Was the 4820k not a popular processor?

jimbob200521

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2005
4,108
29
91
This lil guy just came into my life and naturally, I started looking around forums for posts on it to see what peoples thoughts are. I see tons on the 4790k, 6700k, 6600k, even 5820k posts but not too many on the 4820k. My guess is it's because of the 2011 platform, it wasn't that widely adopted by the gaming market. Or maybe people that invested in a 2011 system also invested in a hexa core CPU. That or they went with a 4770k because it was a cheaper option overall to build a system based around that. Thoughts anyone? Anyone here have a 4820k? How do you like it?
 

MrTeal

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,554
1,658
136
This lil guy just came into my life and naturally, I started looking around forums for posts on it to see what peoples thoughts are. I see tons on the 4790k, 6700k, 6600k, even 5820k posts but not too many on the 4820k. My guess is it's because of the 2011 platform, it wasn't that widely adopted by the gaming market. Or maybe people that invested in a 2011 system also invested in a hexa core CPU. That or they went with a 4770k because it was a cheaper option overall to build a system based around that. Thoughts anyone? Anyone here have a 4820k? How do you like it?

Ivy Bridge E wasn't introduced until after Haswell, so anyone looking to build a system at that time would have been either looking at X79 and a hex core, or Z87 and a Haswell quad core. Even though the 4820k and 4770k were about the same price, I can't imagine many people would have went LGA2011 and paid extra for the platform just to go with a quad core chip of the older generation. The only reason I could think of is if you had something that was really memory bandwidth sensitive but didn't scale well with additional cores.
 

jimbob200521

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2005
4,108
29
91
Ivy Bridge E wasn't introduced until after Haswell, so anyone looking to build a system at that time would have been either looking at X79 and a hex core, or Z87 and a Haswell quad core. Even though the 4820k and 4770k were about the same price, I can't imagine many people would have went LGA2011 and paid extra for the platform just to go with a quad core chip of the older generation. The only reason I could think of is if you had something that was really memory bandwidth sensitive but didn't scale well with additional cores.

From what I've been reading, it seems like it was more geared towards workstation than desktop. 40 PCIe lanes, upt o 64gb of quad channel RAM, etc. Definitely a good board to build a powerful platform on.

Nope.
/thread

Well...ok then!


Agreed. There was a lot of debate on going with the 4820k or 4770k mainly because of platform. Basic outcome was the 4770k performed a hair better in a lot of cases and it was a cheaper platform to build, however the 4820k had better overclocking potential due to the soldered IHS vs the goo they used on the 4770k so if you wanted to overclock, you'd probably be better off with the 4820k.
 

jimbob200521

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2005
4,108
29
91
This.

My friend was almost tricked into getting one when he didn't remotely need it.

Not like it's a bad choice, just expensive to build the platform. Maybe one day I'll be able to snag a nice hexa core for an upgrade when prices go lower.
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,715
2,012
126
4820K was just a poor value, only useful if you had plans to upgrade to a 6 core down the line. But, in that case, it probably would have made more sense to save up and get the six core right off the bat.
 

jimbob200521

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2005
4,108
29
91
4820K was just a poor value, only useful if you had plans to upgrade to a 6 core down the line. But, in that case, it probably would have made more sense to save up and get the six core right off the bat.

I see your point and I suppose I agree, if I was building a system then (or now) I would walk right past it, too expensive. That being said, this system kinda fell into my lap so who am I to complain!
 

BigDaveX

Senior member
Jun 12, 2014
440
216
116
I think that by the time the 4820K was out, it was already well-known that even the cheapest Haswell-E would be a hex-core, so anyone wanting to put together a cheaper HEDT box was likely waiting for that. Not to mention that the X79 chipset was already outdated within a couple of months of its release, and really showing its age by the time Ivy Bridge-E showed up.
 

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
5,056
409
126
I think that by the time the 4820K was out, it was already well-known that even the cheapest Haswell-E would be a hex-core, so anyone wanting to put together a cheaper HEDT box was likely waiting for that. Not to mention that the X79 chipset was already outdated within a couple of months of its release, and really showing its age by the time Ivy Bridge-E showed up.

when the 4820K was launched I'm pretty sure the 5820K being an hex core at its price was unknown

the problem was that the 4820K was not a significant improvement over the 3770K, but the platform was far more expensive... so people buying x79 would probably just go for a 3930K or 4930K and skip the quad core, and people looking for a quad would go with the 3770K
 

nenforcer

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2008
1,767
1
76
The X79 platform also had only 2 native SATA 3 6Gbps ports which like mentioned above was obsoleted by Z77, Z87 and Z97 until the X99 was released.

The hex core 3930K also only cost slightly more used nowadays as well and ran at 3.2GHz.
 

jimbob200521

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2005
4,108
29
91
The X79 platform also had only 2 native SATA 3 6Gbps ports which like mentioned above was obsoleted by Z77, Z87 and Z97 until the X99 was released.

The hex core 3930K also only cost slightly more used nowadays as well and ran at 3.2GHz.

Yeah, I could see that. That means manufactures have to add in extra chips (and costs) to get more features on the board. Then by the time you have an amazing board, you have a not so amazing price, hence why several top end boards were $400-$500+. No thank you.
 

CentroX

Senior member
Apr 3, 2016
351
152
116
I am really happy with my 4820K. Mainly because of the good overclock ability. I run it at 4.6 GHZ with no problems.
 

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
5,056
409
126
I am really happy with my 4820K. Mainly because of the good overclock ability. I run it at 4.6 GHZ with no problems.

it's a great CPU for sure, like an improved 3770K with quad channel, more PCIE lanes and without the TIM problem,

no reasons to be unhappy about it, but it's easy to understand why it didn't sell well compared to the 5820K and 3770K at the time.
 

CentroX

Senior member
Apr 3, 2016
351
152
116
it's a great CPU for sure, like an improved 3770K with quad channel, more PCIE lanes and without the TIM problem,

no reasons to be unhappy about it, but it's easy to understand why it didn't sell well compared to the 5820K and 3770K at the time.

5820K wasn't out when I bought my 4820K.
 

jimbob200521

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2005
4,108
29
91
I am really happy with my 4820K. Mainly because of the good overclock ability. I run it at 4.6 GHZ with no problems.

What kind of voltages are you running at that speed? I've read they will do 4.2ghz or so at stock voltages which makes me all kinds of giddy. Love the fact that I finally get to play with an unlocked CPU.

And part of me says "why bother overclocking something that is already more than you use?" but another loud mouthed part of me says "Ummm dude, you have liquid cooling and a CPU that will likely do 4.5ghz+. Is something wrong with you? Overclock!". So I may overclock.
 

nenforcer

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2008
1,767
1
76
5820K wasn't out when I bought my 4820K.

I actually like the 4820K better as a chip since it has 40 PCI-E Express lanes as opposed to the 28 in the 5820K. Granted, it has 2 less cores but you can run native SLI / Crossfire at full PCI-E 3.0 speeds without any additional PLX chips.
 

jimbob200521

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2005
4,108
29
91
Well, it looks like you're happier with the unlocked nature for overclocking than with the more cores you can get with that platform. But, just in case...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/SR0H8-INTEL...-60GHz-20M-8GT-s-115W-PROCESSOR-/281832966856

LOL.

Well don't you just suck! Moar coares!!!

That is damn tempting but...I'm having a hard time making an argument for not more cores here haah

Edit: Hah, found a reason! The Asus Rampage IV Black Edition doesn't officially support the E5 2670 but oddly enough it does support the 10 core e5 2670 v2.
 
Last edited:

escrow4

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2013
3,339
122
106
Not like it's a bad choice, just expensive to build the platform. Maybe one day I'll be able to snag a nice hexa core for an upgrade when prices go lower.

It was a bad choice. A coked up i7 masquerading as something else on higher end X79. If you wanted a hyper threaded quad buy the "mainstream" i7 otherwise go hexa. Its not surprising Intel never did something like that ever again.
 

jimbob200521

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2005
4,108
29
91
It was a bad choice. A coked up i7 masquerading as something else on higher end X79. If you wanted a hyper threaded quad buy the "mainstream" i7 otherwise go hexa. Its not surprising Intel never did something like that ever again.

Price aside, can you explain?
 

jpiniero

Lifer
Oct 1, 2010
14,510
5,159
136
If you wanted a hyper threaded quad buy the "mainstream" i7 otherwise go hexa. Its not surprising Intel never did something like that ever again.

There's a reason it was $200 cheaper than the 4930K. On Haswell-E they made the lowest HEDT 6 core but cut the PCIe lanes and that appears to be the same deal with Broadwell-E.
 

CentroX

Senior member
Apr 3, 2016
351
152
116
What kind of voltages are you running at that speed? I've read they will do 4.2ghz or so at stock voltages which makes me all kinds of giddy. Love the fact that I finally get to play with an unlocked CPU.

And part of me says "why bother overclocking something that is already more than you use?" but another loud mouthed part of me says "Ummm dude, you have liquid cooling and a CPU that will likely do 4.5ghz+. Is something wrong with you? Overclock!". So I may overclock.

I run it on 1.3 vcore.

Using Hyper 212 evo.

at 4.6 ghz it is stable. It works at higher clock, but system chrash in prime95.
 

lehtv

Elite Member
Dec 8, 2010
11,900
74
91
@escrow4 What do you mean "never did"? Never say never. There's only been one -E platform since 4820K.