Does the 4790K makes the 4690K somewhat pointless?

[StrangerGuy]

Back in the SB days, you can OC 2500K pretty sky-high on a $30 cooler, so the 2600K wasn't really that worth $100 more being only +100MHz stock.

But times has changed, with Devil's Canyon the 4790K got a massive boost to stock clocks, but the realistic OC headroom for Haswell has being going down since SB. When I sold my i5 2400 and a Z77 mobo to cover the cost of a Haswell upgrade, I got two upgrade paths for around the same price:

1. Stock 4GHz+ 4790K ($340), H81 mobo ($70 mITX, mATX goes even cheaper), guaranteed to run on a Hyper 212+ ($30)
2. OCing a 4690K ($240), Z97 mobo (at least $100, mITX versions costs much more), H100i (~$100) while not even guaranteed to hit 4.5GHz due to chip lottery

Knowing my own needs I took #1. But IMO, the thing is for most people considering spending for #2, they would be really better of with #1 instead, since I can hardly see them needing more than 1 PCIE 16x slot, 4 SATA ports, 16GB DDR3 and 2+2 USB3.

 

[SPBHM]

you can probably run the 4690K at 4-4.4GHz with the default cooler (or at least the "Hyper 212+" you mentioned), the clock advantage for the 4790K only exists with locked motherboards, or with you are not willing to change the multiplier,

max clock is the same for both (around 4.7GHz)

so the only difference is in motherboard cost for the OC, cheapest OC capable MB is what? $90? cheapest locked MB is what? $50? that's not enough difference.

so I think the higher default clock is not very important, it still the same thing HT vs no HT.

 

[ShintaiDK]

You dont need the 30$ on the Hyper 212+ on stock setting.

You also get HT and 2MB extra cache with the 4790K. And the worrying free operation of stock clocks.

So you could even change the H81 to Z/H97 if you wished.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Is the 4790k really safe to run at stock clocks with the stock cooler? I mean consistently for every chip, or to be safe do you still need an aftermarket cooler?

Overall though, I think it does still come down to whether hyperthreading is worth the extra cost, as I imagine those who buy the 4690k will overclock in most cases.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Is the 4790k really safe to run at stock clocks with the stock cooler? I mean consistently for every chip, or to be safe do you still need an aftermarket cooler?

Overall though, I think it does still come down to whether hyperthreading is worth the extra cost, as I imagine those who buy the 4690k will overclock in most cases.

Yes it is. Else they wouldnt ship it with it.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Actually I think they should have made the 4690k somewhat intermediate clocks like 3.8/4.1 turbo. I thought the 4790 might be binned to reach better overclocks than the 4690k, but from what I have seen that seems not to be the case.

 

[Grooveriding]

Didn't Intel ship one of their extreme processors with an Intel branded tower cooler at some point ? That would of been cool to see in a special version of the Devil's Canyon chips.

 

[StrangerGuy]

You dont need the 30$ on the Hyper 212+ on stock setting.

You also get HT and 2MB extra cache with the 4790K. And the worrying free operation of stock clocks.

So you could even change the H81 to Z/H97 if you wished.

That's what I have been saying lately all around the web...If you gonna spend so much solely to OC a 4690K that has quite a good chance of not making past or so little over a 4790K at stock you might as well buy the 4790K which Intel already did the hard work for you.

It's just like AMD tryhards who spend $170+ on mobos, $100+ on cooling, more on heavier duty PSU and electricity to OC FXs to match an i5...Well you get the idea of opportunity costs.

 

[SPBHM]

That's what I have been saying lately all around the web...If you gonna spend so much solely to OC a 4690K that has quite a good chance of not making past or so little over a 4790K at stock you might as well buy the 4790K which Intel already did the hard work for you.

4690K unable to OC past 4GHz? really?

it's almost $100 difference and all sources indicate both the 4690K and 4790K have the same max clock while OCed (around 4.7), running the 4690K at the default 4790K clocks is probably 100% certain.

the only big advantage for the 4790K, if you are willing to change multipliers is HT, the l3 cache difference is not that significant.

 

[StrangerGuy]

4690K unable to OC past 4GHz? really?

it's almost $100 difference and all sources indicate both the 4690K and 4790K have the same max clock while OCed (around 4.7), running the 4690K at the default 4790K clocks is probably 100% certain.

the only big advantage for the 4790K, if you are willing to change multipliers is HT, the l3 cache difference is not that significant.

I just ran P95 8 threads on my 4790K, turns out the 4GHz clock is actually conservative, the true sustained 4C/8T turbo is 4.2GHz at a stellar 1.05V. Sure chip lottery issues for both, but I don't really think many 4690Ks will 4.5GHz at without a large increase in volts, and HT gives a ~20% boost in framerate at same clocks over non-HT in BF4 where CPU performance absolutely matters.

 

[SPBHM]

I just ran P95 8 threads on my 4790K, turns out the 4GHz clock is actually conservative, the true sustained 4C/8T turbo is 4.2GHz at a stellar 1.05V. Sure chip lottery issues for both, but I don't really think many 4690Ks will 4.5GHz at without a large increase in volts, and HT gives a ~20% boost in framerate at same clocks over non-HT in BF4 where CPU performance absolutely matters.

I'm pretty sure 4.2GHz with low volts is easy for any 4690K, it's true that games like BF4 and other things like video encoding can benefit from HT, but it's also true that many games will not with a quad core CPU, and at the same time if you compare a 4790K stock vs a 4.7GHz 4690K I can see the 4690K OC outperforming the 4790K stock in many games,

Anandtech had to use 1.10v with their 4690K for 4.2GHz and 1.12 for their 4790K at 4.2GHz, so it varies from CPU to CPU, not just the model.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/2

 

[james1701]

Didn't Intel ship one of their extreme processors with an Intel branded tower cooler at some point ? That would of been cool to see in a special version of the Devil's Canyon chips.

Yes, the 980X did. I still have it brand new in the box in my building. It was not nears as good as the aftermarket tower coolers, but better than the other stock versions at the time.

 

[cbn]

Back in the SB days, you can OC 2500K pretty sky-high on a $30 cooler, so the 2600K wasn't really that worth $100 more being only +100MHz stock.

But times has changed, with Devil's Canyon the 4790K got a massive boost to stock clocks, but the realistic OC headroom for Haswell has being going down since SB. When I sold my i5 2400 and a Z77 mobo to cover the cost of a Haswell upgrade, I got two upgrade paths for around the same price:

1. Stock 4GHz+ 4790K ($340), H81 mobo ($70 mITX, mATX goes even cheaper), guaranteed to run on a Hyper 212+ ($30)
2. OCing a 4690K ($240), Z97 mobo (at least $100, mITX versions costs much more), H100i (~$100) while not even guaranteed to hit 4.5GHz due to chip lottery

Knowing my own needs I took #1. But IMO, the thing is for most people considering spending for #2, they would be really better of with #1 instead, since I can hardly see them needing more than 1 PCIE 16x slot, 4 SATA ports, 16GB DDR3 and 2+2 USB3.

You dont need the 30$ on the Hyper 212+ on stock setting.

You also get HT and 2MB extra cache with the 4790K. And the worrying free operation of stock clocks.

So you could even change the H81 to Z/H97 if you wished.

Agree with ShintaiDK, there are differences between 4790K and 4690K that go beyond clockspeed.

Maybe a different way of phrasing the question would be:

"How much does the 4790K reduce the demand for Z boards?"

 

[monkeydelmagico]

"How much does the 4790K reduce the demand for Z boards?"

Not much. Other than the OP nobody buys a nice i7 K CPU and slaps it onto a budget mobo.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Not much. Other than the OP nobody buys a nice i7 K CPU and slaps it onto a budget mobo.

If you dont OC why not? The budget board performs identicaly to a higher priced.

The 4790K is simply the fastest stock model there is since the non K model is 400Mhz less.

 

[SPBHM]

Agree with ShintaiDK, there are differences between 4790K and 4690K that go beyond clockspeed.

Maybe a different way of phrasing the question would be:

"How much does the 4790K reduce the demand for Z boards?"

Z board can be found for less than $100, I don't see many 4790K buyers to worried about going for even cheaper alternatives,

the differences; clock (irrelevant if the multi is unlocked in my view), 6 vs 8MB l3 cache (small for most programs and can be compensated with higher clock), and HT (great for some things, useless for others) and the price difference, so I don't think the 4690K is any more "pointless" than the 4670K, 3570K, 2500K were, you are basically paying for HT

 

[monkeydelmagico]

If you dont OC why not? The budget board performs identicaly to a higher priced.

The 4790K is simply the fastest stock model there is since the non K model is 400Mhz less.

Your point is perfectly valid and there is no rule against pairing budget boards with more expensive processors. The people with the scratch to buy an unlocked i7 would rather have the option to OC and never use it. Have cake and eat it too?

 

[upgrade fanatic]

You dont need the 30$ on the Hyper 212+ on stock setting.

You also get HT and 2MB extra cache with the 4790K. And the worrying free operation of stock clocks.

So you could even change the H81 to Z/H97 if you wished.

Totally true. I get my 4790k perfectly stable at 4.8 on an h75. I see good difference's from my 4670k I had at 4.6

 

[ShintaiDK]

Your point is perfectly valid and there is no rule against pairing budget boards with more expensive processors. The people with the scratch to buy an unlocked i7 would rather have the option to OC and never use it. Have cake and eat it too?

OC isnt really having cake and eat it too is it. Its more like cake surprise. The random chance of getting to spend a lot of the day on the porcelain throne.

You run stock settings for a reason. You want your data intact.

 

[GLeeM]

Back in the SB days, you can OC 2500K pretty sky-high on a $30 cooler, so the 2600K wasn't really that worth $100 more being only +100MHz stock.

I think others are seeing the same thing.
Over at OCN DC Owners Club there are 150 i7 and only 15 i5!

 

[RussianSensation]

My friend was in a similar position. Since he doesn't play games, we cut down on the motherboard, threw out an aftermarket cooler, got rid of a discrete gaming card. Cutting all these corners resulted in a system that's still awesome - i7 4790K, MSI Z97 Gaming 3, stock Intel cooler, all of which is driving 3 Asus 24 inch IPS monitors from the built in Intel graphics. He is pretty happy with this setup. There wasn't even a need for a $30 cooler. If we look at the performance, a max OC 4690K cannot beat even a stock 4790K:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8311/short-bytes-intels-devils-canyon

Where things may get a lot more interesting is 5820K OC vs. 4790K OC. Until then, H97 or budget Z97 board with 4790K > $160-170 board with an aftermarket cooler and the 4690K.

Having said that, one can just as easily get a cheap mobo for the i5 4690K. You can still realize an $80-100 savings. For games a stock i5 4690K with 780/290 >>> 4790K with 280X/770. These are the situations where i5 makes sense.

 

[StinkyPinky]

4790k runs all 4 cores at 4.2 GHz at stock. What's not to like?

 

[SPBHM]

maybe I'm wrong but I think the 4690K comes with the same Intel cooler as the 4790K? (same TDP), and no HT means less heat, it should be able to operate at the same clocks with the intel cooler (4.2?) easily.

 

[ShintaiDK]

maybe I'm wrong but I think the 4690K comes with the same Intel cooler as the 4790K? (same TDP), and no HT means less heat, it should be able to operate at the same clocks with the intel cooler (4.2?) easily.

You assume the chips are binned equally. They are not.

 

[SPBHM]

You assume the chips are binned equally. They are not.

doesn't look like a drastic difference for those 2 particular parts they tested, I think they same cooler would work effectively for both.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/2

so again, if the cooler is the same, 4.2Ghz should be easy for both.