Replacing a failing i7-4790k 4GHz... Intel or AMD?

[gavinh87]

You are comparing a 4.3GHz 6-core against a 3.9GHz 8-core? Why don't you compare a 5GHz 6-core against a 3.9GHz 8-core?

3Dmark11 states the cpu is running at 4.6ghz.

Good luck getting that 6core to 5ghz. Why do you turn every thread you enter into an intel vs AMD war?
The OP doesn't overclock, runs at 1440p and streams with a max budget of £500 at what point does an intel k series that isn't even released become relevant?

 

[voidshatter]

3Dmark11 states the cpu is running at 4.6ghz.

Good luck getting that 6core to 5ghz. Why do you turn every thread you enter into an intel vs AMD war?
The OP doesn't overclock, runs at 1440p and streams with a max budget of £500 at what point does an intel k series that isn't even released become relevant?

I have no intention of any war in your mind. Personally I don't recommend anything with low frequency for gaming, including Intel 3960X, 4960X, 5960X, 6950X etc. Ryzen just happens to be in that territory and it's not about brand loyalty.

If you know the OP doesn't overclock then you should post/quote stock results.

 

[gavinh87]

I have already told him my recommendation. 1600x, b350 board and 3200 memory.
If you can show an intel equivalent 6c12t for less then than £500 be my guest, prove me wrong.
It has already been shown numerous times across different CPU's that ryzen can keep up with intel even with a 1ghz disadvantage.

 

[Evian]

Gaming and less core applications Intel is still reigning dominant by quite a margin which will be even bigger when coffee lake hits.

 

[voidshatter]

It has already been shown numerous times across different CPU's that ryzen can keep up with intel even with a 1ghz disadvantage.

Really? Those single-thread benchmarks in your favourite Cinebench should be ignored? All those single-threaded games should be ignored?

 

[gavinh87]

Really? Those single-thread benchmarks in your favourite Cinebench should be ignored? All those single-threaded games should be ignored?

Hardware unboxed and mindblanktech along with others have shown this. My favourite cinebench? Lol I think you have me mixed up with someone else.




If this 3dmark11 score is anything to go by then ryzen has nothing to worry about, removing any GPU bottleneck shows it can compete. This test is at 720p with a lesser GPU and a 700mhz disadvantage.

As I said, show me a 6c12t intel equivalent for £500 and I will agree with you.

Gaming and less core applications Intel is still reigning dominant by quite a margin which will be even bigger when coffee lake hits.

The IPC is the same, it will behave the same as a current i7 until more cores are used.

 

[DarkHorizon472]

Really? Those single-thread benchmarks in your favourite Cinebench should be ignored? All those single-threaded games should be ignored?

What is the brand new intel 6c / 12t solution for their requirements?

That comes in at £500 ?

 

[Evian]

Guessing he won't be going for the Ryzen 1700 either than as it's £20 less than a 7700k

 

[gavinh87]

Guessing he won't be going for the Ryzen 1700 either than as it's £20 less than a 7700k

Its £60 cheaper on ocuk lol. Thats besides the point, my point was to show void the 8700k isn't going to be as good as he thinks.
Now back to topic, show me an intel equivalent to the 1600x below £500 and I will change my recommendation.

 

[voidshatter]

The IPC is the same, it will behave the same as a current i7 until more cores are used.

Same IPC?

 

[voidshatter]

What is the brand new intel 6c / 12t solution for their requirements?

That comes in at £500 ?

Will probably need to stretch a bit. Same as spending a fortune for 3600C16/3400C14 memory kits for Ryzen.

 

[pete910]

So what you are saying void is that a G4560 will be suitable ?

 

[voidshatter]

So what you are saying void is that a G4560 will be suitable ?

I'm saying frequency is important for gaming. If 8700K falls within the reach of the OP then it's worth consideration.

Ryzen is also a good choice - just not the best for some single-threaded games.

 

[gavinh87]

Same IPC?

You have misinterpreted the conversation.
I was referring to the 8700k having the same IPC as the 7700k which has the same as the 6700k which has 5% more than the 4790k, see where I'm going with this?

3200CL14 b die ram is the recommended.
Now, can you show me a 6c/12t build than can compete with this for less than £500


If not then leave the thread.

 

[pete910]

I'm saying frequency is important for gaming. If 8700K falls within the reach of the OP then it's worth consideration.

Ryzen is also a good choice.

Has the 8700 been released then ?

Cant see the 8700 + mobo + ram droping in under the 500 mark tbh

 

[voidshatter]

Now, can you show me a 6c/12t build than can compete with this for less than £500

Cant see the 8700 + mobo + ram droping in under the 500 mark tbh

If the 8700K setup will greatly exceed £500 among all retailers I'd be happy to concede. Given the pressure by Ryzen I don't think Intel will sell the 8700K at high prices. It's just an option for the OP to take into consideration if he can wait.

 

[DarkHorizon472]

Will probably need to stretch a bit. Same as spending a fortune for 3600C16/3400C14 memory kits for Ryzen.

Which is the point, at lower price points ryzen makes a lot of sense, at much higher budgets things can be different.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

If the 8700K setup will greatly exceed £500 among all retailers I'd be happy to concede. Given the pressure by Ryzen I don't think Intel will sell the 8700K at high prices. It's just an option for the OP to take into consideration if he can wait.

The cpu will be at least £400 (maybe sneak in at £389 to make it seem like they aren't taking the ****), so I can see cpu + mobo + ram being around £750 at launch.

 

[voidshatter]

The cpu will be at least £400 (maybe sneak in at £389 to make it seem like they aren't taking the ****), so I can see cpu + mobo + ram being around £750 at launch.

Of course you'll need to give it a month to cool down. The first batch will never be cheap.

 

[Loony BoB]

Thanks everyone so much for your input so far. For a bit of clarification and detail...

- While my PC is technically up and running this second, it takes more and more attempts to boot once shut down (to the point that I'm refusing to shut it down unless I absolutely have to!) and I'm not sure I can wait months before purchasing. With this in mind, I'm unsure an 8700k is going to be the solution unless there is a reveal by the end of August that says "Hey, guess what, you can buy it right now and get it within a couple of weeks!"
- Someone mentioned getting another 1150 CPU, however this assumes it really is the CPU that is at fault and not the system board. Unfortunately I'm not able to pinpoint which of the two is the problem. While the possibility of just replacing one item and being done is really nice, it still leads to the possibility I'll replace both items and if I'm going to do that I'd rather get them new and "up to standard".
- Again, to anyone posting in the AMD vs Intel wars, much preferring just the pros and cons to be posted for both sides rather than just "well you may as well go for this". I get the gist of the pros and cons as follows, correct me if I'm wrong...
--- Intel is better for single core/thread computing, which means better for some games which as far as I'm aware includes Minecraft, which I do play with large modpacks on occasion.
--- AMD is better for multi-core/thread computing, which means better for streaming and general PC usage, which I do a lot of and often.
--- No idea which is better for 1440p gaming?
--- Compared to my i7-4790k, anything running 4GHz per core should be equally as competent at minimum, and much better in terms of single core (if Intel over 4GHz) or multi core (if AMD) depending on which manufacturer I go for.

Let me know if all of that sounds right.

FWIW if the benefits will give me enough to warrant it, I'll consider going over £500 but it'd need to be seriously beneficial when dealing with bang-for-buck to warrant that. However, considering the spec of my graphics card (980, not quite a 1080Ti) and the fact that I don't mind 40-60FPS so long as I can play at 1440p, I'm not sure anything will really warrant it at this point... God knows what the future holds but I'll deal with such things in time. Hopefully I can run Star Citizen (or more notably Squadron 42 as I prefer LAN/single player) by the time it's finally out.