ConLake Returns - Golden Sample 8700K's.

[Doobedoo]

If you didn't already know this then you shouldn't be looking at an 8700k imo.
There are tons of videos and reviews showing that these get hot. The conlake title is just a clickable title like 90% of his videos.

You have a very narrow minded view Gavin, not everyone spends all there time on forums like this, some may just stick to one or two of their favorite tech sites who may or may not point out those facts.

You just with your predetermined idea of who Jim is, instantly view this as an attack on your beloved Intel, mostly whilst self admittedly not even looking at his content.

 

[loftie]

Is there a decent sized second source of max overclocking frequencies of the cpus in question? Because just one source isn't great, even if it has 1000 samples.

 

[gavinh87]

You have a very narrow minded view Gavin, not everyone spends all there time on forums like this, some may just stick to one or two of their favorite tech sites who may or may not point out those facts.

You just with your predetermined idea of who Jim is, instantly view this as an attack on your beloved Intel, mostly whilst self admittedly not even looking at his content.

Not quite right. They do deserve flack for the crappy paste they use. They also deserve it for holding onto quads for so long but calling a cpu a con is a stretch too far. He also seems to go apeshit at nvidia but doesn't give AMD half of the crap they deserve for not being able to produce a decent GPU at a decent price for the last how many years.

 

[SiDeards73]

Not quite right. They do deserve flack for the crappy paste they use. They also deserve it for holding onto quads for so long but calling a cpu a con is a stretch too far. He also seems to go apeshit at nvidia but doesn't give AMD half of the crap they deserve for not being able to produce a decent GPU at a decent price for the last how many years.

Problem is your like a broken record, I thought you was banned from the CPU forum and I was actually glad, but apparently your not.

All you do is steer the threads back to your anti AMD rubbish, it's boring and I'm probably not alone in being tired by it.

Yet another thread derailed by you and humbug taking shots at each other.

Cpu forum is becoming the gpu forum thanks to you and Humbug.

Give it a rest, stop biting, and just stop rising to bait, we all know your opinion, you ram it down our throats atleast 10 times per thread.

 

[Doobedoo]

Not quite right. They do deserve flack for the crappy paste they use. They also deserve it for holding onto quads for so long but calling a cpu a con is a stretch too far. He also seems to go apeshit at nvidia but doesn't give AMD half of the crap they deserve for not being able to produce a decent GPU at a decent price for the last how many years.

Con was an extension of an earlier video and yes he does we have already been through this and you would know this if you bothered to watch his videos.

Is that what it boils down too what someone else pointed out a while back? He doesn't give Amd and Intel/Nvidia equal amounts of criticism, so if other reviewer don't give Intel/Nvidia and Amd equal amounts of praise is that too an issue for you?

 

[Doobedoo]

Problem is your like a broken record, I thought you was banned from the CPU forum and I was actually glad, but apparently your not.

All you do is steer the threads back to your anti AMD rubbish, it's boring and I'm probably not alone in being tired by it.

Yet another thread derailed by you and humbug taking shots at each other.

Cpu forum is becoming the gpu forum thanks to you and Humbug.

Give it a rest, stop biting, and just stop rising to bait, we all know your opinion, you ram it down our throats atleast 10 times per thread.

+1 it was boring a while ago now it's becoming irritating.

 

[5punk3monk3y]

To be honest sick of seeing it, any thread with Intel/AMD them two are it, They need a holiday !

I know, the ignore function but should not need to.


/rant.

Like 2 children in a playground, I'm surprised that they haven't had warnings tbh, as some of the posts are a little abusive.

 

[B1gbeard]

Its not a bad CPU at all, its a good CPU, where do you see people "portraying it as bad" ?

Certainly here there has been a lot of criticism, mostly based around what people's expectations were with regards to clocking and delidding. Intel never gave us any indication or hope of what it would do other than in the official specs. You yourself up the thread there mentioned an issue with the marketing of the CPU but when did Intel give us any promises about the CPU? Reviewers telling us the CPU's should all do 5ghz is not marketing, it's their review and opinion based on usage.

As an aside (not specifically to you Humbug) picking out Gavin as the Devil is really unfair. There are number of people in these CPU threads putting many people off of getting involved in the conversation and I'm surprised the mods don't do more to curb it.

 

[DragonQ]

If you didn't already know this then you shouldn't be looking at an 8700k imo.
There are tons of videos and reviews showing that these get hot. The conlake title is just a clickable title like 90% of his videos.

I hate clickbait titles too but I can at least understand the YouTube business model and how necessary it is. You can't get mad at someone discussing a subject just because (a) it happens to point in a particular direction you don't like, or (b) it's been "known about for years". It's pretty embarrassing that this stuff has been known about for years and yet most of the tech press barely mention it! Even if it's skewed in one direction or presented in a particular way, I for one appreciate a different voice in the industry.

Not quite right. They do deserve flack for the crappy paste they use. They also deserve it for holding onto quads for so long but calling a cpu a con is a stretch too far. He also seems to go apeshit at nvidia but doesn't give AMD half of the crap they deserve for not being able to produce a decent GPU at a decent price for the last how many years.

You're embarrassing yourself here, really. Also, it's pretty hard to talk about AMD not being able to compete in the high-end GPU market without talking about how nVidia have cornered the market. Would you talk about AMD's terrible 5-6 years at the start of this decade (Bulldozer) without also mentioning that they were illegally forced out of huge markets in the decade beforehand despite having superior products?

 

[humbug]

Certainly here there has been a lot of criticism, mostly based around what people's expectations were with regards to clocking and delidding. Intel never gave us any indication or hope of what it would do other than in the official specs. You yourself up the thread there mentioned an issue with the marketing of the CPU but when did Intel give us any promises about the CPU? Reviewers telling us the CPU's should all do 5ghz is not marketing, it's their review and opinion based on usage.

As an aside (not specifically to you Humbug) picking out Gavin as the Devil is really unfair. There are number of people in these CPU threads putting many people off of getting involved in the conversation and I'm surprised the mods don't do more to curb it.

I'm not going to get into debates about Gavin, we don't need more of this thread to be about Gavin.

With respect the sort of arguments you are making are exactly the sort of PR that would come from Intel, of course Intel are not going to say to people "our CPU's do 5Ghz" what they do instead is send reviewers chips they predetermined will do at least 5Ghz and say to them "this CPU's will do at least 5Ghz" that then puts the reviewer under pressure to get it to at least 5Ghz, which is why they use the best coolers available to them and run them at 90c+, because if they can't get them to 5Ghz+ then they might fall out of favour with Intel.

Intel nor AMD officially support overclocking at all, Intel make it clear it voids warranty, AMD have put out information on overclocking best practices, Intel designate some of their CPU's with a K to communicate overclockability.

That is marketing, its just done is a way, to use an Americanism "To cover their ass"

Now that's one thing, and its always been an understood and somewhat ignored or 'let it be' unwritten contract that reviewers are sent the best stuff to show it in the best light, no one is cynical about AMD or Intel for doing that, its just marketing, nothing personal.
But when you have a reviewer, like Linus and Steve steeping into the fold treating us like fools and actually trying to convince us that "oh no, not true, we ain't sent the best stuff, look here are 10 CPU a named retailer sent us and they all clock to over 5Ghz out of the box on AIO coolers, see..." that's them pushing it from a none issue into them marketing BS.
I Don't think Intel are behind this, i just think some reviewers like spoilt brats take it personally when they are told "actually its because you're sent all the best stuff"

 

[B1gbeard]

I'm not going to get into debates about Gavin, we don't need more of this thread to be about Gavin.

With respect the sort of arguments you are making are exactly the sort of PR that would come from Intel, of course Intel are not going to say to people "our CPU's do 5Ghz" what they do instead is send reviewers chips they predetermined will do at least 5Ghz and say to them "this CPU's will do at least 5Ghz" that then puts the reviewer under pressure to get it to at least 5Ghz, which is why they use the best coolers available to them and run them at 90c+, because if they can't get them to 5Ghz+ then they might fall out of favour with Intel.

Intel nor AMD officially support overclocking at all, Intel make it clear it voids warranty, AMD have put out information on overclocking best practices, Intel designate some of their CPU's with a K to communicate overclockability.

That is marketing, its just done is a way, to use an Americanism "To cover their ass"

Now that's one thing, and its always been an understood and somewhat ignored or 'let it be' unwritten contract that reviewers are sent the best stuff to show it in the best light, no one is cynical about AMD or Intel for doing that, its just marketing, nothing personal.
But when you have a reviewer, like Linus and Steve steeping into the fold treating us like fools and actually trying to convince us that "oh no, not true, we ain't sent the best stuff, look here are 10 CPU a named retailer sent us and they all clock to over 5Ghz out of the box on AIO coolers, see..." that's them pushing it from a none issue into them marketing BS.
I Don't think Intel are behind this, i just think some reviewers like spoilt brats take it personally when they are told "actually its because you're sent all the best stuff"

Again it's all supposition on your part. There is no evidence to suggest Intel have said anything to anyone. You seem to want that to be the case but we don't know. Is it possible? Sure but ultimately if you are buying a 8700k you look at the specs Intel provide and then the reviews and make an informed decision. You don't make a decision on what you think Intel may have said to someone.

Plenty of peoples 8700k's seem to do around 5ghz anyway so as said before, it's all something about nothing.

 

[humbug]

Again it's all supposition on your part. There is no evidence to suggest Intel have said anything to anyone. You seem to want that to be the case but we don't know. Is it possible? Sure but ultimately if you are buying a 8700k you look at the specs Intel provide and then the reviews and make an informed decision. You don't make a decision on what you think Intel may have said to someone.

Plenty of peoples 8700k's seem to do around 5ghz anyway so as said before, it's all something about nothing.

Lets get one thing clear. I'm putting forward my arguments in a debate, you don't have to agree and frankly i don't care if you do or not, i just enjoy the debate. if we are constantly telling eachother "oh but you have no evidence to support that" no one would be debating anything. people who use arguments like that, as a counter argument, read to me like they don't want the debate to exist in the first place.

Sure but ultimately if you are buying a 8700k you look at the specs Intel provide and then the reviews and make an informed decision.

Steves words, and i may be slightly mistaken here, if needs be i can study the video again for his exact words, but to paraphrase "so in conclusion you can pretty much guarantee 5Ghz+ from an 8700K when you buy off the shelves" that is Steve informing his viewers for them to make that "informed decision" i don't agree with him this is accurate information, its a knee jerk reaction born out of him throwing the Teddy out of the Pram because a very charismatic youtuber had the nerve to confirm what most of us suspected.
Which to me just shows how little he actually thinks about being careful about the quality and accuracy of information he is actually provides for his viewers.

 

[triss]

Reviewers dont do a test like hardware unboxed did and are criticised for not doing anything and testing things, They do tests and are told no its BS why did you bring this up again.
There is no pleasing everyone sadly and some like to forget some reviewers couldnt hit 5ghz with their intel " golden "samples.

I do agree with B1gbeard as we simply dont know what intel said or didnt say and to state what they have or may of said without being the reviewer or intel is speculation .
Personally i dont know why humbug and gavin dont have each other on ignore as they are often as bad as each other bickering back and forth and it seems neither will ever accept the others position.

 

[DragonQ]

Steves words, and i may be slightly mistaken here, if needs be i can study the video again for his exact words, but to paraphrase "so in conclusion you can pretty much guarantee 5Ghz+ from an 8700K when you buy off the shelves" that is Steve informing his viewers for them to make that "informed decision" i don't agree with him this is accurate information, its a knee jerk reaction born out of him throwing the Teddy out of the Pram because a very charismatic youtuber had the nerve to confirm what most of us suspected.
Which to me just shows how little he actually thinks about being careful about the quality and accuracy of information he is actually provides for his viewers.

But he's right, isn't he? Silicon lottery reckons 88% of chips can reach 5 GHz whilst Hardware Unboxed got 100% of their (much smaller) sample of chips to 5 GHz. I think "pretty much guarantee" is about right as an explanation. Do we know what criteria silicon lottery uses though? For example, they might consider a chip "unable" to reach 5 GHz if it takes beyond a certain voltage threshold to do so. For the end user it depends on:

- Whether they're willing to delid
- What voltages they'd be happy with long-term
- What cooling setup they have

Without knowing these parameters, you can't fully conclude whether a certain chip "can reach 5 GHz", unless you literally mean "under any circumstances".

 

[humbug]

But he's right, isn't he? Silicon lottery reckons 88% of chips can reach 5 GHz whilst Hardware Unboxed got 100% of their (much smaller) sample of chips to 5 GHz. I think "pretty much guarantee" is about right as an explanation. Do we know what criteria silicon lottery uses though? For example, they might consider a chip "unable" to reach 5 GHz if it takes beyond a certain voltage threshold to do so. For the end user it depends on:

- Whether they're willing to delid
- What voltages they'd be happy with long-term
- What cooling setup they have

Without knowing these parameters, you can't fully conclude whether a certain chip "can reach 5 GHz", unless you literally mean "under any circumstances".

Delided, Silicon lottery reckons 88% of chips can reach 5GHz after being dellided, Steves reached that on an AIO without delidding, half of them actually reached 5.1Ghz, again without deliding on an AIO, one or two of his hit 5.2Ghz. Silicon lottery hardly ever have any of those in stock, those are like 1%, Steve got those out of a batch of 10.

 

[beany_bot]

I don't see why there is so much debate here. AdoredTV, whether you like him or not, has proved and clearly shown his methods that Intel sends cherry picked CPUs to reviewers.
Having said that. I think this is far from the worst thing Intel has ever done and really is rather expected and not a big deal. It happens in all industries and I am sure AMD do the same. I don't hold it against Intel. I have plenty beef with Intel but not over this. Hell if I had a product that was going out to reviewers I would do the same!

@humbug Yes this is a great forum. Have you tried joining a PUBG... sorry PC facebook group? Heavens alive it is toxic. And they don't know squat about hardware.
This is without doubt the best forum for tech stuff. Easily. Hands down. I can honestly say that I have learned EVERYTHING I know about modern PC's from here.

I follow youtubers like gamers nexus and adoredTV too, but if I have a technical or unbiased question to ask I come here for sure.

 

[humbug]

Yup, It is ^^^

 

[Aa83]

I think this is far from the worst thing Intel has ever done and really is rather expected and not a big deal.

To me, this sort of thing isn't made OK just because there are worse things that Intel does. Consumers rely on what they believe are reviews on the true reflection of the performance of goods they purchase. If this is not the case (through cherry picking or other means) the consumer is being misled. That only benefits Intel.

Whether or not the activity is legal is beyond my understanding. But I still don't like it, and it makes me sceptical of any reviews I see.

 

[Freddie1980]

I didn't see anything in Jim's video that stood out to me as materially wrong and he articulated his points of view very well I don't see what there is to argue about. Intel were sending out review samples that were hitting clock speeds higher then most users could realistically expect to achieve the evidence is all there.

 

[beany_bot]

To me, this sort of thing isn't made OK just because there are worse things that Intel does. Consumers rely on what they believe are reviews on the true reflection of the performance of goods they purchase. If this is not the case (through cherry picking or other means) the consumer is being misled. That only benefits Intel.

Whether or not the activity is legal is beyond my understanding. But I still don't like it, and it makes me sceptical of any reviews I see.

Remember this is overclocking results. Intel never say a chip will reach X Y or Z.
If they were sending out chips to reviewers that run faster stock, then yeah thats BS. But overclocking is overclocking. You play the silicone lottery.
Anyone worth their salt will wait for actual consumer results rather than tech reviewers anyway before making a decision. no one NEEDS a new i7 instantly.