i7 4790k or i7 5820k

[jakesnake]

Longevity for me also means being able to build around a core that wont bottleneck you anytime soon. What happens when better optimized gpu's come out and your wanting to put 2 into a system along with a better optimized 4k monitor. I don't want to be looking at new board cpu and ram. I would feel a little safer with an extra 2 cores and bigger pcie bandwidth so everything can perform to its max. That's when this extra £150 will start to pay off. I think a Haswell-E core will still be a power house in 5 years when your adding these new gen parts on.

Add: Again I will point you towards the 1366 X58 Xeon thread. 4790k vs Haswell-E is the i5 vs 1366 all over again. Its hilarious that some of the guys who are bashing HE are running to buy x58 boards and Xeons. Im sure they are the guys who choose the i5 back then.

 

[Boomstick777]

Had a Z97 + 4790K, moved to X99 + 5820K when it launched and it's a much nicer setup imho. Didn't cost much at all over Z97 tbh, the extra 2 cores / threads and DDR4 support give you extra longevity imho. Basically 50% more CPU for similar money to Z97 + 4790K.

So yeah as someone who as used both X99 is the better of the two imho.

 

[Doomedspeed]

I don't want to get to deep guys but what is longevity? How do we know what's going to be around the corner?.

I have a good example, the move from CDs to MP3. When I was 11/12 I got an MP3 player for Christmas, this is when they were basically new tech. Alit of my friends got mini disc players, again new tech. They ridiculed me for weeks for jumping on the 'wrong fornat' as mini discs would be the successor, even some magazines at the time said the same thing...

Now look.. Can you get U2's new album (or anything) on mini disc? no.

My point is new tech is arkward, especially with hardware, as it the software developers who ultimately decide which is right.

It is (and it is!) wrong to thinking that spending an extra £150-£200 on extra cores and higher bandwidth RAM will set you up better for the future, because we don't know. Yes we can look at patterns like the move from single to daul then daul to quad core and logically assume that hex core is the next step up.

The sensible choice is to work off what is better currently, being the 4790k. Gaming wise its always going to rely on core speed, that will never change. The fact is the 4790k has more core speed (power) than the 5820k is what (currently) makes it the better gaming CPU currently.

EDIT: I've thought of another analogy.

Lewis Hamilton, he left McLaren in their prime (challenging high up) to join struggling new comers Mercedes. Now look at Button and Hamilton.. He gambled on something being better siuted to new guideline and succeeded.

 

[Boomstick777]

^^


Yeah apart from the 4790K isn't better than a 5820K for gaming, even with both chips at stock there is no difference in speed between 4790K '4.0Ghz > 4.4Ghz' or 5820K '3.3Ghz > 3.6Ghz' as neither chip is holding games back, they are GPU limited. At 4.7Ghz the 4790K gains a whole extra fps against the stock 3.3Ghz>3.6Ghz 5820K

Spoiler

When it comes to encoding, and other progs the 4790K will never catch the 5820K extra two cores / threads. So yes in terms of longevity a 6 core / 12 thread with DDR4 is a better platform. Let's not forget the 5820K overclocks as well..

But then why listen to someone who has actually used both...

Also in terms of longevity, a lot of 2500K / 2600K users are now upgrading whereas 3930K / 3960X are still happy with their systems, so the higher end platform did prove to have a longer useful life, with 5820K + X99 being similar price to Z97 + 4790K then it makes little sense to go mainstream. 5820K being the best bang for buck chip from Intel in a long time..

So yeah 50% more CPU for an extra 10% cost. 5820K + X99 makes way more sense.

This review below was done when 5820K cost £299 and DDR4 was still high priced, and they still said it was worth it over the 4790K, now prices have dropped would be a strange choice to ignore X99 + 5820K over the mainstream stuff.

To answer our earlier question comparing a 5820K-based system to one built around the 4790K, ‘is that extra £150 spend worth it?‘, I would reply with a ‘yes’.

With the two chips’ frequency gap narrowed to 200MHz, the extra cores and cache of Haswell-E allow the 5820K to consistently outperform a 4790K in tests that leverage CPU performance.

If you’re interested in video conversion, media creation, or file management, an overclocked 5820K system will net you performance improvements in the region of 30-45%, against an overclocked 4790K.

I actually think that the entry-level, £299.99 5820K is the best processor in Intel’s current Haswell-E line-up.

if you are currently considering a system based around the LGA 1150 Core i7 flagship, the extra expenditure to get onto Intel’s HEDT platform via the Core i7 5820K should be given serious consideration.

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/intel-core-i7-5820k-haswell-e-6-core-cpu-review/9/

 

[FredFlint]

If you are spending £1500+ and plan to use the PC for over 12 months then the X99 is a good option. The extra cores and memory bandwidth will be good to have. Also PCI-E SSD's will be coming at lower prices soon so having extra PCI-E lanes will help with them, the 4790 only has 16 lanes.

 

[the_director]

Have been thinking about this switch myself. Quite fancy the 5820 even if it is overkill. My current system is chronically unstable and I would try another z77 motherboard but I don't have access to members market yet so upgrade seems easiest option.

 

[Legend]

It's really NOT such a small price increase from Z97 to X99 when you factor in the Gigabyte 2-for-1 deal however, and future price drops for RAM/CPU. On the cheapest board in that offer, that's a £140 saving straight off the bat, so add that on top of whatever you're paying for X99. Factor in the inevitable price drops for DDR4 (which is a given) and CPU's in the future, and come time when you'd actually NEED an X99 system (for most people anyway), then you realise overall it's actually quite a bit more expensive than it initially may appear. But OF COURSE it is... this is the latest tech. I don't think anyone can genuinely think they aren't paying a premium for it, otherwise they're obviously living in cloud cuckoo land lol!

All said and done though, the industry NEEDS people to buy in at this level. If everyone actually used their heads and were super sensible about these things, I doubt we'd have much of an industry at all!

 

[Phixsator]

Being on the z87 platform myself i can say that i have run into scenarios where i didnt have enough pcie lanes available, i put an extra gpu in the system and the pcie socket to my soundcard shutoff (design of the board) so i had to switch position of that but the only 2 positions left was between the gpus which would cause more heat or on the very top which was blocked my the GPU reactor of my 780 lightning. I had to spent an hour figuring stuff out and fiddling with the bios to get stuff even working(as i at the time didnt know it would just turn a pcie socket off and i thought something had broken).

I wish i had gone with the x79 instead as i original intended, now of course thats a "dead" platform so if i were making the decision today i would rather have the x99, even if it cost a bit more(quite a bit more due to ddr4). The best platform i have ever owned would be the x55 with my "entry" level 920 and i would rather save a few more month in the future and get the next X platform than ever be on a Z platform ever again as i really am starting to dislike it and its limitations. Its just no fun if your an enthusiast, even though it does performs well.

 

[Boomstick777]

If you are spending £1500+ and plan to use the PC for over 12 months then the X99 is a good option. The extra cores and memory bandwidth will be good to have. Also PCI-E SSD's will be coming at lower prices soon so having extra PCI-E lanes will help with them, the 4790 only has 16 lanes.

You don't have to spend anywhere near that much.

i7 5820K £280
MSI / Gigabyte X99 Mobo £150
16GB DDR4 £145

The prices are comparable to Z97 + 4790K..

 

[Legend]

The prices are comparable to Z97 + 4790K..

Comparable perhaps, if buying the cheapest stuff (is that ever wise though really, I don't know)... but also when it comes to performance, that comparability holds out... and I don't see the price/performance argument.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-5820K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4790K/2579vs2384

 

[Boomstick777]

I don't see the price/performance argument.

If you can't see that an extra 50% CPU, a CPU that doesn't need delidding due to crappy thermal interface, DDR4 memory, a platform with support for 8 Core CPU's, all for a comparable price (5820K VS 4790K), is in fact a better deal then what point is there trying to explain it..

I literally had both setups, if 4790K was better I would have kept it. Hands down X99 + 5820K is the better setup for similar money.

Anyway I'm outta this thread, I've given an opinion of a user of both platforms and shown the reviews which said 5820K was better option. Nothing else left to say.. A fool and his money

 

[Legend]

If you can't see that an extra 50% CPU, a CPU that doesn't need delidding due to crappy thermal interface, DDR4 memory, a platform with support for 8 Core CPU's, all for a comparable price (5820K VS 4790K), is in fact a better deal then what point is there trying to explain it..

I literally had both setups, if 4790K was better I would have kept it. Hands down X99 + 5820K is the better setup for similar money.

Anyway I'm outta this thread, I've given an opinion of a user of both platforms and shown the reviews which said 5820K was better option. Nothing else left to say.. A fool and his money

You make a sound argument, but I've never actually seen the 1150 chipset derided so severely, across all the reviews I've seen of both it and the new Haswell-E range. On the contrary in fact. Sounds like you had a bad experience with it.

 

[ALXAndy]

You make a sound argument, but I've never actually seen the 1150 chipset derided so severely, across all the reviews I've seen of both it and the new Haswell-E range. On the contrary in fact. Sounds like you had a bad experience with it.

He's only saying that because he bought it. I wish he would stop, he's not making sense.

If we took his system as an example then it's been a logistical nightmare. For over a week his rig refused to see his drive and it was only after a bios update or two that it actually did what it was supposed to do. How he can negate mentioning that when he advises people what to buy is beyond me.

In every benchmark you can throw at them in 90% of cases the 4790k wins due to its massive out of the box clock. If you're not into overclocking then the 4790k will obliterate the 5820k due to being clocked over a gigahertz higher out of the box.

Then of course he's got amnesia when it comes to the price of DDR4. Many factories did not bother with it because they are too busy knocking out cheap NAND for SSDs so that the "SSD to replace moving parts drives within X amount of time" can continue. Then of course these factories have phone memory, tablet memory, everything is more important than silly DDR4 for silly priced desktops, so you're paying a hefty premium for them to stop what they're doing and make RAM that in reality many people are avoiding like a hefty dose of something nasty.

I've even caught Boom saying how he may sell his system.. Serial upgrader, serious money waster.. You just can't trust people like that. And I hate saying this because Boom is very passionate, but sometimes passion can over rule your head.

Me? yeah I've got a stupid system. And I would recommend it to... wait for it.. drumroll please... No one ! all of the stuff I bought was all of that stupid stuff that I balk at. And, even though I now have a PC like that you will never find me going around trying to sell it to people. It's not economical and makes sense to practically no one.

If you're on X58 get a Xeon. If you're wanting a new rig budget wise, AMD FX 8320. If you want to go one step higher and don't want to hope for core support get the 4690k and if you have five hundred notes to shed go with the 4790k.

Hardly any 5820ks will clock as a day to day 24/7 clock as high as 4.4ghz. In fact, it seems to be somewhat of a record due to a ram glitch on X99 that you can't really go any higher.

If there was a good X99 board for a hundred quid and if DDR4 wasn't ridiculously expensive then the 5820k would be a badass. Instead it's still as ridiculous as the X79 CPUs and, at the time, the high end X58 ones.

The Westmere Xeon 6 core 12t has only just come into its own. At the time of launch the 2500k obliterated it because there was no support for more than four cores. It's gotten a bit better since then, but those who bought the 980x and 990x at launch were pretty crazy. I can but hope that they still have them now and have that silly grin on their face when they realise how many pointless upgrades they've side stepped.

Going back to the 5820k? it would need to fit socket 1150 to truly be a legend. Instead it just has way too many caveats standing firmly in its way.

 

[jakesnake]

PCIE bandwidth is now a potential bottleneck people are going to have to take notice of like never before. Especially with 4K on the scene. Throw pcie ssd's into that aswell and well it speaks for itself.

The op should have went X99 because he COULD afford it.

Legend give it up.

 

[jakesnake]

Andys post here! EXTRA LARGE Dribble!

Now we are talking about out of box clocks and weather the op is into overclocking or not! Way to go Andy!

You bash HE the most iv seen around here, yet your all up in the 1366 Xeon thread laughing and thinking your top dog in regards to cheap upgrades. you either forget or don't even realise that the X58 1366 socket was being bashed exactly the same way 4/5 years ago. So technically your a hypocrite and bashing yourself. Or your the one with Amnesia!

Yawn! Andy your boring!

 

[jakesnake]

This is why 1366 boards are now worth their weight in gold, simply because you can bag the equivalent of a 980x for £70.

The same will happen on 2011 too, give it a year and the servers start being broken up and 12 core Xeons with high clocks will cost pennies.

the proof ^^^^^^ LOL!

they are "worth their weight in gold" to the people who paid the extra £150 back then to go 1366 instead of i5. Myself being 1 of them, not boasting, but to explain that iv seen this type of thing before.

Oh! and you say 2011 will be the same? Make up your mind please if your going to bash it or predict it will be a pot of gold in the future!

Its just embarrassing, shut up!

 

[Legend]

PCIE bandwidth is now a potential bottleneck people are going to have to take notice of like never before. Especially with 4K on the scene. Throw pcie ssd's into that aswell and well it speaks for itself.

The op should have went X99 because he COULD afford it.

Legend give it up.

It's a POTENTIAL bottleneck, and for 4K only at this stage, but a 980 SLI setup can't even cope with 4K in an X99 5930k system. And the 5820k is worse still as it's limited to x16/x8. Further down the line, with the NEXT gen of GPU's, maybe, but not with the 5820k... so you're talking a GPU upgrade and CPU upgrade, on top of what you've shelled out for the 5820k which will be a lame duck at that point. So in the long run, you haven't saved yourself any money or future-proofed to any great extent. Someone who's spent less on a top end 1150 system has spent less and will obviously need to spend more to get up to standard (new motherboard and RAM), but overall they will spend no more... perhaps even less depending on the mbd/RAM prices in the future. I'm not saying anyone is WRONG for going X99, and yeah sure why not if you can comfortably afford it, but it's simply not the future proofing marvel that many are making it out to be. For the reasons outlined above, the 5930k makes more sense than the 5820k.

 

[Legend]

BTW, have you seen the benchmarks for DDR3 vs DDR4? There's really very little in it. DDR4 has some maturing to do yet, by a long shot. Same was true when DDR3 came out, vs DDR2... it took a while.

 

[jakesnake]

you have now went from trying to defend the 4790k (which you lost) to the 5930 is better than the 5820 wow! I never would have thought a £144 more expensive cpu would be better than its little brother. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

So its now, not "WRONG" to go X99 but if you do you must spend an extra £144 on the 5930k instead of the 5820 because new gen gpus wont work on x16x8 and will need x16x16. LOL!

Let me just say this again! you went from arguing against £150 difference spread over 3 system components to, spending the £150 + another £144 extra on cpu so it can do 16x16 which eairler meant nothing to you.

You are another complete bull !hitter like Andy.

Last time im posting in this thread, have fun.

 

[Legend]

I am perplexed by your anger. Just look at the benchmarks, they tell you everything. It's as simple as that. How did I lose my defence of the 4790k lol? Show me one benchmark or review that shows it miles behind the 5820k, or that it's a massively inferior chip and a stupid choice for anyone? No? Because no one in their right mind would ever say that.

You're twisting my words. I never said it was wrong to go X99. I have always said the 4790k makes more sense from a cost/performance standpoint... that the more costly 5820k gives you an advantage in some areas and a disadvantage in others but not as much as some people make out in the way of future proofing, and the 5930k is mostly all positive (and the best for future proofing), but at a MUCH higher price.

I also never said new GPU's won't work on the 5820k, of course they will, but they'll also work with a 4790k, and with little performance difference between them, despite the extra cost outlay. The 5820k gets you on to the Haswell-E ladder from the top of the 1150 one, but at the bottom rung. As long as people realise that, that's all I was really trying to say.