HP Adds Intel Core i7-6700K To Z240 Workstation, Overclocking Not Supported, But That’s OK

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Contributor

Derek Forrest was a contributing freelance writer for Tom's Hardware. He covered hardware news and reviews, focusing on gaming desktops and laptops.

  • bit_user
    Intel is missing out on a juicy markup by not having a Xeon version of this chip.
    Reply
  • Ambular
    I've wondered about this before...why is it that if someone spends a small fortune on an overclocking motherboard and heavy-duty cooler, and it lets them squeeze an extra 600 MHz out of their processor, that's considered reasonable; but if someone wants to buy a k-model processor over its locked equivalent just for the extra 600 MHz out of the box, and doesn't plan to overclock it, that's a waste of money?
    Reply
  • TJ Hooker
    @Ambular I agree that over clocking is kinda over rated. However, saying a 6700k is 600 MHz faster than a 6700 is a little misleading. A 6700 turbos to 3.7 GHz on 4 cores and 4 GHz for single core, vs 4 GH and 4.2 GHz for the 6700k. Now, based on what I've read, Intel CPUs can typically be relied to maintain full turbo under load as long as cooling is sufficient, so that means the 6700k is only 200-300 MHz (or 5-8%) faster than the 6700. You may actually be worse off with the 6700k in terms of performance per dollar.
    Reply
  • Ambular
    18339886 said:
    @Ambular I agree that over clocking is kinda over rated. However, saying a 6700k is 600 MHz faster than a 6700 is a little misleading. A 6700 turbos to 3.7 GHz on 4 cores and 4 GHz for single core, vs 4 GH and 4.2 GHz for the 6700k. Now, based on what I've read, Intel CPUs can typically be relied to maintain full turbo under load as long as cooling is sufficient, so that means the 6700k is only 200-300 MHz (or 5-8%) faster than the 6700. You may actually be worse off with the 6700k in terms of performance per dollar.

    Okay, that makes sense. Thank you for the explanation! (I didn't mean to imply that overclocking was overrated, though...more was wondering what the problem was with the 6700k vs. 6700 scenario that caused it to be viewed so differently.)
    Reply
  • ahnilated
    I guess HP wants people to waste money. Buying a "k" chip and not being able to overclock it is a waste of money but then again, buying an HP computer is a waste of money imho.
    Reply
  • egmccann
    18341606 said:
    I guess HP wants people to waste money. Buying a "k" chip and not being able to overclock it is a waste of money but then again, buying an HP computer is a waste of money imho.

    Unless, of course, you're a business and want their support. Which, as a workstation, is the sort of audience this is aimed at. It's all configuration options.

    Not every system is out there to play games on.
    Reply
  • Samer1970
    18338550 said:
    Intel is missing out on a juicy markup by not having a Xeon version of this chip.

    Actually they should release Max Ghz CPU like AMD did when they released out of the box 5Ghz CPU under warranty. AMD showed us it is possible under warranty and exposed the industry. we want a 4.6- 5Ghz Xeon !

    besides i7 are not good for workstations , they lack RDIMM/ECC support.
    Reply
  • Samer1970
    18341712 said:
    18341606 said:
    I guess HP wants people to waste money. Buying a "k" chip and not being able to overclock it is a waste of money but then again, buying an HP computer is a waste of money imho.

    Unless, of course, you're a business and want their support. Which, as a workstation, is the sort of audience this is aimed at. It's all configuration options.

    Not every system is out there to play games on.


    What is the point of i7 then ? they lack RDIMM support , and workstations need ECC . putting i7 in a workstation is stupid.
    Reply
  • serendipiti
    "We can’t attest to HP’s theory that overclocking causes miscalculations with critical application data (that all depends on how stable the overclock is)" ->THATS'S the point.
    You define stable overclock by the absence of miscalculations with critical data (not application data). If you plan to overclock on your self, you will have to test and assure that there are no miscalculations on your enterprise invoices (we are talking about serious testing)... enterprises need reliability, spending $$$ for that purpose makes overclocking out of scope.
    I can understand enthusiasts using Xeon CPUs, but enthusiasts won't be buying the whole server from HP...
    Avoiding OC is what makes more sense, I don't understand the criticism on that.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    18342486 said:
    What is the point of i7 then ? they lack RDIM support , and workstations need ECC . putting i7 in a workstation is stupid.

    I doubt E3 Xeons support Registered memory, either. But I agree with your point about ECC - most workstation buyers probably want it. The reason they did this is obviously because that chip is clocked higher than Intel's fastest E3 v5 Xeon, yet it's socket-compatible.
    Reply