Conflicted between 4690k vs 4790k [made my decision ty]

[Powermoloch]

Hey there,

before I finalized anything. I'm trying to get a general consensus between the two chips. One argument states that 4690K will be suffice for PC gaming only, and on the other hand 4790K will be more a mandatory chip for multi-thread gaming (if any at all will be applicable for me). I'll be pairing the CPU with (2) R9 290 Sapphire tri-x. I dont really OC

I'm planning to build my rig within this week, maybe you guys in this forum inform me just a little bit before I decide to push the buy button.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Crysis 3 seems to favor i7's over i5's, so Star Citizen will also, being written with the same engine. The 4790k will cost you $100 more, but you get a $20 gift card from newegg if you order today or tomorrow:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2407498

It's probably worth the extra $80 for the 500 MHz clock bump (if you're not overclocking) and the hyperthreading.

 

[poohbear]

$80 extra for a cpu that'll last you 3~4 years? How many other things will u spend $80 on in the course of those 3~4 years? I spend $20 a week on coffee (yes i like starbucks)....so $80 for top of the line 4790k that does 4.4ghz easily in the bios (just set turbo mode to performance mode & it'll run @ turbo speeds 24/7 no probs) & hyperthreading. Its a no brainer.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Here's the difference between stock 4690k and 4790k in Crysis 3 at 1080p, using a single GTX 780 Ti.

Not much difference in other games though in this article:
http://www.techbuyersguru.com/haswellgaming.php

 

[Shamrock]

I was torn between these 2 as well. It is going to be my main gaming rig, but I also do video conversion, and photo editing. So I need the faster chip.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

If you don't get charged sales tax in your state from amazon, you can get the 4790k for $317.27 there:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00KPRWAX8

 

[escrow4]

i7 easily. I run 2 4770 non Ks in my boxes and wouldn't give them up for a plain old quad. You want the threads.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I think I could squeeze an extra 100Mhz at same voltage out of my rig (sig) if I'd turned hyperthreading off, but it definitely has its benefits.

And I could still turn it off, but the HDCP features of my HTPC functionality would require reconfiguring Media Center with my cablecard for HD HomeRun Prime. I don't want to go there.

For a rig like this, HTPC functionality is a limp little background process that uses 5% of CPU capacity. When I game, most of the time -- I just let Live TV continue to run.

 

[RussianSensation]

Given how long you kept your Phenom II, and that you won't overclock, 4790K. This CPU will give you more peace of mind than 4690K for 4 years+. $100 over that time is $25 per year. Chances are that CPU will survive 2-3 GPU upgrades. Plus, it'll have higher resale value too down the line.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Given how long you kept your Phenom II, and that you won't overclock, 4790K. This CPU will give you more peace of mind than 4690K for 4 years+. $100 over that time is $25 per year. Chances are that CPU will survive 2-3 GPU upgrades. Plus, it'll have higher resale value too down the line.

So whaddya think? If you were planning to overclock it, would de-lidding be worth the trouble?

 

[Shamrock]

I didn't notice! I ALSO have the PhII 955BE! I am getting a new rig for Christmas. I've had this one since 2009.

 

[Powermoloch]

Given how long you kept your Phenom II, and that you won't overclock, 4790K. This CPU will give you more peace of mind than 4690K for 4 years+. $100 over that time is $25 per year. Chances are that CPU will survive 2-3 GPU upgrades. Plus, it'll have higher resale value too down the line.

Well that is true..I did stick with my phenom II for a hell alot longer that I should be...but life is treating me good these days. Then it's decided =) 4790k then

 

[Majcric]

Good choice OP

 

[JimmiG]

Ah the good old Ph-II 955. I retired mine last year when the first Haswell came out. Much underrated CPU at its time but not cutting it any more.

I agree the i7 is a better choice if you don't upgrade often. HT and the extra cache helps quite a bit in some applications.

 

[toyota]

yes good decision on the 4790k.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Frankly speaking, the 4790K makes the 4690K look like a ripoff in comparison. Saving $100 on a chip with at least a 4 year lifespan for much lower stock clocks, no HT and can barely OC past a stock 4790K is pretty bad from a value for money perspective; I just don't get why it's recommended so much for a gaming rig.

 

[Ryanrenesis]

Frankly speaking, the 4790K makes the 4690K look like a ripoff in comparison. Saving $100 on a chip with at least a 4 year lifespan for much lower stock clocks, no HT and can barely OC past a stock 4790K is pretty bad from a value for money perspective; I just don't get why it's recommended so much for a gaming rig.

My i5-4690K is OC'd to 4.7Ghz exactly the OC limit the 4790K can reach as well. Most review sites also reach this magic number of 4.7Ghz.

Stock clocks don't matter when you're buying a K processor and OC'ing.

Paying $100 more for an i7 when FPS increase is minimal at best to non-existent is the definition of wasting your money.

If cost is of no concern to you, by all means, get the i7.

EDIT: From your sig, why would you pair a wonderful 4790K with an H81 board? That's a pretty cruddy pairing imo.

 

[toyota]

My i5-4690K is OC'd to 4.7Ghz exactly the OC limit the 4790K can reach as well. Most review sites also reach this magic number of 4.7Ghz.

Stock clocks don't matter when you're buying a K processor and OC'ing.

Paying $100 more for an i7 when FPS increase is minimal at best to non-existent is the definition of wasting your money.

If cost is of no concern to you, by all means, get the i7.

for me its 100 bucks well spent to have HT. an i5 will be pegged or nearly pegged at times in some current games. an i7 keeps me above 60 fps in Crysis 3 where as even with an oced i5 that is not happening. I also have other stuff running at times so HT helps a bit with multi tasking and means no worries if I am playing game that's pushing 4 cores hard already. and future games will likely need more than 4 cores too. and over a period of 3 years, 100 bucks is nothing plus you are really not losing anymore than with the i5 when you go to sell them down the road. so really in the end it makes more sense to go i7 for many people especially if wanting the most out of their pc for the next few years.

 

[Ryanrenesis]

for me its 100 bucks well spent to have HT. an i5 will be pegged or nearly pegged at times in some current games. an i7 keeps me above 60 fps in Crysis 3 where as even with an oced i5 that is not happening. I also have other stuff running at times so HT helps a bit with multi tasking and means no worries if I am playing game that's pushing 4 cores hard already. and future games will likely need more than 4 cores too. and over a period of 3 years, 100 bucks is nothing plus you are really not losing anymore than with the i5 when you go to sell them down the road. so really in the end it makes more sense to go i7 for many people especially if wanting the most out of their pc for the next few years.

Where did you get this info?

From http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-core-i5-4690k-core-i7-4790k-review

The i5 @ 4.6Ghz does 111.4 FPS on Crysis 3, while the i7 @ 4.6Ghz does 124.6 FPS.

That's a gain of 13.2 FPS for $100. And this is best case scenario as you can see most of games other than BF4 they are identical.

To put it into perspective, in the best-case scenario: the i5-4690K @ 4.6Ghz costs $2.15/FPS while the i7-4790K @ 4.6Ghz costs $2.73/FPS. That's almost a 30% increase in cost per FPS.

Is that worth it? No imo.

 

[toyota]

Where did you get this info?

From http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-core-i5-4690k-core-i7-4790k-review

The i5 @ 4.6Ghz does 111.4 FPS on Crysis 3, while the i7 @ 4.6Ghz does 124.6 FPS.

That's a gain of 13.2 FPS for $100. And this is best case scenario as you can see most of games other than BF4 they are identical.

To put it into perspective, the i5-4690K @ 4.6Ghz costs $2.15/FPS while the i7-4790K costs $2.73/FPS. That's almost a 30% increase in cost per FPS.

Is that worth it? No imo.

perhaps you should actually read what you link to

Crysis 3 may well be the exception rather than the rule, but it does illustrate rather well that the days of buying an i5 and essentially enjoying i7 performance (either at stock or via overclocking) could be drawing to a close. The combination of a clock-speed boost in addition to Hyper Threading technology pushes the i7 ahead and the cheaper chip sometimes struggles to match

and again the 4690k can NOT stay above 60 no matter how high its oced.

and I already explained to you why it makes sense for some people to go i7 for long term use. you obviously did not grasp any of that based on your reply.

 

[StrangerGuy]

My i5-4690K is OC'd to 4.7Ghz exactly the OC limit the 4790K can reach as well. Most review sites also reach this magic number of 4.7Ghz.

Stock clocks don't matter when you're buying a K processor and OC'ing.

Paying $100 more for an i7 when FPS increase is minimal at best to non-existent is the definition of wasting your money.

If cost is of no concern to you, by all means, get the i7.

Uh, there are already games where the i7 is significantly ahead. Crysis 3 and BF4 for example.

Oh by all means, free feel to tell us how much you spent on a mobo and cooling just to have a insignificant 500MHz OC over a stock 4790K to call that a "waste of money". And that power consumption and heat too.

 

[Ryanrenesis]

perhaps you should actually read what you link to

Crysis 3 may well be the exception rather than the rule, but it does illustrate rather well that the days of buying an i5 and essentially enjoying i7 performance (either at stock or via overclocking) could be drawing to a close. The combination of a clock-speed boost in addition to Hyper Threading technology pushes the i7 ahead and the cheaper chip sometimes struggles to match

and again the 4690k can NOT stay above 60 no matter how high its oced.

"The end result is fascinating - while both chips perform well, the stock i5 is clearly the worst performer, with quite a few dips below 60fps during gameplay. Overclocking the i5 4690K to 4.6GHz improves matters significantly, but the stock i7 4790K clearly keeps the game at 60fps for longer and hands in the best experience overall. Overclocking that to 4.6GHz helps matters a little more, but the difference is far less pronounced"

So if you want to go stock, yes the i7 is better. But who buys a K processor to play games at stock? lol?

 

[toyota]

"The end result is fascinating - while both chips perform well, the stock i5 is clearly the worst performer, with quite a few dips below 60fps during gameplay. Overclocking the i5 4690K to 4.6GHz improves matters significantly, but the stock i7 4790K clearly keeps the game at 60fps for longer and hands in the best experience overall. Overclocking that to 4.6GHz helps matters a little more, but the difference is far less pronounced"

So if you want to go stock, yes the i7 is better. But who buys a K processor to play games at stock? lol?

AGAIN, even oced it CANT stay above 60 fps in that game. and AGAIN for long term use it makes more sense for many people. AGAIN when you go to sale the cpus down the road its not a big deal anyway. I am not telling you what to buy and simply letting you know that 100 bucks more up front means CRAP when everything is factored in for some people.

 

[Ryanrenesis]

AGAIN, even oced it CANT stay above 60 fps in that game. and AGAIN for long term use it makes more sense for many people. AGAIN when you go to sale the cpus down the road its not a big deal anyway. I am not telling you what to buy and simply letting you know that 100 bucks more up front means CRAP when everything is factored in for some people.

How does it not stay above 60 FPS? In the review I linked, the 4690K at 4.6Ghz stayed above 60 FPS 90% of the time!

I'm stumped why you still think you can't stay above 60 FPS. Show me where it says that. Even in the video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEsSnr2sRRE&feature=player_embedded

It shows the i5-4690K staying at 60FPS for most the gameplay (it's capped at 60 FPS). Even the stock i5-4690K was able to maintain 60 FPS for 75% of gameplay.

Finally I play Crysis 3 myself on my own system and it constantly maintains 50-120FPS, averaging about 75 FPS most of the time, dropping below 60 FPS was very rare.

You must be trolling me at this point.

 

[toyota]

How does it not stay above 60 FPS? In the review I linked, the 4690K at 4.6Ghz stayed above 60 FPS 90% of the time!

I'm stumped why you still think you can't stay above 60 FPS. Show me where it says that. Even in the video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEsSnr2sRRE&feature=player_embedded

It shows the i5-4690K staying at 60FPS for most the gameplay (it's capped at 60 FPS). Even the stock i5-4690K was able to maintain 60 FPS for 75% of gameplay.

Finally I play Crysis 3 myself on my own system and it constantly maintains 50-120FPS, averaging about 75 FPS most of the time, dropping below 60 FPS was extremely rare.

You must be trolling me at this point.

maybe you just lack comprehension here. even in the 5 minute video its dropping below 60 fps. and you even say you drop to 50 fps. there are plenty of cpu intensive parts of the game and I have spent many hours testing it on various setups.