my new 4770k chip sucks lol.
 
4.5 at 1.35v  and  it is unstable but will run 3dmark 11.
 
 
Would love a 5g chip on water. 
 
 

I'm interested in this. Thanks for the post.

Nice.  Mine should be here tomorrow.  We'll see what happens.

From what Im reading about 4.7 is a hair above average on the 4790K. And that is on water.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Reddawne
 
For gaming absolutely no difference. DC is equivalent to the 2700k when it was refreshing the 2600k when it came out a few years back. Your 3770k probably has a higher chance to overclock better and be about the same temp, maybe even better. There's been some people on Overclock.net saying they are running hot when oc'ing.
 
Few links below:
http://www.techspot.com/review/837-intel-core-i7-4790k-devils-canyon/page6.html

Every single one of those game results were using GPU-bound scenarios-- no 'duh' there wouldn't be a CPU difference.  You got to be able to see past the bias reviewers put out when they want to downplay a CPU or GPU, they will not test objectively; they will test scenarios that make the part look bad or not worth getting.  Intel isn't marketing DC towards casual gamers or casual overclockers; so it should be tested properly (not necessarily as an LN2 toy, but not just treated as an everyday part).
 
 
For instance, all AMD processor reviews suffer from reviewers insisting on CPU-bound which of course makes them look pathetically slower in CPU-bound apps (i.e. games at low res and/or low details) against even older Intel parts; they won't even test games, why?  Because many of those that play single-graphics card and single-display play them GPU-bound, it would accidentally make even older AMD/Intel look good if the GPU-bound was shown off.  By sheer coincidence, the new Pentium G3258 unlocked Haswell dual-core suffers from the same problem, reviewers treat it like an AMD CPU with bottlenecked games and resolutions such that is it plainly obvious that it is too slow compared to an i3.  They won't show GPU-bound, and when they do it is with a slow graphics card (GTX750 Ti) or the IGP, lol; as if to be realistic about who buys what...like they know.
 
It isn't like low-budget overclockers since Westmere/Nehalem were waiting 5-6 years for the uncertainty of Intel providing a cheap overclockable solution in Haswell, so most have either moved onto AMD or saved up for expensive Intel K processors if they didn't just give up and go console-- but the Intel route has gained much more popularity than AMD over the years.  So more than likely, anyone looking at Pentium G3258 isn't a cheap bazterd that can't get a decent graphics card together, so why test as if Pentium customers are all the same?  Why not overclock with liquid cooling and get a better motherboard, considering money saved on processor could go elsewhere?  I don't know; typical and ironic enthusiast ignorance.

I'd like to see them use a R9 295X2 or GTX Titan Z. There would be a much bigger gap in performance per CPU. I don't understand why you would use a GPU a generation old with a current generation set-up. According to that review, you might as well just buy a AMD FX 4350.