Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Help a noob choose: i7 3770K vs 4770K vs 3930K

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 17, 2013 8:57:04 AM

Hi guys. I have general IT knowledge but I'm moving into PC gaming seriously and have never spec'd out a system before. I've read a lot but now at the point where I need to ask questions to understand things better.

Budget is not an issue (looking at $4-5000), and even if I don't NEED something now, if it future proofs them I'm interested. Main goal is to play the likes of Battlefield 3 and 4 on Ultra graphics at 120FPS. I shall probably get 2 x GTX 780 SLI.

Soon I shall post a thread with a full build spec for discussion, but right now I just want to know what the real difference is between the 3 CPU's:
i7 3770K
i7 4770K
i7 3930K (6 core)

Is there an advantage to 6-core? Future proof?

3770K vs 4770K?

Thanks
June 17, 2013 9:02:31 AM

ScottishBattleAxe said:
Hi guys. I have general IT knowledge but I'm moving into PC gaming seriously and have never spec'd out a system before. I've read a lot but now at the point where I need to ask questions to understand things better.

Budget is not an issue (looking at $4-5000), and even if I don't NEED something now, if it future proofs them I'm interested. Main goal is to play the likes of Battlefield 3 and 4 on Ultra graphics at 120FPS. I shall probably get 2 x GTX 780 SLI.

Soon I shall post a thread with a full build spec for discussion, but right now I just want to know what the real difference is between the 3 CPU's:
i7 3770K
i7 4770K
i7 3930K (6 core)

Is there an advantage to 6-core? Future proof?

3770K vs 4770K?

Thanks


For gaming there is no advantage to i7... The main differences as you know is the HTT. Which gaming does not utilize and most likely will not any time soon.

I would stick to an i5 for gaming. If your going to be doing other things, running vm's, editing videos, rendering etc. Then an i7 would be to your advantage. Otherwise it's just a waist of cash.
m
0
l
June 17, 2013 9:02:56 AM

The extra 2 cores will only help when rendering etc. You don't really even need an i7 processor at all for a gaming PC, as the i5 performs just as well, but with a budget like that you should be looking at the 4770k. Pair it with a cooler like the H100i and your SLI of the 780s and you're looking at a great system.
m
0
l
Related resources
June 17, 2013 9:03:51 AM

Eh, it's hard. Right now, if you need speed, 4770k. If you need multi-taking/good performance right now in a few CPU heavy games, 3930k. If you have time and want speed and good multi-tasking/good CPU heavy performance, I would wait for IB-e, aka 4930k.

This is assuming you mean no real budget for the CPU. A HT 3770 vs a 3570 gets a 36% increase with the extra threads in crisis 3 so I assume more real cores and more threads would help even more.
m
0
l
June 17, 2013 9:32:35 AM

In addition to gaming I will be photo editing and a small amount of video rendering. Possibly even record some gameplay on occasion. With this in mind it sounds like a i7 (whatever one) is most suitable.

So nobody is saying a 3770K is better than a 4770K, right?

And a 3930K seems to be more power than I will need
m
0
l
June 17, 2013 9:34:47 AM

In terms of At your price ranger I'd go with the 4770k, because there's no need to go with old tech, 3770k, and the 3930k really isn't needed for gaming, even a 4770k isn't needed, most games run fine on a 4670k.
EDIT: Curse my slow typing, and yes, the 3770k isn't better the 4770k at anything, but overclocking I guess. But per clock haswell is faster, such 4.3GHz on a haswell chip may be as fast as a 4.5GHz ivy chip.
m
0
l
June 17, 2013 9:34:48 AM

3770K is from the previous gen of processors so buying it now seems silly when you can purchase a 4770K and receive more performance. The marginal price difference between the 3770k and 4770k hardly matters when your budget is so high.
m
0
l

Best solution

June 17, 2013 9:38:16 AM

If Your budget allows it, go with the i7 4770k. You really don't gain, much advantage over ther i7 3770k, but it is the newest and uses less power in most cases. In my opinion a Hex core CPU is a waste of money as there is nothing out there that will really utilize them. With the i7 you can run 8 threads.
Share
June 17, 2013 10:03:57 AM

Thanks folks. Sounds like the 4770K is a clear favorite for my needs.

I've read so much that my brain hurts. Ill check myself- but to give me a headstart can anyone explain what changed from 3770K to 4770K?

Thanks
m
0
l
June 17, 2013 10:09:18 AM

Its an architecture change, a minor performance change. Haswell was more important on the mobile side, where they made the chips much more energy efficient. Though some changes, like putting the vrm on chip, didn't help the overclocking part, as your motherboard selection doesn't matter as much, and they put out even more heat than before.
m
0
l
June 17, 2013 10:11:38 AM

The performance difference has been proven to be around 5-15% which will improve rendering times etc and may also add a few fps to some games, depending on how CPU intensive that game is. The 4770k does run quite a bit hotter than its Ivy Bridge predecessor, and will therefore need a high-end cooler to reach those high overclocks such as the Corsair H100i or Noctua NH-D14. When the machine is idle, the power consumption by the 4770k is much, much less than the 3770k. Admitedly, this mostly benefits tablets and laptops, but can still help lower the costs of running your PC. The Z87 motherboard chipset offers at least 6 SATA III ports and can also house higher speed ram. A lot of people may argue that getting the 3770k is wiser as you are more likely to get a higher overclock from it, but when the new generation of CPUs is out for almost an identical price, buying the previous gen makes little sense.
m
0
l
June 17, 2013 10:12:04 AM

I don't know about the heat. The 4770k seems to be about the same as the 2600k I had in here, but it was a huge performance jump.
m
0
l
June 17, 2013 10:19:12 AM

At stock idle maybe, but like ivy they have thermal paste under the hood, along with vrms and other hot jazz. When OCed and stressing its ridiculous how hot they get. A friend with a 4670k and a 212evo couldn't get much past stock, though his chip wasn't all that great. I actually just bought a 3770k, only because I have a z77 board, and I'm starting to work on a 3D modeling science project.
m
0
l
June 17, 2013 10:23:05 AM

googoo1876 said:
At stock idle maybe, but like ivy they have thermal paste under the hood, along with vrms and other hot jazz. When OCed and stressing its ridiculous how hot they get. A friend with a 4670k and a 212evo couldn't get much past stock, though his chip wasn't all that great. I actually just bought a 3770k, only because I have a z77 board, and I'm starting to work on a 3D modeling science project.


I think your friend has issues with Thermal paste application and should reapply / check airflow in his case.
m
0
l
June 17, 2013 10:31:51 AM

Yeah, I thought it was thermal paste too, but applying it myself with mx4 only resulted a tiny temp drop, I'm guessing he just absolutely lost it on the silicon lotto. Airflow isn't great, but not enough to justify the ridiculous temps(85C at 4GHz).
m
0
l
June 17, 2013 10:42:41 AM

googoo1876 said:
Yeah, I thought it was thermal paste too, but applying it myself with mx4 only resulted a tiny temp drop, I'm guessing he just absolutely lost it on the silicon lotto. Airflow isn't great, but not enough to justify the ridiculous temps(85C at 4GHz).


That sucks. Most ive seen overclock fairly well.
m
0
l
June 17, 2013 11:33:57 AM

Hmmmm, I know of another one with a 4670k and the best he was able to get was 4.3 Ghz.
m
0
l
June 17, 2013 11:46:11 AM

Go for the 3930k mate I moved up from a 2500k and I never lag on bf3, bioshock infinite and a solid 60 fps on metro 2033 at stock clock speeds , paired with 670 i get 70-100 fps on 64 man servers noshar canals TDM. Heavy stuff ,lag free you wont regret it man.
m
0
l
June 17, 2013 11:55:54 AM

Okay so lets focus on Gaming/Battlefield.
What would the 3930K give me that I wouldn't get with the 4770K ?
m
0
l
June 17, 2013 11:59:15 AM

ciaranmc2011 said:
Go for the 3930k mate I moved up from a 2500k and I never lag on bf3, bioshock infinite and a solid 60 fps on metro 2033 at stock clock speeds , paired with 670 i get 70-100 fps on 64 man servers noshar canals TDM. Heavy stuff ,lag free you wont regret it man.


You Do need a good CPU, but most of that is having a good GPU, which you have. I was playing The Witcher 2 and I can tell you, that thing is not for wimpy machines. Decent machines were getting 30 - 45 FPS with pretty much maxed out settings, I was consistantly over 60 FPS with the GTX 680, mostly around 100 or so, unless I got into a really intense area, then it would fall off to around 60 or so briefly.
m
0
l
June 17, 2013 12:12:49 PM

Wut? A gtx680 gets no more than 50fps in Witcher 2 with ubersampling, with occasional dips under 30, but then again, I can't tell the difference with our without. As for your question, I don't think anything would be bottlenecked by a 4770k, it's a really nice chip, just make sure you OC it =) it should go to at least 4.2GHz on air unless you have REALLY bad luck.
m
0
l
June 17, 2013 12:16:16 PM

coastie65 said:
ciaranmc2011 said:
Go for the 3930k mate I moved up from a 2500k and I never lag on bf3, bioshock infinite and a solid 60 fps on metro 2033 at stock clock speeds , paired with 670 i get 70-100 fps on 64 man servers noshar canals TDM. Heavy stuff ,lag free you wont regret it man.


You Do need a good CPU, but most of that is having a good GPU, which you have. I was playing The Witcher 2 and I can tell you, that thing is not for wimpy machines. Decent machines were getting 30 - 45 FPS with pretty much maxed out settings, I was consistantly over 60 FPS with the GTX 680, mostly around 100 or so, unless I got into a really intense area, then it would fall off to around 60 or so briefly.


Yes you're right but he stated that he will be playing Battlefield, probably paired with 2 780s now if that can't run anything over a 100 FPS (I'm exaggerating a bit) paired with a 6 core 12 threads cpu easily overclockable to 4.2 Ghz I don't no what will. especially Battlefield with eats up all them cores and performs substantially better with Hyper threaded CPUs. not to mention the advantage he will get if he ever ups and decides to record with fraps and do some editing on Sony vegas he will get a huge benefit the 3930k is the way to go or you could wait until the 4930k comes out i'm not trying to burn a hole in your pocket but if you have the money go for it.
m
0
l
June 17, 2013 12:21:35 PM

googoo1876 said:
Wut? A gtx680 gets no more than 50fps in Witcher 2 with ubersampling, with occasional dips under 30, but then again, I can't tell the difference with our without. As for your question, I don't think anything would be bottlenecked by a 4770k, it's a really nice chip, just make sure you OC it =) it should go to at least 4.2GHz on air unless you have REALLY bad luck.


I have everything cranked to the Max and only disabled the blur stuff. They were getting 30 - 45 FPS and sometimes a bit better on a GTX 460. I was doing better than that with a GTX 560Ti. No, I doubt if Bottlenecking will be an issue. Gotta reinstall my FRAPS stuff. Actually, I am running at 4.4 at the moment ( 100x44 ).
m
0
l
June 17, 2013 12:29:00 PM

coastie65 said:
googoo1876 said:
Wut? A gtx680 gets no more than 50fps in Witcher 2 with ubersampling, with occasional dips under 30, but then again, I can't tell the difference with our without. As for your question, I don't think anything would be bottlenecked by a 4770k, it's a really nice chip, just make sure you OC it =) it should go to at least 4.2GHz on air unless you have REALLY bad luck.


I have everything cranked to the Max and only disabled the blur stuff. They were getting 30 - 45 FPS and sometimes a bit better on a GTX 460. I was doing better than that with a GTX 560Ti. No, I doubt if Bottlenecking will be an issue. Gotta reinstall my FRAPS stuff. Actually, I am running at 4.4 at the moment ( 100x44 ).

I'm almost sure you don't have ubersampling on, its crazy demanding. And yeah, bottlenecking isn't really a thing with a 4770k, unless maybe you have quads sli titians? Probably not bottlenecking anything...
m
0
l
June 17, 2013 12:39:34 PM

googoo1876 said:
coastie65 said:
googoo1876 said:
Wut? A gtx680 gets no more than 50fps in Witcher 2 with ubersampling, with occasional dips under 30, but then again, I can't tell the difference with our without. As for your question, I don't think anything would be bottlenecked by a 4770k, it's a really nice chip, just make sure you OC it =) it should go to at least 4.2GHz on air unless you have REALLY bad luck.


I have everything cranked to the Max and only disabled the blur stuff. They were getting 30 - 45 FPS and sometimes a bit better on a GTX 460. I was doing better than that with a GTX 560Ti. No, I doubt if Bottlenecking will be an issue. Gotta reinstall my FRAPS stuff. Actually, I am running at 4.4 at the moment ( 100x44 ).

I'm almost sure you don't have ubersampling on, its crazy demanding. And yeah, bottlenecking isn't really a thing with a 4770k, unless maybe you have quads sli titians? Probably not bottlenecking anything...


Quad Titans ? LOL Whew !!!! I have everything enabled but the blur effects which I don't like. I get FRAPS reinstalled I'll go back and check my memory. One of the places where the FPS would drop would be outside of that town where the Krakan or whatever that thing was called is in ther jungle. It would fall off there some, especially in combat. I only have 3 PCIe slots on theis board. Hmmmmm, Three GTX 690's. I think that would be the equivilant of 6 GPUS at two per card. :) 
m
0
l
June 17, 2013 12:39:43 PM

Are we saying that a 3930K 6-core is actually fully utilized by Battlefield? I thought I read somewhere that no current games use more than a quad-core. Right? Wrong?

And same question on FRAPS/Sony Vegas/video editing software: do these programs really benefit/utilize 6-core CPU's?

I don't mind paying extra for a 6-core CPU if there are real benefits.
m
0
l
June 17, 2013 12:50:37 PM

ScottishBattleAxe said:
Are we saying that a 3930K 6-core is actually fully utilized by Battlefield? I thought I read somewhere that no current games use more than a quad-core. Right? Wrong?

And same question on FRAPS/Sony Vegas/video editing software: do these programs really benefit/utilize 6-core CPU's?

I don't mind paying extra for a 6-core CPU if there are real benefits.


The only thing I can say is that personally, I have never given a thought about going to a Hex core of any flavor. Yoiu can do just as well with an i7.
m
0
l
June 17, 2013 3:48:22 PM

So the consensus seems to be that 6 cores don't offer any major performance increase.
m
0
l
June 17, 2013 4:06:12 PM

ScottishBattleAxe said:
So the consensus seems to be that 6 cores don't offer any major performance increase.


I don't think so considering an i7 with give you 8 threads anyway instaed of 12 with a hex core Intel.

m
0
l
June 17, 2013 5:29:13 PM

Thanks. Talking about "threads" is where I start to get lost :pt1cable:  But I get the principle I think.
m
0
l
June 18, 2013 6:47:30 AM

ScottishBattleAxe said:
Thanks all. 4770K it is then.


I'm happy with the one I put in here and think it was well worth the cost of the upgrade.
m
0
l
June 18, 2013 4:02:33 PM

ScottishBattleAxe said:
Thanks a lot for your help :) 


The 3930K would win in gaming, BF3 already utilizes 6 cores but really only needs 2-3 (3-3.5 at 120HZ) of them, but when BF4 comes out with the enhanced destructibility it will probably use 3-4 (4-6 at 120HZ) cores, crysis 3 (not even mentioning 4) USES all 6 cores of the 3930, around 70-90% CPU usage (crazy I know) and since you will be playing at 120 FPS you will REALLY need the 3930K for BF4. Hope I helped :) 
m
0
l
June 18, 2013 5:17:05 PM

If you have even more money, get the new ASUS 4K monitor and enjoy.
m
0
l
June 22, 2013 6:25:33 AM

MainStreaming said:
ScottishBattleAxe said:
Thanks a lot for your help :) 


The 3930K would win in gaming, BF3 already utilizes 6 cores but really only needs 2-3 (3-3.5 at 120HZ) of them, but when BF4 comes out with the enhanced destructibility it will probably use 3-4 (4-6 at 120HZ) cores, crysis 3 (not even mentioning 4) USES all 6 cores of the 3930, around 70-90% CPU usage (crazy I know) and since you will be playing at 120 FPS you will REALLY need the 3930K for BF4. Hope I helped :) 


Seems that I ran across something recently that said that BF4 was only going to be optimized for the Xbox. If that is the case, it is going to be a big disappointment for those PC players.
m
0
l
June 22, 2013 4:55:00 PM

coastie65 said:
MainStreaming said:
ScottishBattleAxe said:
Thanks a lot for your help :) 


The 3930K would win in gaming, BF3 already utilizes 6 cores but really only needs 2-3 (3-3.5 at 120HZ) of them, but when BF4 comes out with the enhanced destructibility it will probably use 3-4 (4-6 at 120HZ) cores, crysis 3 (not even mentioning 4) USES all 6 cores of the 3930, around 70-90% CPU usage (crazy I know) and since you will be playing at 120 FPS you will REALLY need the 3930K for BF4. Hope I helped :) 


Seems that I ran across something recently that said that BF4 was only going to be optimized for the Xbox. If that is the case, it is going to be a big disappointment for those PC players.


Link? I find that hard to believe that DICE would optimize a game for the least selling next gen console since it has been a disaster with the Xbox One and DRM.
m
0
l
June 22, 2013 5:35:25 PM

Never read attack of the fanboy. Mostly speculation and rumor. Rarely fact
m
0
l
June 22, 2013 6:08:12 PM

The first I saw of that was a report from E 2013 last week. What i tok form it was that they were trying to bring the comsoles up to the level of the PC's. I don't see any downgrading of the quallity of the PC version. I don't Play FPS games though.
m
0
l
June 22, 2013 6:58:43 PM

They are bringing consoles to the same player count to match PC 64 player. Current gen consoles only get 24 players. That is where the similarity ends.

PC will still have better graphics, more FPS, better servers, etc.
m
0
l
June 23, 2013 5:15:24 AM

ScottishBattleAxe said:
They are bringing consoles to the same player count to match PC 64 player. Current gen consoles only get 24 players. That is where the similarity ends.

PC will still have better graphics, more FPS, better servers, etc.


Yeah, that's the way it looks to me. The PC platform has been established and they are playing catch up with the consoles, but not at the expense of the PC platform.
m
0
l
June 24, 2013 5:33:43 AM

Indeed. And I also heard that DICE shall be allowing the PC community some "limited" support for game mods. They wont be opening up the frostbite engine or anything, but apparently there shall be tweaking functions available to server admins/modders. We can only speculate as to what that means!
m
0
l
June 24, 2013 6:25:43 AM

Consoles wil only be a competitor for PC gaming the day Valve's console "Steam Box" comes out. The OS will be steam based and the hardware will be upgradeable with very easy plug and play features. That may be the day I will consider a console.
m
0
l
August 5, 2013 2:25:08 AM

ciaranmc2011 said:
coastie65 said:
ciaranmc2011 said:
Go for the 3930k mate I moved up from a 2500k and I never lag on bf3, bioshock infinite and a solid 60 fps on metro 2033 at stock clock speeds , paired with 670 i get 70-100 fps on 64 man servers noshar canals TDM. Heavy stuff ,lag free you wont regret it man.


You Do need a good CPU, but most of that is having a good GPU, which you have. I was playing The Witcher 2 and I can tell you, that thing is not for wimpy machines. Decent machines were getting 30 - 45 FPS with pretty much maxed out settings, I was consistantly over 60 FPS with the GTX 680, mostly around 100 or so, unless I got into a really intense area, then it would fall off to around 60 or so briefly.


Yes you're right but he stated that he will be playing Battlefield, probably paired with 2 780s now if that can't run anything over a 100 FPS (I'm exaggerating a bit) paired with a 6 core 12 threads cpu easily overclockable to 4.2 Ghz I don't no what will. especially Battlefield with eats up all them cores and performs substantially better with Hyper threaded CPUs. not to mention the advantage he will get if he ever ups and decides to record with fraps and do some editing on Sony vegas he will get a huge benefit the 3930k is the way to go or you could wait until the 4930k comes out i'm not trying to burn a hole in your pocket but if you have the money go for it.


I've been tabulating Vegas 12 rendering speed for various processors and GPUs. The results have been interesting. When I get enough data in the table, I will post it.

I'm very interested in having the performance of the 3930k, 4770k 3770k and other new processors in my table, so please help.

I have created a simplified specific test and test file for this purpose.

It would be greatly appreciated for all to measure their own performance and send me a message or post their results. Please see the topic here.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-1750719/tabulate-s...
m
0
l
!