Upgrade from i7 950 to i7 4790k

[jpiniero]

I would say don't upgrade but at the same time it's going to be a long time before anything meaningfully faster than the 4790K gets released. Mid 2016 at least.

 

[Blue_Max]

Upgrade... don't upgrade... something new is coming... but maybe it won't be any better than what we have now... [sigh]

So dang confused.

 

[RussianSensation]

So you are suggesting he wait until 7-10 months for 14nm quad core broadwells that might be 3% faster than a 4790k? For slight power savings? Who knows when quadcore Skylakes come out. It could be 2016 for all we know.

I didn't mention anything about power savings.

1. 2nd generation 14nm = should overclock better than 4790K

2. More features = this matters more for him given how long he kept his 1st gen i7

a) AVX 3.2
b) Hardware H.265
http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-he...eo-coding-h-265-and-4k-compression-explained/
c) Most likely most motherboards having stock M.2 slot at 32Gb/sec vs. 10Gb/sec for almost all but Asrock Z97 boards.

3. Performance will be more than 3% faster. If anything the leap to Skylake could be greater than SB -> HW, since BW alone brings 5% IPC, Skylake should be at least a 10% increase in IPC over 4790K.

4. "Investing $" into DDR4 that he could reuse with future system upgrades should he change his upgrading strategy and do a CPU+mobo swap in 3-4 years. If he buys 16GB of DDR3 now, it's going to be worthless after 2H of 2015.

5. I read that Z170 chipset might have up to 20 lanes, instead of 16. Not sure how accurate that is though.

6. The opportunity cost of waiting almost 1.5 years (since he is considering buying now and 4770K came out on June 1, 2013) to get 3% more performance with same tech as 4770K OC in a 4790K OC is far worse than waiting 7-10 more months for Skylake. The only thing that's iffy in the air now is when Skylake-K will launch. However, I don't see how Intel can possibly release Skylake-S with rumoured 95W TDP that's slower than a 4790K.

7. In the interim he'll get a better gain in games by selling those 7970s and getting R9 290s or 970s.

All things considered for serious overclockers 4790K was a big fail over the 1 year old 4770K. Obviously it's not as if 4790K will become obsolete in 12 months but the good timing to upgrade to Haswell is long gone. We are now deep into the last 25% of Haswell's useful retail life. Since there are no amazing sales on old tech with CPUs unlike old GPU architectures, there is no particular reason to suddenly get excited about the 4790K vs. 4770K 1.5 years ago.

As I already mentioned if the OP is itching for the upgrade, then 4790K is a great choice given his listed options and pricing. However, then it becomes harder to understand why 4790K is suddenly so amazing when 4770K @ 4.4-4.5Ghz was available all along since June 1, 2013 and the OP didn't bite. In my opinion if he held out that long (i.e., 6+ years), what's another 7 months for Skylake?

 

[Arachnotronic]

I didn't mention anything about power savings.

1. 2nd generation 14nm = should overclock better than 4790K

2. More features = this matters more for him given how long he kept his 1st gen i7

a) AVX 3.2
b) Hardware H.265
http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-he...eo-coding-h-265-and-4k-compression-explained/
c) Most likely most motherboards having stock M.2 slot at 32Gb/sec vs. 10Gb/sec for almost all but Asrock Z97 boards.

3. Performance will be more than 3% faster. If anything the leap to Skylake could be greater than SB -> HW, since BW alone brings 5% IPC, Skylake should be at least a 10% increase in IPC over 4790K.

4. "Investing $" into DDR4 that he could reuse with future system upgrades should he change his upgrading strategy and do a CPU+mobo swap in 3-4 years. If he buys 16GB of DDR3 now, it's going to be worthless after 2H of 2015.

5. I read that Z170 chipset might have up to 20 lanes, instead of 16. Not sure how accurate that is though.

6. The opportunity cost of waiting almost 1.5 years (since he is considering buying now and 4770K came out on June 1, 2013) to get 3% more performance with same tech as 4770K OC in a 4790K OC is far worse than waiting 7-10 more months for Skylake. The only thing that's iffy in the air now is when Skylake-K will launch. However, I don't see how Intel can possibly release Skylake-S with rumoured 95W TDP that's slower than a 4790K.

7. In the interim he'll get a better gain in games by selling those 7970s and getting R9 290s or 970s.

All things considered for serious overclockers 4790K was a big fail over the 1 year old 4770K. Obviously it's not as if 4790K will become obsolete in 12 months but the good timing to upgrade to Haswell is long gone. We are now deep into the last 25% of Haswell's useful retail life. Since there are no amazing sales on old tech with CPUs unlike old GPU architectures, there is no particular reason to suddenly get excited about the 4790K vs. 4770K 1.5 years ago.

As I already mentioned if the OP is itching for the upgrade, then 4790K is a great choice given his listed options and pricing. However, then it becomes harder to understand why 4790K is suddenly so amazing when 4770K @ 4.4-4.5Ghz was available all along since June 1, 2013 and the OP didn't bite. In my opinion if he held out that long (i.e., 6+ years), what's another 7 months for Skylake?

Couple of things...

AVX3.2 looks like it's going to be Skylake Xeon only (i.e. LGA 1151 SKUs will not have it). HEVC encode/decode may or may not be useful, but I think this is more useful for power constrained mobile device than for desktop PCs. Also, not totally clear that Broadwell will overclock better, as the recent leak of the "U" series SKUs show higher base clock but lower turbo (of course that's a process flavor tuned for Ultrabooks, but still...)

Finally, will the OP be able to buy unlocked Skylake-K in 7-10 months? I'm not convinced that this part will launch until sometime in 2016.

 

[Burpo]

Upgrade... don't upgrade... something new is coming... but maybe it won't be any better than what we have now... [sigh]

So dang confused.

For 2-3 months you've agonized over this, and all you really need to do is change a chip for 50% more performance. That will satisfy your upgrade itch for now (trust me), and in time there'll be something better that will be worth it.. It's a no brain'r really.. Save your d0h. Enjoy some Xeon Hex-core goodness & wait..

 

[2is]

If you do a lot of video encoding, the upgrade is worth it for QuickSync alone now that it's open source and handbrake supports it. The down side is that QuickSync isn't an option on Haswell-E which it really should be.

 

[Headfoot]

If you do a lot of video encoding, the upgrade is worth it for QuickSync alone now that it's open source and handbrake supports it. The down side is that QuickSync isn't an option on Haswell-E which it really should be.

quicksync encodes off the iGPU which is not present in Haswell E

 

[RussianSensation]

Selling the existing i7 and upgrading to a cheap 5650 Xeon or similar is also a great option. Those chips overclock really well and a 6-Core 4.5Ghz i7 is beast mode even against an i7 4790K in tasks that are well threaded. It would easily be enough to hold over until Skylake and is a very affordable choice.

 

[2is]

quicksync encodes off the iGPU which is not present in Haswell E

I know

 

[Denithor]

Again: x5650 + SATA3 PCIe card = Win!

This should hold you over easily (and cheaply) until mid/late 2015 when you can do a whole system update. If you really want to spend some cash now, do the above + GPU upgrade as mentioned. That would seriously up your gaming power, more so than just upgrading to 4790K/Z97 and leaving GPUs alone.

 

[Blue_Max]

Again: x5650 + SATA3 PCIe card = Win!

This should hold you over easily (and cheaply) until mid/late 2015 when you can do a whole system update. If you really want to spend some cash now, do the above + GPU upgrade as mentioned. That would seriously up your gaming power, more so than just upgrading to 4790K/Z97 and leaving GPUs alone.

...even though games benefit most from single-thread performance? Adding 50% more cores won't make games run any faster (though the extra video card you also suggested certainly would!)

Never fear, I've taken the X5650 suggestion very seriously from day one... it's also a matter of availability, etc.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

4.4GHz is almost guaranteed with the Xeon WITHIN the Intel vcore specs of 1.35v

edit: my i7 970 is still within Intel vcore specs as the Xeon (95w) vs the Desktop (130w) vcore differ.

 

[scannall]

Here is a very large thread regarding 5650 overclocking. Including benchmarks etc. It compares favorably to the 4770.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1461359/...w-discussion-and-xeon-l5639-benchmarks-inside

 

[RussianSensation]

...even though games benefit most from single-thread performance? Adding 50% more cores won't make games run any faster (though the extra video card you also suggested certainly would!)

Never fear, I've taken the X5650 suggestion very seriously from day one... it's also a matter of availability, etc.

X5670, 9 units available for $99.99 with free shipping. Sell your old X58 chip for $50 and this is the best $50 CPU upgrade you'll ever make in your life. Lower power usage, higher OC, higher IPC and 50% more cores, for $50. This CPU used to cost $1440.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-Xeon-...US_Server_CPUs_Processors&hash=item4ac7a2a01c

If I had an X58 platform I would do this swap in a heartbeat, wait it out for another 15 more months (at least) and get BW-E or Skylake-K with DDR4 and all the latest features. To me 4790K is nearly 2-year-old tech as 4770 is 97% of that CPU and came out June 1, 2013. I don't like the idea of paying "next gen" Intel prices for outdated 2-year-old tech and chipset.

 

[Burpo]

+1.. $80 shipping to Canada.. but I bet they'll do better than that if asked.. Chip has good single thread performance too.

 

[CropDuster]

...even though games benefit most from single-thread performance? Adding 50% more cores won't make games run any faster (though the extra video card you also suggested certainly would!)

Never fear, I've taken the X5650 suggestion very seriously from day one... it's also a matter of availability, etc.

BF4 loves the 5650 compared to the 950 I had before. FPS well into the 100s on 64 player servers. If anything games are being made to take better use of multi cores now which may even prolong the life of these systems.

 

[Gikaseixas]

With the system you currently have i would update if i really need it, in other words, if my experience with it sucked that much you know.

Again i cannot blame you from wanting to upgrade because it's a bug we all have

A cheap alternative is the X5650 like many already mentioned.

 

[CP5670]

I did this upgrade a few weeks ago, going from a 4ghz 920 to a 4790K. It's currently on stock, but the motherboard already turbos all cores to 4.4 and these CPUs seem to top out at 4.6-4.7 on air.

There is minimal difference in most games. Occasionally, a specific area in a game is noticeably faster, but it's rare. There are some games or levels where the GPU is only at 50-60% usage according to MSI Afterburner and were running at a low 35-40fps before, but are still the same now. However, some floating point-heavy compute programs I've written are 40-50% faster, and a handful of emulator games that used to struggle before are noticeably smoother as well. USB 3, SATA 3 and PCIE 3 are all good to have, as is the UEFI BIOS and its fancy GUI, and the system's idle power (including monitor) has dropped from 160W to 75W.

I got both the CPU and a decent motherboard for a little over $300, and it was worth it at that price. The Xeons looked tempting, but if I got one of those I would have just stayed with it for a long time and missed the platform upgrades. Even when Skylake comes out, the motherboards will almost certainly not support PCI (which means I need a new sound card) or a network chip with XP drivers (which I keep for some old games), both of which I got with this upgrade. I can also sell my X58 parts while they are still worth something. The motherboards seem to be in demand because of the Xeons.

 

[ClockHound]

The Xeons looked tempting, but if I got one of those I would have just stayed with it for a long time and missed the platform upgrades....

Wait. What? You have 5670 in your handle and don't have a 5670 in your system? That's a huge personal marketing convergence you're missing. ;-)

I went the other way, was looking at a 4790k build in the summer, almost went for it...but for my render work, moar cores for less money was the better option - got a great deal on a 5660 and Sabertooth. Overclocking a $1000 server chip that cost about a tenth that while blowing past the 4790k satisfies my inner cheapskate in ways that surpass the latest chipset sugar coatings.

 

[Makaveli]

If you do a lot of video encoding, the upgrade is worth it for QuickSync alone now that it's open source and handbrake supports it. The down side is that QuickSync isn't an option on Haswell-E which it really should be.

Is the general consensus that QuickSync still produces inferior quailty encodes compared to doing it on the cpu?

Has this changed?

 

[Blue_Max]

I did this upgrade a few weeks ago, going from a 4ghz 920 to a 4790K. It's currently on stock, but the motherboard already turbos all cores to 4.4 and these CPUs seem to top out at 4.6-4.7 on air.

There is minimal difference in most games. Occasionally, a specific area in a game is noticeably faster, but it's rare. There are some games or levels where the GPU is only at 50-60% usage according to MSI Afterburner and were running at a low 35-40fps before, but are still the same now. However, some floating point-heavy compute programs I've written are 40-50% faster, and a handful of emulator games that used to struggle before are noticeably smoother as well. USB 3, SATA 3 and PCIE 3 are all good to have, as is the UEFI BIOS and its fancy GUI, and the system's idle power (including monitor) has dropped from 160W to 75W.

I got both the CPU and a decent motherboard for a little over $300, and it was worth it at that price. The Xeons looked tempting, but if I got one of those I would have just stayed with it for a long time and missed the platform upgrades. Even when Skylake comes out, the motherboards will almost certainly not support PCI (which means I need a new sound card) or a network chip with XP drivers (which I keep for some old games), both of which I got with this upgrade. I can also sell my X58 parts while they are still worth something. The motherboards seem to be in demand because of the Xeons.

Nice! Yes it's tempting to go the "moaar cores" route... but the stuff I do doesn't NEED more cores, it needs faster ones.

I'm also having troubles getting a cheap X5650 here in Canada. At the price some people are charging for shipping, I might as well spend another $100 and go all-new. I really tried, guys... you made a very convincing argument I'd have gone with if I could get one as cheap as you can!

 

[2is]

Is the general consensus that QuickSync still produces inferior quailty encodes compared to doing it on the cpu?

Has this changed?

I don't know, perhaps not but the quality for me seems pretty good. I personally can't tell a difference when I'm watching my movies. Maybe I would be able to with a higher end TV set or if I really tried to compare the two but for the casual movie watcher like myself who just wants to use his Apple TV or similar device and scroll through their movies and pick one to watch, vs hunting for disks, it's plenty adequate.

And the speed advantage is immense. Not only are you reducing a 4 hour encode to about 20 minutes, but I can literally queue up several titles to encode, and game on my computer with close to zero performance drop on either the encoding process or my game. Makes me feel like I'm really taking full advantage of the system from the IGP, to the CPU to the dGPUs when I'm able to accomplish all these strenuous tasks at the same time and do so efficiently.

 

[tential]

I don't know, perhaps not but the quality for me seems pretty good. I personally can't tell a difference when I'm watching my movies. Maybe I would be able to with a higher end TV set or if I really tried to compare the two but for the casual movie watcher like myself who just wants to use his Apple TV or similar device and scroll through their movies and pick one to watch, vs hunting for disks, it's plenty adequate.

And the speed advantage is immense. Not only are you reducing a 4 hour encode to about 20 minutes, but I can literally queue up several titles to encode, and game on my computer with close to zero performance drop on either the encoding process or my game. Makes me feel like I'm really taking full advantage of the system from the IGP, to the CPU to the dGPUs when I'm able to accomplish all these strenuous tasks at the same time and do so efficiently.

I might have to try Quicksync if you really don't notice. At least try it for encodes of things I don't care that much about like Law and Order.

 

[CP5670]

Wait. What? You have 5670 in your handle and don't have a 5670 in your system? That's a huge personal marketing convergence you're missing. ;-)

I didn't even think of that. The only reason I keep that name is it has a history and goes back to 1997 or something, even though it doesn't mean anything.

Nice! Yes it's tempting to go the "moaar cores" route... but the stuff I do doesn't NEED more cores, it needs faster ones.

That's what I find too. Also, the things that need more cores are in a way less performance critical. I do some compute and data science work that would have been better on 6 cores, but I usually let that stuff run in the background while doing other things. On the other hand, the 4790K's single threaded performance is better for (at least some) games and emulators, where the speed actually improves the experience directly. The games that are CPU limited tend to also be poorly optimized and put most of the load on one or two threads.

 

[ClockHound]

Nice! Yes it's tempting to go the "moaar cores" route... but the stuff I do doesn't NEED more cores, it needs faster ones.

I'm also having troubles getting a cheap X5650 here in Canada. At the price some people are charging for shipping, I might as well spend another $100 and go all-new. I really tried, guys... you made a very convincing argument I'd have gone with if I could get one as cheap as you can!

There are system vulturators, er, refurbishers based in Canada too.

Here's a 5650 for $80CDN + $15CDN Shipping.

Not everyone is gouging on shipping to Canada: Here's a $97CDN 5660 with sub $15 shipping.