Weak I7-4790K

[khayman9]

Hello everyone, it's been a long while since my previous oc experiment and, from what I've read on the internet, things have changed a lot so I'd like to ask for and expert opinion.
A premise: I'm not looking for and extreme oc and I'm paranoid about high voltages and temps; no ram overclocking
My specs:
- Asus Z97 pro
- Intel I7-4790k
- Corsair hydro H100
- Intel's integrated HD graphics 4600
- 16GB (4x4) Corsair Dominator 1600mhz
- Samsung 850 pro 256gb - Windows 7 Ultimate x64
- Seagate 2tb storage
- OCZ ZX1000 Gold
Bios, OS and drivers are all up-to-date
Bear in mind that the only settings I've changed in the bios are the multiplier, the core voltage, the graphic's multiplier and I shifted the AI overclocking tuner to XMP.
My CPU doesn't seem to like high frequencies at all; initially I tried with Asus's automated oc and the results were quite poor so decided to do it manually. Still, imho, the outcome is nowhere near good enough compared to what you can read online. Anyway, numbers: my i7-4790k runs synchronously at 4.6ghz with 1.3 volts, anything less than that and it either behaves weirdly or crashes, and the temps are a bit too high for my liking (between 70 and 80 C). Also, I'm not comfortable running it at 1.3 volts for everyday use so I keep it at 4.5 with 1.218 volts, which is ok but still a lot for a nearly non-existing overclock (4.4ghz turbo???).
So, my question is, am I just unlucky to have found a sluggish processor or am I missing something?
PS: before the end of the year I will have changed my cooling to either Corsair's Hydro H100i or NZXT's Kraken X60 and I will throw in a new video card (don't yet know which though).
Thanks in advance for your help,
Daniel.

 

[Thelosouvlakia]

I can give you the most possible explanation. You lost the silicon lottery. Your chip can't get clocked higher than what you are reaching. And the results you see on online review sites (like this one) might be because the review samples were cherrypicked (excellent overclocking chips chosen by hand). So, just bad luck

 

[khayman9]

I can give you the most possible explanation. You lost the silicon lottery. Your chip can't get clocked higher than what you are reaching. And the results you see on online review sites (like this one) might be because the review samples were cherrypicked (excellent overclocking chips chosen by hand). So, just bad luck

That's what I thought. Thanks anyway. D

 

[RadeonHDx]

I really wouldn't be worrying if I were you. 4.5 is around average from what i can tell for those kinds of volts and i certainly wouldn't say that you've lost the lottery, maybe just come a little short of the expectations you had. Hope I help put some of your concerns to rest.

As for the GPU, I would recommend waiting to see what AMD had to offer from the 300 series of cards. From whats been going round today, it looks like Nvidia might have some real competition.

 

[khayman9]

I really wouldn't be worrying if I were you. 4.5 is around average from what i can tell for those kinds of volts and i certainly wouldn't say that you've lost the lottery, maybe just come a little short of the expectations you had. Hope I help put some of your concerns to rest.

The target I had in mind was exactly 4.6 but, frankly, I was hoping 1.25 volts would be enough (that's the highest voltage I'm willing to accept for everyday use); obviously, I was wrong. Thanks for replying, D

 

[KING_OF_SAND]

I got lucky with my i5 I cherry picked it sort of lol I went to my local Frys Electronics and kept returning i5 processors until I got one that could hit at least hit 5ghz. (OC in the sig) That will never happen again. it was 100% stable at 5ghz and I could hit 5.5ghz on a AIO cooler.

 

[khayman9]

I got lucky with my i5 I cherry picked it sort of lol I went to my local Frys Electronics and kept returning i5 processors until I got one that could hit at least hit 5ghz. (OC in the sig) That will never happen again. it was 100% stable at 5ghz and I could hit 5.5ghz on a AIO cooler.

That's impressive.

 

[Dawelio]

As for the GPU, I would recommend waiting to see what AMD had to offer from the 300 series of cards. From whats been going round today, it looks like Nvidia might have some real competition.

Do you know when these might come and is this the next line up, after the R9 series?...
As I have a 6950 and thinking of going for R9 290, but might not, as might wait for their next gpus... whenever they might come.

 

[khayman9]

Do you know when these might come and is this the next line up, after the R9 series?...
As I have a 6950 and thinking of going for R9 290, but might not, as might wait for their next gpus... whenever they might come.

I'd missed that part of the comment; I'm sort of an Nvidia fan: I used to have a GTX 570 but sold it when i got this CPU since I didn't really need it for what I do but when I saw the new 9xx series I was pretty impressed with them and now I'm thinking GTX 970! most likely my choice, since I don't really need it I'd rather save the extra 200€ required for the 980...

 

[RadeonHDx]

I'd missed that part of the comment; I'm sort of an Nvidia fan: I used to have a GTX 570 but sold it when i got this CPU since I didn't really need it for what I do but when I saw the new 9xx series I was pretty impressed with them and now I'm thinking GTX 970! most likely my choice, since I don't really need it I'd rather save the extra 200€ required for the 980...

So are you running with no GPU then? I'd say that a card from either camp would be good if you needed it now but if you are prepared to wait a short time (maybe just after Christmas), you should be able to get the cards on the cheap or get some of the new 300 series or the new maxwell stuff if you want to go Nvidia. The 390X is rumored to be as efficient as the 980 and have more performance, however it needs to be remembered that this is all rumors and nothing has been confirmed by AMD.

 

[khayman9]

So are you running with no GPU then? I'd say that a card from either camp would be good if you needed it now but if you are prepared to wait a short time (maybe just after Christmas), you should be able to get the cards on the cheap or get some of the new 300 series or the new maxwell stuff if you want to go Nvidia. The 390X is rumored to be as efficient as the 980 and have more performance, however it needs to be remembered that this is all rumors and nothing has been confirmed by AMD.

Yes, I'm running without gpu and I'll keep in mind what you've said. Unfortunately for me, December is the month when I get my bonus so it's kinda now or never. It doesn't have to be a 970 though. I'm actually following a nice bid on an Asus gtx 690 at the moment. ..

 

[RadeonHDx]

970 or 690, either way you're getting an incredibly powerful card. Bear in mind that you might not get all of the features that the 900 series cards have if you decide that the 690 is too good an offer to pass up.

 

[Kushiro]

OP do not go for the 690, unless you get it really cheap. Frankly a 970 will be the better option for you regardless, thanks to the increased vram etc. 2GB is not enough.

 

[khayman9]

OP do not go for the 690, unless you get it really cheap. Frankly a 970 will be the better option for you regardless, thanks to the increased vram etc. 2GB is not enough.

I understand. I'd very much prefer the 970 but if I can get a very good deal on the 690 I may consider upgrading my ram instead; after all, my Doms will be 4 years old in March: I doubt it's gonna happen though, there are still 5 days before the bid expires and the price will skyrocket in the last day... it always does!
Eventually, I will upgrade my ram anyway but, maybe, not right now.
By the way, in my original post I stated I would go for either H100i or Kraken X60 but, in fact, I've just purchased a Cooler Master Nepton 280L and I've also bought myself a vial of Coollaboratory Liquid Pro: these 2 should take care of my temps.... any thoughts?

 

[Kaapstad]

Yes, I'm running without gpu and I'll keep in mind what you've said. Unfortunately for me, December is the month when I get my bonus so it's kinda now or never. It doesn't have to be a 970 though. I'm actually following a nice bid on an Asus gtx 690 at the moment. ..

The GTX 690 is a fast card but it's time has passed as it is not really up to dealing with the latest games. The GTX 690 only has 2gb of VRAM per GPU which is no where near enough for some of the latest games I have seen released even @1080p.


I own a pair of GTX 690s, 2 years ago they would get into the top 10 on the Futuremark Hall of Fame bench tables but now I just use them to play DVDs on my TV, what a come down.

 

[khayman9]

The GTX 690 is a fast card but it's time has passed as it is not really up to dealing with the latest games. The GTX 690 only has 2gb of VRAM per GPU which is no where near enough for some of the latest games I have seen released even @1080p.


I own a pair of GTX 690s, 2 years ago they would get into the top 10 on the Futuremark Hall of Fame bench tables but now I just use them to play DVDs on my TV, what a come down.

I don't game, in fact, I wouldn't even need a video card; I'm just buying it because I think it might take some heat off the CPU. So, if I can get it cheap, I will go for 690, or any decent card I find out there. If I don't find anything used that appeals to me then I'll definitely go for a new 970. Anyway, I thought the topic of this conversation was my CPU