• 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.

'4770k + Z87' v 'Ivy Bridge-E + X89' for mega gaming build

You answered your own question there...apart from bf3 and most likely any other games that utilise the frostbite 2/3 engines...as in pretty much anything dice showcased at e3. These engines don't just support ht, they support multiple threads, be it physical cores or ht enabled threads.

If a 2500k @ 5ghz can bottleneck a pair of stock 7950's in bf3 due to thread limitation alone then I have little doubt a 4670k would find its self in the same situation with two titans.

I'm not sure what your getting at with AMD x64 vs ht either? Completely different things.
 
If you have the budget go all out and go X79 + 49XX. If you have more limiting budget like myself atm, go for 4770K, still gives great performance, and power consumption is ridiculously low if you care about that sort of thing..
 
You answered your own question there...apart from bf3 and most likely any other games that utilise the frostbite 2/3 engines...as in pretty much anything dice showcased at e3. These engines don't just support ht, they support multiple threads, be it physical cores or ht enabled threads.

If a 2500k @ 5ghz can bottleneck a pair of stock 7950's in bf3 due to thread limitation alone then I have little doubt a 4670k would find its self in the same situation with two titans.

I'm not sure what your getting at with AMD x64 vs ht either? Completely different things.
Click to expand...

Sorry mate i mean due to games being made more for the consoles and AMD cpus and no HT support as its an Intel thing.Maybe im confused here as i thought if there was no HT support the game would only use 4.But if HT is enabled in windows would it still scale past four cores then?


And how come a 5ghz 2500k can bottleneck dual cards? Is this the same as putting in say a single card that is twice as fast as 7950's or would it happen only on dual cards.Do dual cards put more load on the threads or require more threads?



Sorry if its a bit off topic to the OP but im actually really confused on this issue and have never found a concrete answer.The extreme heat is making my brain a bit hazy today sorry!
 
Benchmark preview of Intel X79 Ivybridge -E here, conclusion is,

Does Intel’s Core i7-4960X, specifically, get me all revved up about upgrading? Well, no. Not really. But then again, those thousand-dollar CPUs rarely do. What about a hypothetical Core i7-4930K replacing the -3930K under $600? That’d be a tough sell for all of the same reasons. Mainly, it doesn’t push performance high enough to warrant a bit 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...

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/core-i7-4960x-ivy-bridge-e-benchmark,review-32735.html
 
Rofflay said:
Sorry mate i mean due to games being made more for the consoles and AMD cpus and no HT support as its an Intel thing.Maybe im confused here as i thought if there was no HT support the game would only use 4.But if HT is enabled in windows would it still scale past four cores then?


And how come a 5ghz 2500k can bottleneck dual cards? Is this the same as putting in say a single card that is twice as fast as 7950's or would it happen only on dual cards.Do dual cards put more load on the threads or require more threads?



Sorry if its a bit off topic to the OP but im actually really confused on this issue and have never found a concrete answer.The extreme heat is making my brain a bit hazy today sorry!
Click to expand...

Not to worry :)

Its more likely new console games will be coded as 'multi threaded' rather than tailored to any specific chip, after all both AMD and Intel CPU's utilise the same architecture used by the consoles in x86_64.

The bottleneck (on the 2500K) comes from lack of threads (4T) on heavily multi-threaded game engines and can hold a pair of 7950's to around 85% usage. A few of us did some testing a couple of weeks ago, basically almost regardless of core speed (it did help a little) the CPU would sit at 100% on all 4 cores/threads on a 2500K with dual 7900's sitting in the region of 80% usage. Throw in a HT enabled chip and that usage on the CPU drops to around 80% on all cores/threads and GPU utilisation to the desired 95%+.

I have a feeling its the game engine using the CPU for things like mesh detail, physics etc... it will only render so much before the GPU(s) run out of resources to push any harder. And as said, it is, at least for now, only really frostbite titles that bottleneck under these conditions, the vast majority of other engines will still reap greater rewards from higher clocks and better IPC.

So yes, in theory, if a new GPU was to be released that offered twice, or even ~85% of the power as dual 7900's it may bottleneck in Frostbite with a 4C4T chip. Tbh its the beginning of the end for quad core 4 thread chips, sooner rather then later i'd expect Intel to pump i5's up to 4C8T with mainstream i7's moving to 6C12T and extreme editions to 8C16T & 12C24T

Edit: Sorry for the late reply too, would have replied earlier but didn't fancy typing all that out on my phone :p
 
Last edited:
Rofflay said:
As an owner of a 3570k could someone give an an answer of how a 4670k would hit a thread bottleneck over a 4770K??? They are both 4 cores 4 threads unless the application supports Hyperthreading.


Apart from BF3 and Benchmarks what supports Hyperthreading? Well as far as i know nothing does.A little extra cache is all you get from a 4770k for more money.And considering that future games will be using AMD x64 and HT will not feature on the PS4 i would have thought i5 is just as good as i7 for gaming even under dual Titans.I would bet the Framerates will be indentical as they are now with 4770k v 4670k.
Click to expand...
Bf3 as you mention and certain encoding programs. In the case of bf3, with any single modern higher end gpu a 3570k is grand. Once you add a second card, in this game the cpu becomes the bottleneck. Had this lately myself. Started with a 3570k and a single wf 670. Eventually added a second card. At 4.5ghz, cpu usage was 80% plus, gpu's wouldnt go above 80%. Switched to a 3770k, even at stock speed the cpu use dropped an awful lot and card use hit 91% max. Now that the cpu is at 4.5ghz, it maxes at 65%, cards hitting upto 99%. By disabling ht and running bf3 i can replicate almost the exact same way the rig ran on my old none ht chip.
 
killoc said:
4690x maybe 2 years b4 Skylake (PCIe 4.0, SATA Express, and DDR4) comes out and are you the type of person that "must have new tech"?
Click to expand...

Will last longer. PCIe 4.0 won't instantly make new cards faster than PCIe 3.0 ones it will be a while after launch until cards run worse on old slots, I.E Titan only loses a couple of FPS at very high res when in a PCIe 2.0 slot. SATA express will have less of an impact than previous revisions, we still don't have a mechanical HDD that can saturate SATA-II and even when you run a SATA-III SSD on a SATA-II controller the real world impact is negligible (talking IOPS, not how many MB/s you can pull when moving .iso's around). Finally four channels of DDR3-2000 has as much bandwidth as two channels of DDR4-4000 so that will help the longevity of X79 (a Core2 Quad isn't that much slower clock for clock than a 1st gen i5, its the DDR2 and chip-set that's really showing its age in C2Q systems).
 
dafadau said:
That article isn't too reassuring...
Click to expand...

Yeah Ivy-E not looking great tbh, was expecting more performance than what those benchy's are showing.

If your at all budget conscientious, why not go with an Intel 4770K, the performance is their, at a fraction of the price and power consumption of the Extreme CPU's. Then next year you can throw in a Broadwell CPU '5770K', hopefully on a die shrink of 14nm.

Haswell -E will be launched then which will be nice but very pricey, then the big upgrade comes.. New mainstream mobo for Skylake CPU's. DDR4 will be getting cheaper by that point, as it will have been out for Haswell -E for a little while. Better frequency's etc, and Skylake CPU 6770K? On a mature 14nm process. That chip is going to be good for sure...
 
ubersonic said:
Will last longer. PCIe 4.0 won't instantly make new cards faster than PCIe 3.0 ones it will be a while after launch until cards run worse on old slots, I.E Titan only loses a couple of FPS at very high res when in a PCIe 2.0 slot. SATA express will have less of an impact than previous revisions, we still don't have a mechanical HDD that can saturate SATA-II and even when you run a SATA-III SSD on a SATA-II controller the real world impact is negligible (talking IOPS, not how many MB/s you can pull when moving .iso's around). Finally four channels of DDR3-2000 has as much bandwidth as two channels of DDR4-4000 so that will help the longevity of X79 (a Core2 Quad isn't that much slower clock for clock than a 1st gen i5, its the DDR2 and chip-set that's really showing its age in C2Q systems).
Click to expand...

Good call. I'm still on the fence and thinking of waiting until IBE is released before building anything.
 
dafadau said:
Good call. I'm still on the fence and thinking of waiting until IBE is released before building anything.
Click to expand...

I'm finding my self in the same situation, been eyeing up haswell on a naked mount as an alternative option, 8-10% improvements on ib-e if true on retail is far too low for me,guess I expected more from a die shrink while retaining 130w status.
 
OLDPHART said:
Yes but its the silicon lottery with the 4770K, K for Killer.:(
Click to expand...

At stock the 4770K trades blows with a 3960X, at £250 I think people expecting a bit much tbh. Low power and that kind of performance, who cares if it can't reach 5Ghz?

If people want those kind of speeds there is always the FX 9590 :D:D:D
 
are those with poor clocking HW chips poor due to heat limitations or poor purely for the fact they won't post above a certain multiplier?
 
pgi947 said:
are those with poor clocking HW chips poor due to heat limitations or poor purely for the fact they won't post above a certain multiplier?
Click to expand...

I think a lot of the peeps having problems with getting past low clocks like 4.0Ghz - 4.2Ghz are having bios related issues rather than just to high temps. Haswell seems a bit more tricky to master than previous CPU's..

Hopeful I'm gonna reach 4.5Ghz on mine, got my CPU now just waiting on the mobo..
 
Thats good to know, as either of the boards I'll be using 8 Pack has used so if I hit any snags I know who to call on :D

Hopefully get a naked chip up to the magic 5ghz :)
 
Boomstick777 said:
At stock the 4770K trades blows with a 3960X, at £250 I think people expecting a bit much tbh. Low power and that kind of performance, who cares if it can't reach 5Ghz?

If people want those kind of speeds there is always the FX 9590 :D:D:D
Click to expand...

Its not a question of wanting to hit 5ghz, its the Bios and heat issue's people are having and Intel telling porkie's about not being able to solder Haswell.

I would love to know what the average overclock is in this forum plus what voltage and having to decide whether to delidd it, not cheap if you break it.

Yes it look's like the 4960K is not so hot, l'll see how things go later on this year when l come to upgrade and decide them.:(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom