Is i7 4820k good enough for gaming compared to the i7 4930k?

leech33s · Jan 27, 2014

I misclicked the 4820 for 4930 by accident on the shop and now I already put the computer together. I'm wondering if an upgrade to the 4930k would be a huge difference.

rolli59 · Jan 27, 2014

Gaming wise they will do similarly since gaming will not use the extra thread capability of the 4930K.

tonyzet · Jan 27, 2014

It depends on your configuration. On a sigle-GPU system you will get about the same perfomance if you use an i5 or even an i3, for instance...

DeathAndPain · Jan 27, 2014

In fact both CPUs are not really supposed to be gaming CPUs, because they are too expensive. That being said, both CPUs will do nicely for that purpose.

However, the point in going in Ivy-E instead of Haswell is that Ivy-E allows for more CPU cores. The 4930 has them, the 4820 does not. So you would probably have been better off getting yourself a 4770K.

tonyzet :

This is bull. The CPU is much faster than an i3 and, depending on circumstances, also faster than an i5.

tonyzet · Jan 27, 2014

I was referring on gaming perfomance obviously...

DeathAndPain · Jan 27, 2014

Me too.

tonyzet · Jan 27, 2014

If you value +$300 for +10fps as better perfomance, thats good for you I guess...

DeathAndPain · Jan 27, 2014

If you believe that in modern games the difference between a dual-core HT Core i3 and a hexacore HT Core i7 (at clock speeds of which an i3 can only dream) is only 10 fps, then dream on.

Of course the GPU should live up to the quality of the CPU, that much is true.

leech33s · Jan 27, 2014

Sorry for doubting, I'm not really experienced in computers, but could you guys tell me a source where it proves that an upgrade from an already high-end CPU would not make that much of a difference in gaming?

vmN · Jan 27, 2014

I wont recommend buying the 4930k when you already have the 4820, unless you get a full refund of the 4820. Both a great CPU's.

DeathAndPain · Jan 27, 2014

Yeah, I would just like to know why Intel introduced the 4820 when they already have the 4770 on the market. I fail to see the faintest advantage of the 4820, neither price- nor otherwise.

leech33s · Jan 27, 2014

vmN :

I am able to get a full refund for the 4820, then should i really get the 4960k?

tonyzet · Jan 27, 2014

DeathAndPain :

Cheap solution for LGA 2011, although there isn't much marketing logic to that

leech33s · Jan 27, 2014

DeathAndPain :

So are you saying that 4960k is a better deal?

DeathAndPain · Jan 27, 2014

It is the only way you actually gain an edge over the usual 4770 choice, yes. The 4930 has 6 cores, the 4820 only four. That sure makes a difference, at least in modern and future games! Whether it is worth forking out so much money is another question and depends on your purse and preferences.

DeathAndPain · Jan 27, 2014

I mean look: Both 4820 and 4930 are Ivy-E CPUs. Ivy is the predecessor of Haswell, so you are getting an older architecture. Only way to justify this is the fact that 4930 offers 6 cores. There are no Haswells with so many cores yet. Only that way will you get adequate performance for the platform you have chosen.

vmN · Jan 27, 2014

Well the 4820 have bigger cache, higher clockspeed, can use up to 64GB ram from 32GB and the 4820 doesn't have a IGP(I didn't even know this).
But I do agree I dont understand why they would do it.

Specops125 · Jan 27, 2014

leech33s :

You are mixing up the 4930K with the 4960X. The 4960X is king but at it's price ($1000) it is a terrible deal compared to the $550 4930K.

The biggest issue with the 4820K is that the motherboards it is compatible with, the LGA 2011 socket, is significantly more expensive than the 4770K's LGA 1150 socket boards. LGA 2011 is mostly used for Intel's server or workstation CPUs, so a lot of the features (such as supporting up to 64GB memory) is basically irrelevant for gaming. So put another way, changing to the 4770K should save you money on the build by virtue of the cheaper motherboard.

There is, however, one strong but narrow gaming advantage to going with the 4820K over the 4770K. LGA 2011 boards use Intel's X79 chipset whereas the best LGA 1150 may have is the Z87. X79 allows for 40 PCIe lanes (bandwidth) whereas Z87 is limited to 16. If you 3 or 4-way SLI top end cards on a LGA 1150 Z87 board (aka a Haswell system) the cards will be forced to run at x4 speed, but with LGA 2011 X79 (aka Ivy Bridge-E) they run at x8. In this scenario the $80-100 more spent on a 4820K CPU/motherboard would be well worth the price given how much a system like that would be costing you total. It is also possible in the future that when even x8 becomes too slow, and you'd want x16 for the fastest cards, running 2-way SLI at x16 on LGA 2011 would make a difference compared to x8 with 2-way SLI on LGA 1150.

Going for the 4930K is a gamble if the rig is for gaming. As others have said, you do not need more than 4 cores/threads for most games today, and the few that do seem to utilize more do not yield much of a performance boost for having done so. So you are betting you will still have the system when it really does start to matter (in three years, four years, five years, more; no one knows for sure). On the other hand, if you went with a 4770K and put that money saved instead into getting a better GPU (e.g. a GTX 780 Ti instead of a GTX 780), that will make a tangible/noticeable difference for gaming much sooner, if not today.

rolli59 · Jan 27, 2014

No current game will utilize all the 12 threads that the 6 core can handle making the 4820 just as good at gaming with its 8 thread capability! Here even a 2 generation old I5 beats previous generation top end 6 core http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-4-graphics-card-performance,3634-10.html
The 6 cores are more for rendering/design machines running programs that are optimized to use the extra thread handling.

DeathAndPain · Jan 28, 2014

rolli59 :

First of all I doubt that. BF4 with many players involved is reported to make good use of hyperthreading. Can you give any proof that it does not create more than 8 threads?

In addition, you act as if a hyperthreaded core was equal to a real core, which it obviously is not. Hyperthreading allows for perhaps a 20% boost by better utilizing a core that already computes another thread. Even with only 6 threads the 4930 will be faster, because each of these threads will be allocated a real core of its own! 4930 has hyperthreading for up to 12 threads on top of that total in case more than 6 threads are running.

rolli59 :

Just because the i5 was heavily overclocked while the 6core was running at stock speed. And these published BF4 benchmarks typically test the game in singleplayer, where an ancient Phenom II is good enough to deliver ample fps. No wonder the game does not create mayn threads in that mode (plus they tested the immature beta).

vmN · Jan 28, 2014

DeathAndPain :

rolli59 :

First of all I doubt that. BF4 with many players involved is reported to make good use of hyperthreading. Can you give any proof that it does not create more than 8 threads?

In addition, you act as if a hyperthreaded core was equal to a real core, which it obviously is not. Hyperthreading allows for perhaps a 20% boost by better utilizing a core that already computes another thread. Even with only 6 threads the 4930 will be faster, because each of these threads will be allocated a real core of its own! 4930 has hyperthreading for up to 12 threads on top of that total in case more than 6 threads are running.

rolli59 :

Just because the i5 was heavily overclocked while the 6core was running at stock speed. And these published BF4 benchmarks typically test the game in singleplayer, where an ancient Phenom II is good enough to deliver ample fps. No wonder the game does not create mayn threads in that mode (plus they tested the immature beta).

nvm you said it yourself.

68vistacruiser · Feb 1, 2014

Because of Microcenter's great combo discount, I bought a 4820K and Gigabyte UP4 motherboard for less than a 4770 set-up would cost at the time. A quick check of the reviews on Newegg showed me that the only beef owners had with the Gigabyte board was fixed with the F5 bios, while far more people have various complaints about the 1150 boards. I also got a 5 year warranty by registering my motherboard, 2133 speed ram on 4 channels, and processing power within 3% of the Haswell. Furthermore, not only can I upgrade to six core later, but my board also takes Xeon processors with up to 12 cores! Tell me, where can you go after the 4770? Stick with the 4820 for now, spend your money on a better video card or SSD, and in a few years grab a 6,8,10 or 12 core processor when you think you might actually have a need for one.

Specops125 · Feb 1, 2014

68vistacruiser :

Both LGA 1150 and LGA 2011 are basically done as far as new generation of CPUs are concerned, meaning a new CPU would require a new mobo, unless you made the questionable choice of replacing an Ivy Bridge-E bought today with an Ivy Bridge-E bought in three years.

68vistacruiser · Feb 7, 2014

Specops125 :

Except that LGA 2011 has better CPUs available now than the 4820k, while the LGA 1150 doesn't have anything above the 4770k. So going the 4820k route still leaves you somewhere to go without rebuilding you system. There really isn't much of an excuse for replacing a 3 year old CPU right now, so I doubt I'll find one three years from now..

Joao Linhares · Nov 6, 2014

DeathAndPain :

4770k
Max # of PCI Express 3.0 Lanes 16

4820k
Max # of PCI Express 3.0 Lanes 40

Gaming wise, youll be future proof'd for a good while... when games start to take advantage of 3 way sli and 4 way, you can just add another card or two or three... at 3.0 8x pcie at least

Is i7 4820k good enough for gaming compared to the i7 4930k?

Distinguished

Titan

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Distinguished

Honorable

Honorable

Distinguished

Honorable

Distinguished

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Distinguished

Titan

Honorable

Honorable

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Reputable

Share this page