• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

4930K benchys early look. Conclusion.. Meh.

cheesyboy said:
Tom's did a benchmark review on an eng-sample 4960X last month;
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-4960x-ivy-bridge-e-benchmark,3557.html

They weren't exactly blown away
Click to expand...

Thanks for that link, having a read.

*Edit* The 49XX series has def got better power use, so that is good but noticed how the 4770K is faster than the 4960X in 3Dmark 11 benchmark (GPU performance). The improved IPC has a big effect on GPU performance. Also wins some of the software benchmarks. It makes the 4930K and 4960X seem even more of a pointless upgrade for the target 'enthusiast' in the face of better gaming performance on 4770K at less power use? Can anyone honestly say that a 4960X is worth 3 times the cost of a 4770K while performing less in gaming? Plus losing some software benchmarks and consuming more power?

The conclusion pretty much sums it up..

it doesn’t push performance high enough to warrant a big price tag. Any interest in a Core i7-4820K? I’d be more inclined to bet on a -4770K/Z87 platform, if only for the newer chipset’s extra functionality.
Click to expand...

We need AMD to bring it with Steamroller :p.
 
Boomstick777 said:
Thanks for that link, having a read.

*Edit* The 49XX series has def got better power use, so that is good but noticed how the 4770K is faster than the 4960X in 3Dmark 11 benchmark (GPU performance). The improved IPC has a big effect on GPU performance. Also wins some of the software benchmarks. It makes the 4930K and 4960X seem even more of a pointless upgrade for the target 'enthusiast' in the face of better gaming performance on 4770K at less power use? Can anyone honestly say that a 4960X is worth 3 times the cost of a 4770K while performing less in gaming? Plus losing some software benchmarks and consuming more power?

The conclusion pretty much sums it up..



We need AMD to bring it with Steamroller :p.
Click to expand...

That test is not really relevant to most enthusiasts. Seriously, testing this setup with 1600MHz memory and at stock speeds is just wrong and will not take advantage of the new X79 4-series chips improved IMC (with 2666+MHz quad channel memory, the results will be very different). Also overclocking is likely to be better and at lower voltage. Also, even at stock, the physics scores are much better than the 3930k/3970x (and vastly better than 4770k). The new X79 chips will also have proper PCI-E 3.0 support, lower power consumption and at the lower end a fully unlocked 4820k chip. Those who want to upgrade will be able to do so if they sell their 3930k chips for most likely less than £100.

I really don't see what's not to like.
 
Last edited:
alex_123_fra said:
That test is not really relevant to most enthusiasts. Seriously, testing this setup with 1600MHz memory and at stock speeds is just wrong and will not take advantage of the new X79 4-series chips improved IMC (with 2666+MHz quad channel memory, the results will be very different). Also overclocking is likely to be better and at lower voltage. Also, even at stock, the physics scores are much better than the 3930k/3970x (and vastly better than 4770k). The new X79 chips will also have proper PCI-E 3.0 support, lower power consumption and at the lower end a fully unlocked 4820k chip. Those who want to upgrade will be able to do so if they sell their 3930k chips for most likely less than £100.

I really don't see what's not to like.
Click to expand...

The real use for a 4930k and 4960x will be multi GPUs, if you try and run 4 Titans with an average 4770k it just won't cope.
 
I think we should wait and see how the 4930K is when retail chips start arriving and some proper reviews are published. It is very hard to say what is best without all the facts.

We have seen a trend with Ivy and more so with Haswell where the ability of each CPU can vary widely. Sandy was much more consistent - most people could get a 4.8GHz clock and many 5GHz plus. With Ivy and now Haswell it is only a few chips that can do these speeds and although a Haswell at 4.6GHz should benchmark about the same as a Sandy at 5GHz the fact remains that there is a very wide variance in what people can get from the 4770K.

I would not be surprised to see the 4930K suffer from the same - some will be good while others not so. clocking is becoming more of a lottery with the latest Intel chips. In my experience it does not matter how good or determined you are, you will either have a good clocking chip or you won't.

There is no doubting that Haswell is more modern and efficient architecture and therefore all other things being equal it should offer better performance clock for clock. the 4930K will have 2 more physical cores, Quad Channel memory and the ability for native x16 SLI. Is this enough to better the 4770K? My guess is that it all depends upon the chip and how well they clock... so back to the lottery.

If you set out wanting a 4.8GHz processor running SLI and with ram at 2600MHz lets say...
and that you manage to get that clock on both a 4770K and a 4930K with the 4930K benefiting from Quad channel and dual x16 SLI - then I would say performance in general will be about the same, with the 4930K having the increased performance for rendering and other highly multi threaded tasks.

So the 4770K is cheaper and a very good bet.
If you just want the best and most powerful then the 4930K should be better, but not by much except for in certain applications.

But all this is totally dependent on how lucky you are with either or both chips.
 
I would be a lot more interested if they were 8 core, hopefully we should see 6 core mainstream and 8 core enthusiast CPU soon. Not that you will need it for gaming until the PS4 and Xbox have been out a year or two. Not sure when we will be seeing those though.
 
alex_123_fra said:
That test is not really relevant to most enthusiasts. Seriously, testing this setup with 1600MHz memory and at stock speeds is just wrong and will not take advantage of the new X79 4-series chips improved IMC (with 2666+MHz quad channel memory, the results will be very different). Also overclocking is likely to be better and at lower voltage. Also, even at stock, the physics scores are much better than the 3930k/3970x (and vastly better than 4770k). The new X79 chips will also have proper PCI-E 3.0 support, lower power consumption and at the lower end a fully unlocked 4820k chip. Those who want to upgrade will be able to do so if they sell their 3930k chips for most likely less than £100.

I really don't see what's not to like.
Click to expand...

FFS im back and forth back and forth between both.What do you guys think is the problem then or reason why boomsticks score jumped?


PCI-E 3.0 on a 780? Boomstick fancy running the same benchmark at PCIE 2.0 on the 4770k? Surely that would not account for a 400 odd jump in gfx score? This is really important to be as Intel now seem to be hinting that Broadwell will not be the Broadwell we expected just from Sandy to IVY they are mentioning LGA sockets again and a Haswell refresh for desktop :mad:


And while swayed by the obvious better physics scores (BF4 FPS seems tied to this) the increased GFX performance he got on the same card from 39xx to 4770k has me wondering just if Haswell really is the better choice.If GFX scores really are higher and broadwell comes with another 10% increase then i would go 4770k to be honest.But alas im still confused due to boomstick and the latest broadwell news.Please run the benchmark again boomstick!
 
Last edited:
The biggest disappointment for me is that Intel haven't bothered to give ivy-e a new chipset. As good as x79 is with its pcie lanes and quad channel memory it's two years old and only has 2 native sata6 ports and no native usb3.0 ports. I am pretty surprised at this move from Intel on what is their lead platform and that's ignoring the fact that the CPU tech is one generation behind their mainstream platform which has Haswell.
 
BTW i worked it out as a 3% difference in the graphics score.So with 1600mhz dual haswell vs 2133mhz quad 39xx there was a 3% increase in his graphics score.I have heard of people saying it is 5% on dual cards so i think it could just be PCI express 2.0.
 
Was reading over on overclock.net and saw that one US shop already has these in stock and for sale. $609 which is £390 at todays exchange rate. Add on 20% VAT = £469, same price as 3930K. As long as reviews show these to clock as well their predecessors and my motherboard supports it then I'm in.
 
Rofflay said:
And while swayed by the obvious better physics scores (BF4 FPS seems tied to this) the increased GFX performance he got on the same card from 39xx to 4770k has me wondering just if Haswell really is the better choice.If GFX scores really are higher and broadwell comes with another 10% increase then i would go 4770k to be honest.But alas im still confused due to boomstick and the latest broadwell news.Please run the benchmark again boomstick!
Click to expand...

For a single graphics card it is a non contest, Haswell is the one to have.
 
Rofflay said:
FFS im back and forth back and forth between both.What do you guys think is the problem then or reason why boomsticks score jumped?


PCI-E 3.0 on a 780? Boomstick fancy running the same benchmark at PCIE 2.0 on the 4770k? Surely that would not account for a 400 odd jump in gfx score? This is really important to be as Intel now seem to be hinting that Broadwell will not be the Broadwell we expected just from Sandy to IVY they are mentioning LGA sockets again and a Haswell refresh for desktop :mad:


And while swayed by the obvious better physics scores (BF4 FPS seems tied to this) the increased GFX performance he got on the same card from 39xx to 4770k has me wondering just if Haswell really is the better choice.If GFX scores really are higher and broadwell comes with another 10% increase then i would go 4770k to be honest.But alas im still confused due to boomstick and the latest broadwell news.Please run the benchmark again boomstick!
Click to expand...

I've run it twice already lol.

One system had 3960X @ 4.7Ghz

Other system had 4770K @ 4.6Ghz

The 3960X wins on Physx, the 4770K wins on GPU performance. The overall score is very similar. Same memory, 1600Mhz on Haswell 4770K, 2133Mhz on X79 3960X.

Conclusion:

Haswell is cheaper and faster at gaming, if you want a gaming PC you can't go wrong with 4770K, if you want a workstation type rig go with 4930K on X79. For encoding and things it will be faster. Overall the X79 doesn't justify it's extra price over the 4770K. Save yourself some money and enjoy the extra GPU performance from a Haswell setup. With the money saved you could buy better SSD or GPU..
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom