i5-4690k or i7-4790k for Gaming

[Adam8679994]

i5-4690k $200
http://www.microcenter.com/product/434177/Core_i5-4690K_35GHz_LGA_1150_Boxed_Processor

i7-4790k $280
http://www.microcenter.com/product/434176/Core_i7-4790K_40GHz_LGA_1150_Boxed_Processor

 

[ShintaiDK]

It depends if you overclock. Unlike previous, the 4790K is rather appealing with its +500Mhz stock clock.

 

[Dave3000]

I think the i7-4790k is worth it over the i5-4690k for gaming. The 4690k is 3.5 GHz and the 4790k is 4 GHz. I think it's worth it for the 4 GHz alone and I don't care for hyperthreading.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

For gaming most benchmarks and tests show the two processors run similarly.

 

[SPBHM]

I think the i7-4790k is worth it over the i5-4690k for gaming. The 4690k is 3.5 GHz and the 4790k is 4 GHz. I think it's worth it for the 4 GHz alone and I don't care for hyperthreading.

only if you have a locked motherboard or don't know how to adjust the 5x multiplier difference.

at the same clock most of the time is hard to justify the price difference,

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/836?vs=1261

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

I would do the 4790K

 

[Jacky60]

I'd pay the little bit extra for the HT, I don't play any games that use it but the next lot over 18mnths might and the trend will be for more multi-threaded games in future.

 

[notty22]

I got the I5 4670k in my case. Devil's came out shortly after I bought. I would now spend the extra for the faster base/turbo clocks of the 4790k. It's got new appeal. With those high stock clocks. Turbo of 4400mhz can run hot on some Haswells, where that chip is at least binned slightly better.

 

[Madpacket]

Although hard to justify from a gaming speed difference I'm pretty happy with my 4790K. Even at stock (where I left mine) it's extremely quick all around and I like having the extra threads for VM's and archiving purposes.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I'm scouting for other options against building a Haswell-E machine -- possibly next year. People will tell me to wait for Broadwell. People will say I don't need the "E" if only for the 6-core units.

Customer-reviews at Egg -- perhaps to be taken with a grain of salt -- suggest that 4.6 to 4.8 is not difficult with these using a high-end air cooler or an AiO cooler. In addition, they should be "de-liddable" if you accept the risk and tedium.

Just for the posts I've seen here, who else is boasting OC results for these Devil Canyons?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

only if you have a locked motherboard or don't know how to adjust the 5x multiplier difference.

at the same clock most of the time is hard to justify the price difference,

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/836?vs=1261

I didn't have trouble OC'ing my SBK with the HT Enabled. Just a bit more tedium in the stress-testing, for some programs like LinX. But you only need a +1 from me.

It's my understanding that a Z97 board will work for a Broadwell. Is that not true? With appropriate BIOS updates, of course . . .

 

[Attic]

A 4690k on once overclocked is plenty fast. But if you're considering the 4790k, I'd get it.

I regretted not getting the 4790k for gaming because it does a better job ensuring 60fps minimums than the 4690k in cpu limited scenarios. Granted this is a limited scenario.

 

[Skott]

I personally went with the 4790k. I dont regret it. For me it was worth the extra money.

 

[Yuriman]

4690K is plenty for all gaming needs today, but you're getting about what you pay for with the i7, not like it's getting into diminishing returns.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

4690K is plenty for all gaming needs today, but you're getting about what you pay for with the i7, not like it's getting into diminishing returns.

I'm thinking to change my plans for next year and build a Devils Canyon rig instead of a Haswell-E. Thing is -- I don't "Need" to -- I just "want" to . . .

But I think the cooling requirement will be more manageable. Do we see any overclocking results for the Refresh yet? Customer reviews seem "encouraging;" other reviews say that the hype Intel made for the "Enthusiast" and "overclocking" crowd was . . . excessive . . . given the chip's performance.

Has anyone tried de-lidding one of these bad-boys?

EDIT: JUst checking some simple speculative arithmetic. The TDP of an E is 140W. Divide by six cores . . . multiply by four. It's within 5W of a Devils Canyon TDP, I think.

 

[cytg111]

I think IDC put it very well (some thread, seach for it), Hyperthreading works on a core when the currently occupying thread is stalling, ie. a branch miss. So how efficient is the branch prediction for a given workload? Given that branch prediction gets better with each new architecture, HT performance/time-slices should go down over time too.

Stumbled on this
https://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/topic/473413
This suggests that pinning a singlethreaded app to a core can reduce the misses even more (ivy->haswell + 23% alone), and this giving even less scrabs for HT.

IIRC a fair estimate is 10% (timeslice from stall+waiting for data) .. so for 4 cores you'd get 0.10 *4 = 0.4 Core extra with an i7 .. i5 vs i7 -> 4 vs 4.4 core .

Thats how I understand it anyway ..

So if i7 or that 0.4 extra core is important to you, mayhaps haswell-e is what you should be looking at (goes for most i7 buyers I guess).

 

[PhIlLy ChEeSe]

I had a 4790K, and a pretty much stock Gigabyte board. Though I did over clock it under water, and it did seem responsive. Other than the 4GHz, or maybe the plan Jane board heat was a big issue also you don't have a high ceiling like you would with a lower clocked Chip. I wasn't about to delid it, so I took it back to MC.
I have a 3770K, I saw no need to upgrade..........

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I had a 4790K, and a pretty much stock Gigabyte board. Though I did over clock it under water, and it did seem responsive. Other than the 4GHz, or maybe the plan Jane board heat was a big issue also you don't have a high ceiling like you would with a lower clocked Chip. I wasn't about to delid it, so I took it back to MC.
I have a 3770K, I saw no need to upgrade..........

And . . . I think I can push my 2600K to 4.8 and still keep the load VCORE at between 1.36 and 1.37. I was just looking at enthusiast-forum exchanges for the more mature discussions of OC limits for that processor back in 2012. Some folks thought nothing of volting to 1.40+ and getting stable 5.0Ghz settings on air-cooling. I . . . dunno . . . .

But the heat and fewer 100Mhz increments of headroom are the same things cited for the "E" processors. I guess it's a good thing that I watch my stocks and flows of Quicken cash when I plan my totally unnecessary computer projects . . . .

 

[coercitiv]

I think IDC put it very well (some thread, seach for it), Hyperthreading works on a core when the currently occupying thread is stalling, ie. a branch miss. So how efficient is the branch prediction for a given workload? Given that branch prediction gets better with each new architecture, HT performance/time-slices should go down over time too.

And yet, as far as I have learned on this forum, HT performance seems to be stronger than ever on Haswell.

 

[Bman123]

I'd take the 4790k for sure. Especially if you don't over clock your CPU with the 4ghz stock clocks I'm sure it flies. I'm waiting on a good MC deal like they've done in the past for $199 to buy one for my next gaming rig.
Games are going to get threaded more due to the consoles using up to 6 cores so I'd rather have HT on a quad then not have it

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I'd take the 4790k for sure. Especially if you don't over clock your CPU with the 4ghz stock clocks I'm sure it flies. I'm waiting on a good MC deal like they've done in the past for $199 to buy one for my next gaming rig.
Games are going to get threaded more due to the consoles using up to 6 cores so I'd rather have HT on a quad then not have it

But if you DO overclock, where's the overclocking thread? What do the prospects look like?

 

[JBT]

I went with the 4790k from a 2500k that ran at 4.4GHz. Seems nice enough. I've left it at stock so far. I can't say I noticed a huge difference, but I haven't been playing many demanding games lately either. For the stock clocks, and possible gains from HT I think the $80 is worth it.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I went with the 4790k from a 2500k that ran at 4.4GHz. Seems nice enough. I've left it at stock so far. I can't say I noticed a huge difference, but I haven't been playing many demanding games lately either. For the stock clocks, and possible gains from HT I think the $80 is worth it.

I guess I'd agree with all of that, including the worth of the price difference.

I scoured around for some reviews, finding one in our own "back yard," so to speak:

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

These are interesting numbers. Especially, although the Anand review doesn't say anything about their cooling strategy (or I haven't found it yet), it looks as though both the 4690 and 4790 K chips have some decent prospects. More especially, but as you'd expect, the i5 processor is cooler at the same 4.3 and 4.4 clocks.

Pick your poison, I say!

Another review with parallel results noted that Sandy Bridge hold-outs like me would want to re-think further "holding out." Hmmmm. . ..

 

[temp4]

the i5 should be more than enough. you don't really need eight cores for games