i7-4790K v.s. i7-5820K

[cbn]

A Crap X99 board on a 5820K will cap at what? 3.9? 4.1? potentially?

The $180 ASRock x99 extreme 4 will overclock i7 5960X to 4.7 Ghz:

http://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/asrock_x99_extreme4_review,13.html

I think the only board lower than that is the $155 Extreme 3 (which may have limit overclocking capability).

 

[Lepton87]

The $180 ASRock x99 extreme 4 will overclock i7 5960X to 4.7 Ghz:

http://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/asrock_x99_extreme4_review,13.html

I think the only board lower than that is the $155 Extreme 3 (which may have limit overclocking capability).

4.7 with 8 cores? Yeah, right, less then 1% of the CPUs can do that.

 

[crashtech]

Maybe cbn means that the board has the capability if the CPU does, that's how I read it, anyway.

 

[aigomorla]

The $180 ASRock x99 extreme 4 will overclock i7 5960X to 4.7 Ghz:

http://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/asrock_x99_extreme4_review,13.html

I think the only board lower than that is the $155 Extreme 3 (which may have limit overclocking capability).

hyperpi is not a valid stress test for stability!!

and i highly suspect the reviewer has a cherry cpu, which as someone stated, less then 1% of cpu's out there are..

At that point, its mostly CPU end then board end, as the board typically nets you at best a 10-15% better overclock.

 

[biostud]

As far as I can see, all the asrock boards have the same standard layout (power, sound, bios etc.) and they just differ in number of slots and added features. (Except for the specifically OC board)

 

[cbn]

As far as I can see, all the asrock boards have the same standard layout (power, sound, bios etc.) and they just differ in number of slots and added features. (Except for the specifically OC board)

Not sure about the ASRock Z97s, but on the X99s, the Extreme 3 only has six phase power. All the other ASRock X99s starting at Extreme 4 have 12 phase power.

 

[alcoholbob]

The $180 ASRock x99 extreme 4 will overclock i7 5960X to 4.7 Ghz:

http://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/asrock_x99_extreme4_review,13.html

I think the only board lower than that is the $155 Extreme 3 (which may have limit overclocking capability).

Lol you are talking about a chip lottery.

My 4770K idles at 32C and Prime95 load is under 60C after 12 hours at 4.3GHz on a Noctua D15. I can't even add 100MHz more to my chip, doesn't matter if I raise my voltage to 1.3, 1.4V, instant crash when loading to Windows. Whereas some people can hit 4.5, 4.6GHz on stock cooler on stock volts running a 80C furnace.

You can get a good chip or a bad chip when it comes to overclocking.

If you are gaming best bet is a 4790K because it's guaranteed to hit 4.4GHz. If you get a 5820K or 5960X its just a lottery, maybe you can't even hit 4GHz on water if you get a bad overclocking chip. Temps are irrelevant. If you are gaming what's the point of a 6 or 8 core that's clocked significantly slower than a quadcore.

Even if the game scales with more cores like Frostbite engine, if you have a poor binned chip the lower clockspeed basically only catches up with performance of a stock 4790K.

 

[biostud]

Not sure about the ASRock Z97s, but on the X99s, the Extreme 3 only has six phase power. All the other ASRock X99s starting at Extreme 4 have 12 phase power.

yeah, the Extreme 3 is definitely a cut down version to make a X99 board as cheap as possible.

 

[cbn]

You can get a good chip or a bad chip when it comes to overclocking.

That is true.

My point with the ASRock Extreme 4 was to point out that a $180 board isn't a limitation.

 

[Lepton87]

hyperpi is not a valid stress test for stability!!

and i highly suspect the reviewer has a cherry cpu, which as someone stated, less then 1% of cpu's out there are..

At that point, its mostly CPU end then board end, as the board typically nets you at best a 10-15% better overclock.

Hyperpi? So it's not even stable at that 4.7GHz. I can run that with at least +100-200MHz than my stable overclock.
ps.

Eventually we settled on 4.7GHz which as a shame after so much promise but not shameful by any stretch of the imagination as it is just 500MHz below what motherboards costing twice as much have achieved!

Just 500? This board is a piece of crap.

 

[Smoblikat]

I voted 5820K, because cores.

Though I would never buy either of those processors, my 3770K is just as fast and uses less power. On that note though, my old 2500K is still just as fast, so I didnt need to upgrade that either

 

[Boze]

I upgraded from 4770K to a 5820K. It helps that I have a Microcenter nearby though. At any rate, if you're starting totally from scratch and plan to keep the rig for the next 3-4 years I'd go 5820K. 6 cores, 12 threads. Overclock it and you lose nothing over a 4790K.

Love Microcenter.

I gotta move to a damn area with a Microcenter... paying $380 for that same processor on Newegg would annoy the shit out of me.

What about i7-5930K? How much are those going for there? You know what, don't tell me, I don't need a brain aneurysm right now...

 

[Lepton87]

I gotta move to a damn area with a Microcenter... paying $380 for that same processor on Newegg would annoy the shit out of me.

What about i7-5930K? How much are those going for there? You know what, don't tell me, I don't need a brain aneurysm right now...

That's a pointless SKU, only useful if you want 4 graphics cards and if you do then you don't care about money that much and just buy the 5960X.

 

[Magic Carpet]

I suspect, the price-conscious people that have bought X99/5820K are planning to keep that platform for at least 2-3 years. Whether their choice was sound, we will find out soon, with Skylake. The 1150 crowd didn't invest as much, so an upgrade to Skylake is easier, less costly. Especially if they could re-use their old ddr3 ram.

And the crowd that doesn't fall in to this group, won't care. They just buy the best, no matter how often (in which case, 5820K/5930K will be out of question). I agree with Lepton87 on it.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

If you have a Microcenter nearby, screw the 4790K.
Better TIM + 2c/4t extra = winnar!

 

[alcoholbob]

Got a friend with a 5820K system on water that will only do 4.1GHz no matter how much voltage he puts on it. Point is a 4790K at worst will do 4.5 or 4.6. For gaming it's a no brainer because most games that scale to 6 cores don't do so linearly due to hyper-threading, at best you get 6-10% more performance from the extra 2 cores. That means in practice a 4.1GHz 5820K is no better than a 4790K at 4.3GHz in the games that do scale to 6 cores like BF4...I might add this means the 5820K is still slower than a stock 4790K at 4.4GHz.

 

[biostud]

Got a friend with a 5820K system on water that will only do 4.1GHz no matter how much voltage he puts on it. Point is a 4790K at worst will do 4.5 or 4.6. For gaming it's a no brainer because most games that scale to 6 cores don't do so linearly due to hyper-threading, at best you get 6-10% more performance from the extra 2 cores. That means in practice a 4.1GHz 5820K is no better than a 4790K at 4.3GHz in the games that do scale to 6 cores like BF4...I might add this means the 5820K is still slower than a stock 4790K at 4.4GHz.

Then he must be really unlucky with the chip. Most can reach 4.3-4.4Ghz without too much trouble.

And in the end in 99% of the cases it is the videocard which is the limiting factor, not the CPU.

 

[biostud]

I suspect, the price-conscious people that have bought X99/5820K are planning to keep that platform for at least 2-3 years. Whether their choice was sound, we will find out soon, with Skylake. The 1150 crowd didn't invest as much, so an upgrade to Skylake is easier, less costly. Especially if they could re-use their old ddr3 ram.

And the crowd that doesn't fall in to this group, won't care. They just buy the best, no matter how often (in which case, 5820K/5930K will be out of question). I agree with Lepton87 on it.

Yeah, since the i7-2600K we have seen higher IPC but lower frequencies in over clocking, so the only real way to improve CPU power significantly is to add more cores. Which can only be used if the software is optimized for it.

 

[HellsChicken1]

One thing I haven't seen anybody mention with regard to the extra 2 cores for gaming is background processes. I don't know if everybody else out there shuts everything down to get every ounce of power when loading up a game, but I couldn't be bothered usually....

So when I'm running a game, I'll usually still have a ton of other background tasks going. Skype, browsers with multiple tabs, steam/origin/galaxy, raptr, a/v, a whole host of gaming-unncecessary services, etc...

While those aren't going to be taking a ton of processing power while not in active use (though they could be at any time - eg. an update hits, an incoming message, etc...), they are still going to be taking some CPU time, plus the added cost of switching, etc...

With a lot of games now taking advantage of 4 cores, wouldn't you see an increase in performance by having those extra 2 cores take care of other processes, freeing up those 4 cores to be fully dedicated to the game? I'd imagine that you'd probably see some perf loss while one or more of your cores or threads is busy dealing with Windows or one of the other running processes.

Thoughts?

 

[Ramses]

I'd agree with that and have observed such even as far back as going from a single slot 1 PII to dual cpu's. I haven't had to close my 30 browser tabs or dozen system tray tasks in ages though for gaming. It was more of a free ram problem than a free CPU problem in recent history with at least four capable cores. I think windows handles both the cpu and memory side of such things a lot better than it used to. But it's at least in theory a valid point imo yes.

 

[Makaveli]

That's a pointless SKU, only useful if you want 4 graphics cards and if you do then you don't care about money that much and just buy the 5960X.

And what about if you have 2card SLI or xfire and pop in a nvme drive that requires 4 lanes of its own. If you have to add any additional expansion cards won't things get abit tight here on the 28 lane configuration.

 

[crashtech]

You know someone's hard to please when they call an unlocked octacore 'useless.'

 

[ehume]

I waited for the 5820k, then went with the 4790k. I bought it from the MC an hour away -- I only go there for MB's and CPU's. The 1151 system was cheaper, and I liked the Gigabyte Gaming 7 board. Ultra-low profile RAM from Amazon, and I was good to go. The board OC'd it automatically to 4.4GHz. I run it at 4.5GHz on 1.19v. The OC software had it up to 5.1GHz, briefly, with no load on. I'm sure I could get another 200MHz out of it, run at 4.7GHz, but why bother?

The worst decision I made was to put Windows 8.1 on it, but I wanted to test it (don't use Win 8.1). Since I don't need the extra cores, saving money here was a no-brainer.

 

[Ramses]

I'm eagerly waiting for software developers to show me a reason I need more than this 4790K myself. Stock.

 

[Kodiack]

I upgraded from a 4770K and went to a 5820K. In the grand scheme of things, it wasn't the most significant of upgrades, but I really had the itch to rebuild. I can say that I'm overall very satisfied with the performance of this chip. If X99 is able to fit into someone's budget without compromises elsewhere in the build, I can definitely recommend it. This platform is fantastic. I achieved a comfortable 4.5 GHz overclock with a modest 1.32V as well. I'm sure it could be pushed even further at the cost of efficiency.