[Techno-Kitchen] i7 4790K@4.7Ghz vs. i7 5930K@4.7ghz + GTX980Ti@1300mhz SLI in 4K!

[RussianSensation]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZABt8bHgDHo

Crysis 3
The Witcher 3
GTA V

4K All MAX

4790K@4.7
5930K@4.7
@ 1300 980Ti SLI
Windows 7
Drivers and patches relevant to the July 15, 2015

WOW, for all those people who have dismissed X99 platform as a waste of $ and labelled it purely a workstation platform......this is pure domination for the 5930K! Unless something is seriously wrong with their i7 4790K platform, 980Ti SLI is bottlenecked like crazy by the quad-core i7. I can't believe how large the differences can get!



Skylake-S might actually be a downgrade vs. a 4.5Ghz+ X99 i7 platform.

Can't wait for Skylake-E. Hopefully more games start using 6 cores. :thumbsup:

 

[ViRGE]

Why the heck would you pair such good hardware with Windows 7? It can't even use DX11.1.

 

[guskline]

I'm only running at 4.4ghz but my 5960x is rock solid.

 

[RussianSensation]

Why the heck would you pair such good hardware with Windows 7? It can't even use DX11.1.

- That hardly changes the conclusion. If anything Windows 10 + DX12 would benefit X99 even more since it is supposed to scale better with more cores. I think a lot of reviewers, including Techno-Kitchen will be moving to W10 this summer once it launches July 29th.

- Without true DX12 game engines/games, slapping W10 + DX12 on an existing game doesn't do much unless there is a severe API overhead (aka AMD CPUs). The same site already tested W7 vs. W10:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-Xe8S8jRzg

If you want a second source, I have one for you. DX12 is benefiting AMD's CPUs more right now.

vs.

In any event, I said before that for someone who has access to MicroCenter, i7 5820K was a no brainer over the i7 4790K. These results highlight the same. In the next 5 years, the 6-core HW-E is likely to pull away even more from the 4790K. Even a 4.3-4.4Ghz 5820K is going to destroy the i7 4790K @ 4.8Ghz once more and more games start taking advantage of CPU cores/threading.

I'm only running at 4.4ghz but my 5960x is rock solid.

Great choice. I was contemplating moving to Skylake-S but these results above make me very uncomfortable getting another quad to keep for the next 5 years.

Also, look at this - PCIe 2.0 x16 (~ PCIe 3.0 x8) is starting to bottleneck GPUs as fast as 980Ti (!!)

This is at 1440P.

Guru3D

I realize this is only 3-5% but this is 980Ti and GPUs are going to increase in performance 2.5-3X over the next 5 years. That's another potential bottleneck that X99 doesn't face. I think Intel will need to move to PCIe 4.0 in the next 3-4 years because if PCIe 2.0 x16 = 3.0 x8 is already bottle-necking 980Ti, by the time we are at Volta generation in 2018-2019, PCIe 3.0 x16/x16 will need to be a viable option on the mainstream platform (which it's not even going to be with Z170). PCIe 4.0 has to become high-end for adoption of PCIe 3.0 x16 (aka PCIe 4.0 x8) to take place.

I am obviously not suggesting that i7 4790K @ 4.7Ghz is slow but when going all out to keep a new platform for 5+ years and buying a pair of flagship cards, the mainstream platform makes no sense to me vs. the X99 one.

 

[EndlessWargasm]

Looks like I'll be sticking with my hexcore x58 system for a few more years yet.

 

[RussianSensation]

Looks like I'll be sticking with my hexcore x58 system for a few more years yet.

The 32nm 6-core Xeons can give that platform a huge boost in longevity for $100 or less:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-Xeon-...198?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20ff322e46

In hindsight the X58 platform was so worth it over the P55 (i7 860). It's possible in the future 18 core Xeons might be a drop-in for the X99 too at viable prices.

People have dismissed the X99 platform but even a 'low' end X99 board like the Asrock Extreme 4 packs 60A chokes (the sames ones Asus puts on their Hero and Rampage boards) and support for 18-core CPUs, plus Ultra M.2 32GB/sec, something 99% of Z97 boards don't have.

I am surprised how many gamers with flagship cards are passing on the X99 platform. The more I read/learn about it, the more it makes sense over i7 4790K.

 

[Silverforce11]

Why is it surprising, multi-GPUs is when the bottleneck shifts to CPUs so a faster CPU or ones with more cores that are usable in some modern games, surely its normal for it to be faster.

The real problem is so few games use the extra threads. A lot of the ones I play, are still single threaded.

Hopefully in a few years when DX12 games are common, there's a real benefit in higher core/thread CPUs.

 

[RussianSensation]

Why is it surprising, multi-GPUs is when the bottleneck shifts to CPUs so a faster CPU or ones with more cores that are usable in some modern games, surely its normal for it to be faster.

The real problem is so few games use the extra threads. A lot of the ones I play, are still single threaded.

Hopefully in a few years when DX12 games are common, there's a real benefit in higher core/thread CPUs.

Did you look at the video though? The difference in speed in GTA V and Crysis 3 is massive and even in the Witcher 3 it's large. We are talking differences far bigger than between Fury X and 980Ti at 4K. That's not shocking to you? It was for me.

I mean for starters, I think a professional review site testing 980Ti SLI or greater and not using the X99 OC platform is going to be bottlenecking their cards.

This site also mentioned they are planning to have 980Ti SLI vs. Fury X CF shootout at 4K soon. Nice!

 

[3DVagabond]

Did they say what they believe the difference is? With DX11 I really doubt it's the additional cores beyond 4 and it's not like we've seen Haswell-E showing improved performance/core. Is it the extra memory bandwidth? Or did they say?

 

[frozentundra123456]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZABt8bHgDHo

Crysis 3
The Witcher 3
GTA V

4K All MAX

4790K@4.7
5930K@4.7
@ 1300 980Ti SLI
Windows 7
Drivers and patches relevant to the July 15, 2015

WOW, for all those people who have dismissed X99 platform as a waste of $ and labelled it purely a workstation platform......this is pure domination for the 5930K! Unless something is seriously wrong with their i7 4790K platform, 980Ti SLI is bottlenecked like crazy by the quad-core i7. I can't believe how large the differences can get!



Skylake-S might actually be a downgrade vs. a 4.5Ghz+ X99 i7 platform.

Can't wait for Skylake-E. Hopefully more games start using 6 cores. :thumbsup:

I agree with you basically, but that Crysis video looked suspect somehow. If you look closely, gpu utilization was very close between the two platforms(i.e. they appeared gpu limited), but the framerates were vastly different. That doesnt make sense to me.

The only problem with the x99 platform is that you may get a poor overclocker, while the 4790k is basically overclocked out of the box. Both were at the same frequency in that video, and I think overall it is unlikely most hex cores will reach the same frequency as 4790k.

I have been arguing for a long time on the forums however, that intel should just release a mainstream hex core on the most current architecture and process node. With 14nm, they could certainly afford the die space and just include a minimal igp.

 

[LTC8K6]

So with DX12, an FX-9590, running over 1ghz faster, ties a mid-range core i3 in World of Tanks, and just sneaks past a 2nd gen i5?

 

[Silverforce11]

So with DX12, an FX-9590, running over 1ghz faster, ties a mid-range core i3 in World of Tanks, and just sneaks past a 2nd gen i5?

Not DX12, since WoT isn't even DX11.

But Windows 10 has some improvements to the DX backwards compatibility, it helps AMD CPUs a little bit.

Basically it's a win-win situation, even older DX games with CPU bottlenecks can run faster in Win10.

Edit: I'm a longtime WoT player, that game is single threaded. It's severely CPU bottlenecks on a lot of maps. My i5 drops to ~45 fps, if I OC, it goes up linearly.

 

[alcoholbob]

Skylake S will be downgrade but only slightly. 5820/5930K is about 19-20% faster in SLI it looks like. If Skylake is 15% faster clock for clock then it would be about 5% slower in games, but like 65% less power usage.

It would be interesting to see if this carried over to Windows 10, as currently Witcher 3 runs about 10-15% faster on Windows 10 Preview than Windows 7. I wonder if all these gains evaporate with its implementation of DX11.3.

 

[moonbogg]

And this is why my 3930K won't die and why I won't ever go back to quads. Skylake-E or bust. Also, when I enabled PIC-E 3.0 X16 on my board I got another thousand points in firestrike over 2.0 X16. Hex cores and above are starting to pull away from quads in the same way quads pulled away from duals. It starts slow, and then suddenly BAM, a big game like BF Bad Company 2 comes out that simply sucks hard on a dual core and shines wonderfully on a quad. If you got the GPU overhead, more than 4 cores will start to pull some extra weight in newer games and the PCI-E lanes do help.

 

[railven]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZABt8bHgDHo

Crysis 3
The Witcher 3
GTA V

4K All MAX

4790K@4.7
5930K@4.7
@ 1300 980Ti SLI
Windows 7
Drivers and patches relevant to the July 15, 2015

WOW, for all those people who have dismissed X99 platform as a waste of $ and labelled it purely a workstation platform......this is pure domination for the 5930K! Unless something is seriously wrong with their i7 4790K platform, 980Ti SLI is bottlenecked like crazy by the quad-core i7. I can't believe how large the differences can get!



Skylake-S might actually be a downgrade vs. a 4.5Ghz+ X99 i7 platform.

Can't wait for Skylake-E. Hopefully more games start using 6 cores. :thumbsup:

Wow, I wonder if this can explain the poor scaling people are reporting in the two Nvidia threads found here:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2439899
and
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2439707

Seems in one thread, their CPU is a 5930K @4.4 bu it wasn't verified if the CPU was throttling and the other is a 5830k @ Stock.


What were the CPUs used for those Dual/QUAD reviews? Wonder if the results change if they OC'ed em?

 

[x3sphere]

Interesting comparison. I'm glad I went X99 when upgrading from X58. Given the lifespan of CPU platforms these days it doesn't make much sense to skimp on them - IMO. The extra premium I paid over an Z97 build is small considering it'll last me 5-6 years minimum.

 

[Innokentij]

Something is way off in crysis 3 part of the video, 2,6GB VRAM use VS 4GB VRAM use.

Edit: X99 is a waste of money unless u run SLI

 

[casiofx]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZABt8bHgDHo

Crysis 3
The Witcher 3
GTA V

4K All MAX

4790K@4.7
5930K@4.7
@ 1300 980Ti SLI
Windows 7
Drivers and patches relevant to the July 15, 2015

WOW, for all those people who have dismissed X99 platform as a waste of $ and labelled it purely a workstation platform......this is pure domination for the 5930K! Unless something is seriously wrong with their i7 4790K platform, 980Ti SLI is bottlenecked like crazy by the quad-core i7. I can't believe how large the differences can get!



Skylake-S might actually be a downgrade vs. a 4.5Ghz+ X99 i7 platform.

Can't wait for Skylake-E. Hopefully more games start using 6 cores. :thumbsup:

Well those games are very good CPU multi-threaded games so no surprise there. Not to mention 4790K only have 16 lanes of PCI-E available vs 5930k's 40 lanes. There might be GPU bus bottleneck there.

The difference is most pronounced in 980Ti SLI, not much difference if single 980Ti, I saw the video that compared it.

Lastly, Skylake-S isn't that bad, there was a leak on people overclocking i7-6700K at 5.2Ghz on air cooling @1.35v. That's massive.

 

[Dave3000]

And this is why my 3930K won't die and why I won't ever go back to quads. Skylake-E or bust. Also, when I enabled PIC-E 3.0 X16 on my board I got another thousand points in firestrike over 2.0 X16. Hex cores and above are starting to pull away from quads in the same way quads pulled away from duals. It starts slow, and then suddenly BAM, a big game like BF Bad Company 2 comes out that simply sucks hard on a dual core and shines wonderfully on a quad. If you got the GPU overhead, more than 4 cores will start to pull some extra weight in newer games and the PCI-E lanes do help.

Now what would a 5930k and a 4790k at their stock speeds compare to each other in that same situation in that youtube video? Also the 5930k in that video the 5930k was overclocked more than the 4790k. Also overall, wouldn't the typical X79-X99 platform user most likely not be overclocking because most likely they choose that platform to use as a workstation/professional work and not for gaming and need reliability?

 

[zagitta]

The 32nm 6-core Xeons can give that platform a huge boost in longevity for $100 or less:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-Xeon-...198?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20ff322e46

In hindsight the X58 platform was so worth it over the P55 (i7 860). It's possible in the future 18 core Xeons might be a drop-in for the X99 too at viable prices.

People have dismissed the X99 platform but even a 'low' end X99 board like the Asrock Extreme 4 packs 60A chokes (the sames ones Asus puts on their Hero and Rampage boards) and support for 18-core CPUs, plus Ultra M.2 32GB/sec, something 99% of Z97 boards don't have.

I am surprised how many gamers with flagship cards are passing on the X99 platform. The more I read/learn about it, the more it makes sense over i7 4790K.

I don't think the +10 core Xeons are going to be viable in x99, the locked multiplier combined with their low clocks just kills their gaming performance (unless games start scaling above 8 cores in the next couple of years).

As for why many people still get quadcores rather than a X99 setup, I think it can be attributed to the price mostly. DDR4 ram is just straight up 2x the price of DDR3 in the same capacity here in Denmark and although I got the cheapest X99 board (asrock x99m extreme 4) it was still 1.5x as expensive as a very good z97 board.
Then there's also the CPU, while the 5820k is not that more expensive than a quad i7, I think most people considering a X99 want the 5930k to not get bottlenecked by the the lack of lanes on 5820k in CF/SLI setups.

With the extra premium of the 5930k we're starting to get into the territory where you've spent 1.5-2x on the base system and it cuts into how much is left to spend on graphicscards.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love having 6 cores myself but for most highend rigs with regular CF/SLI (not triple) I'm not sure the price difference is worth it for ~10fps difference.

It should also be mentioned both GTA V and Crysis 3 use a lot more CPU than your average games which is why they exhibit a fairly large fps gain while The Witcher 3 barely shows any difference because it seems to be GPU bottlenecked

 

[x3sphere]

It should also be mentioned both GTA V and Crysis 3 use a lot more CPU than your average games which is why they exhibit a fairly large fps gain while The Witcher 3 barely shows any difference because it seems to be GPU bottlenecked

At the end of the video - it's showing a ~15% difference in TW3. That's still pretty large.

 

[EndlessWargasm]

What's with the huge difference in GPU RAM utilisation?

The x99 platform is showing 50-100% higher memory usage.

 

[LTC8K6]

Not DX12, since WoT isn't even DX11.

But Windows 10 has some improvements to the DX backwards compatibility, it helps AMD CPUs a little bit.

Basically it's a win-win situation, even older DX games with CPU bottlenecks can run faster in Win10.

Edit: I'm a longtime WoT player, that game is single threaded. It's severely CPU bottlenecks on a lot of maps. My i5 drops to ~45 fps, if I OC, it goes up linearly.

Okay, so a 4790K would probably be well in the clear at the top of those WoT charts?

 

[Face2Face]

Great find.

I always told myself that I'm not going from a quad to quad again. I am hoping to jump on AMD's Zen next year, or a 6-8 Core Intel X99 build. Since I only have a single GPU, my overclocked 3570K is enough, though it does get bottlenecked in GTA V, but the frame-rates are still great.

 

[n0x1ous]

In any event, I said before that for someone who has access to MicroCenter, i7 5820K was a no brainer over the i7 4790K.

They should have tested a 5820k to see if the 28 vs 40 pcie lanes made a difference.