Intel 4440 vs 4690K

[escrow4]

I tried running my 4930k at single core turbo, 3.9 GHz, on all cores but it seems that I had to turn off CPU power saving settings in the BIOS to fix a BSOD at low load, such as BSOD when loading CPU-Z, as during stress testing it was stable. I also read that CPU power saving features, like C-States, can cause overclocks to be unstable at near idle loads because the idle voltage of the vcore does not switch quick enough to the full load voltage. I think I can forget about using CPU power saving features if I run "Sync all Cores" at 3.9 GHz or higher if I want a more stable system while overclocking. So in my case I need to fiddle a bit when running at that setting.

That is a hardware issue, probably something mobo related. My 5930K hits 3.7GHz all cores no problems.

 

[crashtech]

That is a hardware issue, probably something mobo related. My 5930K hits 3.7GHz all cores no problems.

The issue is unwillingness to give it some voltage. Half a dozen people told him so, and he just doesn't want to.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

The issue is unwillingness to give it some voltage. Half a dozen people told him so, and he just doesn't want to.

That COULD be part of the problem, but as far as the symptom goes, the offset sign and setting and the LLC caused crashes during EIST idle. Certainly more offset voltage under "+" is considered to be a better choice, while trying at best to keep it a notch or two above 0.

Certainly, with an IB-E processor, he has both offset with sign and LLC, doesn't he?

Wouldn't the accepted turbo voltage for that processor be within about 1.32V? Or does it get too hot?

[Maybe I assumed too much . . . maybe he's not overclocking it. I thought he was . . ]

If you want to put this under a generalized umbrella, I'd also say "he's not giving it enough voltage," if you folks knew about this all along.

 

[crashtech]

We can revive the old thread if necessary. But back on topic, the 44xx series is not as good a value as the 45xx. the 44xx parts seem to be geared for cheapskates and OEMs (same thing) who want the cheapest damn quad they can buy, just to say there is one in the box.

As mentioned, 45xx gives about 10% increase in ST perf over 44xx for 5% price increase:

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/429/Intel_Core_i5_i5-4460_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-4590.html


But there can be a case made against the 46xx series, since moving from 4590 to 4690 only nets between 4-5% better performance, yet is 10% more expensive.

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/434/Intel_Core_i5_i5-4590_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-4690.html