Intel 4790 - K Vs. Non K

[craige4u]

I would like to buy 4790, but am not sure if I shall be going with normal 4790 OR 4790K.

I like 4790K - Coz its faster as compared to non-k version. But, here I fear higher temps.
I also never overclock.

I like 4790 - Simply coz I think it will run cooler as compred to K-Part.

So basically, my only confusion is Temps. I live in a place where temps. in summer can reach 35C and I heard these chips are notorious for running hot.

PS: I am a Gamer and price is no issue at all. Request to please keep the subject relevant to above CPU only.

EDIT ADDITIONAL INFO: 4790K is suffering from rapid chip degradation problem ? Posted Kitguru link below.(Post 8)

 

[toyota]

95 F? That is not unusually hot at all and probably half the world live in areas that get that hot in the summer. If you don't oc then the 4790k still makes most sense because it will already run at higher clocks.

 

[Homeles]

Temps should actually be lower on the K version.

 

[Techhog]

What both of the above posts said. If you're concerned, but get an aftermarket cooler. Having a 4GHz CPU for gaming without even overclocking will come in handy.

 

[craige4u]

Well, any test where there is a comparision of Ideal & Load Temps. of both the version.

 

[Homeles]

http://www.digitalstormonline.com/u...-canyon-review-and-benchmarks-stock-idnum294/

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Proces...view-and-Overclocking/Overclocking-Experience -- top couple of images

It's a bit frustrating that a lot of the reviews don't put their numbers in a chart, or omit temperature data entirely, but it appears that the 4790K runs cooler or at the same temps as the 4770K on average, despite the higher clocks. The 4790 (non K) should perform similarly to the 4770K, as they use the same internal TIM.

 

[Headfoot]

It's completely irrelevant what the temperatures reach at stock. If you're not overclocking then Intel gives you a warranty for 3 years for it to operate at whatever temperature it operates at with the stock cooler.

If you're really concerned, just buy a better quality aftermarket cooler and reduce your temperatures that way. Coolermaster Hyper 212 Evo with an additional fan would be more than enough and very affordable. If you're REALLY concerned, buy a high-end air cooler (Noctua NH-D14) or an All-In-One watercooler for the CPU. I like the Corsair h80i or 100i (or any other company's designs based on the same OEM model)

Don't waste your time with the 4790 (no k) if money isn't an issue. Just get the 4790k

 

[craige4u]

It's a bit frustrating that a lot of the reviews don't put their numbers in a chart, or omit temperature data entirely, but it appears that the 4790K runs cooler or at the same temps as the 4770K on average, despite the higher clocks. The 4790 (non K) should perform similarly to the 4770K, as they use the same internal TIM.[/QUOTE]

I did some extensive research of 4790K and I came to a conclusion that all this temp. and power draw is not consistant and change dramatically from reviewer-to-reviewer.

If you look at the below links, it states tht in both cases 4790K draws more power & it has higher temps. as compared to 4770K... whereas your link states otherwise.

[url]http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-Devils-Canyon-Review-and-Overclocking/Power-Consumption-Perf-?page=2#comments[/url]

[url]http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/intel-core-i7-4790k-devils-canyon-review-inc-overclocking/11/[/url]


Also, I wanted to know temp diff. between - [B]4790 and 4790K [/B](I have written wrong part and have correct the same now)

[B]Another Main shocking thing [/B]tht I read is that 4790K chips degrades extremely rapidly - Now is this only applicable is I overclock OR it happens even on stock speeds? From wht I understand it also says tht if we use any memory greater than 1600Mhz and enable XMP, the CPU will always run at Turbo Freq. of 4.4Ghz and tht degrades the processor rapidly...

The above is stated in kitguru Link posted above.

Also, is TDP extremely High and can cause chip dying in a couple of year ?

Really confused now...

 

[ShintaiDK]

Another Main shocking thing tht I read is that 4790K chips degrades extremely rapidly - Now is this only applicable is I overclock OR it happens even on stock speeds? From wht I understand it also says tht if we use any memory greater than 1600Mhz and enable XMP, the CPU will always run at Turbo Freq. of 4.4Ghz and tht degrades the processor rapidly...

The above is stated in kitguru Link posted above.

Also, is TDP extremely High and can cause chip dying in a couple of year ?

Really confused now...

Thats completely BS. Intel also hands you a 3 year warranty. However at stock speed I wouldnt even worry the first 10 years.

It will run at 4.4Ghz turbo on a single thread with any memory.

 

[Techhog]

Another Main shocking thing tht I read is that 4790K chips degrades extremely rapidly - Now is this only applicable is I overclock OR it happens even on stock speeds? From wht I understand it also says tht if we use any memory greater than 1600Mhz and enable XMP, the CPU will always run at Turbo Freq. of 4.4Ghz and tht degrades the processor rapidly...

The above is stated in kitguru Link posted above.

Also, is TDP extremely High and can cause chip dying in a couple of year ?

Really confused now...

I really don't understand how this myth started. Are people really this afraid of 4GHz? Do you really think that Intel just puts out unsafe, unstable CPUs without a second thought? On top of that, that, that myth about memory and turbo is just plain silly.

Stock speeds are always okay on every processor unless you got a lemon, in which case it'll likely die right away. It's that simple. TDP is only 4W higher than other Haswell CPUs, and, again, the stock TDP won't affect the life of the CPU with adequate cooling. Even AMD's 200W+ CPUs will have normal CPU lifespans.

 

[Lepton87]

I really don't understand how this myth started. Are people really this afraid of 4GHz? Do you really think that Intel just puts out unsafe, unstable CPUs without a second thought? On top of that, that, that myth about memory and turbo is just plain silly.

They did, the infamous P3 1.13GHz but I think they learned their lesson.

 

[Homeles]

Also, I wanted to know temp diff. between - 4790 and 4790K (I have written wrong part and have correct the same now)

Which is why I said that the 4770K and 4790 should perform similarly in regards to temps. This means comparisons between the 4770K and 4790K are therefore valid.

Power draw will undoubtedly be higher on the 4790K -- the frequency is higher, and therefore the current being drawn is higher. The lower temperatures are not going to be enough to offset the power draw.

However, the 4790K is considerably faster.

Another Main shocking thing tht I read is that 4790K chips degrades extremely rapidly - Now is this only applicable is I overclock OR it happens even on stock speeds?

Right, because there the chip has obviously been on the market long enough to assess that. Oh wait, it's not even on the market yet...

Kitguru is a shoddy reviewer. Don't let their ignorance mislead you.

They did, the infamous P3 1.13GHz but I think they learned their lesson.

Haven't seen an unstable chip in a review yet, so they've at least learned to send stable samples to the reviewers, lol.

 

[CrystalBay]

Wait for Dr. Ian's review, it should be here on AT soon.

 

[Lepton87]

Wait for Dr. Ian's review, it should be here on AT soon.

Why? It's been a long time since AT focused on PC hardware and did tests that other sites didn't. Right now I see it focused on mobile. From laptops all the way down to the phones and tablets. Smartwatches and smartglasses are soon to come
ps.

In the past the choice was a lot harder right now regardless if you OC or not get 4790K. 4.4GHz with MCE is nice, many 4770k didn't even OC that high.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Exactly. Since they didnt raise the price, 4790k vs 4770k or 4790 non-K seems like a no brainer. The chip that seems to have gotten lost is the 4690k. Would like to see some overclocking results on that one. Not expecting too much, but still a very powerful cpu and considerably cheaper.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Wait for Dr. Ian's review, it should be here on AT soon.

As usual, AT is late to the party with reviews. Seems pretty obvious from other reviews that you get a couple hundred extra mghz overclocking headroom, a nice boost at stock, and slightly better thermals. Seems like it will take an exceptional chip to reach 5ghz though.

 

[Homeles]

Why? It's been a long time since AT focused on PC hardware and did tests that other sites didn't. Right now I see it focused on mobile. From laptops all the way down to the phones and tablets. Smartwatches and smartglasses are soon to come
ps.

What in the world? Do you think they've just given up on the desktop or something? They clearly haven't.

Anyway, Ian Cutress said the review should be up with week. They got their samples late. He's got the testing done as of Saturday or Sunday, and he's just got the writeup to do.

 

[Lepton87]

What in the world? Do you think they've just given up on the desktop or something? They clearly haven't.

Anyway, Ian Cutress said the review should be up with week. They got their samples late. He's got the testing done as of Saturday or Sunday, and he's just got the writeup to do.

No, they are just more focused on reviewing iGadgets and other mobile toys. The reviews are already out, no need to wait for AT review which won't contain any new information. They have fallen behind a lot with PC hardware especially GPUs. No FCAT, no thermal imaging camera etc. They are very good at reviewing mobile hardware though, good display analysis and great subjective information about usability.

 

[Zardnok]

As usual, AT is late to the party with reviews. Seems pretty obvious from other reviews that you get a couple hundred extra mghz overclocking headroom, a nice boost at stock, and slightly better thermals. Seems like it will take an exceptional chip to reach 5ghz though.

That is because this site doesn't rush reviews just to be "First to Print" and does a more thorough job so you don't end up with a "Con" about degradation on a chip that hasn't even been released yet. How exactly does one measure degradation over the course of a weekend of testing?? Seriously. I am curious.

One reviewer throws out a baseless claim to fill space and boom, rumors swirl about Devils Canyon CPUs dying before they are ever installed. Take a deep breath people and consider the source. Then consider the claim and realize it is baseless.


Edit: I reread this and didn't want it to seem like an attack on you tundra. I quoted you and then went on a mini-rant, but it was not aimed at you.

 

[Homeles]

No, they are just more focused on reviewing iGadgets and other mobile toys. The reviews are already out, no need to wait for AT review which won't contain any new information. They have fallen behind a lot with PC hardware especially GPUs. No FCAT, no thermal imaging camera etc. They are very good at reviewing mobile hardware though, good display analysis and great subjective information about usability.

I don't doubt that their focus has changed, but each site has its respective strengths. I can't say I agree with you with GPUs, because for what they lack in data collection and presentation, they make up for in a well-written deep dive on the underlying architectures. They look into compute performance as well, which is something that, say The Tech Report, doesn't do. TR does do the frame latency thing. TPU does nice GPU teardowns and has awesome aggregate charts.

If you're complaining because you want a one-stop-shop for GPU reviews... well... it's not going to happen. Just like SoC vendors differentiate their products to gain market share... so do tech reviewers.

I'm a bit stumped as to why so many people are bashing AT lately about being late to the Devil's Canyon party. Some things are outside a reviewer's control, and DC, at least mostly, is one of those things. Everyone immediately jumps to conclusions, instead of sending a 15 second email to one of the reviewers like I did.

 

[Lepton87]

I don't doubt that their focus has changed, but each site has its respective strengths. I can't say I agree with you with GPUs, because for what they lack in data collection and presentation, they make up for in a well-written deep dive on the underlying architectures.

They don't need money to write about architectures they do to buy for example a thermal imaging camera which I think should be a standard in a GPU review, nice idea for coolers too.

 

[StinkyPinky]

I think it is obvious their focus has shifted to mobile devices. Just look at the main page right now, it's Surface Pro and some Samsung tablet #552.

But you can understand. That's where the page hits come from. There's probably tens of millions of people around the world interested in phones and tablets and probably only a few million real enthusiasts for computer hardware. I dare say the average joe probably think it's weird that people would be really into CPU's etc. They probably liken it to getting excited about the motor that drives the washing machine

 

[Brinson]

I believe k series processors don't support vt-d so if you plan to virtualize alot go with the non-k series.

 

[StinkyPinky]

I believe k series processors don't support vt-d so if you plan to virtualize alot go with the non-k series.

http://ark.intel.com/products/80807/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-4_40-GHz

It does

 

[Homeles]

The 4790K does, as does the 4690K. Historically, the K series processors did not.