i7 4790k or i7 5820k

[Doomedspeed]

^^


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.

Encoding and editing are different stories. Which the 5820k wins hands down, no argument there, gaming-wise though, i think you've hit the nail on the head:

Games aren't CPU limited.

So whether you get a 4790k or 5820k you'll get similar (if not the same) performance.

If i was get a rig for me (for my needs) i'd go 4790k, because i do verylittle rendering/video editing ect.. But if i was to get one for my (old) workplace (where weare rendering and modelling, simulating simultaneously, id go for the 5820k..

 

[stujim]

I'm confused now some are putting across good arguments about the 4790k, whereas others make valid points about the 5820k. I'm upgrading from a 2.13ghz, 7 year old dual core, so either one would be a tremendous leap. I'm not building it myself, it'll either be the Titan Envy or the Titan Storm, fitted with an overclocked gtx 980

Edit - before the 5820k appeared on overclockers, I was actually going to get the 4790k.

 

[Legend]

There isn't a HUGE amount in it, bottom line. Depends on your usage mostly, and if you'll get the most out of the extra cores, and also if you game or not. There is certainly SOME extra element of future proofing in going the 5820k route, but when you factor in the extra cost, it's kind of cancelled out really. You'd spend more later if you wanted to upgrade, but your overall total outlay given the lower price of Z97 now (especially if you got one of the Gigbyte 2-for-1 boards) would be the same or maybe less.

 

[FredFlint]

The longer you plan to keep the PC the more beneficial going X99 will be. If you upgrade the CPU and motherboard often then it will not really matter which you get, I would still go X99 though.

 

[Ronald]

I'm confused now some are putting across good arguments about the 4790k, whereas others make valid points about the 5820k. I'm upgrading from a 2.13ghz, 7 year old dual core, so either one would be a tremendous leap. I'm not building it myself, it'll either be the Titan Envy or the Titan Storm, fitted with an overclocked gtx 980

Edit - before the 5820k appeared on overclockers, I was actually going to get the 4790k.

If i were you I'd ignore this thread and forget about it:
I personally do not trust advise given by people who let things escalate in a good old flame war.

The right choice depends on what you intend to do with the system. Good luck!

 

[pbrain]

I've been hovering over the 'buy' button on a 5820K CPU for a while now and been hanging off incase there's a discount this weekend, however the 5820K has just increased in price...

 

[ALXAndy]

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!

5820k owner then huh?

First up I'll ignore the top dog part. I don't do petulance.

Do you have proof of me bashing X58? Got a link ?

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!

Oh god it was embarrassing enough that you posted once but twice?

Glad to hear that big old whoosh when things clearly go over your head though.

As for an extra £150? I bought a Foxconn Bloodrage GTI for £150 all in, so they must have seen you coming mate.

2011 will be exactly the same yes. It will sell for peanuts due to people like you and Boom who insist on having the very latest tech (even if it's no better than the last, as proven when I put my 3970x against Boom's 5820k) and then when the Xeons start coming out of the servers people will want boards.

But of course you understand everything I say, your the best.

 

[reiyushin]

What did you end up getting?

 

[Nelly]

Oh my...

 

[ALXAndy]

Oh my...

Amen.Amen.........

 

[Dave2150]

Andy at it again.

Whatever he didn't buy, automatically means it's a garbage product.

For those with the money, X99 5820k or above is clearly the best choice.

Your literally comparing products with 4 cores versus 6. Of course your mileage will vary according to what you use the CPU for - though obviously as time goes on the extra cores will be leveraged in all applications, if they aren't aready.

It's very easy to just look at gaming benchmarks and deem the 4790k the winner. Throw that into a real world scenario - where your on skype/mumble/some other voip service, have a bunch of chrome tabs open, movie playing on 2nd monitor, youtube video on third monitor, or if your streaming, the 6 or 8 core x99 win everytime.

 

[Nelly]

That video says it all for me, the guy has both 4670K and 5820K setups.

Gaming >> 4670K / 4790K, buy Gigabyte Black Edition motherboard, free upgrade to Skylake motherboard later on.

Everything else >> 5820K / 5930K.

 

[Legend]

Gaming >> 4670K / 4790K, buy Gigabyte Black Edition motherboard, free upgrade to Skylake motherboard later on.

Agreed that's the best route for gaming right now, I'd even say the 4790k is overkill for most in that situation. However, with one caveat... on the surface it does sound like a great deal, but only if you pretty much wait the full 3 years before you upgrade again... by which time Haswell-E will be a distant memory, so you'll get a nice boost to next gen hardware with a free motherboard... leaving you to fork out for just a CPU and RAM. However, jump ship too soon and you won't be much better off than anyone getting on the Haswell-E train today. So if you go this route, my advice would be to stick with it for the long haul. if you're someone who gets the itch to upgrade every year or so, you're wasting big chunks of your money no matter what... but then you probably know that already and your satisfaction comes from scratching that itch in the first place lol!

If you can afford it and you're coming from a much older set-up, the Haswell-E route makes more sense from a future proofing POV, providing your usage is something other than just games. Price wise there isn't that much in it now.

 

[Nelly]

Even Miss World 2015 agrees.

 

[MarcLister]

I'm planning to build a new PC sometime in the new year. My current PC is 6 years old running an Intel Q9650 at stock 3GHZ on an Asus P5Q-E board with 8GB DDR2.

I've been speccing up a system with an i7 4790K, a z97 board and 16GB of RAM etc and have found this offer which looks pretty good to me.

I use my PC for gaming such as FM, Far Cry 4, Wolfenstein etc and would want my new PC to be capable of running games in high detail on my 24" monitor. I am also slowly ripping my Blu-rays to MP4 to store on my server to save space by storing the Blu-rays in the loft. My DVDs will follow suit when I get around to it. I currently use MakeMKV to rip the Blu-rays and then Handbrake to shrink them a bit.

I think and, having read this thread, still think a 4790K is best for me. I don't think that MakeMKV/Handbrake constitute enough of a situation to justify the 5820K. Am I right? I will probably be keeping the new PC for 3-4 years so the 5820K might be the more sensible long term option?

I haven't really got a budget set as I was going to post my proposed spec in a thread in General Hardware and see what people think of it. They may end up suggesting a similar build in terms of parts and power but for a better price.

 

[Dave2150]

I'm planning to build a new PC sometime in the new year. My current PC is 6 years old running an Intel Q9650 at stock 3GHZ on an Asus P5Q-E board with 8GB DDR2.

I've been speccing up a system with an i7 4790K, a z97 board and 16GB of RAM etc and have found this offer which looks pretty good to me.

I use my PC for gaming such as FM, Far Cry 4, Wolfenstein etc and would want my new PC to be capable of running games in high detail on my 24" monitor. I am also slowly ripping my Blu-rays to MP4 to store on my server to save space by storing the Blu-rays in the loft. My DVDs will follow suit when I get around to it. I currently use MakeMKV to rip the Blu-rays and then Handbrake to shrink them a bit.

I think and, having read this thread, still think a 4790K is best for me. I don't think that MakeMKV/Handbrake constitute enough of a situation to justify the 5820K. Am I right? I will probably be keeping the new PC for 3-4 years so the 5820K might be the more sensible long term option?

I haven't really got a budget set as I was going to post my proposed spec in a thread in General Hardware and see what people think of it. They may end up suggesting a similar build in terms of parts and power but for a better price.

5820k would be the much better bet imo. 2 more physical cores, will last you longer before needing to upgrade. It will speedup your video encoding significantly also, plus it will give you an upgrade path to Broadwell-E which should be released late 2015/early 2016.

Also since your coming from DDR2 - it makes no sense to buy DDR3 now, when it's at the end of it's lifespan.

 

[Nelly]

I will probably be keeping the new PC for 3-4 years so the 5820K might be the more sensible long term option?

Yeah I would get the 5820K as well in that situation.

£155.99 - Crucial 2133MHz ram possible overclock to 2666MHz, so I would get that also. >> http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MY-178-CR

 

[MarcLister]

5820k would be the much better bet imo. 2 more physical cores, will last you longer before needing to upgrade. It will speedup your video encoding significantly also, plus it will give you an upgrade path to Broadwell-E which should be released late 2015/early 2016.

Also since your coming from DDR2 - it makes no sense to buy DDR3 now, when it's at the end of it's lifespan.

I guess it does make sense to put myself on the beginning of an upgrade path.

What will Broadwell-E bring to the table? Faster speeds with less power used and heat given off? How many cores will Broadwell-E chips have? 4? 6? 8?!

I'm guessing that the fact that the 5820K runs at 3.3Ghz compared to the 4Ghz of the 4790K won't limit the PC at all because the extra 2 cores the 5820K has compared to the 4790K more than make up for the 700Mhz difference?

Yeah I would get the 5820K as well in that situation.

£155.99 - Crucial 2133MHz ram possible overclock to 2666MHz, so I would get that also. >> http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MY-178-CR

Despite being a forumer of OcUK I'm not an overclocker by nature!

What kind of performance/speed increases would I see in running 2133Mhz RAM at 2666Mhz?

 

[Nelly]

Despite being a forumer of OcUK I'm not an overclocker by nature!

What kind of performance/speed increases would I see in running 2133Mhz RAM at 2666Mhz?

I had a look at the Vortez review for this same RAM, they could not get it to overclock at all, quite strange.

The RAM would be great even at 2133MHz. I honestly don't think it's worth paying a premium for the higher speed RAM, the performance increases are nothing you would notice in day to day useage.

High speed RAM is more for people into bencmarking, but if you can get free speed increases I would still do it.

 

[Dave2150]

I guess it does make sense to put myself on the beginning of an upgrade path.

What will Broadwell-E bring to the table? Faster speeds with less power used and heat given off? How many cores will Broadwell-E chips have? 4? 6? 8?!

I'm guessing that the fact that the 5820K runs at 3.3Ghz compared to the 4Ghz of the 4790K won't limit the PC at all because the extra 2 cores the 5820K has compared to the 4790K more than make up for the 700Mhz difference?

Despite being a forumer of OcUK I'm not an overclocker by nature!

What kind of performance/speed increases would I see in running 2133Mhz RAM at 2666Mhz?

Broadwell-E will most likely be exactly the same as Haswell-E, with anywhere from a 3% to a 10% performance increase per Mhz, we just don't know yet.

As the years go by, they will use the extra cores etc, so the 5820k should overtake the 4790k, gaming wise by that point.

It's also worth mentioning that all these benchmarks are done with only the game running, on an optimized machine (no miscellaneous services running etc). If your the type of gamer who runs multiple programs at once, the 6 core will start to shine.

For example, if you were to rerun these benchmarks, but with a skype video call running, a game stream on a second monitor, or a movie runnning on another monitor, etc etc, the 6 and 8 cores really do pull ahead then.