What is comparable to the 4th Gen Intel i7 4770K?

BarkingGhostar

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2009
5,855
302
126
I guess I am asking in terms of the 9th Gen Intel and , maybe, even the AMD line. Of course I've never dealt with AMD for CPU before and that would be a wild first for me. My current system is five, maybe six, years old with a Gigabyte GA-Z87X-UD4H motherboard and 16GB of DDR3, GTX 1060 3GB and I don't PC game.

Surprisingly, my wife has an almost identically built system except with an i5 of the same generation and using embedded graphics on the same board, SSD, RAM, case, etc. and I can tell a performance difference.

I know I am using a four core, eight thread CPU and something like the 9700K would be 8/8 but I am not sure that I would notice the difference in performance by building a new system. I don't plan on using m.2, or embedded wireless, and I usually keep the case open as I frequently switch between SSDs to boot into various operating systems.

When I look at comparative websites it seems that the 4770K seems to be holding its own over time--still cannot believe its been 5-6 years.
 

ehume

Golden Member
Nov 6, 2009
1,428
50
91
Considering we went from i7 4770k to i7 4790k a year later, we add a year for what would otherwise be annual generational changes. And do I remember that the 5th generation was delayed, and the 6th did not make up the time lost? So there were a lot of years between i7 4770k and i3 10xxx -- 7 generations.

In any case, I am typing this on an i7 4770k system. I used an i7 4790k system for reviews until convex heatsinks ruined it for comparison purposes. My daughter now uses it for gaming. I moved on to an i7 8700k system. Although it did well as a 5GHz (all 6 cores) system, it did not seem any more capable than my i7 4770k. We are not seeing huge improvements in CPUs these days.

Both systems run Win 10-64, the 8700k natively and the 4770k downgraded from Win 7-64 (I find going from Win 7 to Win 10 to be going downhill).

So I'd say if you are considering moving on from your i7 4770k, don't. Save your money. Many will advise you to spring for an AMD. I'd wait. If you stick with Intel, wait: their current iteration of 10nm is inferior in desktops to 14++. We knew that would be the case years ago.

So bottom line: if you can afford to wait, wait.

BTW -- my daughter uses the i7 8700k with 64GB 3200MHz RAM to work with images on Adobe software, so the family still use both systems.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
18,362
5,680
136
I think that you will find that the $200 3600 from AMD is comparable to the I7-8700k, but $100 less. Its also on a more advanced platform, if you get an x570 motherboard, having PCIE 4.0
 

VirtualLarry

Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
44,788
3,829
126
It's a little bit funny, OP, but not really, since you admit that you've been kind of "out of the game" with respects to AMD's CPU advancements. You claim that you "don't game", and that's really the last bastion of performance that Intel has. For "productivity", which is what it sounds like you do with your PCs, AMD walks ALL OVER Intel, with 3rd-Gen Ryzen. Really.

So, if you want an upgrade, and you do productivity, you probably DO want an AMD CPU. Prices are really reasonable too, in comparison with similar-performance Intel CPUs (if they even exist).

Like Mark said, a lowly $200 Ryzen R5 3600 is comparible to an Intel i7-8700K, in many things (gaming, they are neck-and-neck), and productivity, I believe that the R5 3600 comes out ahead.

The 3700X (8C/16T) and 3900X (best "bin", 12C/24T), are MONSTERS for productivity work, on a mainstream platform (AM4).

ThreadRipper 3 series should be very impressive as well, but that won't be out for a while.
 

BarkingGhostar

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2009
5,855
302
126
One of the things that I experienced over the years was that with each new PC that I built, on average 18-month cycles, was that the ever newer versions of operating systems continuously needed more and more hardware. But I always found that to be more of a M$ thing than an Intel thing--when comparing to other solutions a la Linux. But like I said, I was stunned at the lack in enticement for performance between Gen9 9700K and Gen 4 4770K. No wonder the bulk of the western PC market has fallen. BTW, I'm not worried about $100 savings by going AMD over Intel. At this point if $100 was going to break me then I shouldn't be talking about upgrades.
 

ehume

Golden Member
Nov 6, 2009
1,428
50
91
One of the things that I experienced over the years was that with each new PC that I built, on average 18-month cycles, was that the ever newer versions of operating systems continuously needed more and more hardware. But I always found that to be more of a M$ thing than an Intel thing--when comparing to other solutions a la Linux. But like I said, I was stunned at the lack in enticement for performance between Gen9 9700K and Gen 4 4770K. No wonder the bulk of the western PC market has fallen. BTW, I'm not worried about $100 savings by going AMD over Intel. At this point if $100 was going to break me then I shouldn't be talking about upgrades.
You shouldn't be talking about upgrades. Put your money elsewhere. Just remember the (now decades old) ad, "Good things come to those who wait."
 

extide

Member
Nov 18, 2009
175
46
101
www.teraknor.net
One of the things that I experienced over the years was that with each new PC that I built, on average 18-month cycles, was that the ever newer versions of operating systems continuously needed more and more hardware. But I always found that to be more of a M$ thing than an Intel thing--when comparing to other solutions a la Linux. But like I said, I was stunned at the lack in enticement for performance between Gen9 9700K and Gen 4 4770K. No wonder the bulk of the western PC market has fallen. BTW, I'm not worried about $100 savings by going AMD over Intel. At this point if $100 was going to break me then I shouldn't be talking about upgrades.
It's not necessarily about saving money -- AMD actually has better products in many scenarios now. They also happen to typically be cheaper but even if they weren't, the same still applies.
 

VirtualLarry

Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
44,788
3,829
126
It's not necessarily about saving money -- AMD actually has better products in many scenarios now.
This.

Think of it this way. For gaming, specifically, 1st-Gen Ryzen CPUs, weren't all that much better, if they even were, than a decent Haswell rig. They had IPC between Haswell and Skylake, in most applications. The benefit there, of going with Ryzen, was both cost, and many-cores, compared to what you could get with Intel.

Now that Intel is now offering 6- and 8-core CPUs, Ryzen 3rd-gen has had to step up its game, and it has, with IPC that is IMHO better than Intel, and huge L3 caches (thanks to 7nm, they're actually ahead of Intel in terms of process technology, IMHO, although top-end frequency could be better), and parity in gaming, and BLOWING AWAY INTEL in productivity. I mean, Intel's not even close, for most applications.
(See some of the HardwareUnboxed YouTube reviews.)
 

ultimatebob

Lifer
Jul 1, 2001
21,197
515
126
For what it's worth, an Intel Core i3-9100 provides similar benchmark results to your existing 4770K processor.

Just in case you needed another reminder that technology hasn't improved as much as it should have over the past 6 years or so.
 

VirtualLarry

Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
44,788
3,829
126
For what it's worth, an Intel Core i3-9100 provides similar benchmark results to your existing 4770K processor.

Just in case you needed another reminder that technology hasn't improved as much as it should have over the past 6 years or so.
Yes, but the i3 is what, $100? Whereas, the 4770K was like, $358 or so?
 

BarkingGhostar

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2009
5,855
302
126
When I bought the 4770K it was within its first year and Microcenter had a special on it for $299 and I got another $50 off by buying the mobo with it. When i went back a week later to get another one it went back up in price.
 

ehume

Golden Member
Nov 6, 2009
1,428
50
91
When I bought the 4770K it was within its first year and Microcenter had a special on it for $299 and I got another $50 off by buying the mobo with it. When i went back a week later to get another one it went back up in price.
A bargain, considering how long it has lasted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NTMBK

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
12,828
312
126
4770k is still a fine CPU especially overclocked. Heck I think even the 2500K is more than enough for majority of everyday tasks. Think about what most people use on their laptops..
 

maddogmcgee

Senior member
Apr 20, 2015
230
82
101
4770k is still a fine CPU especially overclocked. Heck I think even the 2500K is more than enough for majority of everyday tasks. Think about what most people use on their laptops..
Yep. a 2500k at 4.3 and an SSD will run word and chrome just fine. I would go so far as to say they are overkill. Not a bad effort for such an old CPU. I just sold 6 2500 based computers I had lying around. Slow with hard drives but as soon as an SSD went in the one I was playing around with it became perfect for everyday tasks (even with the ancient ram it had).

I have a Haswell AIO at work with an SSD and I would not be able to tell the difference in performance between it and my 3700x for the stuff I do at work. Chrome tabs, word, Google sheets and ancient sites using internet explorer are all going to appear the same. The only thing I do wish it had was a better GPU. I have to turn MTG Arena down to 720p!
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,054
126
106
I think that you will find that the $200 3600 from AMD is comparable to the I7-8700k, but $100 less. Its also on a more advanced platform, if you get an x570 motherboard, having PCIE 4.0
For the most part, even x470 is a more advanced platform than z390. That whole skylake platform is just old now.
 

samboy

Member
Aug 17, 2002
157
8
81
I upgraded from a 4790k@4.5GHZ to a Ryzen 3900x @4.2GHZ (which is what the all core performance is)

Single threaded performance on the Ryzen is around 15% faster.

Multi-threaded performance can be a huge difference of 300% faster; with a big caveat that there are only a few workflows/applications that can take advantage of this. Most home users/gamers are probably not going to see these types of gains.

Like others have said; things have really not moved far on the processor front since Sandy Bridge for most users.

The newer motherboards do offer some advantages as well; I went with a x570 and this was decked out with 2xNVMe slots; 8 Sata ports and plenty of PCIe expansion slots. The x570 is a bit more pricey (a common complaint) but it comes with PCIe 4.0 and removes many of the restrictions that the earlier MB's had (e.g. plug in a second NVMe drive and have it run at half speed or lose a PCIe slot or loose the last couple of SATA ports etc).

My recommendation is to stick with your 4770k unless you have some workflow/application that can take advantage of extra cores (Intel or AMD) or the new MB features are something you want.
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
5,520
721
126
I was going to say stay put, if you're not doing anything intensive 4770k is still plenty fast enough.

But then I remembered that 4770k/Z87 still fetch good money on eBay. I made the jump to Ryzen, and I sold 4770k for around $200 on ebay, and AsRock Z87 Extreme4 for $95. It's insane how well they held their value after 5 years. Point being, if you don't mind the hassle of parting out and selling your old intel stuff on ebay and building a new one, you can get a much more modern Ryzen system for less than $200 out of pocket after selling your old rig. I'd say it's worth it, but again it depends if you want to deal with the hassle or not.
 

ultimatebob

Lifer
Jul 1, 2001
21,197
515
126
Yes, but the i3 is what, $100? Whereas, the 4770K was like, $358 or so?
Yeah... it's still depressing how slow processor technology advances nowadays.

If you turn back the clock 30 years, you didn't have a lot of people saying "I don't need that new 486 processor, my 6 year old 286 is fast enough" :)
 

ehume

Golden Member
Nov 6, 2009
1,428
50
91
I am typing this on my 4770k -- and using the iGPU. No graphics card here.
 

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
4,862
294
126
Ryzen 2400G is directly comparable to i7-4770K
around that level but the Zen "APUs" are a little slower than regular Ryzen because of the smaller l3 cache, and the 4770K can OC more, so I think the 4770K is superior (excluding the IGP obviously)

Haswell was quite good, and feels pretty current tbh, it supports AVX2 which anything older doesn't
 

VirtualLarry

Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
44,788
3,829
126
Haswell was quite good, and feels pretty current tbh, it supports AVX2 which anything older doesn't
I agree with that, but I didn't realize that Haswell introduced AVX2. Are you sure about that? I don't really recall an "AVX offset" setting in Haswell-era boards. I knew that Skylake had that setting, I think.
 

rbk123

Senior member
Aug 22, 2006
636
178
116
What apps are you running? If you aren't running heavily threaded, CPU crunching apps like Handbrake, etc... than I would agree with ehume and don't upgrade, just wait.
 

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
4,862
294
126
I agree with that, but I didn't realize that Haswell introduced AVX2. Are you sure about that? I don't really recall an "AVX offset" setting in Haswell-era boards. I knew that Skylake had that setting, I think.
I'm not sure about the AVX offset thing, maybe Skylake introduced that aspect of it, but not having that doesn't mean it didn't support the instruction,
because it did,

(from some 4770K review)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY