Post your Geekbench (http://geekbench.com/download/wind ows/

would love to see some OC'ed 6700K results just to compare

File: 5593.png (15KB, 856x180px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 856x180px

one more run

bamp

File: untitled.png (4KB, 320x107px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 320x107px

Welp, I tried

File: results.jpg (28KB, 866x217px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 866x217px

Here is my intel 4690k OCed to 4.2 GHz with a hyper 212 evo just like you OP

File: Untitled.jpg (56KB, 870x218px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 870x218px

1.4 ghz dual core i5
>wake me up inside

>>56977809
>just like OP

Check comparisons in geekbench site. OP is in 6700k stock category

>>56977934
I was only referring to the hyper 212 evo being the same

>>56977948
Oh thats fine then. Why dont you push your 4690k a bit more tho?

File: gaybench4.png (8KB, 860x143px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 860x143px

feels good man

>>56978926
Post stats

>>56977840
iPhone gets bigger score than that.

File: gb.png (9KB, 448x183px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 448x183px

i5-6400 @ 3.9 with stock cooler

File: 6800k 4.4GHz 1.39V.png (51KB, 407x403px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 407x403px

>>56978979
> Noctua NH-D15s, never hitting 60°C@100% and that's over 100W
kinda high voltage, I know. 4.2 is stable at 1.26V and 4.4 suddenly requires 1.39V kek. was too lazy to test 4.3

File: $50 pawn shop laptop.jpg (66KB, 637x591px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 637x591px

>>56977840
I feel you. 8gigs of 1866 ram in the mail. all of my neetbux

File: gb4i7.png (34KB, 972x844px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 972x844px

i7 - 6700k
4.7GHz
1.345V
Noctua NH-D14

Temps around ~75 at load

File: 5694.png (17KB, 926x263px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 926x263px

>>56979050
OP here. Bretty good for 6400.

>>56979552
I am almost OC 6700K level haha. Pic related, pushed it to 1.4V and 4.8GHz. Gonna try 4.9 now.

>>56979567
>>56979552
eh, sorry missed the multicore score, won't ever reach this level with 6600K

>>56979579
yeah, single core should honestly be pretty close to the same. i'll run again.

File: Gb4i71.png (30KB, 896x866px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 896x866px

>>56979579
>>56979595
and here it is. same parameters

File: 5699.png (17KB, 916x221px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 916x221px

>>56979648
Awesome. Mine didn't go so well, 4.9GHz was crashing @1.42V. Did not want to push it any further. 4.8GHz seems to be max on my chip. Pic related, pretty happy with the result

File: stock.png (17KB, 941x245px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 941x245px

>>56979798
Same processor @ stock. not that good heh

>>56979798
>>56979648
Yeah, mine caps at 4.8 as well. 4.9 is super unstable.

File: 5685.png (17KB, 890x220px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 890x220px

4.7GHz @ 1.35V, getting this score. not much difference from 4.8

File: i5 on air.png (36KB, 880x579px)

36KB, 880x579px

>i5 3570K
>4.5GHz
>evo 212

Room reaches 41c in summer so won't try OC'ing any higher.

Got this CPU when it first came out, my e-peen isn't as big as the latest i7 but it's the experience that counts, right?

File: 2016-10-08 09_55_44-MSI MS-7885 - Geekbench Browser.png (42KB, 1322x354px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 1322x354px

>>56978926
>>56979058
Pretty good, here is my 5820k at 4.4Ghz as well.


Not going to bother pushing it up to 4.7GHz just for a single benchmark.

Are clocks like 4.6-4.8 GHz safe for everyday use?

>>56980230
Depends on the CPU, your cooling, and your motherboard.

For a 6700k with an NH-D15, 4.7GHz is probably the upper limit.

>>56980259
6600K with 212 evo and asus z170A mobo ?

>>56980305
4.3-4.5GHz unless you got a really good chip.

The 212evo is entry level cooling, NH-D15 is much beefier.

>>56980333
Yea but if you are mainly concerned about the temps, it never gets over 65

File: Cyberfox_2016-10-08_09-12-55.png (107KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1920x1080px

>>56977448
Mobilefag here

I can PCSX2, fine?

>>56980376
Crank it up to 4.5GHz and say that to me with a straight face.

File: GeekBench Benchmark 1,1.png (158KB, 953x1052px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 953x1052px

I'm upgrading soon.

>>56980465
shieeet son, how do you even browse

why is this thing 88mb?

>>56980473
It really doesn't feel that slow, an SSD helps. I actually do serious music production on this thing without issue. I've got an 8-core 2010 on lock so my multicore is going to get closer to 13,000 whenever I feel like carrying it to my apartment.

File: 2016-10-08 07_29_25-ASUS All Series - Geekbench Browser.png (22KB, 849x470px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 849x470px

>>56977448
I was getting a feeling of a need to upgrade
guess not

>>56980514
Because in order to check JPEG, AES, etc it has to have something to test it on, to be sure it's identical to all other tests, they provide the source files you use for testing.

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-08 at 9.33.12 AM.png (2MB, 3360x2100px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3360x2100px

>>56977448
>Lets see who has the biggest e-dick.
your benchmarking software is shit and refuses to run in a Win10 VM on a ESXi host. regardless, I win.

>>56980514
Because it is full of spyware

>>56980602
not in single core

Not even close for single core actually.

File: Untitled.png (27KB, 839x835px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 839x835px

4790k, 4Ghz, stock voltage, Hyper 212 EVO, nothing's OC'd, as a 212 turns into a space heater, but I can't really afford a meme cooler that actually works currently

>>56980465
X5460 is about $20 on ebay.

Test that and see how it goes. Its the same 771 socket, but 4c and higher clock.

Should be much faster.

>>56980611
>I dont know what cache is
>single core somehow matters

>>56980620
no OC with this score? Really?

>>56980650
>single core doesnt matter because of cache

nigger what have you been smoking? 75% of all desktop applications will mainly rely on single core processing as most things don't warrant being well threaded since most people have decent single core performance these days.

SOME thing swill be decently threaded, and in those things you'll do much better on than others. But for anything where the single core performance comes into play, you'll be left by the wayside.

For pretty much anything outside of professional use, your CPU would be terrible.

Desktop use? Shit
Gaming? Shit
Anything that hasn't been properly threaded to use more than 4 cores at a time? Shit

Encoding? Good
Rendering? Good
8+ VMs? Good


For the average person on their home computer, which of these areas do you think they care about??


more cores is boring as fuck, especially when they're that slow, if we are making dick analogies here you just pulled out a 12" cock but it's so fucking thin and weak looking you're gonna get laughed at no matter what.

File: scrot 2016-10-08 at 9.47.58 AM.png (289KB, 994x892px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 994x892px

Satisfied with this computer for sure. Even if apple releases a new one I doubt I'll upgrade. Battery is still great, CPU is pretty good, etc.

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-08 at 9.49.35 AM.png (64KB, 1470x296px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1470x296px

>>56980718
>75% of all desktop applications will mainly rely on single core processing
And they're generally not CPU bound

>SOME thing swill be decently threaded
for applications which are CPU bound

>But for anything where the single core performance comes into play, you'll be left by the wayside.
Oh noes, my IRC client must run like shit because it isnt running on a AMD 8ghz memechip

this thread was about epeens, and mine is the biggest so far

File: Capture.jpg (37KB, 871x293px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 871x293px

>>56977448
WTF. Looks like I'm officially the shitiest computer here

File: gb.png (22KB, 860x545px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 860x545px

4790k @ 4.6GHz
can't remember voltage but it's not much of an increase
~60C full load on an H105 CLC

>>56980794
If you actually believe what you wrote here you've confirmed yourself as an uneducated moron who thinks more cores means more power.

Enjoy your waste of money, I highly doubt you've ever used it's full potential.

>>56980627
I have a whole other machine ready to go; I just need to go pick it up.

>>56980876
isnt 4790K an i7 chip? Why is it getting same multicore scores as Skylake i5's?

>>56980876
So your 4790k at 4.6Ghz is worse than this guys 4790k at 4GHz?
>>56980620

>>56980939
>MS Word will run like shit unless it is on a OC'd cpu
>You cant browse the web because dont have only 4 cores
>You can't watch 4k video on a Xeon it just doesnt work
Oh noes all those normal desktop tasks I cant magically perform because I have too many cores.

> I highly doubt you've ever used it's full potential.
You're right here, right now i'm only using 80GB of RAM

stay butthurt you lost the epeen contest

>>56981010
mine's worse at 6 ghz
why
>>56980571

File: cpuz.png (79KB, 1159x618px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1159x618px

>>56981010

no idea, I'm not sure. Tested it again and it came up the same, one of them must be wrong

>>56981087
Probably the guy claiming it's at stock (with no proof it's at stock) but is outscoring ones clocked 600mhz higher.

>>56980857
shieeet my nigga, where that CPU at?

>>56981213
Intel atom on a 220$ laptop is my primary machine. But I get 16 hr battery time. so not complaining!

>>56981254
16h battery on laptop is pretty damn nice, if your regular work isn't hampered that much.

>>56979058
>1.4V
>At 4.4 GHz
Do you enjoy killing your CPU?

>>56981398
He's upset the 5820k hits 4.5GHz+ while under 1.35v and wants his 6800k to keep up.

File: file.png (41KB, 403x402px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 403x402px

>>56981416
ay

>>56981398
everybody knows 6600k is bad at OC, though 1.4V isn't harmful as long as you don't do it daily.

>>56981462
That's a 6800k not 6600k.

File: Geekbench.png (9KB, 901x164px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 901x164px

>>56977448
>6700k
>4.0GHz
>1,2V
>BeQuiet Dark Rock 2

Not overclocked currently

>>56981490
comfy score

>>56980391
Depends on you gpu, cpu is about the same as an I7 920 at 3ghz which ran it fine with an HD 7950. Depends on the games though, too.

>>56980410
My 4.5ghz 6700k never went above 25C idle. ~40 moderate load. Really doubtt it unless it's prolonged heavy load.

>>56980571
>6ghz
Uh?

File: Screenshot_1.jpg (221KB, 875x838px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 875x838px

Should I go ahead and overclock my 5820k? It's on the default 3.3

>>56981532
>never went above 25C idle
I find that unlikely unless you always keep your house around 18-20c ambient, which around here anyway would cost a fuckton in electricity for the AC.

Do even 5 minutes of heavy load and it will go over 65c.

Are 5820k owners the most cancerous of people?

>>56981546
yes
>>56980201

File: idle temp.png (41KB, 336x415px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 336x415px

>>56981557
>tfw

File: geekbench.png (30KB, 882x839px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 882x839px

I built this in 2007

E2180 @ 3.0GHz, 1.3V, Scythe Infinity

>>56981416
What do you mean? The 6800 at 4.2Ghz is on par with the 5820k at 4.4ghz

>>56981580
You either live in northern canada or serbia, or you run your AC to an insanely low level.

I keep my house at 24c. Meaning it would be literally impossible for my CPU to be running under 24C (you can't cool something below the temperature of the air you're using to cool it)

>>56981472
oops, that's what I meant, typo.

>>56981608
I live in Switzerland but, admittedly, I opened the window before taking the screenshot. Usually it hovers around 24°C with a room temperature of 21°C.

>>56981642
Yeah i have my computer sitting next to my window so I can do the same if I need to, but it's only 18c out, so it wouldn't do too much for me today.

File: hw.png (64KB, 650x800px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 650x800px

>>56981592
I recently upgraded to a 6700k from a E4400 @2Ghz. Had it since 2007 approximately. Best decision of my life. You should look into it.

The E4400 would overheat often, reaching ~60C while browsing, and near 70C while playing games from a decade ago. Youtube was near unwatchable with the frequent stuttering and overheating.The cooler was clean as a whistle too. Now I get ~24C on idle, and well, from my current session (firefox/skype/csgo/winamp/viber desktop/teamspeak/MS word/movie player, at the same time), my highest temp has been 42C according to HWMon. The graphics is from the integrated chip, HD530.

File: Geekbench OC.png (9KB, 883x158px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 883x158px

>>56981490
This one is overclocked to 4.4GHz and a Voltage of 1.32V

File: alright.png (34KB, 411x414px)

34KB, 411x414px

>>56981762
I pushed mine to 4.6ghz at 1.33 (pic related). You can probably go for lower voltages, or higher clocks with that.

File: 1241406080271.jpg (132KB, 407x419px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 407x419px

>run test again
>multi-core goes up by 4000
>single-core goes down by 200

>>56981721
mine only reaches about 50C under full load, and youtube works well enough. I'm waiting for new parts to arrive actually, but UPS is shit and keeps postponing delivery for some reason.

>>56981833
>UPS is shit and keeps postponing delivery for some reason
After the first day of that shit I call them and tell them to leave it for me at the closest distribution center and I pick it up after work.

Otherwise i'd be waiting a week for all my shit.

>>56981781
Usually I don't overclock because there's currently no need to overclock the i7 6700k. At least for me.

But I do overclock my GPU because sometimes it's needed just to achieve 60FPS on my 3440x1440 screen

>>56981580
>1.2Ghz
>Not 4.5Ghz
how retarded are you?

>>56981608
No, his cpu was just severely underclocked in that screenshot rather than running at the 4.5Ghz claimed. And probably just has a window open.

>>56981895
he's showing idle temps you retard. It's clocked at 4.5GHz, he's just showing idle temps so it SHOULD be down clocked.

>>56981895
>what is intel speed step
who's the retard, you tech-illiterate?

>>56981905
>he's just showing idle temps so it SHOULD be down clocked.
Idle would be just the OS running with no applications. It has nothing to do with clock speed you tard. This is speedstep underclocking the CPU due to the lack of load. If he went in to the power options and disabled it the temperature would be a significantly higher.

tl;dr l2terminology

>>56981927
which is underclocking it as i said

>>56981943
>This is speedstep underclocking the CPU due to the lack of load
So what?

That's the fucking point, if there is no load (idle) then of course it should downclock by itself if possible...


Are you actually retarded?

>>56981973
>That's the fucking point, if there is no load (idle) then of course it should downclock by itself if possible...
And the discussion was about chip temperature at a certain clock speed. Not chip temperature at a completely different than mentioned clock speed.

>retarded
that projection

>>56981997
>chip temperature at a certain clock speed
No one said that except you.

When you overclock, you don't turn off speedstep unless you're going for the max possible OC you can.

So we can assume the vast majority of people still have speedstep on, he specifically said he was showing idle temps, the title of the picture he posted even says Idle temp.png.

>>56981943
>>56981997
are you actually mentally impaired? we were talking about the CPU being in an idle state, not about manually disabling default settings in order to keep the clock speed up when idling.

>>56980602
thanks for showing us your 1337 vm, anon.

>>56982031
>No one said that except you.
That anon said it you tard:

>>56981532
>My 4.5ghz 6700k never went above 25C idle.

>When you overclock, you don't turn off speedstep unless you're going for the max possible OC you can.
speedstep has nothing to do with OCing. You disable speedstep to correct issues with latency sensitive workloads.

>>56982039
>we were talking about the CPU being in an idle state, not about manually disabling default settings in order to keep the clock speed up when idling.
you clearly were talking about keeping the clock speed up when you said 4.5Ghz at 25C

>>56982071
>>My 4.5ghz 6700k never went above 25C idle.
Okay? That's someone else retard

What CPU is posted in this screenshot?
>>56981580
Is it a 6700k?
No? It's a 6800k and you're retarded?
Oh well MAYBE they're different FUCKING people.

geekbench is such a pile of shit it can't even launch without crashing.

>>56982071
newfags can't even follow a conversation, you're mixing up posts and attributing what one person said about a 6700k to what another person said about their 6800k.

File: not you.png (23KB, 934x264px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 934x264px

>>56982071
that's not even me, fucker. 4.5GHz with a 6800k and 1.19V? kek, lurk more

>>56982090
Maybe its your computer thats shit?

>>56982079
>Okay? That's someone else retard
Thats what this entire conversation has been about.

>Oh well MAYBE they're different FUCKING people.
It doesnt matter if they're different people, it was what the conversation is about.

>>56982095
If he is replying to someone talking about a OC'd chip's idle temperature at a given clock speed, it doesnt matter who said it. The conversation has always been what the temperature would be after a moderate overclock.

>>56982127
no, the software is just shit, see previous posts

>>56982140
>If he is replying to someone talking about a OC'd chip's idle temperature at a given clock speed
except that isn't what is being discussed here....

You're assuming the anon at 4.5GHz is not using speedstep as well(I have no idea why you'd assume this). Not to mention the anon in the first post who mentioned 4.5GHz never even posted screenshots with verifiable temps taken, he just wrote it out in his post.

Without proof to the contrary, both the 6700k poster and the 6800k are using speedstep. the 6800k poster at least has some proof given that he used an actual screenshot.

File: 2522355-2341141665-tumbl.jpg (29KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x375px

>>56982140

Question:

Apparently a low enough voltage can kill the CPU just as much as a high voltage. Is this true? Not talking about a crash, but killing the chip.

I also remember reading that relatively high voltages for sustained periods of time are no longer as dangerous and detrimental to modern skylake (and later) CPUs as previous generations. I'm talking about the upper limit of things (~1.4V). Is there any truth to this?

Is speedstep a meme? I turned it off and had a performance profile set in place for power management, and so the clocks were running at maximum frequency, but the temperature was the same. So, do temperatures not increase even if the frequencies are at full, unless there's an actual load?

Is there a comprehensive series of articles that addresses these things? Preferably not written by an Intel employee.

Pls respond

>tfw Saturday night
>everyone is partying and having fun
>i am just trying to OC my chip to 4.9 GHz

Such is life of a nerd

>>56982341
I used to go out partying every weekend, but I now find that extremely overrated and would just prefer to stay at home and enjoy a glass of wine. I guess I just got old.

File: Screenshot_2.png (64KB, 849x714px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 849x714px

>>56977448
:^)

>>56978431
Will it be worth it though? I was thinking maybe I could push it to 4.5 GHz or higher since right now I'm using 1.188 V.

Does anyone have any experience OCing an i5 4690k? Mine is 4.2 GHz at 1.188V and idle temp is around 50C.

File: geekbench.png (85KB, 923x710px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 923x710px

>>56980076
3570k fag here as well.
Running @ stock clock speed, haven't tried OC'ing even though I have a Thermaltake Frio.

File: file.png (52KB, 847x591px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 847x591px

lmao, my phone has a higher score

>>56977679
Run it on a Linux live usb
http://www.geekbench.com/download/linux/

File: chrome_2016-10-08_22-32-09.png (26KB, 848x459px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 848x459px

meh

File: file.png (88KB, 844x813px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 844x813px

>>56984560
this is my desktop

File: Screenshot_2016-10-08-20-38-28.png (213KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1440x2560px

>>56984748
And this is my phone

>>56979006
>being this stupid

File: t420.jpg (37KB, 861x229px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 861x229px

>>56977448
Thinkpad T420

>>56984748
oh wow, there still exists P8P67 Pro boards that haven't broken yet?

>>56985006
Yeah, somehow.
I've got a feeling that it'll die soon, but when it does I'll just buy a Z77 board

File: Untitled2.png (32KB, 848x845px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 848x845px

>>56981546
How are you getting such low scores on stock?
Here's my stock 5820K for comparison

File: vqxOjYy.png (49KB, 731x823px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 731x823px

>>56977448 (OP)
>6600K
>4.5GHz
>1.3v
>212 Evo
Stays around 65c AIDA64.

Upgraded from a Phenom x4 a few months ago, dat face when your single threaded performance more than doubles. Absolutely love this CPU.

File: moveasideplebs.jpg (219KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1280x1024px

ok my i5 cant be this fucking bad

>>56988018
It's not. More than suitable for gaming.

File: System manufacturer System Product Name - Geekbench Browser - Mozilla Firefox.png (46KB, 732x849px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 732x849px

>X5650
>4 GHz
>1.3 V
>Noctua U12P

These results are nonsense, how can my multithreaded score not be anywhere near 6x my single threaded score when I have 6c/12t? I didn't see my CPU usage hit 100% once during this test.

>>56988169
That's not how it works. Single threaded performance is different as how the CPU is scored all together. At any rate, I find it interesting that my i5 beat your 6 score.

>>56988169
how new is the xeon?