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

[Dave2150]

I'm so close to deciding on this issue. I've already ordered my case and my power supply. But I like that the DDR3 memory specials are really hitting on Newegg recently, like ~$100 for decent 16 GB ram.

I'm just drawn to the idea that it makes more sense for the 4790K build because you save money.

I'm worried that if I do get an X99 motherboard, yeah it will have some extra features, but those will become obsolete almost as fast as the Z97 motherboard features. Meaning, I don't know how much extra lifetime you'll get out of the X99 motherboard features. Just as the Z97 starts feeling like it's lacking in features, so too will the X99?

But my mental calculations are looking around $50 savings on RAM, $50 savings on motherboard, and $20 savings on CPU, for a total of $120 saved by going Z97.

So if I took that savings, couldn't I buy a better SSD drive for the Z97, instead of the fancy new M2 connector on the X99?

X99 gets you two or four additional cores. They will last you alot longer than a quadcore will, regardless of motherboard features.

 

[Ramses]

Good point. Hmmm, I guess I'm banking on just keeping the entire system, so the DDR3 ram will just stay in this to-be-built computer, and I'll just get new ram at the time I next upgrade. I guess I also take some comfort in thinking that current DDR4 ram will also go obsolete somewhat over time, so even if you buy DDR4 now, you will probably sell it and get newer DDR4 ram. Sort of how I still have DDR3-1600 memory sitting in my current computer, but I don't want to re-use that because now there is DDR3-2400 or whatever for decent prices. So I think DDR4 looks promising for being new, but will eventually seem outdated too?

That's about how it usually works for me. I don't know that it's so much ddr4 is likely to be obsolete in the next few years, as it is the price of high quality fast ddr4 will probly be lower next time around when you upgrade.
Same thing just happened with ddr3 on my most recent build, low cas 2400 was cheaper than the low cas 1600 was last time. Just the way stuff works.

But.. There is a school of thought that says buying top tier stuff nearly as soon as it's out gives one the longest time owning it while it's still top tier.
It makes sense, but it's expensive heh..

Unless you have some crazy computing requirements, flip a coin imo. Buy what's on sale. Buy what makes you smile. It's all fast these days.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Buy what makes you smile. It's all fast these days.

QFT!

 

[schmuckley]

Ramses, Newegg says your ram runs at 1.65V. Does yours run at that voltage? My 1600 runs at 1.5V. For the X99 owners, G.Skill has a Ripjaws 4 DDR4 2400 that runs at 1.2V. That's significantly lower. However, the Trident X DDR3 2400 is CL10 vs. CL15 for the DDR4. That's significant also.

My RAM runs @ 1.74v

ermm @ this: http://valid.x86.fr/fwdnx6

DDR4 is terrible..Every day i glean the forums to find a deal on something that's worthwhile

 

[escrow4]

You can't get around the fact that you will have 2 extra cores with a 5820K, plus X99 has 10 SATA ports native and a slab of other ports and features. It will last longer than Z97. This isn't X79.

 

[Ramses]

I don't think anyone is trying to get around the fact, the issues is if it's of enough benefit to justify the cost right now. Each individual has to look hard at what they do and decide that for themselves. Or even if they just want it for the sake of having it, nothing wrong with that either. But almost nobody "needs" a 5820 over a 4790k.

My personal evaluation says my software barely uses what I had two computers ago, let alone this monster lol. I can wait on x99 and save a few bucks.
But that's just me. Nice part about this junk is it only gets cheaper over time, until it's vintage.

 

[Ranulf]

X99 gets you two or four additional cores. They will last you alot longer than a quadcore will, regardless of motherboard features.

Define a lot longer. I would buy into this and the ddr3 end of life argument if I didn't go through it with dual to quad core (2.3ghz to 2.6ghz) while staying with ddr2 in 2010. Even if my quad core system's mobo hadn't died 1.5 years in, I'd have gone to a completely new cpu/mobo/ram in 2012-13 . I doubt I would have used the same ddr3 ram if I'd gone that route instead of staying with ddr2.

 

[CP5670]

I'm still using 2x2GB DDR 1866 sticks that I got back in 2009, along with 2x4GB sticks from two years ago. There is faster DDR3 available now but it barely makes any difference in practice, and is not worth upgrading to.

As for motherboards, I never saw much point in paying the prices for high end ones, since I hardly ever use the extra features in them and there is little difference in overclocking or other performance over mainstream boards. They do look appealing visually, but even the cheap boards look nice these days. I did want my current board for some specific features though, which were hard to find in Z97 and nonexistent on X99 (PCI, Realtek LAN chip for XP compatibility, and at least 8 phase power).

 

[mindbomb]

I really like what x99 represents. It shows that intel is willing to bet that there are ppl who want high end pc parts. And the chips themselves are fundamentally better, with more cache and cores and better memory controller in lieu of integrated graphics.

z97 is great if you want to save money, but there is a worrying trend of expensive ultra premium z97 boards which are pointless, since it nullifies the purpose of the platform in the first place.

 

[Ramses]

Makes sense with the supposed slackening of desktop sales. Gotta draw the hardcore folks with something.

 

[cbn]

I totally agree that feature wise x99 across the board(no pun intended) is a better deal and as well it should be, but quality of some components and price I believe are still tied to each other.

Maybe what ASUS could do is offer a X99 with no add-ons (eg, extra PCIe via PLX, extra SATA ports through additional controllers, extra usb, etc etc etc) and just sell a quality built basic Workstation X99.

I wouldn't be surprised if that that basic X99 WS board beats the ASUS Z97 WS board (that needs the extra cost adding extras) on quality and price. I'm thinking this might be true because it is often more economical to start with a better platform than it is to upgrade a lesser one.

 

[Ramses]

Maybe what ASUS could do is offer a X99 with no add-ons (eg, extra PCIe via PLX, extra SATA ports through additional controllers, extra usb, etc etc etc) and just sell a quality built basic Workstation X99.

I wouldn't be surprised if that that basic X99 WS board beats the ASUS Z97 WS board (that needs the extra cost adding extras) on quality and price. I'm thinking this might be true because it is often more economical to start with a better platform than it is to upgrade a lesser one.

Might be, and I'd be interested in such a board, but that does not seem to be the way motherboard manufacturers are trending lately. It's funny if you were into computers years ago, their basically was no motherboard marketing. The pcb was green, they came in a plain box, they didn't communicate with the public, they just made boards. Lot of good has come from the changes in the industry and it becoming so much more mainstream. Not all good though. I miss moderately priced, very plain, very high quality motherboards. I almost bought a Supermicro z97 this time but I'm a stickler for fan and temp management and that's one thing they didn't have quite up to snuff. Sure miss my dual 440bx/gx boards though.

There are really way too many board options these days.

 

[cbn]

I guess the gamble is if ddr4 will be cheaper at next upgrade time than it is now by a measurable amount. Sorta. And if ddr3 will be good enough from now till then. Or maybe it's cheap ddr4 or nice ddr3 now and nice ddr3 later?
Good arguments either way really. I don't follow the ram market well enough know guess if ddr4 is going to be way cheaper later, I'd assume some-cheaper but to what degree I don't know.

Current prices for 4GB DDR4 are starting at $34.99 (for DDR4 2133 Cas 15):

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...23&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=30

Current prices for 4GB DDR3 are starting at $25.99 (for DDR3 1600 Cas 11) :

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...67&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=30

So $9 premium per each 4GB.

On a 8GB system that amounts to $18 more for DDR4.

On a 16GB system that would be $36 difference.

I remember back when X99 first appeared the price difference between 8GB DDR4 and 8GB DDR3 settled to about $40 several weeks after the launch. So the price gap is closing at a fairly decent rate (even without Skylake or Carrizo with DDR4).

 

[crashtech]

Personally I would never buy X99 and then only populate 2 channels, but I suppose if the budget is just that tight, it's a way to get one's foot in the door.

 

[cbn]

Personally I would never buy X99 and then only populate 2 channels, but I suppose if the budget is just that tight, it's a way to get one's foot in the door.

I don't know how two channels would work with i7-5820K, probably not bad though.

For a X99 "budget processor" there is always this one:

http://ark.intel.com/products/82763...5-1620-v3-10M-Cache-3_50-GHz?wapkw=e5-1620+v3

And two channels would definitely be more than enough for that.

 

[Ramses]

If I was going to get ddr4 that was any better than my ddr3 2400 I paid $150 for it'd be more like this. http://www.amazon.com/Mushkin-997200F-Redline-288Pin-PC4-21300/dp/B00RC8R6G4 or a 4 stick set. $50 or better difference.

 

[cbn]

If I was going to get ddr4 that was any better than my ddr3 2400 I paid $150 for it'd be more like this. http://www.amazon.com/Mushkin-997200F-Redline-288Pin-PC4-21300/dp/B00RC8R6G4 or a 4 stick set. $50 or better difference.

Do you use 16 GB now?

Because for someone wanting to use 16GB, getting 4 x 4GB of some commodity priced DDR4 2133 would be way faster than 2 x 8GB DDR4 2666 (re: quad channel doubles the bandwidth).

 

[Ramses]

I break 8gb pretty regular yeah, I've been on 16gb as a min for awhile now, I still chuckle at the fact that my laptop has 16gb of ram.

And yes 2, 4, whatever x99 does best with. Still more than a trivial price difference if one isn't buying bargain basement. I'm frugal but I never buy low end. This is a for-fun hobby after all. I'm not up to date on ddr4, but as near as I can tell faster ram makes not a lot of difference other than to some pretty specific tasks. I've no doubt ddr4 is better all around and will be of more use in the years to come but right now it's not much of a draw to me.
SDRAM to DDR or DDR2 or even 2 to 3 was a fairly noticeable deal, I'm not seeing it though for ddr4 right now. I'll be happy to buy some 3k when I can get a 5930k for $300 or so though. But at the rate things are going it's going to be a looong while.

I don't think it's a bad choice buying x99, I just don't think it's a bad choice going z97 either.

 

[Idontcare]

Do you use 16 GB now?

Because for someone wanting to use 16GB, getting 4 x 4GB of some commodity priced DDR4 2133 would be way faster than 2 x 8GB DDR4 2666 (re: quad channel doubles the bandwidth).

The pre-caching algo's on CPUs these days are so advanced and so sophisticated that it becomes a stretch for even the most conflict-of-interest bound "reviewer" to find reason and argument to justify faster memory or higher capacity. It really takes the rare sort of program or rare sort of end-user where >8GB of any speed of any ram is going to deliver a 5-10% real-life performance boost.

 

[cbn]

The pre-caching algo's on CPUs these days are so advanced and so sophisticated that it becomes a stretch for even the most conflict-of-interest bound "reviewer" to find reason and argument to justify faster memory or higher capacity. It really takes the rare sort of program or rare sort of end-user where >8GB of any speed of any ram is going to deliver a 5-10% real-life performance boost.

I totally agree that for average uses quad channel DDR4 2133 is going to be overkill. Way overkill.

But for someone insisting on fast DDR4 RAM (for whatever reason) buying four sticks of DDR4 2133 is going to far more economical than two larger sticks of DDR4 2666 (re: going from DDR4 2133 to DDR4 2666 almost doubles the price of the DIMM at both the 4GB and 8GB level).

Here is an example of what I referring to: 2 x 8GB DDR4 2666 starts at $230 --> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...7611 600006072 600521523 600531811&IsNodeId=1 whereas 4 x 4GB DDR4 2133 starts at $140 : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...7611 600521523 600006073 600521524&IsNodeId=1

 

[Idontcare]

I totally agree that for average uses quad channel DDR4 2133 is going to be overkill. Way overkill.

But for someone insisting on fast DDR4 RAM (for whatever reason) buying four sticks of DDR4 2133 is going to far more economical than two larger sticks of DDR4 2666 (re: going from DDR4 2133 to DDR4 2666 almost doubles the price of the DIMM at both the 4GB and 8GB level).

Here is an example of what I referring to: 2 x 8GB DDR4 2666 starts at $230 --> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...7611 600006072 600521523 600531811&IsNodeId=1 whereas 4 x 4GB DDR4 2133 starts at $140 : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...7611 600521523 600006073 600521524&IsNodeId=1

I really feel sorry for people who find themselves with no choice but to buy ram these days. I just checked my newegg purchase history and in Dec 2012 (3 years ago ) I purchased this very DDR3-1866 4x8GB for a mere $109.90 w/zero shipping.

It overclocked to whatever, who cares. It made no difference.

But nowadays people pay 2x-4x that price, some 3 years later, just for the latest whiz-bang DDR4 ram that gives them a performance increase in basically nothing but sisoft sandra?

This is disconcerting. I was hoping to get a DDR4 rig soon, just because, but the ram prices are outrageous compared to the truly paltry performance gains. Ugh.

 

[nighty2k7]

I also had to choose between z97 and x99. As I use 4x8GB Ram the decision I made was to use my Ddr3 sticks to avoid purchasing Ddr4 with nearly no performance gains.
Also historically in the first years ram standards develop quickly to higher frequencies

 

[biostud]

There's really no reason to get expensive memory for the X99, unless you want to compete in benchmarks. The real life benefit of choosing expensive 2800+ Mhz DDR4 over the cheapest 2133Mhz modules is negligible and will only show up if you run benchmarks.

 

[PhIlLy ChEeSe]

My RAM runs @ 1.74v

ermm @ this: http://valid.x86.fr/fwdnx6

DDR4 is terrible..Every day i glean the forums to find a deal on something that's worthwhile

1.74 on the memory? I don't know X99, but that seems kinda high IMHO. What ya cooling the CPU with? As the controller is on the CPU, sounds like a lot of heat having to be moved away from the CPU.

My concern would be more with, why the CPU has less lanes then its counter parts as higher clocked memory will not yield you much(assuming you have SLI or CF) this would be the point of yield more important(scores whys). But I see this CPU putting up some nice clocks, then down the road you could upgrade the CPU instead of upgrading the whole rig.

 

[Ramses]

There's really no reason to get expensive memory for the X99, unless you want to compete in benchmarks. The real life benefit of choosing expensive 2800+ Mhz DDR4 over the cheapest 2133Mhz modules is negligible and will only show up if you run benchmarks.

That's exactly what everyone says about anything beyond 1600 on ddr3 lol...
(and they are right)