Intel Haswell Refresh Processors Codenamed Devil’s Canyon – Launching in Mid 2014 With Unlocked Desi

Stuen4y · 16 May 2014 at 07:13

Dave2150 said:
'Top range' cpu would be an extreme edition. Top 'mainstream' is where I'd place the 4790K.

The 4790k is by far the better choice compared to the FX9590. I'd never recommend AMD's top performer (FX9590) to anyone, would you?

The Intel CPU would be almost the same price but would completely outperform in 99% of the tasks that most of us here would use it for. It would also run far cooler, consume far less electricity. There really is no option in this price bracket.

Who is talking about that nonsense 9590? If you forget any benchmarking and have a gaming machine with high end graphics and you cannot really open the case or CPU-Z to see what is the cpu I bet it will be quite hard to say if the CPU is Intel or AMD. I myself used to be and OC junkie, all night open door bench sessions with -5 degrees C ambient temperature in the room but I am no longer like that. This does not exclude me from the enthusiast group though and as you see I have an Intel CPU in my signature even though I used to be an all AMD fan for many years. And it is overclocked to the brim. If you exclude the people that actually care exactly what is the raw performance of their CPU in benchmarks, they do not care. And a CPU for £230 is not mainstream in any way. The mainstream ones are the lower i5s or even i3s, where the AMDs are positioned price wise.

Dave2150 said:
Bear in mind your posting on a overclocking forum, why you mention casual users here is beyond me. At this point I'll just assume you like to type nonsense for fun.

In this forum I see a lot of enthusiasts and a lot of people that have absolutely no idea about overclocking and are here to learn. As I said, I myself am not a casual user but if I were I would probably think the way I said in my previous post.

jh30uk · 16 May 2014 at 07:38

£230 is cheap for a CPU today, years ago you would be looking at £400+ and that was more than it is now due to wages etc.

I had to pay £300-400 for decent AMD CPU's back in the day.

No point in having a high end GPU £400-500+ and not having a decent CPU.

One thing I did notice going from a Q9650 to 2700k with same GPU (GTX580) then the 2700k to 4770k with same GPU (GTX 680 4GB) was min FPS doubled each time.

Stuen4y · 16 May 2014 at 08:06

It was cheap when we were getting 20-30% increase from generation to generation and not 5-10%.

I have bought high end AMD cpus for under £200. Same goes for graphics. Just the market has shifted strangely and with the decline in PC market they need to bring their revenue where they want it and the only way is to increase the prices of pretty much everything. But let's not dig into politics and economy as the topic is too big.

Boomstick777 · 16 May 2014 at 09:24

jh30uk said:
I had to pay £300-400 for decent AMD CPU's back in the day.

Back in the day they might have been worth it (;

AMD just can't price their products high because performance is so weak in comparison to Intel. Remember when the FX 9370 launched at like £700+. What a bad joke that was, so much for AMD giving best bang for buck lol. The market dictates the price, what people are willing to pay. Clearly nobody thought it was worth it and now they are priced sub £200..

Like you said Intel offer I7's for a lil over £200 which are a bargain in relation to their performance. The 4790K looks well worth a circa £250 price. Anyone building this year is getting a good deal imho. At least Intel brought something to the table..

ubersonic · 16 May 2014 at 09:54

Boomstick777 said:
Like you said Intel offer I7's for a lil over £200 which are a bargain in relation to their performance. The 4790K looks well worth a circa £250 price. Anyone building this year is getting a good deal imho. At least Intel brought something to the table..

Agreed, I remember paying £282.50 delivered for a Q9650 and thinking I had got a great deal, IMO CPU prices have never been better than today

smilertoo · 16 May 2014 at 10:37

The 4770k was about £270 when it was released, not the current £230.

malachi · 16 May 2014 at 10:57

smilertoo said:
The 4770k was about £270 when it was released, not the current £230.

£253 for some

Shame I didnt buy one as I didnt need the OC.....regret it now

Stuen4y · 16 May 2014 at 12:22

Do not forget that the junior socket is not high end and the fact that most of the people do not need the performance that socket 2011 gives does not mean the chips are cheap in any way. I would say they are adequate.

jh30uk · 16 May 2014 at 15:17

smilertoo said:
The 4770k was about £270 when it was released, not the current £230.

Has nothing to do with it as I am only interested in what I paid (Jan).

I agree with Boom, it's not that Intel are expensive, they have never been cheaper even ignoring wage rises i.e.. £200 today vs £200 10 years ago, a similar ranged CPU would have been double that at least.

Insure it for £25 and you an blow it up and get a new CPU lol.

It is that AMD cannot ask as much for their weaker CPU's, they nearly give away some of them esp. the failed Bulldozer.

jh30uk · 16 May 2014 at 15:25

Stuen4y said:
It was cheap when we were getting 20-30% increase from generation to generation and not 5-10%. I have bought high end AMD cpus for under £200. Same goes for graphics. Just the market has shifted strangely and with the decline in PC market they need to bring their revenue where they want it and the only way is to increase the prices of pretty much everything. But let's not dig into politics and economy as the topic is too big.

Cheap is cheap regardless, you can see I skipped some Gens in my above post, so that 10-20% was at least double each time for me.

The AMD's I bought in past at £300-400 were not even the highest models those were crazy priced way north of £500-600

A £200 back then was one I stuck in PC I build for family/friends as they would not spend that much, mid range at best not exactly high end gaming CPU's or GPU's in those but still cost a lot vs todays prices and then wages are higher making it even less again.

Ash0787 · 16 May 2014 at 15:46

I am running an i5-4670K on an Asus Z-87 pro, on air the cpu becomes unstable above 4.4GHz, so I am keeping an eye on this new i7, like others I also hope its under £300 and compatible with Z-87, my motherboard is only a year old so I would not like to retire it yet.

pastymuncher · 16 May 2014 at 16:40

ubersonic said:
Agreed, I remember paying £282.50 delivered for a Q9650 and thinking I had got a great deal, IMO CPU prices have never been better than today

Seriously? I paid £125 for a i5 760. The 2500k was around the same price when launched then increased to around £145 after a while. Then the i5 3570k came out around £155 followed by the i5 4670k at £160+. The prices have been increasing so they have been much better than they are today.

jh30uk · 16 May 2014 at 16:47

So does wages increase.

None of those CPU you mentioned could have been bought (relative in series from low/mid/high end) for under £400 in early-mid 2000's

Stuen4y · 16 May 2014 at 17:15

jh30uk said:
So does wages increase.

None of those CPU you mentioned could have been bought (relative in series from low/mid/high end) for under £400 in early-mid 2000's

But in early-mid 2000's firstly there was total dominance of Intel and then total dominance of AMD. Moreover, PCs then were a lot more a luxurious item then they are now by percentage of population that has one (or more than one). And I am talking on only about Western Europe and North America but also Asia, Eastern Europe, South America, Africa.

pastymuncher · 16 May 2014 at 19:22

jh30uk said:
So does wages increase.

None of those CPU you mentioned could have been bought (relative in series from low/mid/high end) for under £400 in early-mid 2000's

Wages have increased by a tiny amount the last few years while the cost of living has gone through the roof, but that's not what i was getting at. Since the original i5/i7 was launched the prices have increased with each generation. I expect the i5 4690 to follow the trend and be over £180 when released.

Back when the AMD Athlon 64 series was launched on Socket 754 i did my first self built pc using a 3400+ which cost me £115. Funnily enough, i sold it for more or less that amount as well. AMD cpu's went for silly prices second hand back then.

nniitt · 16 May 2014 at 19:33

I think the news editor was too optimistic, 5G era? not a chance for 4790k

Ash0787 · 16 May 2014 at 20:18

I think prices have gone up partly because its more difficult to manufacture on the small scale and high complexity of the modern chips, there is more failed attempts per product, but also because cpus are not advancing as much and mobile is being focused on so sales are dropping ( people that have 2500K are just sitting on that and not upgrading ), they make up for that with higher price.

I remember building my first pc about 8 years ago for around £600, Athlon 64 3500+ single core with 7900 GT, whether that was high end at the time though I couldn't say.

Boomstick777 · 16 May 2014 at 22:54

Prices are actually pretty good tbh. Consider just how much performance you get from the mainstream 3770K > 4770K > 4790K etc. For a couple hundred notes it's decent, especially considering AMD really don't have anything anywhere near competitive. The Extreme range just isn't needed for gaming, more geared towards a work station environment, or E-Peen

setter · 17 May 2014 at 02:19

Amd havent had a decent cpu since the days of s939, which were brilliant chips. Intel brought out the c2d range, then the c2q's on s775. They havent looked back since. Sure their current range of cpu's appeal to those who seek bang for buck, ie 800 series. But i for one would definitely not pair such a chip with dual modern gpu's such as 780/290. You will be bottlenecked big time. The only good thing amd have going is on the gpu side, mantle is a great feature but still very much in it's infancy.

KillBoY_UK · 17 May 2014 at 03:36

jh30uk said:
Not on that Mobo you will not, its a different socket (1155 vs 1150).

Ofc I know that