This is not looking for tech support, but just some info.
I have upgraded from a 10 year old Phenom II 965 to an I5 7600k.
I have read the box and the store page from the online retailer I bought it from:
>Stock Speed 3.8ghz >Turbo clock 4.2ghz
However, I have found that this chip "turbos" up to 4.5ghz. Is this normal? I am not new to high end PCs, I just havn't built one in a decade....I am new to this turbo concept....I understand it is just evolution of P-state, but is it normal for it to go higher then 4.2?
Also, first post in Jow Forums. Thanks for being here anons.
>you bought an i5 in current year >kaby lake i5 no less already fucked up
Chase Peterson
>he didn't wait for zen 2 >he bought something in an already dead platform
Luke Torres
>already fucked up Not at all. For what I use my PC for, it is way more then is necessary. I don't need 6 cores w/Hyperthreading. Most, if not all of my software (games) are single threaded. I don't get into new games. The "Newest" PC game I play is Borderlands2, which a potato could run. I have run quite a few benchmarks, and I am getting more then enough frames. I don't compete in small dick waiving competitions with internet nerds.
I wish instead of just acting like a smug bastard, you would explain your statement. Obviously I could wait 3-6 months for the next best processor...but by that point, I might as well wait 6 more months for the next better thing....and I could continue to repeat that process for another 2-3 years.
I was pretty much content with my Phenom II. It became a bottleneck for my Gtx Titan.
>he bought something in an already dead platform Again, I couldn't care less. Part of my reason for purchase was that it is "older" and was very cost effective. There is no comparison between a Phenom II and an I5 7600.
I didn't come here to listen to trolls. I figured that there would be someone here with a room temp IQ. Eventually someone would enjoy answering my simple question.
It's probably default overclocking applied by your motherboard, or some form of "enhanced turbo" that your motherboard is applying incorrectly. Reset BIOS/UEFI to default settings.
Jeremiah Scott
you should know at this point that Jow Forums is filled with AMD employees or rabid fans. you could have gotten that cpu for free and they would still tell you an athlon64 is better..
answering your question, its probably a motherboard setting that auto OCs by default.
Jaxon Wilson
Your 965 BE was better than this garbage
Austin King
why the fuck did you buy a new processor then? why do you have a gtx titan if you only play old games? if cost effectiveness is so important to you, why didn't you rather buy a haswell processor which doesn't require extremely expensive ddr4 memory? it's just a really strange choice desu
Lucas Williams
you fucked up. do you realize that coffee lake i3s are better than kaby lake i5s? think about that for a moment.
Cameron Anderson
Time to mod your Z170/Z270 motherboaed and add the correct Intel ME, µCodes(extract from the new 8 core BIOS updates) and various modules. Then slam a 9990k/9700K in there.
>you should know at this point that Jow Forums is filled with AMD employees or rabid fans. This is my first, and probally last post in this area lol.
>Your 965 BE was better than this garbage Benchmarks say otherwise.
>why the fuck did you buy a new processor then? My phenom II was 10+ years old. It cannot compete with current tech.
>why do you have a gtx titan if you only play old games? Because I wanted DVI-I and no excuses. I paid less then what a used Gtx 780ti costs on ebay. They are similar in output, and I have no complaints.
>you fucked up. do you realize that coffee lake i3s are better than kaby lake i5s? think about that for a moment. This actually is in contrast to everything I read about the coffee lake vs Kaby lake. The difference is that other places make the claim that there is not much difference at all, and provide proof. You just make a wild claim, with no proof, no backup and no documentation.
I didn't realize I was stepping in an AMD fanboy safe space. I haven't had an Intel chip since my pentium II. I certainly do enjoy AMD and what they have done, but at this point I need powerful single cores, and not a pile of hyperthreaded/threadripping etc. I am not even sure if I need a quad core....
I don't have any desire to overclock. I did that for years for fun. It is not fun anymore, and is unnecessary for me.
>Time to mod Hahah, no. I have many years of water cooling/overclocking and using tri-sli as a space heater.
>there are different titans I just got the simple 6gb model. It is simply called a Titan. Not titan X black Xp or other nonsense.
yeah, I know that but they are definitely not value oriented like OP claims he is
Noah Ortiz
I hate how you were nimwitted enough to buy a last generation Intel processor and posting a stupid OP picture, but also how no one has answered your question clearly yet. So here we go.
I think you are wrong about seeing a 7600K turboing up to 4.5 GHz. I think you read something about the i7-7700K which turbos to that speed. But to answer what Turbo Boost is, it's basically just additional P-states, where there are higher state modes that allow the processor to ramp up to the frequency stated, but the default state is what it is in the package.
It will only go ramp up to that speed if you have a heavy than normal workload that would need that speed according to the processor, and you have enough thermal headroom to ramp up. If at any point you lose that thermal headroom during operation, you will ramp back down and throttle so the processor stays cool. Intel's explanation is here:
For K processors, it's pointless as you can easily overclock it over the turbo speed so it would make no sense to have it on as it would essentially throttle your processor. But for non-K processors, that's your only way to get additional performace from your CPU as you can not overclock it so it makes sense how cooling has gone a bit more crazy nowadays as the additional thermal headroom is important to get that overclock Intel allows.
I purchased one a year ago for my PC build at my work. It easily overclocked up to 4.8GHz for me. My motherboard was not capable of going higher, but I think with this CPU, 5GHz could be attainable.
Asher Cook
>yeah, I know that but they are definitely not value oriented like OP claims he is I got it cheaper than anything in the same league, so yes. It was cost effective compared to a Gtx 780/980.
>I think you are wrong about seeing a 7600K turboing up to 4.5 GHz.
I would be more then happy to run 3dmark again with cpu-z running. 4.5 certainly was the max clock rate.
>have enough thermal headroom to ramp up I have a zalman cpns 9500. I would think that it is more then enough for a "91"watt processor. I think that this cooler would be able to dispel twice as much heat as this chip puts out.
>You bought a 5 year old video card, unironically? No. I bought it because it had DVI-I and was cheaper then a Gtx 780ti/980ti.
>Are you running a fucking VGA monitor in two thousand and eighteen? Calibrated Sony GDM Fw900. I have had it for nearly 14 years. I have all the calibration equipment and usually zero it in every few years.
>I think you are wrong about seeing a 7600K turboing up to 4.5 GHz.
Pic related. I ran some linpack (Intel burn test). CPU-Z reported 4500 through out the entire test.
That seems like decent value though, doesn't that one perform close to a 980 Ti?
Jacob Nguyen
>That seems like decent value though, doesn't that one perform close to a 980 Ti? Benchmarks out in the wild suggest that the Gtx Titan and the Gtx 780ti are very similar, with the 780ti being better by a slight bit.
>170 Watts when operating At this point the power costs alone on it have been more than it would cost to get a top of the line 100% AdobeRGB IPS LCD monitor.
Angel Harris
You know active adapters exist right
Bentley Clark
It's just your board applying a TPU overclock on auto.
Also fuck the retards that think the i3 coffee lake is better, they only have a single fucking baseclock with no turboclocks, you can't even force max boost with multicore enhancement across all cores because there is no fucking boost clock on the i3s
I3-8300 only has a single clock of 3.7ghz.
Jordan Parker
You said CPU-Z and you give me a screenshot of some unrelated program which I never heard of and which is infinitely less credible. Also, you don't have the latest version and having the following bug just being fixed in its changelog also makes me skeptical of its accuracy.
>- Fix: Frequency is always at maximum for early Core iX and Core 2 models.
You would need to provide stronger proof to back up your assertion because the specifications say otherwise and Intel is not that type of company to do minor slipups like put a P-state that wasn't advertised. They haven't done this for about over a decade now.
You are also an idiot because if you were going to depend on this feature exclusively, you could've just gotten a 7600 on what you are getting with Turbo vs not, and save 50 bucks from MSRP comparisons to get something else.
Daniel Collins
>At this point the power costs alone on it have been more than it would cost to get a top of the line 100% AdobeRGB IPS LCD monitor. I don't mind the extra power for 0ms latency and 85hz @ 1920x1200. No ghosting. Smooth as butter. I also have an Asus 144hz LCD, but it looks like shit compared to the GDM. I bought it because tards in forums told me it would blow my CRT away. But, I pissed away my money to buy it, and it has sat on the shelf in my workshop for the last 2 years. (I listened to tards, which makes me a tard)
Do you want to buy a slightly used 144 hz lcd? I still have the box and all the sticker shit that covered all the plastic panels.
>You know active adapters exist right Yes, and I am active over at [H]ard forums where this exact monitor and active adapters are discussed. They are hit or miss. Even identical models give varying results on the same monitor.
>It's just your board applying a TPU overclock on auto. Thanks for the info. That is most likely the exact info I am looking for.
>You said CPU-Z and you give me a screenshot of some unrelated program which I never heard of and which is infinitely less credible Core temp or Intel burn test? Instead of assuming that because you have not herd of it, it must not be real you should research.
I don't know what program you are talking about but: Intel burn test 2.2 Core temp And now Pic related with CPU-z
And yes, after running burn test, the core freq drops to 800 mhz.
OP, please leave this site and never come back. Thanks
Lucas Adams
>Part of my reason for purchase was that it is "older" and was very cost effective. How much did you pay? The i3-8350k is a better and cheaper CPU. It has the same core count, cheaper, more cache, etc.
Mason Thompson
Then it does look like Intel fucked up here. I looked at 7600K reviews and they all had CPU-Z screenshots like the one here, which was taken from Guru 3D's review.
>Then it does look like Intel fucked up here. As a few others have said, it may be a setting in the bios. I haven't yet fiddled around much inside of the bios.
I say now that I don't have any desire to overclock etc...but I know it will happen. I may even break out the WC blocks again.
>OP, please leave this site and never come back. Thanks I probably won't be back. My doctor just told me I got a bad case of Ligma. It may be terminal.
>It may be cheaper, but it is not better. Did you even read the page you linked at all? You just posted proof that the 8350k is better than the 7600k in every instance.
