6700K overclocking results?

M76

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
14,056
I want to get a feel of how good are these cpus really?
Any of you who already got one can you please post your overclocking results?

I'm undecided between the 5820K and 6700K.

I know that with the 5820K I can realistically hope for 4.3Ghz, anything above that is a bonus. But what about the 6700K? If that also tops out at the same range then I think the 5820K is still a better choice.
 
Looks like 6700K's have been hitting about 4.6Ghz pretty commonly, with 'bad' examples getting 4.5 and good ones getting up to 5.0

So, pretty good compared to several of the last gens IMHO.

Check out this thread on AT
or this thread here
 
Last edited:
I've seen many people doing 4.5 with decent voltage on the 5820k and 4.4 as a safe bet.
 
Most reviews seem to have been able to push the 6700K to 4.7 with ease, 4.5 at worst... They're still pretty scarce so there aren't a ton of people reporting their OC yet but initial results line up.

There's also several recent threads you can look up if you wanna see other's take on the 5820 vs 6700 debate. I might've gone 5820K if the 6700K didn't clock higher, even tho that's totally illogical.

The 5% difference or whatever it is between 4.3 & 4.7 really shouldn't be your/our deciding factor. Skylake also has a more substantial IPC lead which might scale differently depending on the test... Plus a somewhat more modern platform in Z170 and lower cost.

5820K + X99 might cost you about the same if you have a Microcenter nearby and/or catch a good mobo deal, it still runs hotter and the two extra cores might matter even less than clock speeds or IPC depending on what you're doing...

If you really need them or could benefit you probably already know it and it's not even a discussion... Otherwise you probably sit there and ponder like the rest of us. :D

I don't have a MC nearby, could bug my sister but I don't need the heat or the cores (occasional video editing is the only time I'd put them to use, certainly not gaming or photo editing), and I like Z170 board layouts better.
 
Sorry, I live in Europe, so no microcenter, for me. Just a cool 27% VAT. :mad:

I plan on multiple uses some of witch would benefit from the extra cores. But my main concern is, that a decent Z170 board is more expensive than an X99 one. Of course the entry level Z170 boards are cheap, but lacks some features that are a must have for me. Like SLI support (even if I own AMD now, I'd like the option to go green at any given time), enough SATA3 ports. (I need a bare minimum of 7 atm, but would prefer 10, of coure that can be substituted with add in cards, but that again brings the price up of the Z170 platform)

Anyway I might still decide against upgrading completely, as my 3820 also runs at 4.5, the leap would be minuscule in everyday performance.
 
You have a 3820? I saw a 3930K in the FS/FT forum the other day for $300 ! Seriously just drop one of those or a 4930K in, if you can find one. Then just ride the X79 for a couple more years.
 
I was thinking of buying a 4930K, and I could probably get one for $300 used. But then I'd have a very hard time selling my 3820 by itself. (as it's the "worst" cpu of the platform). My thinking is that I stand a better chance selling my MB+CPU together.
 
Well just got done putting everything togther, Asus Z170 Deluze board and i7 6700k, running under an H100i withj fans set at 65% rpm and the asus tool got me to 4.8ghz for my max stable overclock. Pretty pleased with that, will see how the temps do over the next day or two of usage, may back it down a notch.A decent overclock though.
 
DFinan said:
Well just got done putting everything togther, Asus Z170 Deluze board and i7 6700k, running under an H100i withj fans set at 65% rpm and the asus tool got me to 4.8ghz for my max stable overclock. Pretty pleased with that, will see how the temps do over the next day or two of usage, may back it down a notch.A decent overclock though.
Click to expand...
Thats really nice. I am tempted but I just see a reason to ditch my [email protected]. Rock stable without issues
 
I don't like it, that we consider a 20% overclock decent nowadays. It's pathetic, measly. I wish the days came back of the 50-75% overclocks. Like the Celeron 300A @ 466, the Celeron 366 @ 566. or the Celeron 600 @ 900 (I've had one that ran @ 1080 with air) But also in the upper category, I've had a Pentium III 550 that ran at 850.

So if the 4000Mhz 6700K ran at say 6000, that would be decent in my books, these are just scraps. Even my current CPU is better. 3600 @ 4750 that's at least 30%.
 
I don't think the issue is with the OC % per se, the issue is more with the parts we're OC'ing now. 6600/6700K are basically the best parts in the lineup, or second best. Even if you go HEDT a 5820K is basically a bone thrown at enthusiasts...

Back in those days the 300A and that PIII 550 were not the second or third best parts in Intel's lineup, might've been like fourth/fifth down if that. When they locked the multiplier and bus speed down and threw us the Ks it didn't seem that bad at first because the clock speed gains were still more substantial.

They simply started with more headroom to play with and whittled it down. We're at the end of that road now tho and the story is a little different... If they had more competition they might be more focused on the desktop, on bringing prices down, etc. Competition has been lacking for the better part of a decade tho.

The other side of that coin is we've been paying about the same for that OC friendly quad core part for the better part of a decade (Q6600, 2500K, 6600K, etc). There hasn't been a real mainstream demand for more either so... It's not wholly on Intel's feet IMO.

The % OC, and OC'ing has become about as relevant as the clock speed race... More for the hell of it at this point than huge gains or saving money. There's three choices, stick with an old i5/i7, won't matter much to anyone, upgrade if you have other reasons to...

Or pray to baby Jesus that Zen = a rabbit out of a hat. :p
 
Mine can do 4.8ghz on air but has too high of temps for me to be comfortable right now at 1.35v all cores got to 89c with IBT. Right now I'm running it at 4.6ghz at 1.3v hottest core after IBT for 30 loops is 82c the rest are 80c. Though I can probably run it 24/7 4.8ghz if I turned my fans up, but I prefer a silent build.

Running x264 stability test my hottest cores were 72c on above normal. So I will probably just stick with 4.6ghz for now, might do more testing during the winter months, hottest temp I've seen while gaming is 62c. Idle temps are surprisingly low at 27-30c. My haswell (4670k) idled in the low 40s. My ambient temperature is around 77F or 25c.

Pretty sure a 5820k is still the better choice if you can get them priced around the same since you do get 2 additional cores.
 
Lmah2x said:
Mine can do 4.8ghz on air but has too high of temps for me to be comfortable right now at 1.35v all cores got to 89c with IBT. Right now I'm running it at 4.6ghz at 1.3v hottest core after IBT for 30 loops is 82c the rest are 80c. Though I can probably run it 24/7 4.8ghz if I turned my fans up, but I prefer a silent build.

Running x264 stability test my hottest cores were 72c on above normal. So I will probably just stick with 4.6ghz for now, might do more testing during the winter months, hottest temp I've seen while gaming is 62c. Idle temps are surprisingly low at 27-30c. My haswell (4670k) idled in the low 40s. My ambient temperature is around 77F or 25c.

Pretty sure a 5820k is still the better choice if you can get them priced around the same since you do get 2 additional cores.
Click to expand...

Don't use IBT for stress testing. It creates unrealistic heat. 1.35 @ 4.8 is great and with a good air cooler, or AIO, you should be fine. x264 is much more realistic to use.
 
SilverSliver said:
Don't use IBT for stress testing. It creates unrealistic heat. 1.35 @ 4.8 is great and with a good air cooler, or AIO, you should be fine. x264 is much more realistic to use.
Click to expand...

Yea I know, I'm usually overly cautious. Maybe I'll put it back to 4.8 and monitor my temps while gaming over the next week or so and see how things go. I'll probably turn up my AP182's slightly more they are at about 25%. Thinking of getting a NH-D15 as well since I had my D14 for like 5 years now, but I'm not sure if it would make much of a difference since I already have 2 140mm Noctua's on my D14. I would consider water cooling but it seems complicated in a FT02.
 
On my rig, I just finished a 2 hour straight WoW game, overclocked to 4.8 with an h100i temsp never got about 47 celsius. Now admitedlly WoW is not that intensive but was still happy with the overclock, I think If I reall tweaked the settings and upped the voltage I could probably 5.0 but just not worth the effort.
 
DFinan said:
On my rig, I just finished a 2 hour straight WoW game, overclocked to 4.8 with an h100i temsp never got about 47 celsius. Now admitedlly WoW is not that intensive but was still happy with the overclock, I think If I reall tweaked the settings and upped the voltage I could probably 5.0 but just not worth the effort.
Click to expand...

Yea I bet I could get 5ghz as well on my chip on air if I delidded it but I'm not really down for that right now since they still have a short supply. Some people who have de-lidded so far say their temps dropped 5-20c. What voltages are you using at 4.8?
 
4.6 seems to be the 'sweet spot' for my new 6700k.... try as I might I can't seem to squeeze anything more out of it.

At 4.7ghz I'll eventually get a freeze or BSOD when running Prime95 blend with 8 threads, and I've tried pumping the vCore all the way up to 1.42v which leads to some pretty wicked load temps on my setup (TRUE 120). Setting LLC to Level 5 seemed to have helped a little, but it still goes tits up after a few hours.

At 4.6ghz it's happy as can be and I can drop the voltage down to 1.35 (and maybe even further, still testing). With the lower voltage comes much lower load temps as well.

Granted, the Asus Maximus Ranger VIII could be partially to blame since even the most recent BIOS seems quirky at best. I STILL can't run these 3000mhz rated G'Skill Ripjaws at 3000mhz no matter what I do, and I know lots of others who bought the same combo from Newegg that can't run them at that speed either. G'Skill seems hell bent on blaming the motherboard BIOS for that....
 
Impulse said:
I don't think the issue is with the OC % per se, the issue is more with the parts we're OC'ing now. 6600/6700K are basically the best parts in the lineup, or second best. Even if you go HEDT a 5820K is basically a bone thrown at enthusiasts...

Back in those days the 300A and that PIII 550 were not the second or third best parts in Intel's lineup, might've been like fourth/fifth down if that. When they locked the multiplier and bus speed down and threw us the Ks it didn't seem that bad at first because the clock speed gains were still more substantial.

They simply started with more headroom to play with and whittled it down. We're at the end of that road now tho and the story is a little different... If they had more competition they might be more focused on the desktop, on bringing prices down, etc. Competition has been lacking for the better part of a decade tho.

The other side of that coin is we've been paying about the same for that OC friendly quad core part for the better part of a decade (Q6600, 2500K, 6600K, etc). There hasn't been a real mainstream demand for more either so... It's not wholly on Intel's feet IMO.

The % OC, and OC'ing has become about as relevant as the clock speed race... More for the hell of it at this point than huge gains or saving money. There's three choices, stick with an old i5/i7, won't matter much to anyone, upgrade if you have other reasons to...

Or pray to baby Jesus that Zen = a rabbit out of a hat. :p
Click to expand...

E-peen overclocking is still alive, but value oriented overclocking is already dead since Devil's Canyon.

I find it hilarious to see Intel emphasizing so much on Skylake OCing and to see the 6700K to get only like what, a ~10% realistic boost in clocks?
 
Are you guys adjusting the cache speed at all? On my 6600k at least, the default is set to 3.9GHz. Going over 4.2GHz gives me instant BSOD. I'm not sure which voltage setting it uses, or if I should even be messing with it. This is new to me, as my last CPU, the 2500k obviously did not have this option. I feel compelled to mess with it...
 
Astral Abyss said:
Are you guys adjusting the cache speed at all? On my 6600k at least, the default is set to 3.9GHz. Going over 4.2GHz gives me instant BSOD. I'm not sure which voltage setting it uses, or if I should even be messing with it. This is new to me, as my last CPU, the 2500k obviously did not have this option. I feel compelled to mess with it...
Click to expand...

I haven't messed with it at all - from what I've heard you'll usually be able to increase it to a couple hundred mhz below your maximum core overclock.
 
Blue Falcon said:
I haven't messed with it at all - from what I've heard you'll usually be able to increase it to a couple hundred mhz below your maximum core overclock.
Click to expand...

Any idea if you should, or even can, adjust the voltage of it?


EDIT: I found this short article on LegitReviews about cache overclocking. http://www.legitreviews.com/intel-core-i7-6700k-cache-overclocking-with-ddr4-3600-mhz-memory_170577 Didn't really seem to make much difference in performance. Looks like the cache voltage tends to be tied to the CPU voltage.
 
Last edited:
Just got all mine together and windows installed. Stable at 4.6 with 1.35 volts so far. Time to move on up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top