5820K or 4790K

[aboreal]

Hi there, I need a CPU that assures me better future, considering that the new consoles will use more cores over time.

Maybe wait to Skylake? Broadwell-E?

5820K or 4790k?


Cheers!

 

[Yuriman]

I think you'll be fine with an i5, considering the consoles have what are effectively 6 usable Atom cores.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

If you can afford it, I don't think you'll be disappointed with the performance of the 5820k.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

If you can afford it, I don't think you'll be disappointed with the performance of the 5820k.

It seems to overclock better than the 5930K. I'd have to go back and look again at the handful of reviews, tests and enthusiast exchanges I've read. But I thought I saw one person who couldn't make it past 4.3Ghz with 1.35+V, and someone else who made it to 4.6/4.7 with something closer to 1.30V.

I don't know what to think, with that kind of information.

On the other hand, a 4790K and probably its lesser 4690 brethren seems to OC fairly well. You can get to 4.6 to 4.8 and keep the load temperatures in the 60's or 70's range -- high-end air-cooling, AiO's or whatever you choose.

But then, you get an integrated graphics processor, and only four cores and eight threads . . . An authoritative review (Anandtech? Toms? Tech-Report? I should keep a spreadsheet) -- the review SAID the 4790K kept up pretty well with one of the Haswell E chips -- four for six.

 

[aboreal]

It seems to overclock better than the 5930K. I'd have to go back and look again at the handful of reviews, tests and enthusiast exchanges I've read. But I thought I saw one person who couldn't make it past 4.3Ghz with 1.35+V, and someone else who made it to 4.6/4.7 with something closer to 1.30V.

I don't know what to think, with that kind of information.

On the other hand, a 4790K and probably its lesser 4690 brethren seems to OC fairly well. You can get to 4.6 to 4.8 and keep the load temperatures in the 60's or 70's range -- high-end air-cooling, AiO's or whatever you choose.

But then, you get an integrated graphics processor, and only four cores and eight threads . . . An authoritative review (Anandtech? Toms? Tech-Report? I should keep a spreadsheet) -- the review SAID the 4790K kept up pretty well with one of the Haswell E chips -- four for six.

Will they lose both the same performance in the future?... or maybe the 5820k can hold better with their six cores...?

 

[Yuriman]

Six cores will likely last longer but I expect the current consoles to last a long time. You might be looking at... maybe more than 8 years? So, most games for the forseable future will be built with very anemic processors, any modern Intel chip will be fine for console ports.

 

[Essence_of_War]

I think you'll be fine with an i5, considering the consoles have what are effectively 6 usable Atom cores.

This. The much bally-hooed "more cores because consoles!" has never really materialized. In fact, if anything, increasing display resolutions and eye candy are pushing continually towards being GPU limited most of the time.

 

[Madpacket]

Will they lose both the same performance in the future?... or maybe the 5820k can hold better with their six cores...?

From a pure gaming perspective I don't think anyone can really answer that yet.

However given what Microsoft is doing with the reduction of draw calls (copying Mantle) with Direct X 12 I suspect the demand for very fast or very many cores will likely remain stagnant or even go down once developers adopt it.

Some games already benefit now from extra cores (Crysis 3, BF4, Metro) but the actual speed difference is negligible compared to a mildly overclocked 4790K.

If I were you and buying a CPU mainly for games, I would save some money and grab the 4790K, this CPU should be more than enough for the next 3-5 years. If the cost of DDR4 wasn't so expensive, or you planned on building a VM or video encoding box it would be a more difficult decision though.

Plus by going with a 4790K instead of a 5820K you can build a build a custom ITX gaming box which is fun!

 

[Denithor]

Games are beginning to hit that point where more cores helps - just ask anybody who has played BF4 multiplayer with lots of humans present.

But, like nearly always in the past, buying more than you need today with the expectation of it lasting longer is a losing bet. You're far better off buying solid mid-range (4690K) today and then upgrading in 3-4 years' time instead of buying top end (5820/5930K) now and hoping it lasts 5/6/7 years or whatever.

 

[escrow4]

And Haswell E isn't mature. Its brand new, BIOS updates are flopping out, and DDR4 RAM is poor compared to the latencies of DDR3. And X99 is more of a workstation build, rather than a gaming choice. It isn't required. Oh, and in 3yrs, don't be surprised if Skylake and beyond are as fast as a 5930K or 5820K - the 4790K and 4770K are already close to a 3930K except for heavily multi-threaded tasks.

 

[aboreal]

And Haswell E isn't mature. Its brand new, BIOS updates are flopping out, and DDR4 RAM is poor compared to the latencies of DDR3. And X99 is more of a workstation build, rather than a gaming choice. It isn't required. Oh, and in 3yrs, don't be surprised if Skylake and beyond are as fast as a 5930K or 5820K - the 4790K and 4770K are already close to a 3930K except for heavily multi-threaded tasks.

So... you consider a 5820K a good investment. Isnt it?

 

[Yuriman]

So... you consider a 5820K a good investment. Isnt it?

I rarely consider any computer components to be "good investments". I can see an argument being made for Haswell-E in terms of adding brute-force for SLI/CF systems, but not so much for holding onto in the long term. Buy what you need today, upgrade when the time comes. You'll probably need new parts at around the same time, regardless of what you buy today.

 

[aboreal]

I rarely consider any computer components to be "good investments". I can see an argument being made for Haswell-E in terms of brute-force for SLI/CF systems, but not so much for holding onto in the long term. Buy what you need today, upgrade when the time comes.

It is true.


Actually I was thinking something similar happen to socket 1366. Today you can purchase xeon at a very cheap price... thats my big question about socket 2011-3 andits (better?) future...


Cheers

 

[Yuriman]

I get where you're coming from, but realize that you're spending more today in hopes of saving money tomorrow. I'd put the cost difference in the bank, and use it to upgrade sooner.

 

[crashtech]

If you have a finite budget then you must consider the price/performance ratio. Currently systems built with the 4690K and quads like it offer among the best performance for the money. Following those are the 4790K, then the 5820K, each offering more performance potential at progressively higher prices. X99 with its DDR4 requirement in particular carries a rather large price premium, even while the 5820K itself is quite reasonably priced compared to previous hexcores.

EDIT: Of course I mean in a very general sense, for a machine that must perform a wide variety of tasks including gaming. Some applications need more or less computational performance than a quad offers.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I tend to agree with much of what's said here.

If "E" is top-end for both price and performance, I'd think you'd be future-proof for games with the Devils Canyon. You can have more likelihood of getting a good overclock with the Devils Canyon.

I just don't think we know enough about the "E" lotteries yet.

And of course, if someone says they can't get their 5820K beyond 4.1 without pushing the voltage through the roof, they may be doing something else wrong.

So if you're in a hurry, take whichever chances you think you can live with. Me -- I'm waiting . . . watching . . . waiting and watching . .

 

[Dave3000]

The i7-4790k is stock 4 GHz and the i7-5820k is stock 3.3 GHz. That's a 21% CPU speed advantage over the 5820k in programs that use 4 cores or less. Most games don't use over 4 cores currently. Now in programs that use more than 4 cores very well which is mostly not games, the 5820k will outperform the 4790k. So in my opinion, as long as it's a 4-core CPU, at that point for gaming clockspeed / IPC matters more currently.

 

[SPBHM]

to be fair with the comparison I think you have to add $40-50 for the CPU + $100-200 at least for the MB + memory.

as a gaming CPU, if you plan on keeping the system without a CPU upgrade for 2 or more years I would say going with the 5820K makes sense.

but right now the 4790K without OC can be faster for many or most games, and it gives you the possibility to go extremely cheap on memory and motherboard, like using your old ram from 2010, cheap locked motherboard or something.

 

[crashtech]

The i7-4790k is stock 4 GHz and the i7-5820k is stock 3.3 GHz. That's a 21% CPU speed advantage over the 5820k in programs that use 4 cores or less. Most games don't use over 4 cores currently. Now in programs that use more than 4 cores very well which is mostly not games, the 5820k will outperform the 4790k. So in my opinion, as long as it's a 4-core CPU, at that point for gaming clockspeed / IPC matters more currently.

Anyone who would not overclock the 5820K should probably just get a Xeon E5-2620 v3. Personally I think it is pointless to talk about the 5820K at 3.3 unless the user expresses some inexplicable desire to leave a large amount of performance on the table.

 

[escrow4]

So... you consider a 5820K a good investment. Isnt it?

No. You don't need it and Skylake is coming. If you buy X99 you are stuck with a large investment whilst Intel continues dropping CPUs every year and a bit that are ~10% or so faster. Cannonlake and beyond will likely be as fast if not faster than Haswell E stock.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

No. You don't need it and Skylake is coming. If you buy X99 you are stuck with a large investment whilst Intel continues dropping CPUs every year and a bit that are ~10% or so faster. Cannonlake and beyond will likely be as fast if not faster than Haswell E stock.

That's a viable point of view on the issue. This was something that deterred me from building an "E" system going back to SB. Comforting -- to see that I could upgrade to IB with my board, but then -- put off again because of changes in the fabrication process (TIM). But with X79, you could also upgrade to IB-E.

With the Devils Canyon and Z97 boards, you supposedly have a chance for an upgrade to Broadwell. Then, you can ask yourself "but will I?"

All of this gives me pause. I don't "need" a new computer, and I won't build one until next year -- when I still won't "need" it. It's partly addictive behavior, partly "fun," partly trying to "keep up," partly a desire for "greater perfection."

Suppose I wait that long to build either an "E" or a DC/skt-1150? I'll be balancing "latest-greatest" against "building a great computer." I'll also be the vampire that sucked up all the experience from other guinea-pigs. With more mature BIOS revisions, etc.

 

[aboreal]

Will the DIE soldier to IHS on Broadwell-K?

Cheers

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

No. You don't need it and Skylake is coming. If you buy X99 you are stuck with a large investment whilst Intel continues dropping CPUs every year and a bit that are ~10% or so faster.

Well, if you are worried about obsolete sockets -- then you probably should never buy Intel ever. I mean seriously, AMD just released brand new chips for its 2011 AM3+ era socket last month. I still can't figure out why socket 1155 had to die for 1150. It was such a minor change.

 

[crashtech]

Hmm, I thought FIVR was fairly significant, a change which Intel is going to undo come Skylake, apparently. If FIVR had been rejected earlier, 1155 might not had to die, maybe.

 

[Techhog]

Six cores will likely last longer but I expect the current consoles to last a long time. You might be looking at... maybe more than 8 years? So, most games for the forseable future will be built with very anemic processors, any modern Intel chip will be fine for console ports.

More than 8 years would be the longest generation ever. Since the consoles aren't loss-leaders this time around, that's a bold assumption. The only reason the last generation was 8 years was due to how long it took for Microsoft and Sony to make a return on their investments.