https://www.techpowerup.com/245689/core-i7-8700k-overclocked-to-7-34-ghz-3c-3t-on-z270-chipset-bags-superpi-record
 
German professional overclocker Dancop got the Intel Core i7-8700K processor to work on an ASUS ROG Maximus IX Apex (Z270) motherboard, something that's not supposed to work. Hyperthreading and half the cores were disabled to reach the 7.34GHZ speed. A liquid-nitrogen evaporator was used to tame the CPU and motherboard VRM. A fantastic effort to actually make this work. I applaud his efforts.
 
 
http://hwbot.org/submissi..._8700k_4min_7sec_609ms

bill1024
The i7-8700k, and even the i5-8600k are really sweet CPUs for sure.
And at 340$ and 235$, is a great buy.

 
Good for you.

bill1024

Fettle

bill1024
The i7-8700k, and even the i5-8600k are really sweet CPUs for sure.
And at 340$ and 235$, is a great buy.

Good for you.

Why yes it is, and for you too.

I don't know, I don't give credit to Intel for factory overclocking a product to sell it better. That's what AIB partners do with graphics cards.


Intel's 7800X and 6800X satisfied those conditions before, unless one needed the IGP. Only the i5 model stands out, but then I don't see the point of unlocked models in mainstream when few use the benefits of the platform. Unlocked processors should remain in HEDT.

 
^ Kram = Stalker.. JK.
 
But that 7.34 

lehpron

kram36
 
In one thread you want a company to make CPUs with more cores then what's needed by 99.99% of the people, yet you're against a company overclocking a CPU which everyone that uses the CPU will appreciate the extra speed.

1. If you want to talk about 99.99% of the people: They aren't enthusiasts, overclockers, or high-end power users.  So you're already out of touch with 'regular people' that don't give a darn about the extra speed.
2. You're the one with an "either with us or against us" mentality, not me.  Objectivity requires either not taking a side or not making your side part of the conversation.  I own a Core i5-5675C, it has nothing to do with either this topic or the other thread, eh? 
3. I stand by manually overclocking versus paying extra for a company to do it for me, especially forcing another platform just to use it.  
4. If you don't also have a problem with Intel's Core i9, you're not one to talk about a company producing a product that everyone doesn't currently need.

Oh Lord.
 

1. People can appreciate the speed whether they are normal or enthusiasts, overclockers, or high-end power users. Where in the world do yo get your ideas from?
2. What? "Either with us or against us" What? I have not a clue what the heck you're trying to say here? I want a fast system, the faster the better, most people want this, even normal people. Up to a certain core count you're not getting any use out of those extra cores, yet the cpu gets down clocked. Right now the sweet spot seems to be a 8c/16t cpu. More cores/threads then most need yet are faster then the 20+ core CPUs for almost everyone's needs.
3.  Um you know most people don't want to fuss around with overclocking right? Intel drops them a high clock speed and the perfect core count CPU and you complain? What? Are you just here to argue?
4. I've already made my thoughts clear on high core count CPUs, whether Intel or AMD. They are pretty much worthless to most people and slower to the average user.

 

bill1024
I bet the average user cares little about both speed and core count. 
They just check their email, facebook, stream a movie, write letters and maybe do their taxes every year. 

It took me time to understand what a PC truly is. Referring to hardware and software. Most people have no clue what's going on. I still get requests to install/reinstall Windows on their PC's, and they aren't sure what window pane size they need.