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

[Arachnotronic]

You're building a new system from scratch and you have the choice of going with the 4790K or the 5820K.

Which chip/platform would you go with, and why?

I'm very interested in hearing everyone's perspectives.

My answer: 5820K, even at a slight premium, because I think that 6+ cores will make the system last far longer, particularly with a good overclock, than the 4790K. DDR4 should last a while too and carry over to new builds down the line, while DDR3 is at the end of its life.

EDIT: The motivation for this question was this comment from Scott Wasson's X99/HSW-E review:

One product you'll probably want to avoid is the Core i7-5820K, which Intel has ruined by disabling a bunch of the PCI Express lanes. I swear, if there's a way to tune a knob or dial in order to gimp a CPU for the sake of product segmentation, Intel's product people will find that knob and turn it, no matter what. In this case, the Core i7-5820K loses the ability to host a dual-graphics setup with 16 lanes to each PCIe slot. Have fun explaining that one to your friend who popped $389 for a CPU and about the same for a fancy X99 motherboard, only to find that it's no better—not even in theory—than a 4790K for dual-GPU setups. This issue is more pressing now that AMD relies on PCI Express bandwidth for transferring CrossFire frames between GPUs.

http://techreport.com/review/26977/intel-core-i7-5960x-processor-reviewed

I completely disagree with this as I think the 5820K provides the best value of Intel's HEDT lineup and, at least to me, is more desirable than the 4790K.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

5820K hands down, since it's only very slightly more than a 4790K+mobo combo at MicroCenter.
The main PITA is pricing on DDR4.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Last year, I "planned" to build a Haswell-E system "this year." As 2014 headed toward New Year's Day, I took stock of my annual computer-enthusiast budget, the casualties of the last year, and my plans. I will probably buy the parts and get started later this year, but as a matter of need, I could be coming to my senses. I still don't "need" it while rocking these old Sandy Bridge systems.

I also looked into the Devils Canyon alternative, and I can see you could build a decent to above-average quad-core system with one of those. But I'm still leery of the (so-called) polymer TIM they used to replace the Ivy Bridge and early Haswell TIMs between die and IHS, although I'm confident that it's "better."

I'm in the process of rebuilding my brother's system in the upstairs room right now -- among many other priorities and choices. It's a C2D E8600 system with a two-drive RAID0. And I was looking at how it gets choked with clock cycles for certain tasks. So bro' will get a quad-core -- just not a Haswell, since I have the IB i5-3570K I acquired by chance this last fall.

 

[happy medium]

The 1150 socket is being replaced this summer right?
So I voted x99 all the way!

 

[Idontcare]

5820K. 2 more cores, solder IHS. And a real chance of having a decent BW-E upgrade path in 2 or 3 yrs when Intel finally roles them out. (kidding on the timeline but serious about everything else)

 

[Arachnotronic]

5820K. 2 more cores, solder IHS. And a real chance of having a decent BW-E upgrade path in 2 or 3 yrs when Intel finally roles them out. (kidding on the timeline but serious about everything else)

I'm hoping that Intel finds the inclination to bring a 10 core unlocked consumer chip to HEDT. 8 core Broadwell, barring some major frequency uplift, isn't really all that compelling an upgrade from 8 core Haswell.

I got on the X79 train with IVB-E, but I know if I had bought in with SNB-E, I'd be pretty pissed that my "upgrade path" was to a slightly faster 6 core chip with minimal performance improvements.

Unfortunately the leaks point to an 8C BDW-E...:/

 

[master_shake_]

the biggest issue between the 2 is ddr4 memory prices.

other than that the x99 platform has more to offer.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

5820K. 2 more cores, solder IHS. And a real chance of having a decent BW-E upgrade path in 2 or 3 yrs when Intel finally roles them out. (kidding on the timeline but serious about everything else)

the sad part is I can't tell whether or not your kidding on the timeline is short or long...

 

[RaistlinZ]

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.

 

[LV3]

I just built my 5820k system. Got it for $300 at Microcenter.

 

[ClockHound]

Wow! MC pricing makes me so envious that I'm going to stop reading these what's better threads. Or start my own: What's better: Paying a $100-150 more for the same product or not?

Please, you MC hipsters, post a spoiler alert before posting MC prices. Most of us are here for one job only - to support Intel's 60%+ margins. Don't make us stop loving our work. Thank you.

Full Disclosure: I voted to flip a coin - they make $100 coins now, right?

 

[ClockHound]

5820K. 2 more cores, solder IHS. And a real chance of having a decent BW-E upgrade path in 2 or 3 yrs when Intel finally roles them out. (kidding on the timeline but serious about everything else)

Sure, mock your own timeline optimism, before we get the chance. '-)

 

[crashtech]

4790K so far has the cores that go the fastest most easily. Unless you know you need the throughput delivered by the two extra cores, 5820K has to prove it can clock reliably at 4.4 or better all day long to be decisively superior. Even then, there's still the price premium imposed by the platform and DDR4.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Personally, I would just go with the 4790k. High stock clocks, no worry about the silicon lottery, and the ability to use (re-use) current ram. With hyperthreading, it will offer more than enough cpu power for my demands of gaming for the forseable future. And I dont do any other cpu demanding tasks at all. One could even get by with a cheap non-Z motherboard

 

[crashtech]

It's all in the usage case, and there really are few who can make good use of six plus cores on the desktop.

 

[escrow4]

I bought a 5930K just because I could purely for gaming (and I did have a 3930K) and I'm running it at 3.7GHz all cores. Too lazy to overclock it. I vote 5820K - those threads will come in handy in any and all tasks as everything is going more and more multi-threaded.

 

[biostud]

I went with the 5820K, due to the relatively low premium cost over a 4790K and I tend to keep my systems for a long time, so I thought +50% extra cores will probably be more useful than + 10% Mhz.

 

[coercitiv]

I went with the 5820K, due to the relatively low premium cost over a 4790K and I tend to keep my systems for a long time, so I thought +50% extra cores will probably be more useful than + 10% Mhz.

What's the difference in % between the two builds?

 

[biostud]

What's the difference in % between the two builds?

For my system the total cost of going with a 5820K is probably ~10% more than 4790K. If you only look at CPU, motherboard and memory it is between 25-30% more.

 

[Ranulf]

4790k for gaming especially as its faster at stock. 5820k if you really think you'll need the cores for non gaming and you want to keep it for 3+ years minimum. Microcenter deals help but only if you live near one.

 

[coercitiv]

For my system the total cost of going with a 5820K is probably ~10% more than 4790K. If you only look at CPU, motherboard and memory it is between 25-30% more.

Are you sure? Simply replacing your ASRock X99X Killer with a Z97X Killer on Newegg returns around 36% price difference for MB+CPU+RAM, which coincidentally is around the same 36% throughput gain when comparing 50% more cores to 10% increasd frequency.

 

[beginner99]

Well it depends.

For gaming: 4790k

For productivity: 5820k (but depends on the software you use. Can it use 6 cores?)

Then there is the chance you already own DDR3 RAM and most people don't live near a MC or are not from US at all making the 4790k a lot cheaper.

Also if you do a lot of transcoding the 4790k will win too due to QuickSync and the mentioned lack of additional PCIe lanes on 5820k doesn't make the platform any better. RAM speed mostly doesn't matter either so DDR4 does not have any real advanatge. 4790k is IMHO the better choice.

 

[Essence_of_War]

I can see you could build a decent to above-average quad-core system with one of those.

The 4790k's base clock is 4 GHz, and it turbos up to 4.4 out of the box.

What about that is decent-to-above-average?

 

[Madpacket]

4790K as you have many Z97 ITX motherboard platforms to choose from so you can build the fastest computer with the smallest footprint.

Also 98% of people on the planet don't live near a Microcentre. (Number made up for emphasis).

 

[schmuckley]

I voted 4790K
Higher IPC,There's good DDR3..Better compatibility.
ddr4 sucks, CAS 15 @ 2800? You call that good?