4770k vs 4790k For Gaming?

[poofyhairguy]

I am looking to replace my G3258 to improve gaming, and I was convinced by this forum it was worth waiting until I could get an i7 over an i5.

Now that I am ready, I am stuck deciding between the two i7s.

I know the 4790k is better period, but in the secondary market the 4770k costs $40-60 less at minimum. Plus the 4790k gets really close to the price of a 6700k for my tastes.

Is the 4790K worth the extra money? Or is the 4770k good enough for gaming?

Bonus question- the secondary market has a few delidded CPUs of each i7 for the same price or even less in some cases. Are those worth looking at and does it cost more to use such CPUs (because you have to buy a shim or something)? I am low risk kinda guy but I love a deal.

The final build will have 16GB of RAM, a Z97 board and an AMD 480 GPU if that matters. My cooler is a Corsair H60 in a Mini ITX case (CRAMPED)!

Thank you in advance.

 

[crashtech]

A 4770K will easily overclock up to and past a stock 4790K. Since you are getting a Z97 board, the 4770K would be more "bang for the buck" if you don't mind OCing it some. The 4770K might run a little hotter, but the H60 should handle a moderate overclock of 4.2-4.3GHz or so. Honestly I think most 4790Ks only have about 200Mhz headroom on average over the 4770K. Some of it is luck of the draw, of course.

 

[Yuriman]

The big difference between the 4770K and 4790K is the interface between the IHS and die, as well as 4790K's being built later and on a slightly more mature process. A delidded 4770K is arguably better than a 4790K.

There's no shim needed, you just center the lid on the die and when you clamp the chip into the socket, it locks the lid in place.

 

[crashtech]

When I saw "low risk guy," I ended up neglecting the used delidded part of the the question. Delidded CPUS are riskier in that the die ends up bearing all the load of the LGA retention mechanism and the water block in your case. A shim in place of the missing, load-bearing sealant can actually be beneficial for several reasons, most especially in Skylake CPUs but it has to be just the right thickness. Personally I don't consider someone else's delidded CPU to be particularly low risk at all, unless perhaps it's someone you know. Such a unit is very likely to have been abused.

 

[alcoholbob]

A 4770K will easily overclock up to and past a stock 4790K. Since you are getting a Z97 board, the 4770K would be more "bang for the buck" if you don't mind OCing it some. The 4770K might run a little hotter, but the H60 should handle a moderate overclock of 4.2-4.3GHz or so. Honestly I think most 4790Ks only have about 200Mhz headroom on average over the 4770K. Some of it is luck of the draw, of course.

Not necessarily. My 4770K only overclocked to 4.3GHz, it didn't matter how much voltage I threw at it, so it didn't even hit the stock boost speed of 4790K (4.4GHz)

Whereas my 4790K was quite a bit better of an overclocker. Could hit 5GHz at around 1.35V, but and was stable at 4.9GHz at below 1.25V (1.22V).

 

[bigboxes]

I'm not sure what a 4770k will o/c to. I bought my 4790k for $250 back in December 2014. I can easily o/c it to 4.7Ghz, but usually run it at 4.4Ghz 24/7.

 

[crashtech]

Not necessarily. My 4770K only overclocked to 4.3GHz, it didn't matter how much voltage I threw at it, so it didn't even hit the stock boost speed of 4790K (4.4GHz)

Whereas my 4790K was quite a bit better of an overclocker. Could hit 5GHz at around 1.35V, but and was stable at 4.9GHz at below 1.25V (1.22V).

Do you think your experience is typical? From what I know, I would tend to think you received two outliers, one good, one bad. Obviously we all take our chances when we buy a CPU to overclock, maybe I ought better to have put the disclaimer in bold type.

 

[Yuriman]

I think topping at ~4.3-4.4 was not unusual for early 4770K's. Early Haswell had a reputation for clockspeed regression when compared with Ivy Bridge.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_4770k/
http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_4790k

4.4GHz vs 4.6GHz average on air.

 

[AtenRa]

Personally i would sell the CPU+Mobo+Ram and get a new Z200 Socket 1151 board with Kabylake and DDR-4 or ZEN in Q1 2017.

Unless you can find a used 4770K or 4790K at $200 or lower.

 

[LTC8K6]

E3-1231-V3 is far cheaper, for a 3.8Ghz 4C/8T Haswell chip.

 

[Dave3000]

I think it's worth it going with a 4790k over a 4770k. The 4790k is clocked higher and has improved thermals. You would need to buy DDR4 and a new mb for a 6700k anyways making the cost higher than going with a 4790k and the 6700k is only slightly faster than the 4790k. An overclocked 4770k clocked at 4790k stock levels will be less stable than a stock clocked 4790k. Also the 4-core turbo boost is 4.2GHz stock on the 4790k, so a 4770k 4-core turbo overclocked to 4.2GHz is less stable than a 4790k stock 4.2GHz 4-core turbo and that's if you can even get a 4770k to even run at 4.2GHz.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

^ WTF fud is this? It's not like 4770Ks are lepers.
Have 4x 4770Ks purchased at launch running at 4.5 - 4.6GHz, tested stable in IBT, Prime95 and x264 stability test.

 

[bigboxes]

the 4-core turbo boost is 4.2GHz stock on the 4790k

The turbo on the 4790k is 4.4Ghz.

 

[bigboxes]

^ WTF fud is this? It's not like 4770Ks are lepers.
Have 4x 4770Ks purchased at launch running at 4.5 - 4.6GHz, tested stable in IBT, Prime95 and x264 stability test.

Yes, it is FUD.

 

[Ketchup]

Either is going to last a while for a gaming rig. Get whichever one is cheaper. A 4790k is not cool under load, so if cool is what the OP is looking for, this is not the chip for you.

 

[crashtech]

Of course the 4790K is the better CPU. That's not in question. Which is the better value is the question. A fairly optimistic estimate would be a 10% performance increase by going from 4770K to 4790K, but the price premium is more like 20%.

 

[Dave3000]

The turbo on the 4790k is 4.4Ghz.

According the the Intel Turbo Boost Table at Intel's website, it turbos to 4.4GHz when only 2 cores are under load at stock.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Personally i would sell the CPU+Mobo+Ram and get a new Z200 Socket 1151 board with Kabylake and DDR-4 or ZEN in Q1 2017.

Unless you can find a used 4770K or 4790K at $200 or lower.

I am planning to either get Zen or Kaby to replace my 2600k in my main rig the moment I feel I need to (aka the next time I am near a Microcenter).

My goal here is more to replace a G3258 that has totally let me down in a secondary rig. I got an amazing deal on a Mini ITX Z97 board last year that got me into the G3258, usually Z plus Mini ITX means a lot of money and would be harder to flip locally/online for near value if I wanted to upgrade because Mini ITX is niche.

I feel like either i7 plus my 480 puts it within stabbing distance of my main rig (2600k+390x), and at 1080p my main rig does everything I want for now.

Of course the 4790K is the better CPU. That's not in question. Which is the better value is the question. A fairly optimistic estimate would be a 10% performance increase by going from 4770K to 4790K, but the price premium is more like 20%.

Exactly. It is like a $60 difference consistently and can go higher. Hell either the ram or the G3258 currently in that rig cost less than than $60 each. For a secondary rig I have built off deals Larry-style that is significant.

Thank you for the advice, just gonna get the 4770k.

 

[poohbear]

Of course the 4790K is the better CPU. That's not in question. Which is the better value is the question. A fairly optimistic estimate would be a 10% performance increase by going from 4770K to 4790K, but the price premium is more like 20%.

He's not gonna see anywhere near 10% performance difference. It's the same CPU generation, it's not a generational leap.

OP get whichever is cheaper & call it a day. The 4790k didn't exactly wow reviewers as it showed no improvement over the 4770k.

I have a 4790k cause I got it on sale, 4770k was dicontinued & i couldn't find any used at the time so for me it was a no brainer. If ure finding many online and money is tight go for the 4770k.

 

[alcoholbob]

Do you think your experience is typical? From what I know, I would tend to think you received two outliers, one good, one bad. Obviously we all take our chances when we buy a CPU to overclock, maybe I ought better to have put the disclaimer in bold type.

My anecdotal experience seems to match other people in my circle. I don't know how you define "typical"; if you mean statistical average then no single or small number of sampling points will ever match the statistical average except on pure accident or coincidence. However in my small anecdotal experience 2 other people with 4770Ks that I knew also could not break 4.3GHz--one which brick walled at 4.1GHz, and another one that could do 4.4 only with extremely high voltages but only stable at 4.2-4.3.

With the 4790K, it's not an outlier; if you know anything about the 4790K overclocking you know that the most 4790Ks can hit 4.8 at 1.325V or below.

You make it sound like I'm saying something controversial. If you look at the launch reviews, most 4770K review samples only hit around 4.2-4.3GHz during overclocking. It's possible later revisions improved overclocking, but if you are buying a used 4770K it's just much easier to go with a 4790K instead of hoping you get the right stepping.

 

[crashtech]

My anecdotal experience seems to match other people in my circle. I don't know how you define "typical"; if you mean statistical average then no single or small number of sampling points will ever match the statistical average except on pure accident or coincidence. However in my small anecdotal experience 2 other people with 4770Ks that I knew also could not break 4.3GHz--one which brick walled at 4.1GHz, and another one that could do 4.4 only with extremely high voltages but only stable at 4.2-4.3.

With the 4790K, it's not an outlier; if you know anything about the 4790K overclocking you know that the most 4790Ks can hit 4.8 at 1.325V or below.

You make it sound like I'm saying something controversial. If you look at the launch reviews, most 4770K review samples only hit around 4.2-4.3GHz during overclocking. It's possible later revisions improved overclocking, but if you are buying a used 4770K it's just much easier to go with a 4790K instead of hoping you get the right stepping.

My 4770K and 4790K were about 500MHz apart, both in maxed out OC and 24/7 values. Our experiences differed, so I asked you an honest question. Certainly the OP should take your opinion into account when making his decision. I was very happy with my 4790K, and the OP won't go wrong at all by getting one. But even at a 700MHz difference, the 4770K still looks like a better value, since they seem to be going for around $50 less than the 4790K.

 

[bigboxes]

My 4770K and 4790K were about 500MHz apart, both in maxed out OC and 24/7 values. Our experiences differed, so I asked you an honest question. Certainly the OP should take your opinion into account when making his decision. I was very happy with my 4790K, and the OP won't go wrong at all by getting one. But even at a 700MHz difference, the 4770K still looks like a better value, since they seem to be going for around $50 less than the 4790K.

I hear what you are saying. With the 4790K you know what you are going to get. With the 4770k you are not sure. That said, poofy has already made his decision. He'll be happy until he upgrades his Sandy Bridge rig.

 

[fullinfusion]

4790K hands down. I had a few 4770k's and they ran hot under water plus wouldn't really overclock worth a dam.

The 4790K I have clocks to 5.1Ghz for those late night number runs but for 24/7 I run 4.6-4.8 all day long.

 

[crashtech]

4790K hands down. I had a few 4770k's and they ran hot under water plus wouldn't really overclock worth a dam.

The 4790K I have clocks to 5.1Ghz for those late night number runs but for 24/7 I run 4.6-4.8 all day long.

Welcome to the forums, you have a nice golden chip there! Mine hit 5.0 on a freezing night out in the "lab," but like yours, 4.8 was the max 24/7 setting even under water.