Is the 3930K really worth £200 more than the 3820?

[ChileanLlama]

Brilliant hypocrisy there my friend. You defend the need for 6 cores on the basis that a few high end specialist applications will take advantage of them but then can't think why anyone would need 1GB write speeds (and presumably the 1GB read speeds you get too)

So as a video encoder I would presume you work with rather large files? Do you not thinking opening a 2GB file in 2 seconds would be better than 4 seconds without RAID or 15 seconds with a Barracuda HD?

I'll never dispute the benefits of SSDs, but where do your timings come from?

And unless your SSD can hold all your data files for encoding then at some stage there will be need to be a transfer to "slow" platter drives. Additionally, writing out the re-encoded file will be limited by how fast your CPU can re-encode so even with 6 cores the SSD advantage is removed.

If all your encoding files can always be held on a 240GB SSD array, then you're not doing enough to warrant either a 3930 or 3820!

Have you also factored in that with heavy use of an SSD RAID that TRIM will not be active and you would need to break the RAID and clean the drives, otherwise performance will degrade (fairly quickly once the drives are getting filled on a regular basis - maybe 12 months maximum, but more likely much sooner if that is the prime use of the machine).

 

[andybird123]

I'll never dispute the benefits of SSDs, but where do your timings come from?

yeah, link please to show where an SSD can get 500mb sequential write speed and that that translates directly into 1GB when in raid

500mb read speed maybe occaisionally, but 500mb write speed, not possible unless you are talking PCIe RAID SSD's and then you are talking $2000, so good job trying to convince me of $1500 of extra value on an extra 400mb of write speed when you are quibling over £100-200 of "value" on a 30-50% faster CPU

 

[estebanrey]

erm... the K series processors come multiplier unlocked... meaning that Intel fully expect you to go overclocking them... they even offer additional warranty that will cover you even if it fails while OC'd

so having paid that extra money for what intel deem to be an overclocking processor, why is it suddenly "unfair" to make use of it and use that as a comparison

I'll explain again

It's not unfair if you want to compare an OC'd 3930K to an OC'd 3820 at the same OCing rate. So if you want to compare a 3930K OC'd at 4Ghz with a 3820 then you should comapre it to one running at 4.5Ghz as then you are comparing both of them with an equal 25% overclock.

Comparing a 25% OC'd 3930K at 4GHz with an 11% OC'd 3820 at 4GHz isn't unless you are only interested in difference between 6 cores and 4. If you're looking to compare them for overall power and performance though you should equalise the amount of OCing you are doing on both.

my motherboard was the cheapest X79 on sale and it also had all the features I wanted, so that saved me over £100 on buying a motherboard that does support BCLK that would allow the 3820 to stretch it's legs

Firstly, saving £200 and spending £100 more still leaves you £100 better off so I don't get the argument really.

Secondly, what do mean your mobo doesn't "support" bclk overclocking?

so in my case your rather wonky to begin with logic goes straight out the window, as the 3820 wouldn't overclock at all, where as my 3930K goes to 4.5ghz easily with just a multiplier change and a small voltage tweak

Yes I'm the one with wonky logic despite the fact you've just admitted you could have spent £100 less on a decent mobo and just got a 3820...how does that work.

And stop it with the cr*p about a 3820 not being able to OC "at all" on your mobo. I don't believe there are any X79 boards that are that ****...even the cheapest board is still made to "enthusiast" standards.

considering I also got a good price on the 3930k, I actually paid the same if not less than you for my system and yet you are trying to tell me that mine is not good value and isn't a goodly % faster than yours...

For the 8000th time, I am not trying to tell you personally anything, I am asking for MOST PEOPLE (who are looking at X79) is the extra £200 worth it. There have been some sensible answers so far about the when you need it and when you don't which are all valid, stop taking the question as an attack on your personal choice to buy one...jeez!

every comparison I've seen of overclocking the 2 show that they oc to within 1-200mhz of each other on the same system/cooler... 200mhz is pretty negligible at 4.5-4.8ghz so then it does come back to 50% extra core...

am I making full use of all 6 cores currently? maybe not, but considering I went X79 purely on the basis of extra PCIe 3.0 lanes with a view to SLI performance, and given that 2500k users do seem to be hitting CPU bottlenecks with a pair of GTX680's, it may not be all that long before my 3930k shows it's true face

Being X79 (and thus also PCI-E 3) the 3820 would also provide you that (staying on topic).

you also keep saying £200 as if it's a hard and fast number, but depending on where you go looking the price differential between a 3820 and 3930k can be as little as £140... knock £100 off for not needing an uber overclocking board to be able to do BCLK clocking and all of a sudden you're in the realms of £50 price difference between a 3820 system @ 4.8Ghz and a 3930K system @ 4.5Ghz... I know which I'd rather have

I think your making way too much out of your mobo argument my friend. I have the Saberooth, not the Rampage Extreme and I'm fine OCing. Don't implying that you need a ROG level mobo to be able to OC a 3820.

or you can just go ahead and keep sticking on more and more provisos to limit the scope of your comparison so that it makes it basically meaningless
If you buy the hardware from supplier X and you MUST buy this motherboard and THIS cooler and you only run these 3 apps and the maximum OC you can do is Z%, THEN the 3820 is better value "in my opinion"

Ha ha, I'm doing the exact opposit of shifting the goal posts, I'm doing the scientific thing and creating constants for fair comparisons.

It is others who want to compare a 12% OC'd 3930K with a non-OC'd 3820 or compare the price of 3820 on OCUK with a 3930K they've seen being sold on eBay to prove the price difference isn't £200.

 

[ChileanLlama]

Please tell us your definition of "most people". What "most people" do with their computers and finally what "most people" have as their budget for PC's?

Without your definition this is a pointless discussion. My view of "most people" would not need a quad for their day to day tasks, let alone a high end x79 platform.

So by the same virtue is an £800-£1000 3820 system "worth" it when a £300-400 i3 laptop/system will be more than enough for "most people"

 

[estebanrey]

yeah, link please to show where an SSD can get 500mb sequential write speed and that that translates directly into 1GB when in raid

500mb read speed maybe occaisionally, but 500mb write speed, not possible unless you are talking PCIe RAID SSD's and then you are talking $2000, so good job trying to convince me of $1500 of extra value on an extra 400mb of write speed when you are quibling over £100-200 of "value" on a 30-50% faster CPU

I'll give you that when I see the link showing a 3930K performing 50% better than a 3820 in any task.

I was using the same simple maths many people on here are using when they throw aroun statements like the 3930K is 50% more powerful because it has 50% more cores.

There are numerous factors in how fast a write time will be, just like there are numerous factors that decide whther 6 cores will add any performance in any given task. But it seems I'm the one who has to take that into consideration.

Anyway, my timing (2 seconds to open a 2GB file) was based on READ speeds originally so I dunno why you are trying to attack me on the write speed.

Either way my original point remains (even if you don't like the timings I gave), a RAID SSD set up will provide with double (100% increase) the read/write speeds of a single one so to say I'm a fool for spending £100 to double my performance in that area whilst it's sensible to spend £200 to maybe add 50% in others in just silly (which wasn't you saying that btw but someone else did).

 

[ChileanLlama]

I'll never dispute the benefits of SSDs, but where do your timings come from?

And unless your SSD can hold all your data files for encoding then at some stage there will be need to be a transfer to "slow" platter drives. Additionally, writing out the re-encoded file will be limited by how fast your CPU can re-encode so even with 6 cores the SSD advantage is removed.

If all your encoding files can always be held on a 240GB SSD array, then you're not doing enough to warrant either a 3930 or 3820!

Have you also factored in that with heavy use of an SSD RAID that TRIM will not be active and you would need to break the RAID and clean the drives, otherwise performance will degrade (fairly quickly once the drives are getting filled on a regular basis - maybe 12 months maximum, but more likely much sooner if that is the prime use of the machine).

I'll give you that when I see the link showing a 3930K performing 50% better than a 3820 in any task.

I was using the same simple maths many people on here are using when they throw aroun statements like the 3930K is 50% more powerful because it has 50% more cores.

There are numerous factors in how fast a write time will be, just like there are numerous factors that decide whther 6 cores will add any performance in any given task. But it seems I'm the one who has to take that into consideration.

Anyway, my timing (2 seconds to open a 2GB file) was based on READ speeds originally so I dunno why you are trying to attack me on the write speed.

Either way my original point remains (even if you don't like the timings I gave), a RAID SSD set up will provide with double (100% increase) the read/write speeds of a single one so to say I'm a fool for spending £100 to double my performance in that area whilst it's sensible to spend £200 to maybe add 50% in others in just silly (which wasn't you saying that btw but someone else did).

Rubbish. You won't get 100% increase, there is always some overhead.

Also your example does not reflect the end-to-end workflow. How does the file get on the SSD, how does the file get off the SSD? In any event the time saved in loading (seconds) will be dwarfed by the time saved (mins/hours) of an application that can take advantage of additional cores.

And your argument is wholly based on making a choice between a 3930K and an SSD RAID0. That may be true for you, and some 3930K owners, but not necessarily true for all.

Please tell us your definition of "most people". What "most people" do with their computers and finally what "most people" have as their budget for PC's?

Without your definition this is a pointless discussion. My view of "most people" would not need a quad for their day to day tasks, let alone a high end x79 platform.

So by the same virtue is an £800-£1000 3820 system "worth" it when a £300-400 i3 laptop/system will be more than enough for "most people"

Please answer.

 

[estebanrey]

Rubbish. You won't get 100% increase, there is always some overhead.

Also your example does not reflect the end-to-end workflow. How does the file get on the SSD, how does the file get off the SSD? In any event the time saved in loading (seconds) will be dwarfed by the time saved (mins/hours) of an application that can take advantage of additional cores.

I agree but the same little nuances go for the 6 core over 4 core debate and my point is why am I attacked for using simple maths but it's OK to throw the 50% figure around?

And your argument is wholly based on making a choice between a 3930K and an SSD RAID0. That may be true for you, and some 3930K owners, but not necessarily true for all.

There is no 'argument' on that front, I was merely reacting to someone (quite rudely) telling me I'm an idiot for buying the extra SSD. It was a response to him and what he said. Nothing to do with anyone else.

Please answer.

When I said most people, I obviously meant most people who build an X79 rig. Maybe I should have made that clearer but then if I'd have meant 'most people' in general then 'most people' (globally) can't even afford a PC at all.

 

[Zuban]

being honest i think the answer is there is no answer. this thread could run and run and run.....

 

[ChileanLlama]

I agree but the same little nuances go for the 6 core over 4 core debate and my point is why am I attacked for using simple maths but it's OK to throw the 50% figure around?

I've not thrown 50% figures around at all, but assume that's not aimed at me.

There is no 'argument' on that front, I was merely reacting to someone (quite rudely) telling me I'm an idiot for buying the extra SSD. It was a response to him and what he said. Nothing to do with anyone else.

Fair enough. Please bear in mind what I said about TRIM though for your own reference

When I said most people, I obviously meant most people who build an X79 rig. Maybe I should have made that clearer but then if I'd have meant 'most people' in general then 'most people' (globally) can't even afford a PC at all.

Ok, that's a very specific subset. I think that has been answered, at least I have tried to already, it's a very niche market and for those that are using software that can use the extra cores it's quite justifiable. You would also need to consider that most x79 systems will probably be bought by professional studios/architects/etc that will benefit from extra cores - and save them money, and that the enthusiasts will be a fairly small %age of x79 owners.

Of that small %age there will be undoubtedly those that use and can justify the extra cores and those that have wasted their money as they'll never use it.

I think you've found in this thread that those with a 3930K can justify their purchase, in the same way you can justify your 3820 + SSD RAID0 + GTX680. You're not likely to hear from the ones who didn't need a 3930 but bought one anyway

 

[andybird123]

I'll explain again

It's not unfair if you want to compare an OC'd 3930K to an OC'd 3820 at the same OCing rate. So if you want to compare a 3930K OC'd at 4Ghz with a 3820 then you should comapre it to one running at 4.5Ghz as then you are comparing both of them with an equal 25% overclock.

I really don't understand why you want to hobble the 3930K in order to "prove" that the 3820 is better "value"... as mentioned, the 3930k will easily hit 4.5ghz and the 3820 if you are lucky will hit 4.8ghz, so why not compare them at their max OC's... plus, using a % OC is inherently unfair as the 300mhz advantage of the 3820 becomes 500mhz at 25% where as linearly it should maintain a 300mhz advantage... which is exactly what you get at their easy/max OC's of 4.5 and 4.8... saying that the 3820 comparison is only "fair" if you let it keep a fixed % is bobbins

Comparing a 25% OC'd 3930K at 4GHz with an 11% OC'd 3820 at 4GHz isn't unless you are only interested in difference between 6 cores and 4. If you're looking to compare them for overall power and performance though you should equalise the amount of OCing you are doing on both.

I'm not saying we should fix both at 4GHZ, I'm saying we should test both at their reasonable max OC (e.g. ignoring extreme measures like water or LN2 cooling, but both processors on decent air cooling

Firstly, saving £200 and spending £100 more still leaves you £100 better off so I don't get the argument really.

Secondly, what do mean your mobo doesn't "support" bclk overclocking?

well, all of a sudden, £100 extra for 2 extra cores and a processor that OC's easily within 5% of the other is not anywhere near the "poor value" you seem to be attributing to 3930k

And stop it with the cr*p about a 3820 not being able to OC "at all" on your mobo. I don't believe there are any X79 boards that are that ****...even the cheapest board is still made to "enthusiast" standards.

Gigabyte X79-UD3, google it and see how people are complaining that it doesn't handle BCLK overclocking - because I tried it, it doesn't work and then on searching I found lots of people complaining and Gigabyte saying they would fix it but haven't

Being X79 (and thus also PCI-E 3) the 3820 would also provide you that (staying on topic).

yes, but with only 4 cores and other SLI users showing CPU limitation with only 4 cores, you would in fairly short shrift be looking at upgrading the 3820 anyway

I think your making way too much out of your mobo argument my friend. I have the Saberooth, not the Rampage Extreme and I'm fine OCing. Don't implying that you need a ROG level mobo to be able to OC a 3820.

I have a £150 mobo, you have a £275 motherboard... I consider your board to be unneccesarily expensive when compared to mine

It is others who want to compare a 12% OC'd 3930K with a non-OC'd 3820 or compare the price of 3820 on OCUK with a 3930K they've seen being sold on eBay to prove the price difference isn't £200.

no, my price comparison is with both processors being bought from the same reatailer at the cheapest prices I can find on the net, although obviously it would be against OCUK's terms to mention the retailer or the prices specifically, your "must be % OC" is also not scientific or fair because by the time you reach the max OC on the 3930K, the 3820 would physically not be able to maintain that same % higher than the 3930k

 

[estebanrey]

Fair enough. Please bear in mind what I said about TRIM though for your own reference

I would if my SSDs didn't support Native TRIM support, but they do

 

[cmndr_andi]

I think he means that when in a RAID array the TRIM command doesn't work (even if the drive would normally support TRIM).

 

[ChileanLlama]

I think he means that when in a RAID array the TRIM command doesn't work (even if the drive would normally support TRIM).

Thanks Andi, that's exactly what I was talking about.

There are no drivers yet (to my knowledge) that support passing the TRIM command over RAID. Most drives will support it, but it needs three components to work. The drive, the operating system and the interface controller drivers.

Without these 3 elements, as the drive is used it does not clean the used cells until they are needed, this results in degradation as the drive has to clean the cell, then perform the write at the same time. TRIM allows the cells to be cleaned in the background.

From my experience it's about 12 months before this becomes really noticeable but if you're using it with a lot of large files for re-encoding then expect it to occur much sooner.

 

[estebanrey]

well, all of a sudden, £100 extra for 2 extra cores and a processor that OC's easily within 5% of the other is not anywhere near the "poor value" you seem to be attributing to 3930k

Please show me where I've used the words 'poor value' in regard to the 3930K. If you can't I'd appreciate it if you remove those quotation marks from your post.

My only point of discussion has always been whether the 3930K is worth the extra £200 to most people looking to upgrade to 2011. I've never claimed nor implied the 3930K is a poor value CPU.

Gigabyte X79-UD3, google it and see how people are complaining that it doesn't handle BCLK overclocking - because I tried it, it doesn't work and then on searching I found lots of people complaining and Gigabyte saying they would fix it but haven't

Fine but that's a fault with that model of mobo not a general indication of OCing on a budget board. The Asrock X79 Extreme 4 board is cheaper than the UD3 and doesn't suffer from the same issue it seems so your original point about the 3820 not overclocking on cheap boards isn't true.

yes, but with only 4 cores and other SLI users showing CPU limitation with only 4 cores, you would in fairly short shrift be looking at upgrading the 3820 anyway

More cores doesn't mean better SLi performance. Here's a benchmark from an SLI'd system using an 4 core i5 against a 6 core Phenom and whilst the Phenom wins the encoding type tasks, the gaming based marks are all taken by the smaller cored i5.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/109?vs=203

I have a £150 mobo, you have a £275 motherboard... I consider your board to be unneccesarily expensive when compared to mine

That's fine, I respect your opinion.

Personally I don't like underestimating the need for a good mobo. I remember the guy who got me into building PCs telling me "You can upgrade anything in your PC except the motherboard"

I see the motherboard as the main part of the PC, the chassis of the car if you like. There's no point attaching a big engine to poor chassis.

I can easily upgrade my CPU to a 3930K, 3960X or IB-E failry easily, with only a re-install of Windows needed. You would need to completely rebuild your PC if you upgraded your mobo. That's why I personally always pay that bit extra for the Mobo, I can upgrade the CPU later if I need to but you're stuck with your mobo.

 

[paradigm]

Intel say they have a way of doing it (keeping TRIM for RAID arrays) for their next integrated raid/sata controller, but I'm not sure if that will be for Intel SSDs only?

 

[ChileanLlama]

Intel say they have a way of doing it (keeping TRIM for RAID arrays) for their next integrated raid/sata controller, but I'm not sure if that will be for Intel SSDs only?

Hopefully yes, but I've been hearing that for 2 years now. GC on the drives is another option, but relies on being in a powered on idle state to work. The OP has already indicated they prefer to power down the machine when not in use, so that probably won't be doing it's job either.

 

[ChileanLlama]

I can easily upgrade my CPU to a 3930K, 3960X or IB-E failry easily, with only a re-install of Windows needed. You would need to completely rebuild your PC if you upgraded your mobo. That's why I personally always pay that bit extra for the Mobo, I can upgrade the CPU later if I need to but you're stuck with your mobo.

No.

You wouldn't need to reinstall Windows to change CPU. Similarly you probably wouldn't need to reinstall Windows for changing the motherboard, especially if it was x79 to x79 and you used the same drive controllers (i.e. Intel to Intel).

 

[estebanrey]

Thanks Andi, that's exactly what I was talking about.

There are no drivers yet (to my knowledge) that support passing the TRIM command over RAID. Most drives will support it, but it needs three components to work. The drive, the operating system and the interface controller drivers.

Without these 3 elements, as the drive is used it does not clean the used cells until they are needed, this results in degradation as the drive has to clean the cell, then perform the write at the same time. TRIM allows the cells to be cleaned in the background.

From my experience it's about 12 months before this becomes really noticeable but if you're using it with a lot of large files for re-encoding then expect it to occur much sooner.

Ahhh I see, thanks for the info.

How much degradation is there though and what effect would it have on the performance of my SSDs? I only ask because people often warn against degradation of the CPU at high voltages which although true, would take something like 8 years of use at full load before you'd have to worry about upping the voltages so if it's a similar thing for SSDs I'm not that bothered as I expect in 3 or 4 years my SSDs will be crud compared to the ones then and I'll probably end up trading them anyway.

EDIT: In November last year Intel were apparently close to giving TRIM on RAID, not heard anything since though...

http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/21/trim-or-raid-0-ssd-owners-will-no-longer-have-to-choose/

 

[ChileanLlama]

Ahhh I see, thanks for the info.

How much degradation is there though and what effect would it have on the performance of my SSDs? I only ask because people often warn against degradation of the CPU at high voltages which although true, would take something like 8 years of use at full load before you'd have to worry about upping the voltages so if it's a similar thing for SSDs I'm not that bothered as I expect in 3 or 4 years my SSDs will be crud compared to the ones then and I'll probably end up trading them anyway.

It becomes noticeable. Everything slows down, not to hard drive levels, but noticeable! The SSDs are basically having to complete two operations every time you write, instead of one, so for writes consider it half the speed it should be. It won't affect reads.

The degradation is not related to lifespan directly. It can be resolved by cleaning the drives, but this requires breaking the RAID0, running them in IDE/AHCI mode as single drives with either an application or attached to a Win 7 system so they can run TRIM.

Obviously the lifespan will be affected by the number of times you write files to them whether they are in RAID0 or not. Personally I wouldn't worry too much about that unless you're writing many multi GB files on a daily basis.

I wouldn't worry about 3 to 4 years unless you're really hammering them.

 

[estebanrey]

They're just being used as boot drives and temp storage for larger files I'm working on at the time. I use my 2 HDDs (not in RAID) to store my data on.

I tend to bin old PC equipment so I'm not too worry about re-sale value or anything. As long as it lasts me 4 years without major degradation I'm happy (for any component).