Media Outlet Slams Intel’s Devil’s Canyon, Did It Disappoint?

/ 2 years ago


Intel’s Devil’s Canyon CPU is a product that we have already reviewed. In the run up to its release there was so much talk about bringing back the “good old days” of 5GHz overclocking on air, and all that shabang. However, as our review revealed that simply wasn’t the case. Now media outlet Digital Trends has come out and publicly attacked Intel’s newest offering stating it has let enthusiasts down once again. Digital Trends claim it is part of a longer term anti-overclocking mentality at Intel. They claim that Intel’s Lisa Graff hyped up the product and misled consumers because it doesn’t actually bring anything new. Indeed as most reviews of Devil’s Canyon now show we’ve got a CPU that overclocks more or less the same as the Core i7 4770K, runs marginally cooler but requires more volts: hardly progress, and I must say I agree.

However, the sad conclusion (as Digital Trends so rightfully note) is that there is no incentive for Intel to do better. AMD simply cannot compete and Intel has no reason to compete with itself. If enthusiasts want more then Intel wants you to spend more and choose X79 or X99 (when that arrives in September).

You can read the interesting opinion piece at the source link below.

Source: Digital Trends

Image courtesy of Intel

Topics: , , , ,

  • Carl Wilson

    I’ll stick with my wonderful i7-4770 (non K) as it has heaps of power and I don’t believe in overlocking anyway. And it looks as though Intel feels the same.

    • 94DMP .

      How can you not believe in overclocking?

      • Carl Wilson

        My view is that if a CPU can go faster and not reduce the life significantly, then why doesn’t the manufacturer do it themselves and charge a little extra? The reason is that they cannot guarantee longevity and that CPU chips go through a quality control where the only difference in the end is that an i5 2300 is a chip that can run at 3.0GHz while an almost identical i7 2600 can run at 3.4GHz. In addition with Turbo Boost the chip is overclocking itself intelligently and without risk so why bother to risk damaging it yourself? My i7-4770 is massively powerful, but if I wanted even more power I would buy an Extreme CPU, not crank the thing up and down while desperately hoping it remains stable.

        • 94DMP .

          I’ve always overclocked my CPU’s and none of them have died while still running at their overclocked speeds.
          I had a Phenom 965BE overclocked to 4.4GHz since I got it on release day… still working perfectly.
          I’m currently using an i5 2500K overclocked to 4.8GHz since I got that on release day too, guess what? Still works perfectly.
          Same goes for An old AthlonXP, an Athlon 64 and a Athlon II X3.

          All of those CPU’s I’ve had overclocked since the day I got them (All of them I got on their release days) All of them still work.

          I’ll be doing the same with one of the newer i7’s soon

          The fact that a CPU’s lifespan gets reduced is true, but who doesn’t buy a new CPU after 4/5 years anyway?

          After all it’s free performance, may aswell run the chip as fast as it’ll go and by the time it’s died you’d need/want a new CPU anyway.

          All of the above applies to GPU’s too.

          • Carl Wilson

            Of course it’s entirely up to you whether or not you overclock, but it’s like you don’t respect or appreciate the CPU in its natural state and want to “screw with it”.

          • Anthony Burt

            The cpu is only in it’s “natural” state because Intel set it there to fit a portion of the market. Pretty much every chip I have had since my first 2600k has overclocked to 4.5 easily without excessive voltage or cooling (always on air). This artificial limiting of their vastly superior product is just bullshit. In saying that, I have gone from pushing everything to it’s limits to sticking with stock Xeons and undervolting them as I am kinda over the whole thing, just like this article states – Intel hasn’t really pushed anything for years and anyone trying to stay cutting edge is finding that there is a real plateau where potential clockspeeds for the average overclocker are reducing somewhat while IPC are increasing somewhat.

  • Greg Hatt

    Ive been doing some research and this new chips while isnt bad, has not become a master overclocker like they did claim. My 2600k at 5ghz still competes with these chips at their max overclock, and technically if I want I could overclock my chip as far as 5.2ghz and still be under the max temps and voltages set by Intel in 2011. So I guess I will be keeping my 2600k a bit longer, Or I might go with a 3770k for the extra pci-e lanes, but this better be upgraded by SKylake or Ill be passing on that one as well. Lets have some of that old extreme architecture brought to the mainstream and let people get their moneys worth

  • Christopher Estep

    Higher-end overclocking has one – and only one – purpose these days: e-peen wavery. Few applications, and even fewer games, benefit from 4+ GHz CPU speeds, and that is even with the fastest SSDs making sure there are no I/O stalls. Merely since SandyBridge (in fact, starting with IvyBridge, the direct successor), CPU improvements have been largely about greater IPC (Instructions Per Clock) – not higher clock frequencies. Intel has also, by and large, kept CPU pricing flat – there have been no price increases at launch with each new generation. (Literally none – i5-4690K is priced the same that i5-2500K was when it launched.) System pricing hasn’t stayed flat – however, CPU pricing has nothing to do with that. (Memory pricing, GPU pricing, and SSD pricing have NOT stayed flat over the SandyBridge->Devil’s Canyon period.)