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

[StrangerGuy]

I don't know about you guys but if one wants to spend ~$200+ on mobos alone I think they are crazy not to go straight up to 5820K + X99.

 

[moonbogg]

I don't know about you guys but if one wants to spend ~$200+ on mobos alone I think they are crazy not to go straight up to 5820K + X99.

Yeah tell me about it! Some of those boards for quad core CPUs are like 300 bucks. That's so ridiculous to spend that much on a board for a quad. That's like putting Lamborghini tires on a pinto, or something like that.

 

[Madpacket]

If you're spending more than 120 on a socket 1150 mobo you're doing it wrong.

 

[MrK6]

Again, it was 3 games, and the one in "dominated" was older game. As for the "rest of us" does not make the majority.

Then the "rest of us" means those that have the attention span for a 3 minute video and can do simple math, which I've broken down in this graphic. Clearly each game is 20%+ faster:

 

[Innokentij]

Then the "rest of us" means those that have the attention span for a 3 minute video and can do simple math, which I've broken down in this graphic. Clearly each game is 20%+ faster:

Not fair to take the 1 sec where the fps difference the most and proclaim 20%+ faster, take fps difference over time and add min average and max to do it properly?

 

[MrK6]

Not fair to take the 1 sec where the fps difference the most and proclaim 20%+ faster, take fps difference over time and add min average and max to do it properly?

Really? Did you not watch the videos either? Those are clearly identical scenes picked to make it as clear as possible to even the most basic reader the improvement of a new hex core. It's so far beyond proving the superiority even at identical clock speeds everything else is moot. I could have done something like this:

but I'm trying to educate some of you. However, clearly it's in vain since your fragile egos can't handle stating the phrase "nevermind, on second review, you're right," so continue to be ignorant, not worth my time.

 

[Madpacket]

I'll admit those are nice gains although these games are a best case scenario and I would like to see a more reputable site do the same tests to see if the differences are that large. I'm skeptical of these results. Why the huge RAM difference? And if you look at the CPU utilization of the 4790K compared to the 5830 feeding the GPU's it shouldn't translate into 20 percent difference. Need to find the real bottleneck here, if it turns out to be the extra cores than I'll eat crow 😅


No doubt 6 cores will last longer than 4 but I'm thinking the PCIe bandwidth has something to do with these gains more than the extra cores. If it's a PCI bandwidth issue the cost difference skyrockets when comparing cost of CPU, Motherboard and RAM.

Also curious if Radeon Fury's show similar results or if 980Ti's are simply harder on the PCIe bandwidth.

Would be nice to compare with Windows 10 as well since that's RTM'd now.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Yeah tell me about it! Some of those boards for quad core CPUs are like 300 bucks. That's so ridiculous to spend that much on a board for a quad. That's like putting Lamborghini tires on a pinto, or something like that.

Yeah, it's freaking hilarious that the Linustechips/Reddit know-it-all fools are still spouting the "unlocked i5 is still the PC gaming master race" meme. This crowd LOVES to scream how X99 is a TON more expensive when it really isn't in reality.

DDR4 pricing is already at parity with DDR3.

A "entry-level" ~$200 Asrock X99 Extreme blows the doors off any S1150 mobo priced similar or below in features.

Then lastly a 5820K is only a *mere* $140 more over the 4690K. Factor in longevity and resale value down the road and its a no-brainer.

The only time S1150 CPUs make sense if you are sticking to sub $100 mobos and you shouldn't even bother OCing on S1150 when the 4790K exists.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I'll admit those are nice gains although these games are a best case scenario and I would like to see a more reputable site do the same tests to see if the differences are that large. I'm skeptical of these results. Why the huge RAM difference? And if you look at the CPU utilization of the 4790K compared to the 5830 feeding the GPU's it shouldn't translate into 20 percent difference. Need to find the real bottleneck here, if it turns out to be the extra cores than I'll eat crow 😅


No doubt 6 cores will last longer than 4 but I'm thinking the PCIe bandwidth has something to do with these gains more than the extra cores. If it's a PCI bandwidth issue the cost difference skyrockets when comparing cost of CPU, Motherboard and RAM.

Also curious if Radeon Fury's show similar results or if 980Ti's are simply harder on the PCIe bandwidth.

Would be nice to compare with Windows 10 as well since that's RTM'd now.

Yea, i said the same thing esrlier, but will restate it. The gpu utilization seem very close with both cpus. It doesnt really make sense thar the framerates are so different. I definitely would like to see these results verified by reputable testing sites.

 

[Mondozei]

Yeah, it's freaking hilarious that the Linustechips/Reddit know-it-all fools are still spouting the "unlocked i5 is still the PC gaming master race" meme. This crowd LOVES to scream how X99 is a TON more expensive when it really isn't in reality.

DDR4 pricing is already at parity with DDR3.

A "entry-level" ~$200 Asrock X99 Extreme blows the doors off any S1150 mobo priced similar or below in features.

Then lastly a 5820K is only a *mere* $140 more over the 4690K. Factor in longevity and resale value down the road and its a no-brainer.

The only time S1150 CPUs make sense if you are sticking to sub $100 mobos and you shouldn't even bother OCing on S1150 when the 4790K exists.

DDR4 performance advantage over DDR3 in gaming is neglible. If someone has DDR3 RAM, that is an extra (and sunken) cost.

You add 100 dollars extra for mobo. You add 140 dollars extra for CPU. You're already looking at 320-360 dollars extra for the upgrade. That is a new GPU for a lot of people.

And since the vast majority of people are on a single dGPU, can you make the claim that X99 is worth it? We're looking at a high-end SLI config here, which is a far cry from the average gamer. Would you see a 20% increase in performance with a single 970? Very unlikely.

Actually, the unlocked i5 is a far better choice for the vast majority of gamers and if you can't see that, the joke's on you.

 

[the unknown]

You literally described my exact situation when I bought my 4790k. Had DDR3. Budget mattered enough that +$200 was too much (even at microcenter). I even ended up getting a GTX 970. Did I want a hexacore? Sure but the X99 platform was too expensive. Skylake hexacore+ will definitely be the choice though and it even has both DDR 3 and DDR 4 support.

 

[StrangerGuy]

DDR4 performance advantage over DDR3 in gaming is neglible. If someone has DDR3 RAM, that is an extra (and sunken) cost.

You add 100 dollars extra for mobo. You add 140 dollars extra for CPU. You're already looking at 320-360 dollars extra for the upgrade. That is a new GPU for a lot of people.

And since the vast majority of people are on a single dGPU, can you make the claim that X99 is worth it? We're looking at a high-end SLI config here, which is a far cry from the average gamer. Would you see a 20% increase in performance with a single 970? Very unlikely.

Actually, the unlocked i5 is a far better choice for the vast majority of gamers and if you can't see that, the joke's on you.

L2read last paragraphs, bro?

 

[Innokentij]

Really? Did you not watch the videos either? Those are clearly identical scenes picked to make it as clear as possible to even the most basic reader the improvement of a new hex core. It's so far beyond proving the superiority even at identical clock speeds everything else is moot. I could have done something like this:

but I'm trying to educate some of you. However, clearly it's in vain since your fragile egos can't handle stating the phrase "nevermind, on second review, you're right," so continue to be ignorant, not worth my time.

Wow temperature is rising on this hexacore. :thumbsdown: It was just a suggestion no need to whatever it is that u doing.

 

[Mondozei]

L2read last paragraphs, bro?

What makes you think your last paragraph changes anything?

There's a lot more similar graphs in the recent Z97 review.
Remember how GTA V is one of those games?
A single 980 in 1080p not enough?

Another RS thread blown to bits. I remember this whole "980 Ti is terrible compared to Fury X" thread. Then the thread got progressively hilarious as the usecase got narrowed and winnowed further and further. How many people use reference 980 SLIs in SFF cases? Incredibly few.

The benefits for a 6 to 8 eight core processor is laughable for the vast majority of usecases, including for enthusiasts. DX12 may change this, but it may not.

People don't wanna hear that they blew 800 dollars for nothing, though.

 

[escrow4]

Who runs at those clockspeeds anyway. I only have a single GPU at 1200p and run my 5930K at max turbo all cores 3.7GHz. I couldn't even get 4.0GHz @ 1.2v. [Poor quality] chip maybe but even then you are pushing Haswell beyond the limit at 4.7GHz.

Profanity isn't allowed in the technical forums.
-- stahlhart

 

[DigDog]

it's still a considerable price difference between a six core X99 and a four core 1150.
the reason most people go for the 4790k is that they can afford it. most people who have normal jobs and like PC gaming simply cannot excuse the extra cost.

here in the UK, (and most of europe), a 5930k is £400 instead of £230 for the 4790k.
the mobo is £150 instead of £50.

regarding the fact that they might own top tier GPUs, it's because they are, well, uneducated. and in these last 6-7 years there's been a big cultural buzz around GPUs, and more and more people spend a lot of money on it, because they are led to believe that the GPU is what gives you the most gaming oomph.

which .. is actually true. in most games.

if you are shooting for max performance on 1080, maybe even triple 1080, your budget is still better invested in the video card rather than the processor; witcher, GTA, are unusual products.

 

[atticus14]

I'm on the 6 core bandwagon myself. Say what you will about how it only affects a few games, but when those games are Witcher 3, GTA V, Frostbite Engine games, and Cryengine games (think star citizen), those few games are going to be the ones that millions of people look forward to and 6 cores is only going to become more important as we finally cut all ties with previous gen engines. With CPUs lasting longer than ever a 6 core now, will probably last similar amounts of time as a Sandy Bridge.

I'm crossing my fingers Intel goes straight to Skylake-E to be the next high end platform, as broadwell just needs to go away. If Zen can come close or match Intel, especially once you throw DX12 into the mix, we might just go back to a core count race again.

 

[Grubbernaught]

Who runs at those clockspeeds anyway. I only have a single GPU at 1200p and run my 5930K at max turbo all cores 3.7GHz. I couldn't even get 4.0GHz @ 1.2v. [Poor quality] chip maybe but even then you are pushing Haswell beyond the limit at 4.7GHz.

I do.
4.7 at 2.1Vin 1.35vcore is completely feasible and quite cool (54C) with a good custom loop.

 

[maddogmcgee]

Yep, until a few weeks ago I was getting Skylake for sures. I think I stepped onto the 6-8 core bandwagon about a week ago.

 

[escrow4]

it's still a considerable price difference between a six core X99 and a four core 1150.
the reason most people go for the 4790k is that they can afford it. most people who have normal jobs and like PC gaming simply cannot excuse the extra cost.

here in the UK, (and most of europe), a 5930k is £400 instead of £230 for the 4790k.
the mobo is £150 instead of £50.

regarding the fact that they might own top tier GPUs, it's because they are, well, uneducated. and in these last 6-7 years there's been a big cultural buzz around GPUs, and more and more people spend a lot of money on it, because they are led to believe that the GPU is what gives you the most gaming oomph.

which .. is actually true. in most games.

if you are shooting for max performance on 1080, maybe even triple 1080, your budget is still better invested in the video card rather than the processor; witcher, GTA, are unusual products.

Standard products. AAA games now want way more threads. And RAM. Even with a tablet CPU in consoles multithreading is increasing. 400 for the 5930K - look how long it will last. Haswell + six cores = rock solid gaming for years.

 

[Sabrewings]

I do.
4.7 at 2.1Vin 1.35vcore is completely feasible and quite cool (54C) with a good custom loop.

While I love custom loop cooling, it's far form the norm and shouldn't be considered in statistics as we're outliers. Most people aren't going to build a custom loop just to crank a hexacore to quad core clock speeds.

 

[Headfoot]

New high end AIO boxed coolers can get similarly high. Using a h110i GT w/ 4 fans push/pull and got a 5820k easily to 4.4 and still climbing, 1.275 vcore. havent even touched vin yet. Doesn't break ~55c on the hottest core in OCCT. Total cost for that cooling setup plus fans ~$150 at microcenter. So its definitely not cheap but its nowhere near the cost of a custom loop

 

[hawtdawg]

They must have found the 3 games this occurs on. I have a 4.6ghz 3770K pushing 2 1450mhz 980 Ti's, and every game I've thrown at it stays above 90 fps

 

[MagickMan]

They must have found the 3 games this occurs on. I have a 4.6ghz 3770K pushing 2 1450mhz 980 Ti's, and every game I've thrown at it stays above 90 fps

You might notice they're running @4K on those games, not 1440p.

 

[beginner99]

Well one could also argue that once dx12 hits, the iGPU might actually become useful for say physics calculations. Then a quad with iGPU will be way faster than a hexa-core or offer better effects.