5820K or 4790K

[escrow4]

Well, if you are worried about obsolete sockets -- then you probably should never buy Intel ever. I mean seriously, AMD just released brand new chips for its 2011 AM3+ era socket last month. I still can't figure out why socket 1155 had to die for 1150. It was such a minor change.

Its not obsolete; more like as you just spent $400 for a 5820K say, and $300 for a decent X99 mobo, and $300 or so for a slab of DDR4 RAM (with poor latencies to boot). That is a $1K gone. Now, Skylake is released, inevitable with $230 or so quads and $300 hyperthreaded i7s, then later the refresh (Cannonlake), then another tock. All those IPC adjustments and chipset changes and you have a better product than Haswell E with more features that will likely be a lot cheaper than a $1K you just spent on the core guts of X99.

Spend what you need now with something in reserve, not what you think you'll need. By the time you need it it will be replaced three times over.

And AMD is irrelevant here. AM3+ is primitive and a "new" chip is based on an equally old design.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Hmm, I thought FIVR was fairly significant, a change which Intel is going to undo come Skylake, apparently. If FIVR had been rejected earlier, 1155 might not had to die, maybe.

Are you talking about the integrated voltage regulation on the Haswell? I'm wondering why they decided to jettison that feature for later processor-lines. . . . I guess Broadwell will still provide it. Tell me if I'm wrong. There are reasons for which I don't think so . . .

 

[SeanJ76]

4690k for $199.00@MicroCenter. You'll be fine playing anything with a Devil's Canyon i5@4.4-4.6Ghz. i7's are not for gaming, their for other types or workloads.....hence when people break world records with the 4790k they ALWAYS have Hyperthreading OFF(making it essentially a i5)

 

[frozentundra123456]

The "core" thing to me is still an open question, as is how much improvement we will see in Skylake, and if it in fact comes out in 2015. Personally, I would base the decision on what is available now. So the question is, will a hyperthreaded i7 at 4.6 ghz be faster in games for the next year or two than a true hex core at ??? ghz. I say that, because I think unless you get really unlucky, most 4790k will do ~4.6, while we dont really know what the 5820K will do. But my guess is that after overclocking, on average, DC may do about a 10% faster overclock than 5820. My feeling is that the hex core, if a decent overclocker to 4.1 or so will be faster in *some* games than a quad. But I dont expect a huge difference.

I will be interested to see the cpu scaling in the new Mordor game coming out next week. The recommended cpu is a 3770k, so it will be interesting to see how i5 compares to i7 in that game. Or perhaps it will be like watchdogs, (similar cpu requirement) and just run like crap no matter what.

I guess bottom line, if all out performance is the goal, I think hex core will be better in a lot of the new games coming out. But the quads will remain a better value.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Relative Access to Execution Throughput Comparison Chart

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Its not obsolete; more like as you just spent $400 for a 5820K say, and $300 for a decent X99 mobo, and $300 or so for a slab of DDR4 RAM (with poor latencies to boot). That is a $1K gone. Now, Skylake is released, inevitable with $230 or so quads and $300 hyperthreaded i7s, then later the refresh (Cannonlake), then another tock. All those IPC adjustments and chipset changes and you have a better product than Haswell E with more features that will likely be a lot cheaper than a $1K you just spent on the core guts of X99.

Spend what you need now with something in reserve, not what you think you'll need. By the time you need it it will be replaced three times over.

And AMD is irrelevant here. AM3+ is primitive and a "new" chip is based on an equally old design.

That is totally wrong on all levels.

First, the new AMD 8 Cores released for AM3+ sockets are available for 95 watt motherboards -- for the first time ever (at least in the USA). They are also more energy efficient than previously offered chips, albeit lower performance parts.... The architecture is dated, but it is still a significantly different offering than what was previously available. AMD does support their existing sockets for years longer than Intel -- that is also indisputable. You can generally get new product offerings on AMD sockets for 3 - 4 years (excluding the FM1 fiasco).... Intel usually supports a socket for 2 years at the most.

Second -- 1155 is obsolete. Intel hasn't released a new CPU for this socket in years -- and no future product is planned for that socket. It is dead. They are just selling off old stock at this point.

Third -- you can buy a dual channel DDR4 kit for $100 not $300..... An entry level X99 motherboard only costs around $200 after rebate.... And if you shop around you can get a 5820k for about $375..... Barely $40 more than a 4790K. Nobody needs to spend $1000 to get one -- $700 - 750 is more likely.... and that is only $150 - $200 more than an average i7 on 1150. But you get a six core versus a quad. You pay more, but you also get more.

 

[Dave3000]

That is totally wrong on all levels.

First, the new AMD 8 Cores released for AM3+ sockets are available for 95 watt motherboards -- for the first time ever (at least in the USA). They are also more energy efficient than previously offered chips, albeit lower performance parts.... The architecture is dated, but it is still a significantly different offering than what was previously available. AMD does support their existing sockets for years longer than Intel -- that is also indisputable. You can generally get new product offerings on AMD sockets for 3 - 4 years (excluding the FM1 fiasco).... Intel usually supports a socket for 2 years at the most.

Second -- 1155 is obsolete. Intel hasn't released a new CPU for this socket in years -- and no future product is planned for that socket. It is dead. They are just selling off old stock at this point.

Third -- you can buy a dual channel DDR4 kit for $100 not $300..... An entry level X99 motherboard only costs around $200 after rebate.... And if you shop around you can get a 5820k for about $375..... Barely $40 more than a 4790K. Nobody needs to spend $1000 to get one -- $700 - 750 is more likely.... and that is only $150 - $200 more than an average i7 on 1150. But you get a six core versus a quad. You pay more, but you also get more.

The 5820k is only better for programs that use more than 4 cores, otherwise the 4790k is better because it has much higher clock speeds. You are only getting more with a 5820k over a 4790k if you use programs that use more than 4 cores or have Tri-SLI.

 

[crashtech]

...Third -- you can buy a dual channel DDR4 kit for $100 not $300..... An entry level X99 motherboard only costs around $200 after rebate.... And if you shop around you can get a 5820k for about $375..... Barely $40 more than a 4790K. Nobody needs to spend $1000 to get one -- $700 - 750 is more likely.... and that is only $150 - $200 more than an average i7 on 1150. But you get a six core versus a quad. You pay more, but you also get more.

The caveat being that the user will only populate 2 out of 4 channels, something that I do not think many will wish to do, nor would it be something commonly recommended in build advice if someone asked about X99 in General Hardware, for instance. There is also the matter of an HSF not being included with the CPU that might trip up some upgraders. $825 is a more realistic figure for the general case, imo.