Raptor Lake 6 GHz - Intel Tech Tour

[MageTank]

16 minutes ago, Somerandomtechyboi said:

Copying someone is also relatively simple to do, just copy it and if not p95 smallest ffts stable just raise it

Unless they disclose their exact motherboard, cooling solution and LLC settings, this is a terrible idea and a recipe for instability. Not to mention that you'd also need to know their voltage method (static, adaptive, etc).

16 minutes ago, Somerandomtechyboi said:

Theres prime95 smallest ffts to test cpu stability and you can just add an extra 0.02-0.05v headroom above the lowest stable volt

Prime95 has AVX enabled by default. Boards (by default) have AVX offsets to reduce CPU clocks as current increases. Stability in Prime95 no longer constitutes stability in real-world applications such as gaming, where current is lower but voltage requirements are higher. You need a broader testing methodology to determine stability testing when undervolting beyond that of Prime95 or other synthetic loads.

 

While undervolting is a relatively simple and straight forward process, you should always put in the effort to tailor the undervolt to your working conditions and operating environment. This notion that you can simply copy another persons undervolting settings and be fine is just silly to me. I understand using someone else's settings as a baseline or foundation to improve upon, but simply copying other peoples settings and hoping it works outright is just asking for instability. This is also partly why I disagree with tools like the Ryzen DRAM calculator. Anything that extrapolates a conclusion with limited information is bound to fail at some point. 

[BiG StroOnZ]

5 hours ago, Somerandomtechyboi said:

yet still no 8ghz xoc, still nothing to top them cheddar mill celeron d and bulldozer fx maximum xoc freq wise and thatll likely stay that way for a long time

 

They actually hit 8GHz with the 13900k less than a week ago:

 

 

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/overclock-towards-8-0ghz-with-core-i9-13900k-(raptor-lake)-flagship-already-achieved.html

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/88369/intel-core-i9-13900k-raptor-lake-cpu-used-to-breach-8ghz-barrier/index.html

https://videocardz.com/newz/overclocker-pushes-intel-core-i9-13900k-to-8-ghz-with-ln2-cooling

https://hothardware.com/news/intel-core-i9-13900k-raptor-lake-cpu-8ghz-overclock

[CarlBar]

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

Few hours of p95 isn't the same thing, stability issues like these show up when CPUs and other PCIe devices transition between power states and signaling speeds. All p95 does is check stress loads and nothing else.

 

To be honest the most stability issues I get is not from high loads it from doing basic things with the computer and it going between idle states to various different P states. I also run other PCIe devices like 10/25Gb NICs and RAID/SAS cards which "gamer" boards in general do not play nice with compared to designed workstation and server motherboards that more strictly follow "the rules". You'd expect better from HEDT platforms but alas no, that said I have not tried any TR workstations yet so maybe those are better than the older Intel HEDT (RIP).

 

Really it comes down to the issues of it's all well and good until you're in the middle of Apex/COD etc blah blah and for whatever reason, maybe an excess of some on screen effects your system just nopes and crashes, even if extremely rare. There's no shortage of Twitch/YouTube clips of gamer rage when that type of thing happens haha.

 

Realistically if the goal/objective is to lower the peak or overall power usage of your CPU setting a power limit will achieve that and compared to an undervolt in actual gaming performance you'd be lucky to get outside of margin of error.

 

Amen, for various reasons, (all personal preference and comfort stuff tbh), i generally only restart my PC fully for major software updates or crashes, and honestly crashes are the more common cause. I do hibernate it when not at it for a long period, (like sleeping), but overall the dreaded blue screen is the most common cause of a reboot.  Not that the system is unstable or anything, i'm just really lax abou doing it otherwise, (i really shouldn't be i know). As of writing this my uptime is 16 days, 11 hours and 40ish minutes. Assuming that doesn't count time spent hibernating thats probably closer to or in excess of a month real time. Thats a use case most test scenarios won't meet.

[Somerandomtechyboi]

6 hours ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

 

They actually hit 8GHz with the 13900k less than a week ago:

 

 

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/overclock-towards-8-0ghz-with-core-i9-13900k-(raptor-lake)-flagship-already-achieved.html

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/88369/intel-core-i9-13900k-raptor-lake-cpu-used-to-breach-8ghz-barrier/index.html

https://videocardz.com/newz/overclocker-pushes-intel-core-i9-13900k-to-8-ghz-with-ln2-cooling

https://hothardware.com/news/intel-core-i9-13900k-raptor-lake-cpu-8ghz-overclock

Damn its about time they started getting close to those ancient architectures ocing wise, still quite abit to go when the wr is held by an fx 8350 at iirc ~8.7g with celeron d not too far behind

[ouroesa]

If you guys are so worried about the power draw, you can limit the CPU power or simply don't buy one?
Very few people will be runing these CPU's at full tilt for any impactful duration, mostly just when running benchmarks and not during actual real life workloads.
Intel and AMD are just pushing these chips to be competitive with each other to get sales, most people wont even feel the difference when power limiting these CPU's because they are already pretty fast (going from 200fps to 150fps is not a world of difference, especially when looking at the amount of power you could save). I generally limit any app to 120fps uing RTSS as I dont feel that much of a difference going higher (I'm by no means an e-sports ready player) and this saves my room from being noisy and too hot when playing games for extened periods.

[Somerandomtechyboi]

14 hours ago, leadeater said:

Few hours of p95 isn't the same thing, stability issues like these show up when CPUs and other PCIe devices transition between power states and signaling speeds. All p95 does is check stress loads and nothing else.

Does this affect static ocers too? I disable basically all power saving crap (c states, speedstep, eist, etc.) So i think im safe but not sure about ppl that enable the power saving stuff

[Beerzerker]

20 hours ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

 

They actually hit 8GHz with the 13900k less than a week ago:

 

 

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/overclock-towards-8-0ghz-with-core-i9-13900k-(raptor-lake)-flagship-already-achieved.html

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/88369/intel-core-i9-13900k-raptor-lake-cpu-used-to-breach-8ghz-barrier/index.html

https://videocardz.com/newz/overclocker-pushes-intel-core-i9-13900k-to-8-ghz-with-ln2-cooling

https://hothardware.com/news/intel-core-i9-13900k-raptor-lake-cpu-8ghz-overclock

I have to laugh at this - They call THAT a WR?

I certainly don't hold the WR for frequency myself but I have done these which tops their supposed "WR" as shown.

https://hwbot.org/submission/4659571_bones_superpi___32m_fx_9590_9min_51sec_78ms

https://hwbot.org/submission/4740676_bones_superpi___1m_fx_8320_9sec_141ms

Those aren't all I've done over 8GHz before.
All I can say about it is:

Intel,

[MageTank]

1 hour ago, Beerzerker said:

I have to laugh at this - They call THAT a WR?

I certainly don't hold the WR for frequency myself but I have done these which tops their supposed "WR" as shown.

https://hwbot.org/submission/4659571_bones_superpi___32m_fx_9590_9min_51sec_78ms

https://hwbot.org/submission/4740676_bones_superpi___1m_fx_8320_9sec_141ms

Those aren't all I've done over 8GHz before.
All I can say about it is:

Intel,

Are we reading the same article? Or are you just here to "humble brag" about your old CPU? None of the articles you responded to called their frequency result a world record. The closest article that did was the tweaktown review: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/88369/intel-core-i9-13900k-raptor-lake-cpu-used-to-breach-8ghz-barrier/index.html

Quote

Intel's new 13th Gen Core "Raptor Lake" CPUs haven't even been released yet, but they're being used to break some OC world records at the dizzying heights of 8GHz... yeah 8000MHz+.

"Some OC world records" does not mean the frequency record itself. It implies other world records as well, such as potentially Cinebench, SuperPi, etc.

 

Man, I should break out my old 8350 so I can brag about my slow, high-frequency processor too. Not my preferred way to stroke my ego, but if it works, lol.

[Deadpool2onBlu-Ray]

Meh. Not impressed with the leaks so far. Power consumption is going to be terrible. Kind of leaning towards rebuilding my PC in October and then grabbing a B650/7600x to ride out until I can drop a 7800x3d or 7900x3d in there. 

[BiG StroOnZ]

On 9/12/2022 at 7:01 PM, Somerandomtechyboi said:

Damn its about time they started getting close to those ancient architectures ocing wise, still quite abit to go when the wr is held by an fx 8350 at iirc ~8.7g with celeron d not too far behind

 

10 hours ago, Beerzerker said:

I have to laugh at this - They call THAT a WR?

I certainly don't hold the WR for frequency myself but I have done these which tops their supposed "WR" as shown.

https://hwbot.org/submission/4659571_bones_superpi___32m_fx_9590_9min_51sec_78ms

https://hwbot.org/submission/4740676_bones_superpi___1m_fx_8320_9sec_141ms

Those aren't all I've done over 8GHz before.
All I can say about it is:

Intel,

 

Spoiler

 

Yeah all the world records are still held by FX and Celeron:

 

 

So Intel definitely has some ways to go with modern hardware. Nevertheless, I still find the 8GHz pretty impressive, IMO. As @MageTankpointed out, hitting 8GHz on a 13900k is a lot different than hitting it on a Celeron or FX CPU; as they are much, much slower in comparison (despite being capable of high frequencies).  

[iiNNeX]

I personally cannot wait for this, power consumption and heat do not faze me at all (and anyone buying a top tier enthusiast product wouldn't either), so it would be cool to see if 6ghz all P core is possible with custom cooling. 

 

For 13th gen 4000 series build I think I shall get a MORA 420 Pro as 360mm AIOs wont cut it lol.

[Beerzerker]

13 hours ago, MageTank said:

Are we reading the same article? Or are you just here to "humble brag" about your old CPU?

Looks like we are and if you say something is a WR you'd best have some goods to back it up.

And it looks like there's been a bit of article/post editing since I posted what I did to make my point.

This also helped make the point I was getting at:

 

4 hours ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

 

 

Yeah all the world records are still held by FX and Celeron:

 

 

So Intel definitely has some ways to go with modern hardware. Nevertheless, I still find the 8GHz pretty impressive, IMO. As @MageTankpointed out, hitting 8GHz on a 13900k is a lot different than hitting it on a Celeron or FX CPU; as they are much, much slower in comparison (despite being capable of high frequencies).  

So in a way we do agree.

Do note I said what I've done is not a WR, just that I've beaten 8GHz before and that's my point of it. If this really is what was claimed by the way it was made out to be originally, it's a joke and why I'm laughing about it.
 

13 hours ago, MageTank said:

Man, I should break out my old 8350 so I can brag about my slow, high-frequency processor too. Not my preferred way to stroke my ego, but if it works, lol.

Have you ever hit 8GHz before?
Not as easy to do as it sounds and completing a benchmark at or above 8GHz in itself is a challenge. 

Yes, please DO breakout that 8350 and show us what you've got - I did.

EDIT:
Still want to say they didn't call it a WR?
Explain this.
Be sure the read what's in the far right column of the presentation screen under "2022".

[porina]

5 hours ago, Beerzerker said:

Not as easy to do as it sounds and completing a benchmark at or above 8GHz in itself is a challenge. 

I never got that extreme on hwbot, but their CPU Frequency requirement is (was?) just to have a valid CPU-Z validation. So the stability you needed is enough to boot, run the validation and get it out of the network. When I attempted it, quite often the system crashed on sending the validation so I had to cross my fingers and hope it got out. Looking at it today, my best was a rather unremarkable 5.4 GHz on a 8086k on air. I was such a noob, I didn't even disable HT, or further cores.

 

The actual CPU load benchmarks obviously increases the difficulty significantly, since you'll need to be "bench stable". It is unclear to me what exactly Intel were claiming with their statement. If such a CPU were to run all core at 8 GHz it would really get through some work! It looks like I was only able to run benchmarks successfully at 5.2 GHz on the 8086k. I don't recall seeing more details but if Raptor Lake just ran 8 GHz at all, it is an achievement but not terribly interesting. If it ran 8 GHz and was able to complete benchmarks, that has potential for some serious results.

[Beerzerker]

18 minutes ago, porina said:

I never got that extreme on hwbot, but their CPU Frequency requirement is (was?) just to have a valid CPU-Z validation. So the stability you needed is enough to boot, run the validation and get it out of the network. When I attempted it, quite often the system crashed on sending the validation so I had to cross my fingers and hope it got out. Looking at it today, my best was a rather unremarkable 5.4 GHz on a 8086k on air. I was such a noob, I didn't even disable HT, or further cores.

 

The actual CPU load benchmarks obviously increases the difficulty significantly, since you'll need to be "bench stable". It is unclear to me what exactly Intel were claiming with their statement. If such a CPU were to run all core at 8 GHz it would really get through some work! It looks like I was only able to run benchmarks successfully at 5.2 GHz on the 8086k. I don't recall seeing more details but if Raptor Lake just ran 8 GHz at all, it is an achievement but not terribly interesting. If it ran 8 GHz and was able to complete benchmarks, that has potential for some serious results.

You get it.

My thing is if this was "Just" for hitting 8GHz and nothing else (CPU validation) then it's completely laughable to claim a WR based on that alone.

If saying they ran a bench at/over 8GHz and set a WR score in a benchmark, that's a completely different matter and shows potential as said for even more later.
"As Is" the claim made is completely vague.
 

[Zodiark1593]

On 9/12/2022 at 4:30 AM, Somerandomtechyboi said:

This is just ridicolous, now its back to clock speed wars bullshittery and bye bye efficiency for max performance because haha cpu go vroom vroom and now your pc doubles as a space heater (nice for winter but haha rip for summer and all the folk in tropical countries incl me)

 

looks like this new gen will benifit tons from undervolting

 

Also seems kinda odd with the ludicrous speeds theyre running stock yet still no 8ghz xoc, still nothing to top them cheddar mill celeron d and bulldozer fx maximum xoc freq wise and thatll likely stay that way for a long time

As we start hitting the limits of silicon manufacturing, I do foresee an eventual return to the clock speed wars, as it will become a lot more important to squeeze out every drop of performance from every mm^2 of silicon. 

[MageTank]

10 hours ago, Beerzerker said:

Looks like we are and if you say something is a WR you'd best have some goods to back it up.

And it looks like there's been a bit of article/post editing since I posted what I did to make my point.

This also helped make the point I was getting at:

Ah, the classic "They must have changed it" approach. 60% of the time, it works every time.

 

10 hours ago, Beerzerker said:

Have you ever hit 8GHz before?
Not as easy to do as it sounds and completing a benchmark at or above 8GHz in itself is a challenge. 

Yes, please DO breakout that 8350 and show us what you've got - I did.

I think you are missing the joke, so I'll explain it (making it less funny in the process). The joke is that even at 8ghz, those FX processors are still slow. I was going to then break out my FX 8350, take it to 5-6Ghz then brag about it being a higher frequency compared to other modern processors as a means of stroking my ego. The joke being, no matter what I raise the frequency to, it would still lose in all practical applications.

 

10 hours ago, Beerzerker said:

Still want to say they didn't call it a WR?
Explain this.
Be sure the read what's in the far right column of the presentation screen under "2022".

Alright, let me analyze those pixels real quick. Computer... enhance. ENHANCE. TRIANGULATE THE SYNTHESIZATION... THERE!

 

DDR5 5600, 1st 6Ghz/8Ghz OC WR. Notice how they failed to include the word "frequency" when referencing the world record. Perhaps in this context, they are claiming this is Intel's first 6Ghz CPU that also overclocks to 8Ghz, making it Intel's highest frequency processor (a world record when comparing Intel processors to other Intel processors). Or, perhaps they are saying their current 13th gen CPU holds the world record for that specific processor, since that is how HWbot operates in terms of per-hardware records? The latter would be silly seeing as they are unreleased, but welcome to terrible company marketing ethics. I mean, if you have the only CPU, you'd definitely have the fastest "one", lol.

 

Until you can provide explicit evidence that Intel is claiming they've hit the highest CPU frequency ever, then the benefit of the doubt still exists. 

 

Also, we are gonna drop our trousers and compare the girth of our overclocking skills, I accept, but we totally have to include memory too. Ain't no way I am going into this without my area of expertise being included, lol.

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, Beerzerker said:

You get it.

My thing is if this was "Just" for hitting 8GHz and nothing else (CPU validation) then it's completely laughable to claim a WR based on that alone.

If saying they ran a bench at/over 8GHz and set a WR score in a benchmark, that's a completely different matter and shows potential as said for even more later.
"As Is" the claim made is completely vague.

I feel like you are arguing in bad faith.

There are plenty of ways to interpret the world record claims, and without the context . Some might be more legitimate than others.

 

Maybe the record is a combination of things, not just a single core? For example memory as well.

Maybe it's a world record for Intel processors?

Maybe they overclocked it above 8GHz, but rounded it to that?

Maybe it's a world record in some benchmark?

[Beerzerker]

4 hours ago, MageTank said:

1: Ah, the classic "They must have changed it" approach. 60% of the time, it works every time.

 

2: I think you are missing the joke, so I'll explain it (making it less funny in the process). The joke is that even at 8ghz, those FX processors are still slow. I was going to then break out my FX 8350, take it to 5-6Ghz then brag about it being a higher frequency compared to other modern processors as a means of stroking my ego. The joke being, no matter what I raise the frequency to, it would still lose in all practical applications.

 

Alright, let me analyze those pixels real quick. Computer... enhance. ENHANCE. TRIANGULATE THE SYNTHESIZATION... THERE!

 

3: DDR5 5600, 1st 6Ghz/8Ghz OC WR. Notice how they failed to include the word "frequency" when referencing the world record. Perhaps in this context, they are claiming this is Intel's first 6Ghz CPU that also overclocks to 8Ghz, making it Intel's highest frequency processor (a world record when comparing Intel processors to other Intel processors). Or, perhaps they are saying their current 13th gen CPU holds the world record for that specific processor, since that is how HWbot operates in terms of per-hardware records? The latter would be silly seeing as they are unreleased, but welcome to terrible company marketing ethics. I mean, if you have the only CPU, you'd definitely have the fastest "one", lol.

 

4: Until you can provide explicit evidence that Intel is claiming they've hit the highest CPU frequency ever, then the benefit of the doubt still exists. 

 

5: Also, we are gonna drop our trousers and compare the girth of our overclocking skills, I accept, but we totally have to include memory too. Ain't no way I am going into this without my area of expertise being included, lol.

1: Sure looks that way to me - I will however admit that's what I'm recalling, not that I'm right or you're wrong about that.

2: So I guess from your perspective every and any WR's MUST be from the current, latest and greatest stuff or it's just nothing.

Way to demean and diss on what others have done dude, I mean it's not like any effort was put into getting it done right?
Oh wait - There was, alot of it in fact right along with the expense of getting the hardware just to pull it off, paying for the Ln2 to run it and the headaches of figuring it out... If it could be done at all.
I don't care what or how old it is, I appreciate the effort guys put in to setting WR's and I show it by daring to call "Bull" on this as presented.

3: From your post as quoted, even you cannot "Say" what this claimed WR is about, that's the thing about it to me.
Marketing guys know higher numbers mean more sales, nevermind what these numbers are about and even you know like I do this can mislead folks about what it's capable of.

4: It's not on me to prove anything beyond what I have already on my part.
I'm not the one making the claim of a WR here - That's on Intel.
As for benefit of the doubt, with Intel's known and proven history I'm not banking on that, the statement is as made and shown, nothing you or I can do about it.

However if they would define HOW it's a WR along with proof I'd be OK with that and really that's all I could ask for.

5: Hey - I'm good with it and up to task anytime - To that point, I've already "Put up".
You are right about one thing if nothing else - Memory/RAM is a part of it too. I don't have the best sticks but I manage well enough to get what I'm after done.

BTW if you really want to discuss point #5, lets take it to PM's and not further derail the thread with it.

 

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I feel like you are arguing in bad faith.

There are plenty of ways to interpret the world record claims, and without the context . Some might be more legitimate than others.

 

Maybe the record is a combination of things, not just a single core? For example memory as well.

Maybe it's a world record for Intel processors?

Maybe they overclocked it above 8GHz, but rounded it to that?

Maybe it's a world record in some benchmark?

Perhaps and not really arguing - I'm just stating it's really vague the way it's presented.
I understand why you'd ask all this, which in a way is what I'm doing too except when it comes to WR's, clarification of what it is really matters just like you need proof to get a validation from CPU-Z.

Question:
If clear proof of what WR was set is required from everyone else, why should these guys be an exception?
Answer:
They shoudn't be.
 

[MageTank]

3 minutes ago, Beerzerker said:

2: So I guess from your perspective every and any WR's MUST be from the current, latest and greatest stuff or it's just nothing.

Interesting take, given nothing I said even remotely eluded to that fact. I was more so poking fun at the fact that you showed up bragging to Intel that your CPU is clocked higher, as a means of telling the rest of the thread "Hey, look at what I did" when in the context of performance, it's irrelevant. In the same post you quoted, I went on to elaborate that HWbot separates records by individual components. I am well aware of how overclocking works, I've been doing it for quite some time now.

6 minutes ago, Beerzerker said:

Way to demean and diss on what others have done dude, I mean it's not like any effort was put into getting it done right?
Oh wait - There was, alot of it in fact right along with the expense of getting the hardware just to pull it off, paying for the Ln2 to run it and the headaches of figuring it out... If it could be done at all.
I don't care what or how old it is, I appreciate the effort guys put in to setting WR's and I show it by daring to call "Bull" on this as presented.

You'll have a very hard time convincing this forum that I am demeaning the efforts of overclockers when I have plenty of history on this very forum teaching people to overclock their old hardware, lol. Also, if your goal was to call "bull", you could do it without demeaning Intel's individual hardware record. After all, they put in a lot of effort to pull off the world record of having the fastest 13th gen CPU, paying for the LN2 to run it and the headaches of figuring it out. Oh how the turn tables...

 

7 minutes ago, Beerzerker said:

3: From your post as quoted, even you cannot "Say" what this claimed WR is about, that's the thing about it to me.
Marketing guys know higher numbers mean more sales, nevermind what these numbers are about and even you know like I do this can mislead folks about what it's capable of.

Exactly, and neither can you. You cannot say they are claiming the world record of highest overall frequency because that was not explicitly claimed. This means we have to give them the benefit of the doubt unless proven otherwise.

 

9 minutes ago, Beerzerker said:

4: It's not on me to prove anything beyond what I have already on my part.
I'm not the one making the claim of a WR here - That's on Intel.
As for benefit of the doubt, with Intel's known and proven history I'm not banking on that, the statement is as made and shown, nothing you or I can do about it.

Correct, burden of proof would be on Intel if they made a claim. Luckily Intel did not make the claim of having the highest frequency record, so they should be safe from having to defend against your weird response, lol.

 

9 minutes ago, Beerzerker said:

However if they would define HOW it's a WR along with proof I'd be OK with that and really that's all I could ask for.

So until they define HOW its a world record, you are just going to assume their intent? That is a very weird way to go about life in general. Something something don't confuse ill intent with stupidity, or however the quote goes.

13 minutes ago, Beerzerker said:

5: Hey - I'm good with it and up to task anytime - To that point, I've already "Put up".
You are right about one thing if nothing else - Memory/RAM is a part of it too. I don't have the best sticks but I manage well enough to get what I'm after done.

BTW if you really want to discuss point #5, lets take it to PM's and not further derail the thread with it.

Sounds like a plan.

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, MageTank said:

So until they define HOW its a world record, you are just going to assume their intent? That is a very weird way to go about life in general. Something something don't confuse ill intent with stupidity, or however the quote goes.

 

I'd say the narrative was already defined rather well, or every single article changed since publication....

 

Quote

The overclock was achieved across 8 P-Cores with SMT disabled

Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/88369/intel-core-i9-13900k-raptor-lake-cpu-used-to-breach-8ghz-barrier/index.html

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/88369/intel-core-i9-13900k-raptor-lake-cpu-used-to-breach-8ghz-barrier/index.html

 

Quote

The highest frequency record is currently held by an AMD FX-8370, which clocks in at an astonishing 8.72 GHz. With an overclocked frequency of 8.61 GHz, Intel's Celeron D352 ranks sixth. So far However, no contemporary Core or Ryzen CPUs have been able to breach the 8 GHz barrier.

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/overclock-towards-8-0ghz-with-core-i9-13900k-(raptor-lake)-flagship-already-achieved.html

 

Quote

One should expect even higher clocks from Raptor Lake, though. The overclocker revealed that 8.0 GHz is just a baseline for this CPU.

https://videocardz.com/newz/overclocker-pushes-intel-core-i9-13900k-to-8-ghz-with-ln2-cooling

 

8GHz on all P cores is very damn good, you don't do this to achieve nor claim outright frequency WR either so 

[Beerzerker]

8 hours ago, MageTank said:

-Snip-

I'm just gonna say it plainly - Until they show "Us" how it's a WR I'm not gonna buy it.

Wanting to hold them to the same standard as all others when a WR is claimed to have been achieved is not unreasonable to ask for, so I do.
The fact it's implied as a WR on their own presentation screen is enough to either go with it or call it "Bull", which I did.

Not believing everything you see is not a weird way to go through life, certain things are required at certain times and that does occasionally include proof of something, be it a claim or whatever else.

I will admit the meme and so on was over the top but still doesn't change my stance over it.
If and when they do show proof of what it is I'll accept and move on and that's all I really want - End of story.

[MageTank]

10 hours ago, Beerzerker said:

I'm just gonna say it plainly - Until they show "Us" how it's a WR I'm not gonna buy it.

Wanting to hold them to the same standard as all others when a WR is claimed to have been achieved is not unreasonable to ask for, so I do.
The fact it's implied as a WR on their own presentation screen is enough to either go with it or call it "Bull", which I did.

Not believing everything you see is not a weird way to go through life, certain things are required at certain times and that does occasionally include proof of something, be it a claim or whatever else.

I will admit the meme and so on was over the top but still doesn't change my stance over it.
If and when they do show proof of what it is I'll accept and move on and that's all I really want - End of story.

Fair enough.

 

My money is on them claiming an R23 ST record (which would be impressive if their OC survived 10 minutes) as it would probably be the easiest record for them to take. Still, we will find out eventually. If it turns out that I'll be eating crow, I'll break out the smoker and make it as tender as I can. By itself, its an acquired taste, lol.

[Beerzerker]

1 hour ago, MageTank said:

Fair enough.

 

My money is on them claiming an R23 ST record (which would be impressive if their OC survived 10 minutes) as it would probably be the easiest record for them to take. Still, we will find out eventually. If it turns out that I'll be eating crow, I'll break out the smoker and make it as tender as I can. By itself, its an acquired taste, lol.

I use a paper plate for my crow - Washing a plate fails to keep it from transferring the "Flavor" to whatever else you use the plate for, so I just go paper and toss it when I'm done. 

I do know one thing - 1.73v's is alot of voltage to throw at it so we know Ln2 was involved, no question about it.
If they did slay the previous R23 record that's a feather in their cap and I'll gladly give applause to it.

[Shzzit]

Lol why can't we just have a Debate without getting so salty and resorting to attacks and put downs?  Thought we were better than this guys. 

 

Im so excited to buy a new CPU,  My 8700k is seeing its age as alot of new games PEGs my 5.3ghz cpu to 100% on all cores alot.  Still stays below 65 but still i dont like that at ALL>  

 

Cant wait to see if Intels new 24 core is gonna be faster then AMDs new 7950x3d.  Then again 24 cores vs 16 cores.  Not sure if i like that whole fake 24 core thing but aye. 

[pas008]

1 hour ago, Shzzit said:

Lol why can't we just have a Debate without getting so salty and resorting to attacks and put downs?  Thought we were better than this guys. 

 

Im so excited to buy a new CPU,  My 8700k is seeing its age as alot of new games PEGs my 5.3ghz cpu to 100% on all cores alot.  Still stays below 65 but still i dont like that at ALL>  

 

Cant wait to see if Intels new 24 core is gonna be faster then AMDs new 7950x3d.  Then again 24 cores vs 16 cores.  Not sure if i like that whole fake 24 core thing but aye. 

underlined how are they fake but isnt that a put down lol

 

also if you playing at 4k plus or dont have enough cores for those certain rare games, cpu really doesnt matter from gaming perspective