way I'm looking forward to a more in depth review of the new chip.

Still a good review.

Given that we now know the heatsink used, can you give us a peek at the temps you guys encountered at 4.92 GHZ on 1.52V?

I can't speak for the majority here, but I'm one of the few that uses the intel stock heatsink. I'm sure the one used in this review is alot better than what I have at the moment.

Look here:
http://www.overclockers.com/ivy-bridge-temperatures\

Yes it's rarely that people will use the stock heatsink, but there are people who do if they don't overclock. But considering how insanely easy it is to overclock a K-series cpu, it's almost a crime if you don't do it.

And really, a $25 hyper 212 plus is all that most people will need for a decent overclock which yields a pretty good performance gain.

^Strange, my "quote" didn't come up correctly.

Probably better off saving a few bucks and opting for a "non K" CPU in that instance. The stock heatsink is still obviously rated to 3.9GHz (the 3770K's turbo clock) so even non-overclocked has a few horses under the hood

True. But for comparative testing-which is where the discussion seems centred, you'd need to ensure that all review samples were using the same cooling method and that won't happen. Reviewers use the kit that vendors send out to them, and those components differ from reviewer to reviewer depending on target audience, geographic distribution and perceived standing in the tech community. You won't find Tweakers.net or Madshrimps testing a CPU with a $25 cooler for instance.

The temperature discussion seems to lie in the fact that Sandy Bridge (on a mature 32nm process- remember that Clarkdale launched Jan.2010) is such a stellar performer - and IB doesn't stack up well in comparison in temps once you breach 1.3v - (somewhat of a straw man argument when most users won't use that kind of voltage in attaining a decent overclock) Moreover most reviews pretty much neglected every other CPU family except Sandy Bridge in comparitive reviews.
To me the whole thing seems a non-issue, since IB ,as has been stated numerous times by numerous sources, is not an upgrade for Sandy Bridge users- the target market is those who held off upgrading over the last 2-3 architecture generations

And confirmed:
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/22859\

He said he "took a quick glance" at temps and it read 85c. He said it in the comments, don't know why he didn't add it to the review.

Their are numerous sites out there that have overclocked and shown their temps using 3rd party coolers. Give thetechreport.com a look. i love those guys over there... and they have an answer from Intel about the high temperatures.

Question for the Tech Geeks; i7 3930K or 3770K if you plan on doing mild overclocking, and running multiple applications and charts, Im questioning whether the $599 price is worth it, given IvyBridge smaller die shrink and similar numbers to 3960.

If you are in question as to whether you need a 3930K, then chances are you don't need it.

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. If you're looking at a straight-up comparison and perf/price is the metric for comparison, then the natural choice is the 3820 not 3930K, since the 3830 is already fairly close to the six core in performance

3820.....4C/8T...10MB L3...3.6GHz base freq...3.9GHz turbo....$305 retail ($310 at the Egg atm)...$294 (OEM)
3770K..4C/8T......8MB L3...3.5GHz base freq.. 3.9GHz turbo....$313 retail (MSRP)

holy scomoly! that dude will melt my copper heatsink!

Hi Clifford, not asking about need. The answer has always been NO for 95% of users for the past 6 yrs. lol! Indulge me for a second as far as overclocking, and purely a performance standpoint would you spend the extra for the 3930K vs 3820, do you think the benchmarks would be very similar or would the extra two cores and extra threads be a big advantage.

Yes, you can certainly state that with conviction.

I'm not sure which model Intel CPU you're running, but there are a few low priced avenues to upgrade, a couple using stock parts.
If you have a 65 watt TDP dual core CPU, (socket 775), latching on to an Intel stock cooler from an earlier Prescott P-4, will net you a bunch more mass in the assembly, Some early coolers, at least I've been told, have copper cores. Plan "B" might be the Xigmatec "Apache" coolers. (15 bucks tops). These are similar to Zalman "Orb" coolers, and have 92 mm PCM controlled fans, much bigger than stock Intel @ 82 mm (?) . So, they're a bit quieter.

The best current route for you to cooling bliss, would be one of the Cooler Master "Hyper 212" series. One of these should run you no more than $25.00.

I can attest to their efficacy with the Core i3 530 (stock clock) machine I'm using (lightly) ATM.

TDP peaked out at 73 watts, and core 0 ran all the way up to 29 degrees C.... The CPU idles around 27 watts. For all intents and purposes, the Hyper 212 keeps this CPU cooler than the HDDs in the same case.