Is a new PC with i7-3930K a bad idea?

[T0bias]

Hi,

I am strongly considering to buy a new PC as my current one is 3½ years old (Q9450 2.6GHz, 8GB ram and GTS250). I can't really play new games on it properly, but the main reason for upgrading is the fact that I do a lot of 3D work and rendering (Maya, Photoshop, etc.), where the extra power would be sweet - but if I get a new one I would definitely also start gaming some new games on my PC again

However, I am not sure what to buy. I was quite tempted to go for the new i7-3930K with 6 cores, but I am not sure if it's worth it as it gets quite expensive? Also I've been reading about problems with the X79 platform, and people not recommending to go for it right now?

The alternative is the i7-2600K, but I kinda feel that this is an "old" cpu with improvements coming soon with Ivy Bridge - however, if I wait for that I would probably end up not having a new PC before May/June or something?

I hope someone can give me some advice

 

[lehtv]

Ivy Bridge is not going to be a huge step forward, just 20% more performance or so with lower power consumption. An overclocked Sandy will easily beat a stock speed Ivy.

2600K is already more than twice as fast as your Q9450. You pay essentially double price for X79 + 3930K compared to Z68 + 2600K. But you don't get anywhere near double performance - at best you get a 50% improvement in heavily multithreaded tasks, at worst you see no improvement in mildly multithreaded tasks.

You can either pocket the $400 you save on not going with SB-E, or you can plan an upgrade to Intel Haswell in 2013. I'd expect a 2600K-equivalent of Haswell to beat 3930K quite easily.

 

[T0bias]

Thanks for your reply

Comparing the 2600k with the 3960X in those charts (3930K wasn't there) doesn't seem very impressive when looking at the render times.. the difference seem really small - however, I remember seeing other tests where the 3930K was like 25-30% faster than the 2600k in some renderings from 3ds. It's not easy to be sure how much performance I would actually gain.

However, one of the reasons why I'm considering the 3930K is also the fact that I don't upgrade that often - apart from maybe a new graphicscard now and then, but I never really upgrade cpu/motherboard/ram - then I usually just upgrade everything and get a new computer and either sell the old or keep it as a backup. For example my current setup has remained untouched since I bought it (apart from the replacement of some broken parts within the warranty).

Also I'd like this time to buy a pre-assembled PC so that I don't have to worry about troubleshooting hardware issues in case something goes wrong - this is definitely not my favourite thing to do, and I don't have many spare parts to test with. So because of that I'd like the main parts of the system to last long.

It's difficult to decide

 

[lehtv]

However, one of the reasons why I'm considering the 3930K is also the fact that I don't upgrade that often

Well, it's more of a historical fact than a fundamental fact about you . You'll more or less automatically get around to upgrading when you feel the system isn't fast enough anymore. This may not apply to prebuilt PC's though. But it's also perfectly possible that you'll still be happily using 2600K three and half years from now.

It's difficult to decide

Look at it this way:

- 2600K is already ridiculously fast
- with 3630K you get 50% more heavily multithreaded performance and equal mildly multithreaded performance for 100% more price
- if your income doesn't fundamentally depend on the speed at which you can process large amounts of data using all 12 threads, 3630K is not going to pay itself back

If this last point is true then the only 'reason' for 3930K that I can think of is that money is no object.

 

[mfenn]

However, one of the reasons why I'm considering the 3930K is also the fact that I don't upgrade that often

That's actually a reason to not get an SNB-E. You're going to get a new PC (or at least core platform) anyway whenever the current one starts to feel slow. Since the SNB-E is only 30% faster than SNB in the tasks that you're interested, by the time the i7 2600K would start to feel slow, the i7 3930K would also feel slow.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I agree with both mfenn and lehtv, unless your income depends on this system, then it might not be a good idea from the price/performance perspective to invest in SB-E. Especially with the lack-luster platform issues (Gigabyte mobos burning up, Intel releasing gimped X79 chipset with only two SATA 6Gb/s ports, no native USB 3.0, no SSD caching support, etc.)

Z68 is a more mature platform at this point in time. And Ivy Bridge is coming.

Yes, it would be disappointing but unsurprising if Intel sticks to only releasing a maximum of quad-cores on their 1155 platform.

 

[bradcollins]

There aren't any X79 'platform issues'. The only feature that Z68 has over X79 is the SSD caching, which isn't really an issue for most people on here who are running a larger SSD than it supports (only up to 64gb) and are smart enough to store data that doesn't need to be accessed as quickly on normal HDD's. Z68 only has 2 SATA 6gb ports and no native USB 3.0 either, and almost all Z68 and X79 boards use the same additional chips to provide those extra ports anyway. The only issue so far has been a few gigabyte boards failing, surely the easy solution is to just buy Asus, MSI, Intel instead?


Also while X79 + 3930k is twice the price of the Z68 + 2600k, it gives 50% more performance, allows double the ram, and if you did ever need a faster cpu, upgrading to an 8 core IB-E should be a fairly easy procedure, whereas with Z68 you'll be limited to 4 cores.

 

[mnewsham]

There aren't any X79 'platform issues'. The only feature that Z68 has over X79 is the SSD caching, which isn't really an issue for most people on here who are running a larger SSD than it supports (only up to 64gb) and are smart enough to store data that doesn't need to be accessed as quickly on normal HDD's. Z68 only has 2 SATA 6gb ports and no native USB 3.0 either, and almost all Z68 and X79 boards use the same additional chips to provide those extra ports anyway. The only issue so far has been a few gigabyte boards failing, surely the easy solution is to just buy Asus, MSI, Intel instead?


Also while X79 + 3930k is twice the price of the Z68 + 2600k, it gives 50% more performance, allows double the ram, and if you did ever need a faster cpu, upgrading to an 8 core IB-E should be a fairly easy procedure, whereas with Z68 you'll be limited to 4 cores.

so you think 100% increase in price for a POSSIBLE 50% performance increase is a good idea?
Whatever you got I need some.

 

[Don Karnage]

Ivy Bridge is not going to be a huge step forward, just 20% more performance or so with lower power consumption. An overclocked Sandy will easily beat a stock speed Ivy.

More like 6%.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1178433/ozeros-coolaler-ivy-bridge-es-vs-2500k-tested-shows-6-ipc-gain

 

[lehtv]

More like 6%.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1178433/ozeros-coolaler-ivy-bridge-es-vs-2500k-tested-shows-6-ipc-gain

That's comparing them clock for clock, not at stock clocks. Also we won't know for sure before it's released.

 

[fastamdman]

Personally I don't feel SBE is worth the money, especially not when looking at price to performance. The 2500k/2600k builds right now is where its at. The SB chips aren't old by any means and the only thing out that is better then them is the enthusiast chips which cost way to much. Simply grab a 2500k/2600k now and then upgrade to IB later on down the line if you would like. For the majority of users they won't need to upgrade because they don't push there system to max cpu usage 24/7 like us real users cough cough =D.

 

[T0bias]

Thanks for all the replies

I live in Denmark it's more like 90% more expensive with the 3930k, not that that changes much - but thats the exact difference

Also, out of curiosity, I've recently been working on a dual quad core xeon setup (HP Z600 workstation) - not sure which cpu's it was exactly though, but probably not the most expensive ones available. How do you think a 2600k would match up against such a setup?

Another thing is that on that setup the cpu load appears to be 100% when rendering - does that equate to full utilization of all 8 cores/16 threads? Meaning that a 3930k actually would be 50% faster than a 2600k?

 

[currahee440]

I concur with the ivy bridge statement.

Wait for Ivy Bridge.

 

[bradcollins]

T0bias, if it loads up all 8 cores then your App will be 50% faster on a SB-E with 6 cores compared to a 4 core SB. Is your time saved over the next x years going to pay for the faster setup?

The Z600 could have just about anything in it, from 8 cores running at 2.13ghz to 3.2ghz. Lets assume it has 2.4ghz cpu's in it, and considering that your app sounds fairly well threaded, then it a fairly accurate guess would be that the Z600 cpu speed would 8 * 2.4ghz, total of 19.2ghz. A SB-E would be 6 * 3.2ghz * an additional 10-20% depending on the app. Unless the Z600 has really slow cpu's in it, it would probably beat a 2600k at stock speeds.

mnewsham, maybe not for home use, but for business use it could easily pay itself back within a week.

 

[T0bias]

I'm almost entirely sure the load was 100% on all threads when rendering with mental ray, but I just get a little bit in doubt when I see the rendering benchmarks around the web which suggests something else (though not always clear what they are actually rendering with)..

It's difficult to say if the time saved will pay itself off - it's not like I can make an easy conversion of time saved into money earned. For the next few months I'm going to be spending all my time on some personal vfx projects which will hopefully help me to get a job.
However, fast feedback when tweaking and testing is really nice and will make it easier for me to create something I'm happy with, but of course both cpu's will be a really nice upgrade from what I have now.

Generally the hardware prices are higher in Denmark and if I buy all the bits individually and do a homebuilt system, then a i7-2600k build with a GTX570 is going to cost me around 1600 usd (without an ssd included), and a similar setup with i7-3930k is 2050 usd. So the system overall is going to be ~30% more expensive (I know this is just a silly way of making the 3930k look cheaper ). I haven't yet decided on the other components either so it may very well become a little cheaper overall

 

[fastamdman]

I still don't see how you can justify the 3930k over a 2600k, no matter what it's being used for. Price to performance the 2600k beats the 3930k systems hands down. I would either do one of two things. Go with a 2500k/2600k setup or wait for IB and build then. Other then that, yes a 3930k is a waste of money IMO.

 

[HendrixFan]

I still don't see how you can justify the 3930k over a 2600k, no matter what it's being used for. Price to performance the 2600k beats the 3930k systems hands down. I would either do one of two things. Go with a 2500k/2600k setup or wait for IB and build then. Other then that, yes a 3930k is a waste of money IMO.

Because price isn't as much of a concern to some people. You will always end up at a better price to performance ratio at lower price levels, but some people are willing to pay a price premium for better performance, even if it doesn't scale linearly to cost.

 

[mfenn]

I'm almost entirely sure the load was 100% on all threads when rendering with mental ray, but I just get a little bit in doubt when I see the rendering benchmarks around the web which suggests something else (though not always clear what they are actually rendering with)..

Most rendering software does indeed use as many cores as you can throw at it. It is a safe bet that the i7 3930K will be close to 50% faster than an i7 2600K. However...

It's difficult to say if the time saved will pay itself off - it's not like I can make an easy conversion of time saved into money earned. For the next few months I'm going to be spending all my time on some personal vfx projects which will hopefully help me to get a job.

If you don't know the $/hour number off the top of your head, the i7 3930K is probably not worth it for you.

 

[mfenn]

I still don't see how you can justify the 3930k over a 2600k, no matter what it's being used for.

This is an idiotic statement. Let's say the OP was running a 3D pproduction business and could buy a workstation with an i7 2600K for $2000 or a workstation with an i7 3930K for $4000. Let's also say that he spends 40 hours a week working. If the 3930K is lets him finish his overall workflow even 10% faster, that means that he can effectively do 4 extra hours of work per week.

Workstations are typically depreciated over 3 years, but let's say that the OP's production company likes to stay on the cutting edge and upgrades every year. $2000 / (50 work weeks * 4 extra hours per week) means that the OP's company would have paid a whopping $10 per hour for that extra productivity. Somehow I think that he could justify that.

 

[fastamdman]

Roffle, you are throwing out so many hypothetical statements. He doesn't have a business, he doesn't need to do something 10% faster, lol.

Also, I said IMO for a reason

Also I would rather have 2 2600k systems over 1 3930k system, but thats just me =P

 

[mfenn]

Roffle, you are throwing out so many hypothetical statements. He doesn't have a business, he doesn't need to do something 10% faster, lol.

Also, I said IMO for a reason

No, you said, and I quote, "I still don't see how you can justify the 3930k over a 2600k, no matter what it's being used for." I called you out on making a really dumb, overly broad statement.

Backpedal harder please.

 

[fastamdman]

" Other then that, yes a 3930k is a waste of money IMO."

No back peddling and IN MY &&&&*&* OPINION the 3930k is a waste of money for EVERYTHING, period.

 

[mnewsham]

" Other then that, yes a 3930k is a waste of money IMO."

No back peddling and IN MY &&&&*&* OPINION the 3930k is a waste of money for EVERYTHING, period.

If he really is getting 50% faster processing and making money off of this saved time then no, it isnt a waste of money.

 

[fastamdman]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3930k-3820-test-benchmark,3090-15.html

50%, roffle.

....yup

 

[mfenn]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3930k-3820-test-benchmark,3090-15.html

50%, roffle.


....yup

Jesus Christ, at least try to pick a benchmark that is relevant to this thread.