Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Worth upgrading i5 2400 to i7 4770k?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 7, 2013 8:39:39 PM

I want to know if the performance jump is worth the cost (of new mobo and processor)?

Assume, I will overclock the i7 4770k. I game (40%), photoshop (30%), video encode (10%), and media (20%)

Should I just wait for haswell refresh or broadwell to make jump?

Please discuss
a b à CPUs
October 7, 2013 8:43:31 PM

Do you have problems with your current performance?
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 116 à CPUs
October 7, 2013 8:54:57 PM

Are you pulling your hair out or otherwise getting irritated at your system's general sluggishness or are you still generally happy with it?

If this is a "should I upgrade just for the heck of upgrading" type of question then you already have your answer: wait if you have no real motivation behind your upgrade itch.

Unless you have software optimized for AVX2, Haswell is only 15-20% faster than a same-clocked Sandy. Add another ~35% for heavily threaded code when comparing i5 against i7. Personally, a 50% best-case upgrade is not something I would bother with.
Share
Related resources
October 7, 2013 9:00:33 PM

patrick47018 said:
Do you have problems with your current performance?


Well as for gaming it's fine. I use photoshop for school for image creation for presentations in order to depict abstract ideas. I find photoshop relatively sluggish. Or anytime I am manipulating/creating images of a large file size. It can be frustrating at times...

Honestly, I was hoping to find a performance boost on all aspects that I've listed...

Maybe, I should rephrase my question; will I see a decent performance boost in all my uses (e.g. gaming, photoshop, video encoding, media) if I upgrade my cpu to the i7 4770k? Or will it be better to wait?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 7, 2013 9:12:10 PM

If you can afford one and will overclock it you will surely see a difference, what is your other specs?
m
0
l
October 7, 2013 9:26:09 PM

patrick47018 said:
If you can afford one and will overclock it you will surely see a difference, what is your other specs?


16 GB memory
i5 2400
P8 Z68 V LE mobo
200 gig ssd
500 gig hdd
gtx 770 sc acx
asus xonar stx
800 W psu (was planning on crossfire but decided to go with 770)
m
0
l
October 8, 2013 2:37:49 AM

Get i7 3770k instead so you don't need to buy a new mobo.
m
0
l
October 8, 2013 8:26:37 PM

Will I see a big boost going with ivy bridge instead?
m
0
l
a c 116 à CPUs
October 8, 2013 8:37:38 PM

No Im Spartacus said:
Will I see a big boost going with ivy bridge instead?

For heavily threaded stuff (Photoshop and CPU-based video encoding), 30-50% not counting potential OC for another 10-20%. For the rest (mostly gaming), 5-20% not counting OC.
m
0
l
October 9, 2013 12:04:56 PM

Honestly, I was hoping to get close to a doubling in performance. I'm guessing, the lack of competition from amd is allowing intel to push performance in small increments so that they can milk more money out of the consumer...I guess broadwell won't be worth waiting since it is just a die shrink of haswell (just lower temps)...

I suppose I will just hold on to my i5 2400 until there is almost a doubling in performance or more.
m
0
l
a c 680 à CPUs
October 9, 2013 12:23:28 PM

No Im Spartacus said:
Honestly, I was hoping to get close to a doubling in performance. I'm guessing, the lack of competition from amd is allowing intel to push performance in small increments so that they can milk more money out of the consumer...I guess broadwell won't be worth waiting since it is just a die shrink of haswell (just lower temps)...

I suppose I will just hold on to my i5 2400 until there is almost a doubling in performance or more.


You can overclock your i5 2400 a little if your feel the desire for a little more performance. http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1811622
m
0
l
October 9, 2013 2:31:08 PM

I managed to get all cores stable and running at 3.7 GHz.
m
0
l
a c 116 à CPUs
October 9, 2013 2:47:51 PM

No Im Spartacus said:
Honestly, I was hoping to get close to a doubling in performance. I'm guessing, the lack of competition from amd is allowing intel to push performance in small increments

If increasing performance beyond what Intel currently has was so easy, AMD should have no problem catching up but AMD needs 100-150W extra power to match Intel's performance. To me, this seems to indicate that per-core performance appears to have reached some form of fundamental limit on both sides and that AMD still has a lot of catching up to do. Intel uses their process advantage to cram more transistors per pipeline stage to improve IPC and power efficiency at the expense of clock rates while AMD tries making up their for their IPC deficit through higher clocks at the expense of unhealthy TDPs.

If you want mainstream CPU performance to start scaling again, you need mainstream software and games to push performance enough to justify adding more cores. Right now, after ~10 years of multi-core and multi-threaded desktop CPUs and ~5 years of the same on consoles, finely threaded code in mainstream games is still somewhat of a rarity.

I see one catch here: massively parallelizable code (like physics, AI and DSP) would likely be more suitable for (I)GPGPU than CPU so, once you delegate those CPU hogs to (I)GPGPU resources, the CPU is back to fiddling its thumbs again.
m
0
l
!