Convince me not to sidegrade to an i7-4790k

[Dave3000]

A 4690k is a quad core and a 4930k is a hex core. 4690k is also 3.5 GHz and 4790k is 4 GHz and I think the 4790k is worth the $80 extra over the 4690k at MC.

 

[escrow4]

Why would you want to go to a puny i5? That is what I'd put in a basic office box. If you do want to rip it up get a 5930K or 5820K.

 

[Hans Gruber]

I would say go with a 5820K only is you want to prepare for Skylake with DDR4 memory. You would need a new motherboard. Otherwise I would get a 4690K and overclock it to 4.5-4.7ghz. The 4790K is good to up around 4.8ghz OC'd. It turbo's up to 4.5ghz with a core clock of 4.0ghz. For a non overclocker that is reason enough to get it. For OC'er not really a benefit.

I have a 3570K myself. It runs at a constant 4.5ghz.

 

[Shmee]

As others have mentioned, your Vcore is low on your IB-E. You need to manually adjust it.
I would start with 4.0-4.2 GHz @ 1.3 V and see how that goes, depending on cooling.

 

[BHZ-GTR]

Hi

I would recommend to you buy Core i7 5930K Or Wait SKYKALE.

 

[2is]

Or save some money and get the 4690K, only $200 at MC. It has for times the cores of what you are using now, and saves money for Skylake-K or Cannonlake-K.

or OR... Instead of spending money on an even bigger downgrade, he could simply you know... Not spend any until a worthwhile upgrade is available.

 

[ehume]

or OR... Instead of spending money on an even bigger downgrade, he could simply you know... Not spend any until a worthwhile upgrade is available.

I like that.

 

[jihe]

Well I can't even OC my CPU to 3.9 GHz (max stock single core turbo on all core loads) without an issue. At 3.9 GHz sometime my PC will turn back on a few seconds later after I turn it off despite it running stable in Intel Burn Test and Prime 95 for hours. This is with the vcore on Auto which is around 1.19v for my CPU. I can even run these stress tests for hours without issue at 4.2 GHz 1.17v yet starting at 3.9 GHz 1.19v if have this "turning back on" issue when turning off my system.

Why don't you use the psu switch? It saves power and won't turn itself back on.

 

[crashtech]

Needing to use the actual mains switch on the PSU every time the PC is shut down went out with AT systems.

 

[VirtualLarry]

If the mobo turns back on after an ATX soft power-off event, then chances are, the mobo is damaged.

 

[cytg111]

Why spend money replacing something that is perfectly fine, when new toys are right around the corner?

+1

I mean, unless you own a golden-egg laying duck and be extremely bored, like, *extremely* bored.

 

[Dave3000]

If the mobo turns back on after an ATX soft power-off event, then chances are, the mobo is damaged.

Well the warranty has expired on my motherboard. Maybe it's the damage in the CPU socket that caused this issue. However it has not been doing it when running my CPU at stock settings. Maybe operating my CPU inside the damaged socket degraded my CPU's overclocking potential and that's maybe why I had this issue even when overclocked at 3.9 GHz with auto vcore. Maybe my power supply is having issues providing more current directly to the CPU when it's overclocked since to me it sounds power-related.

 

[Dave3000]

Okay this morning I set my CPU multiplier to sync all cores to the 3.9 GHz with leaving the vcore on auto which gives me 1.168v during full load. At 3.6 GHz (stock Intel Turbo Boost for all cores loaded) auto vcore give me about 1.14v during full load. This time I don't have my sound card installed and have not experienced the power on issue without my sound card installed with these CPU settings. Maybe my sound card was shorting out something in my motherboard?

 

[ehume]

Doesn't your mb have a built-in soundcard chip?

 

[Dave3000]

Yes it does. It uses a Realtek HD audio onboard chip. Reason why I installed the sound card was because I was trying to find out if the onboard sound was causing stuttering issues while gaming but it was not.

 

[ehume]

I seem to recall that your generation of chips needed more Voltage than Haswells. Why not set you Vcore to 1.21v @3.9GHz? Or even higher?

 

[crashtech]

Intel rates the max VID for Ivy at 1.52V, not that anyone should go that high (mostly due to heat) but there should not be any fear of a reasonable voltage increase, say in the 1.25 to 1.3V range. This will likely enable speeds in excess of 4.0GHz, how much in excess depends partly on luck.

Page 84:

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/3rd-gen-core-desktop-vol-1-datasheet.html

 

[Dave3000]

I guess my CPU is not stable at 3.9 GHz with syncing all cores at auto vcore (1.168v during full load and 0.9v during idle). I was loading up CPU-Z after playing a game and during load CPU-Z I got a blue screen saying that "Your PC has encountered a problem and will need to restart. IRQ less than or equal to....". Then my system froze at that screen or it was taking to long to restart my system so I did a hard restart. This is in Windows 8.1. I'm back to stock settings (3.6 GHz on all cores loads and 3.9 GHz on single core loads) and no issues. This is strange to me as I can run Prime 95 and Intel Burn Test for hours without issues at 4.2 GHz at 1.17v with regular (0% CPU load line calibration for my motherboard) on the vcore.

 

[crashtech]

Hello... is this thing on?

Your voltage is too low to make any determinations about your CPUs overclocking potential.

Given what seems to be reluctance on your part to adjust the voltage upward, I do recommend a 4790K at this time. Even at stock it will be faster at a great many things than an Ivy Bridge at 3.6-3.9GHz, moar cores notwithstanding. I guess this should come with the caveat that the board selected should be able to run all four cores at max turbo. My Z97-UD5H does this by default, so there really isn't even a need to overclock it.

 

[Dave3000]

Hello... is this thing on?

Your voltage is too low to make any determinations about your CPUs overclocking potential.

Given what seems to be reluctance on your part to adjust the voltage upward, I do recommend a 4790K at this time. Even at stock it will be faster at a great many things than an Ivy Bridge at 3.6-3.9GHz, moar cores notwithstanding. I guess this should come with the caveat that the board selected should be able to run all four cores at max turbo. My Z97-UD5H does this by default, so there really isn't even a need to overclock it.

Max turbo on all cores is overclocking for the 4790k, overclocking the all-core CPU frequency that is. If I wanted to run at Intel CPU stock settings for the 4790k, not motherboard stock settings for the CPU for the motherboard you mentioned here, the 4790k would run at 4.2 GHz on all core loads and only max turbo 4.4 GHz on 1-2 core loads. So like my 4930k when I set it to run at 3.9 GHz all core loads getting stability issues, there is also no guaranteed stability when running at 4.4 GHz on all cores on the 4790k either. I would trust the manufacturer of the CPU over a motherboard manufacturer when it comes to CPU settings.

 

[escrow4]

Max turbo on all cores is overclocking for the 4790k, overclocking the all-core CPU frequency that is. If I wanted to run at Intel CPU stock settings for the 4790k, not motherboard stock settings for the CPU for the motherboard you mentioned here, the 4790k would run at 4.2 GHz on all core loads and only max turbo 4.4 GHz on 1-2 core loads. So like my 4930k when I set it to run at 3.9 GHz all core loads getting stability issues, there is also no guaranteed stability when running at 4.4 GHz on all cores on the 4790k either. I would trust the manufacturer of the CPU over a motherboard manufacturer when it comes to CPU settings.

No. Decent mobo manufacturers include MCE or Multi-Core Enhancement. My 5930K runs all core 3.7GHz @ 1.1v or less, same as running stock 3.5GHz. A 4790K would run @ 4.4GHz no problem either. It looks like the socket is damaged.

 

[Dave3000]

No. Decent mobo manufacturers include MCE or Multi-Core Enhancement. My 5930K runs all core 3.7GHz @ 1.1v or less, same as running stock 3.5GHz. A 4790K would run @ 4.4GHz no problem either. It looks like the socket is damaged.

Well I guess it's time for a new motherboard and CPU if the damage on the socket is really affecting the stability of my system. My motherboard does automatically turn on "Sync All Cores" when XMP is enabled but I don't use XMP since my RAM does not need XMP to run at 1600 since the SPD on my RAM is programmed for 1600 by default and that's what Auto sets it to. Asus is a good motherboard manufacturer as well. Maybe it has nothing to do with overclocking and it might happen at some point at stock settings as well because of the damage?

 

[MongGrel]

Every time someone sidegrades like you, a sad panda cries. Please no more sad pandas.

PS: if I were you I would spend my free time attempting a stable oc. By the time you either succeed or just give up, Skylake will likely be here.

+1

 

[StinkyPinky]

To me that's a downgrade, not a sidegrade. I love my 4790k but I'd definitely take a modern 6 core over it.

 

[Burpo]

I would trust the manufacturer of the CPU over a motherboard manufacturer when it comes to CPU settings.

Then why don't you? Intel's recommended max voltage is 1.35 volts (see page 64 below)

http://www.intel.com/content/dam/ww...s/4th-gen-core-i7-lga2011-datasheet-vol-1.pdf

Until you give the CPU a bit more volts, you don't know what you've got. I'd be willing to bet there's no problem with the socket or CPU, but if you won't even try it, no new results are forth coming..

It IS common knowledge that to achieve stability even with a small overclock, generally requires bumping volts up a bit. Until you do, you don't know that there's a problem with the CPU or the motherboard. 4930K below is stable @ 4.5Ghz & 1.42 volts (tho you probably won't need to go that high)..