Does it make sense to buy Haswell now?

[railven]

Welps, I sold my i7 2600K+ASRock Z68 Gen4 Extreme 3 to my brother in law for a cool $200 (considering I paid $240 for the combo in 2012, I feel I made out like a bandit!)

Will be installing my freshly bought i7 4970k tomorrow during my day off. This is going to last me until Cannonlake.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Even if you want a i5 you can just buy a 4690K (or non-K? Not sure whether that works) and run it max turbo 4 core 3.9GHz on a ~$60 MCE enabled budget mobo. Like anyone is going to notice a difference in a real world gaming situation between that versus like, let's say a 4.4GHz 4690K. I would rather use the money saved from not overclocking on far better things like GPUs and SSDs.

I wish that stupid reddit/linustechtip advice of recommending "i7 is useless, spend $200+ mobo/cooling to overclock a 4690K" would just stop, especially towards first timers. OCing as a bang-for-buck value activity is now dead.

Also my second favorite piece of advice in that crowd is to buy a Z97 board so you'll be able to upgrade to Broadwell. Who in their right mind is going to buy a $180+ Haswell i5 right now and then upgrade to the same Broadwell i5 in 6 months?

 

[Ranulf]

Also my second favorite piece of advice in that crowd is to buy a Z97 board so you'll be able to upgrade to Broadwell. Who in their right mind is going to buy a $180+ Haswell i5 right now and then upgrade to the same Broadwell i5 in 6 months?

Fanatics, short term thinkers and silly people who watch linus (techtips) gush over an Apple Imac with a 5k screen.

 

[PliotronX]

Fanatics, short term thinkers and silly people who watch linus (techtips) gush over an Apple Imac with a 5k screen.

 

[escrow4]

Oh my God, I hate PC Master Race's infatuation with the i5-4690k. Everything below the 4690k is crap and everything above it is a waste of money because games don't use hyperthreading! I loved overclocking 15 years ago when you'd take a midrange CPU and overclock it to flagship performance, but now you have to buy the i5 or i7 with the flagship stock clock for the socket, spend $20 extra for the unlocked multiplier, $30 extra for the Z97 board instead of H97, $30 extra for the cheapest aftermarket cooler to get, what? 15% higher clock than the turbo if you get a nice chip? What's really funny is seeing people talk about how their 4690k is an 84W chip when the power consumption goes way up with an overclock to 4.5GHz. I can't believe how many people will go buy a $110 liquid cooler and pair it with an i5-4690k when you can just get an i7-4790k actually binned to run at 4.4GHz and a Hyper 212 EVO for a grand total of about $10 more. But I guess the closed loop water cooler looks nicer through the window?

Dual cores are dead for gaming in 2015. The i5 is the absolute minimum. An i3 is a compromise and FX pffft. And if you near a MC a 5820K is $300 thus rendering a 4790K pointless. A half decent Asrock X99 Extreme 4 is like $250 also at MC. I'd take the extra cores and threads of a hexa over a hyperthreaded i7 any day now for gaming.

 

[Spike]

Dual cores are dead for gaming in 2015. The i5 is the absolute minimum. An i3 is a compromise and FX pffft. And if you near a MC a 5820K is $300 thus rendering a 4790K pointless. A half decent Asrock X99 Extreme 4 is like $250 also at MC. I'd take the extra cores and threads of a hexa over a hyperthreaded i7 any day now for gaming.

Well, I feel dumb. I needed to do a quick build as I was potentially leaving the country for a few years (that has been delayed now for a year) so I went with a i5-4690k build mistakingly assuming it was like the days of the i5-2500k and that was the sweet spot. Looks like I should have just gone with the hexa or octo core, ugh.

How much did I give up from a gaming perspective? I have the 4690 running at 4.4, max temp I've seen is 60 on a core so it seems fine, and thats air cooled with a Noctua. I don't really encode, except for maybe a project or two a year, so those benefits are minimal.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Oh my God, I hate PC Master Race's infatuation with the i5-4690k. Everything below the 4690k is crap and everything above it is a waste of money because games don't use hyperthreading! I loved overclocking 15 years ago when you'd take a midrange CPU and overclock it to flagship performance, but now you have to buy the i5 or i7 with the flagship stock clock for the socket, spend $20 extra for the unlocked multiplier, $30 extra for the Z97 board instead of H97, $30 extra for the cheapest aftermarket cooler to get, what? 15% higher clock than the turbo if you get a nice chip? What's really funny is seeing people talk about how their 4690k is an 84W chip when the power consumption goes way up with an overclock to 4.5GHz. I can't believe how many people will go buy a $110 liquid cooler and pair it with an i5-4690k when you can just get an i7-4790k actually binned to run at 4.4GHz and a Hyper 212 EVO for a grand total of about $10 more. But I guess the closed loop water cooler looks nicer through the window?

If one is on a really tight budget they can even downgrade the 4460 to save $60 which at least performs like a 3.8GHz 2500K at stock. $60 120GB SSD vs no SSD, or a $60 better GPU vs imperceptible real-world CPU advantage with a 4690K but with a slower GPU? The choice is a complete no-brainer.

I think it's not irrelevant just that it's been relegated to high-end CPUs only. An Overclocked 5820K matches or beats the 5960X in MT and is a lot faster in ST. Of course it can't keep up with an overclocked 5960X in MT.

The funny thing is some of these dumb people are spending so close to the price of a 5820K and <$200 X99 combo just to overclock a 4C/4T 4690K so they can win an imaginary OCing pissing contest while spouting "the 6C/12T i7 is not worth it for gamzings" or other equally retarded bullshit. Makes enthusiasts with a lick of value sense like me roll on the laughing to death.

 

[tential]

Oh my God, I hate PC Master Race's infatuation with the i5-4690k. Everything below the 4690k is crap and everything above it is a waste of money because games don't use hyperthreading! I loved overclocking 15 years ago when you'd take a midrange CPU and overclock it to flagship performance, but now you have to buy the i5 or i7 with the flagship stock clock for the socket, spend $20 extra for the unlocked multiplier, $30 extra for the Z97 board instead of H97, $30 extra for the cheapest aftermarket cooler to get, what? 15% higher clock than the turbo if you get a nice chip? What's really funny is seeing people talk about how their 4690k is an 84W chip when the power consumption goes way up with an overclock to 4.5GHz. I can't believe how many people will go buy a $110 liquid cooler and pair it with an i5-4690k when you can just get an i7-4790k actually binned to run at 4.4GHz and a Hyper 212 EVO for a grand total of about $10 more. But I guess the closed loop water cooler looks nicer through the window?

Why can't I get a i5-4690k with a Hyper 212 Evo?

 

[tential]

Well, I feel dumb. I needed to do a quick build as I was potentially leaving the country for a few years (that has been delayed now for a year) so I went with a i5-4690k build mistakingly assuming it was like the days of the i5-2500k and that was the sweet spot. Looks like I should have just gone with the hexa or octo core, ugh.

How much did I give up from a gaming perspective? I have the 4690 running at 4.4, max temp I've seen is 60 on a core so it seems fine, and thats air cooled with a Noctua. I don't really encode, except for maybe a project or two a year, so those benefits are minimal.

You didn't at all. He just has an obsession with hexacore. It's not the sweet spot at all, it's a massive increase in cost for not a great increase in performance.

If you're an enthusiast though it's just cool to have a hexacore for the few games that support it and well, more cores....

 

[erunion]

On the other hand, something new is ALWAYS around the corner

correct. My opinion is if you need an upgrade buy what's available and dont worry about it. If what you have is fine, keeping using it.

 

[gmaster456]

I'm planning a late winter haswell build. I wouldn't be concerned. Something new will always be around the corner so buy what is available now and enjoy.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Hell, you could pickup a solid Z87 mobo for dirt cheap, like the MSI Z87-GD65 for $29AR at Fry's.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Dual cores are dead for gaming in 2015. The i5 is the absolute minimum. An i3 is a compromise and FX pffft. And if you near a MC a 5820K is $300 thus rendering a 4790K pointless. A half decent Asrock X99 Extreme 4 is like $250 also at MC. I'd take the extra cores and threads of a hexa over a hyperthreaded i7 any day now for gaming.

I agree that i5 is probably the lowest anyone not on an extreme budget should go now in 2015. But I can't believe how many people will make the argument that you have to go i5-4690k when the platform cost is significantly higher than a locked i5. I never see people say don't get an R9 280 that's a waste, you have to buy an R9 290x instead.

 

[2is]

I agree that i5 is probably the lowest anyone not on an extreme budget should go now in 2015. But I can't believe how many people will make the argument that you have to go i5-4690k when the platform cost is significantly higher than a locked i5. I never see people say don't get an R9 280 that's a waste, you have to buy an R9 290x instead.

I guess it depends on your definition of significantly higher cost. The cost in processor is $15 between a 4690k and a locked 4690 add about another $20 for a low cost Z87 vs a bottom of the barrel H81 motherboard and you have a whopping $35 premium in platform costs... Hardly significant. And that's assuming you opt for a crappy H81 board to begin with.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

I guess it depends on your definition of significantly higher cost. The cost in processor is $15 between a 4690k and a locked 4690 add about another $20 for a low cost Z87 vs a bottom of the barrel H81 motherboard and you have a whopping $35 premium in platform costs... Hardly significant. And that's assuming you opt for a crappy H81 board to begin with.

$25-$30 for the most affordable decent cooler too (Hyper 212 EVO). That's $60-$65, which is probably better invested in the video card. $60-$65 isn't an amount to sneeze at when on a budget. I mean if I wasn't on a budget of course I'd opt for a 5820k and a radiator or a high end Noctua air cooler. I just don't see great price to performance for overclocking these days though, and price to performance will always matter for me since I'm not going to turn my system into a money pit.

 

[2is]

That's still hardly a significant cost difference. It's nothing, especially if you account for the useful life of the system, which is at least 3 years. That comes out to $1.66 a month. And if you think $60 is significant, the useful life for you is probably closer to 7 years

Building a PC is every bit as much about a hobby as it is about utility. Overclocking is a hobby and is rarely, if ever, actually necessary and for many folks, especially the kind that post here, and extra $60 to participate in that hobby while at the same time extracting a little extra performance is hardly ridiculous.

Portraying a $60 price difference in an enthusiast centric computer forum as a "significant cost increase" is far more ridiculous than those recommending a K series processor. Again, that $60 is assuming you opt for a shit $40 H81 board to begin with, most wont, so in most cases, the cost difference is actually going to be less than $60. Either way, it isn't significant.

 

[escrow4]

You didn't at all. He just has an obsession with hexacore. It's not the sweet spot at all, it's a massive increase in cost for not a great increase in performance.

If you're an enthusiast though it's just cool to have a hexacore for the few games that support it and well, more cores....

He did. Every single AAA game at the end of this year (Unity, FC 4, Inquisition) along with Watch Dogs can use more than 4 threads. It isn't exactly required (yet) but the trend is there. Its far from a massive cost increase. Right now on Newegg, no rebates:

- 4790K: $340
- Z97X-UD5H: - $185
- Corsair LP 16GB 1600MHz CAS 9 - $175

$700

- 5820K: $385
- Asrock X99 Extreme 4: $231
- G-Skill 16GB DDR4 2133MHz: $230

$846

$146 is not a massive difference for 2 extra cores and the added bits of X99. Over 3yrs at least say you'll keep this CPU, that is less than $50 extra a year. So why 4790K?

 

[StrangerGuy]

That's still hardly a significant cost difference. It's nothing, especially if you account for the useful life of the system, which is at least 3 years. That comes out to $1.66 a month. And if you think $60 is significant, the useful life for you is probably closer to 7 years

Building a PC is every bit as much about a hobby as it is about utility. Overclocking is a hobby and is rarely, if ever, actually necessary and for many folks, especially the kind that post here, and extra $60 to participate in that hobby while at the same time extracting a little extra performance is hardly ridiculous.

Portraying a $60 price difference in an enthusiast centric computer forum as a "significant cost increase" is far more ridiculous than those recommending a K series processor. Again, that $60 is assuming you opt for a shit $40 H81 board to begin with, most wont, so in most cases, the cost difference is actually going to be less than $60. Either way, it isn't significant.

You want to rationalize OC because this is a "enthusiast centric computer forum", then why wont you tell them to just spend $100 extra on the 4790K because thats only $1.20 every month over 7 years.

And calling H81 mobos shit only proves how much of an elitist prick you are.

 

[Arachnotronic]

He did. Every single AAA game at the end of this year (Unity, FC 4, Inquisition) along with Watch Dogs can use more than 4 threads. It isn't exactly required (yet) but the trend is there. Its far from a massive cost increase. Right now on Newegg, no rebates:

- 4790K: $340
- Z97X-UD5H: - $185
- Corsair LP 16GB 1600MHz CAS 9 - $175

$700

- 5820K: $385
- Asrock X99 Extreme 4: $231
- G-Skill 16GB DDR4 2133MHz: $230

$846

$146 is not a massive difference for 2 extra cores and the added bits of X99. Over 3yrs at least say you'll keep this CPU, that is less than $50 extra a year. So why 4790K?

5820K buyers are lucky...6 Haswell cores for $389. Back in my day, we had to pay $583 for the 4930K to get "cheap" 6-core action.

That said, while the 5820K comes with more cores and is unlocked, 4790K does come at 4GHz/4.4GHz turbo at stock v.s. 3.3/3.6GHz, so for most games *today* for users unwilling to overclock, I guess the 4790K could be seen as the better near-term option.

Longer-term, I say the more high performance cores you can get, the better.

 

[escrow4]

5820K buyers are lucky...6 Haswell cores for $389. Back in my day, we had to pay $583 for the 4930K to get "cheap" 6-core action.

That said, while the 5820K comes with more cores and is unlocked, 4790K does come at 4GHz/4.4GHz turbo at stock v.s. 3.3/3.6GHz, so for most games *today* for users unwilling to overclock, I guess the 4790K could be seen as the better near-term option.

Longer-term, I say the more high performance cores you can get, the better.

Fair enough, but that board has MCE, so that 5820K can run all six cores at max turbo of 3.6GHz with a flick of an option and no fiddling. Then you can pump it to 4.0Ghz or above if required in the future. 6 3.6Ghz Haswell cores are not a bad start though (never mind the hyperthreading).

 

[2is]

You want to rationalize OC because this is a "enthusiast centric computer forum", then why wont you tell them to just spend $100 extra on the 4790K because thats only $1.20 every month over 7 years.

And calling H81 mobos shit only proves how much of an elitist prick you are.

I was referring to the absolute cheapest H81 board I found on Newegg. I mentioned specially a "$40 board" and yeah, a $40 board is shit, that's why it's $40. If that makes me an elitest in yoru eyes, so be it. Please accept my apology if I gave you the mistaken impression I cared what you thought.

Second, I'm not rationalizing overclocking, if you take the time to pull your head out of your ass, you'd have seen that. I'm rationalizing the position that an extra $60 is hardly significant, certainly not significant enough to call the recommendation "ridiculous" and provided reasons why one may opt to spend an extra $60 on an "elitist platform"

Heck, i'm not even saying everyone should go out and spend an extra $60, i'm just saying that calling a $60 premium a "significant cost increase" is pretty ridiculous. Again, head in ass, so you didn't get it.

 

[StrangerGuy]

He did. Every single AAA game at the end of this year (Unity, FC 4, Inquisition) along with Watch Dogs can use more than 4 threads. It isn't exactly required (yet) but the trend is there. Its far from a massive cost increase. Right now on Newegg, no rebates:

- 4790K: $340
- Z97X-UD5H: - $185
- Corsair LP 16GB 1600MHz CAS 9 - $175

$700

- 5820K: $385
- Asrock X99 Extreme 4: $231
- G-Skill 16GB DDR4 2133MHz: $230

$846

$146 is not a massive difference for 2 extra cores and the added bits of X99. Over 3yrs at least say you'll keep this CPU, that is less than $50 extra a year. So why 4790K?

Because most people just need a $70 board for a 4790K? Or $175 16GB DDR3 when you can buy $130 on Amazon?

Then that becomes $530 vs $846. Then the X99 set would need an extra 60% premium which is still a good deal if you need the features and the cores, but most people won't and also wouldn't want to spend that much.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Building a PC is every bit as much about a hobby as it is about utility. Overclocking is a hobby and is rarely, if ever, actually necessary and for many folks, especially the kind that post here, and extra $60 to participate in that hobby while at the same time extracting a little extra performance is hardly ridiculous.

This is exactly what I think of CPU overclocking. It's a hobby that isn't usually necessary, nor that helpful, to get great performance. And $60-$65 surely is significant, being 1/3 the cost of an i5. $60 can be the difference between running an R9 280 and an R9 290 in your system, which will give a night and day performance difference vs a tiny bump in performance from a 500MHz overclock on your already very strong CPU. CPU overclocking was awesome in the 90s and early 2000s when it legitimately offered incredible price to performance gains when you could unlock the performance of top end CPUs binned as lower CPUs to keep from flooding the market with high end processors. But now you can usually only overclock the highest end Intel chips (and crap FX I guess), and I don't think it mixes well with being on a budget. Price to performance should always matter for a rational consumer, but it seems like the only time CPU overclocking offers much is for someone building a high end system to play AAA games at 120/144Hz.

 

[Maxima1]

I was referring to the absolute cheapest H81 board I found on Newegg. I mentioned specially a "$40 board" and yeah, a $40 board is shit, that's why it's $40. If that makes me an elitest in yoru eyes, so be it. Please accept my apology if I gave you the mistaken impression I cared what you thought.

Second, I'm not rationalizing overclocking, if you take the time to pull your head out of your ass, you'd have seen that. I'm rationalizing the position that an extra $60 is hardly significant, certainly not significant enough to call the recommendation "ridiculous" and provided reasons why one may opt to spend an extra $60 on an "elitist platform"

Heck, i'm not even saying everyone should go out and spend an extra $60, i'm just saying that calling a $60 premium a "significant cost increase" is pretty ridiculous. Again, head in ass, so you didn't get it.

There's another thing people aren't taking into account. There's vast differences in household income and inherited wealth. To some, a little splurge is nothing.

 

[voodoo7817]

Back in July, I was able to get the 4790k at MC for $280. And then my mobo was $150 rather than $185. And then my ram was $150 rather than $175. So, that's more like a $250 difference, which is about the price of a 290 which would let me play many games at 1440p. The 4790k definitely has a place for certain enthusiasts, as you could even go with 8gb of ram and a cheaper mobo, saving an additional $125 or so. And single-threaded performance out of the box (or if not overclocking) is faster than a 5820k.

If I were buying today rather than 5 months ago, perhaps I'd go with the 5820k, but it's not as obvious a decision as some of you are describing. 6-8 cores will eventually be commonplace, but I think it's going to be a few years before it becomes 'necessary' for gaming. Heck, we're really just now getting to the point where dual core CPUs aren't capable options for gaming boxes. And almost always, a faster graphics card will be a better way to invest dollars for any gaming machine, so getting a 'good enough/bang-for-buck CPU' should be the priority. Honestly, the 4690/k is probably the best price/performance ratio, but I decided to splurge on the HT and higher clock speed of the 4790k so I don't have to overclock.

As for when we'll need 6+ cores, my guess is that with 6-core variants of CPUs not being a part of the mainstream socket until at least after Skylake, I think we have a few years where a 4790k will perform at least as well as a 5820k in gaming performance. When 6-core variants start being available on the mainstream socket, that's when we'll truly see a shift. At least IMO. And by that point, I'll likely be ready for a platform upgrade.

One other bonus, the 4790k has an iGPU, which while not useful for any real gaming, does offer a nice emergency backup if your old GPU dies. I'm actually using it right now as I wait for the Sapphire Tri-X to drop down to an even $250.