is i5 750 (Jun/2009) worth upgrading to i5 4670k?

[anthd56]

The i5 is clearly better in the case shown. The 8350 dropped to 28 fps min and spent a lot of time in the mid 30s, hitting 40-50 average. The 3570k infrequently dipped into the 30s (min was ~33) and spent its minimums in the 40s for the most part, hitting on average 50-60 fps. The i5 is about 10 fps faster.

The 2500k is running at 3.8 ghz. Unless you are suggesting that there is 0 IPC increase between the 750 and sandy he is going to be more than 10% off. Plus he can overclock haswell about 10%.

Don't forget that the 760 and the 750 have boost and can run into the 3 ghz range. The OP's overclock is adding little to performance.

You have a good point, but you'd probably get more value spending that $400 on a PS4 which the OP seems to be interested in. Spending $400 is ridiculous for a CPU upgrade when he has a relatively modern quad. Its not like he's upgrading from a Core 2 Duo or Athlon 64 X2. Yes there'll be a performance increase, but it doesn't justify spending $400 for it. He probably paid a reasonable amount for the 750 and if it still has life left, why upgrade yet. Just my opinion. Furthermore the games that he's playing isn't unplayable. Who needs 100FPS in games.

And no, the 750 only boost to 3GHz~ on two cores or when the TDP has room. When on load using more than 2 cores, it'd probably revert to stock speeds. So OC'ing does add performance in this case.

Check this link out to see how turbo works:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2832/4

Anthony

 

[schmuckley]

That 750 should clock to 3.8-4.2 Ghz

http://valid.canardpc.com/9zbcyc

I run this daily.

 

[Enigmoid]

You have to compare at the resolution and graphics setting you're going to game, running a benchmark 1024*768 with medium setting is not going to reflect what the difference will be at 1920x1080 Max detail 4xMSAA.

This is closer to what he will actually see:

and adding a 2nd videocard:

So adding a 2nd videocard will increase fps by 80-90 percent, but getting a new CPU will increase fps by 10-20 percent.

Yes lets compare a game that is famous for being GPU hungry against a game that is famous for being CPU hungry.

And if running Ultra at 720p only gets you 20 fps because of a CPU bottleneck do you think its somehow going to be better at 1080p? GW2 is notoriously CPU hungry. WvW will drop people with OC 3770k at 4.5 ghz into the 30s or 40s in heavy matches.

If his CPU can't hit 40 fps (decently playable) at 720p then 1080p is going to the same. A 7950 is plenty for Gw2 and pretty much guarantees a CPU bottleneck at 1080p (The youtube video posted in this thread showed a 8350 and a 3570k holding back a 7850)

 

[blackened23]

I've upgraded many 870 systems to Haswell and the difference is amazing in CPU limited games - the IPC increase is immense. I mentioned this before but I was tinkering with an i7-870 system which had slowdowns in Mass Effect II of all games due to the CPU. That definitely didn't happen once it was upgraded to Haswell. If folks want to use the most GPU limited scenario at 2560x1440 to stick to their stubborn views, let them. It's like people are trying to find excuses to not spend money. Once you get down to it, if you question whether the CPU increase is tangible, yes, it is, by a LOT. Not all games are GPU limited like Metro 2033, particularly not GW2 or SC2 which was mentioned by the OP - those games will definitely benefit greatly from a CPU upgrade.

It's whatever. Some people look for excuses not to upgrade, which is cool. Make no mistake, though, the difference is pretty immense, i've seen it first-hand from upgrading several lynnfield systems. Their money though, not mine, if OP wants a PS4 instead more power to him.

 

[Pilum]

As regards SC2, hardware.fr has benched it on a range of CPUs in their Haswell i3 test:

30% improvement from Sandy Bridge to Haswell; compared to Lynnfield, that will be 40-50%. So, at least for SC2, going Haswell will certainly pay off.

 

[sm625]

Dont listen to these guys. lol you'd think they were cpu salesmen working on commission or something... If you're considering dropping $400 on a cpu/mobo upgrade, then you should also consider trading up the 7950 for a R9-290X. I guarantee you will get a much bigger performance increase going that route. The same applies to a GTX 780, and it is getting a price cut this week.

 

[biostud]

Huge increases in from getting a better CPU gaming @ 1920*1080...

But if you want to upgrade, just do it. I'm planning on getting a Haswell-E once they're released, so I'm not opposed to getting a better CPU, but in most cases the GPU is the limiting factor. I know that GW2 can be CPU bound, but it would be interesting to see how much @ 1920x1080.

 

[mindbomb]

it depends on if you are cpu limited in games that you are playing.
but an i5 750 is pretty decent if overclocked. i imagine it would be pretty close to modern amd solutions actually in some games. and it's certainly better than many modern mobile processors.

 

[blackened23]

That's the hilarious thing about it. The OP specifically asked about CPU limited games and never asked about a GPU - yet people are trying to prove a point with the most GPU limited scenarios possible and telling him to get a GPU. What was his question? Will the 4670k be tangibly better? Yes, yes it will. Not all games , and in fact most games are not GPU limited. AAA cross platform titles generally are, but if you play a wide variety of MMOs, MOBAs, RTS games, etc, those are generally more CPU bound.

So let's recap. OP asks about games which are CPU bound. The BF4 beta also showed dramatic differences in performance w.r.t. CPU type. Then everyone posts data with the most GPU limited scenarios possible. Hilariously, everyone chimes in with how he should get another GPU. The OP didn't ask about a GPU -for all we know he could have a GTX 780 already. Apparently, people aren't paying attention to the questions presented by the OP (eg CPU limited games). I don't get it. I've upgraded lynnfield level processors and in many games, CPU limited games, the differences are dramatic. Especially SC2: HOTS. You know what, whatever. It's his money, his decision. He can either read all the data available since he was asking about cpu limited games, or he can buy a PS4.

It's just another case of folks jumping in mid conversation without answering the OP. The answer is yes, there is a tangible performance difference in SC2: HOTS multiplayer 4v4 and GW2 with a Haswell upgrade. Period. That answers his question. Half the responses in the thread do not answer that question. He certainly did not ask for a GPU suggestion.

 

[kkel19]

That's the hilarious thing about it. The OP specifically asked about CPU limited games and never asked about a GPU - yet people are trying to prove a point with the most GPU limited scenarios possible and telling him to get a GPU. What was his question? Will the 4670k be tangibly better? Yes, yes it will. Not all games , and in fact most games are not GPU limited. AAA cross platform titles generally are, but if you play a wide variety of MMOs, MOBAs, RTS games, etc, those are generally more CPU bound.

So let's recap. OP asks about games which are CPU bound. The BF4 beta also showed dramatic differences in performance w.r.t. CPU type. Then everyone posts data with the most GPU limited scenarios possible. Hilariously, everyone chimes in with how he should get another GPU. The OP didn't ask about a GPU -for all we know he could have a GTX 780 already. Apparently, people aren't paying attention to the questions presented by the OP (eg CPU limited games). I don't get it. I've upgraded lynnfield level processors and in many games, CPU limited games, the differences are dramatic. Especially SC2: HOTS. You know what, whatever. It's his money, his decision. He can either read all the data available since he was asking about cpu limited games, or he can buy a PS4.

It's just another case of folks jumping in mid conversation without answering the OP. The answer is yes, there is a tangible performance difference in SC2: HOTS multiplayer 4v4 and GW2 with a Haswell upgrade. Period. That answers his question. Half the responses in the thread do not answer that question. He certainly did not ask for a GPU suggestion.

Thanks!

 

[mindbomb]

im not sure he would be cpu limited in bf4 with the mantle renderer and an overclocked i5 750.

 

[Enigmoid]

I know that GW2 can be CPU bound, but it would be interesting to see how much @ 1920x1080.

That guy is playing at the exact same settings as I do on my laptop (i7-3630qm 660m @ 1058/1250) and getting only 15 fps more (~50 on the 3570k system vs 35 on mine at that time-can't check now due to Halloween content).

I am CPU bottlenecked at 1080p high with a 660m to 25 fps with the Halloween updates in lion's arch.

GW2 is stupidly CPU hungry. Uses around 5 threads.

 

[Enigmoid]

As far as GW2 being CPU bound.

720p




1080p



No fps increase going from 1080p to 720p. Limited to 23-24 fps with an i7-3630qm and a 660m @1085/1250. I do not have FXAA enabled like the guy in the youtube video does and we are playing on different builds and I'm during the halloween event.

 

[kkel19]

i did..i ended up jumping on the z87 plus and 4670k...thanks!