Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

i7 4770k vs i5 4670k high end gaming build

Tags:
  • Gaming
  • Intel i7
  • Intel
  • Intel i5
  • CPUs
  • Build
  • Performance
Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 28, 2014 6:18:04 PM

I want the most PREMIUM performance. Even if its a 5-10 fps gain, I will spend the extra cash. I've heard that the i7 can be worse and the i5 is better and vise versa. Whats the truth? I keep hearing mixed stories. But heres the thing. I will have 2 780ti's in my rig and I don't want my CPU to bottleneck them.

More about : 4770k 4670k high end gaming build

a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
March 28, 2014 6:23:35 PM

For straight gaming, as of march 2014 theyy are both identical. Give or take a frame or two a second. But, throwing that much raw gpu power and spending that much, it's kind of a no brainer to spend the extra $100 and get the 4770k.
m
0
l
a c 298 4 Gaming
a c 156 å Intel
a c 915 à CPUs
March 28, 2014 6:37:54 PM

A modern I5 does not bottleneck any GPU today if you give them enough resolution to play with. For example a single 1080P monitor would bottleneck 2 x 780Ti regardless of what CPU!
m
0
l
Related resources
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
March 28, 2014 6:55:12 PM

rolli59 said:
A modern I5 does not bottleneck any GPU today if you give them enough resolution to play with. For example a single 1080P monitor would bottleneck 2 x 780Ti regardless of what CPU!


Some games might require more from the CPU than others.
So even if the Cpu does not bottleneck the graphic cards per se, you might get better performance on some games with the core i7.
An example would be rome 2 total war, a highly processor intensive game.
m
0
l
a c 305 4 Gaming
a c 118 å Intel
a c 506 à CPUs
March 28, 2014 7:02:59 PM

The i7 4770k is better than any i5, it's just not always worth extra $80-100. If you really need bragging rights, there are always the 6 core i7 Extremes like the 4930k or 4960x.
m
0
l
a c 298 4 Gaming
a c 156 å Intel
a c 915 à CPUs
March 28, 2014 7:06:50 PM

CTurbo said:
The i7 4770k is better than any i5, it's just not always worth extra $80-100. If you really need bragging rights, there are always the 6 core i7 Extremes like the 4930k or 4960x.

+1
In 99% of cases the 4770K will give 0-5% increase over the I5 so definitely not worth the price premium based on gaming alone.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
March 28, 2014 7:08:19 PM

All very true, but if he wants to 100% future proof, plus is dropping almost $2000 on graphics cards, I'd just up the $80 and get the i7. If your spending $2500 whats $2580?
m
0
l
a c 305 4 Gaming
a c 118 å Intel
a c 506 à CPUs
March 28, 2014 7:09:59 PM

I agree. I would go with the i7 4770k if I wanted to spend over $2000.
m
0
l
March 28, 2014 7:10:33 PM

Dblkk said:
For straight gaming, as of march 2014 theyy are both identical. Give or take a frame or two a second. But, throwing that much raw gpu power and spending that much, it's kind of a no brainer to spend the extra $100 and get the 4770k.


But is hyperthreading bad for gaming?
m
0
l
a c 298 4 Gaming
a c 156 å Intel
a c 915 à CPUs
March 28, 2014 7:12:17 PM

It is not bad for gaming, if you already have a quad core the games with very few (1 or 2) exceptions do not benefit from it.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
March 28, 2014 7:13:27 PM

It isn't bad for gaming, it just doesn't give any advantages. Games don't use hyperthreading.
m
0
l
a c 305 4 Gaming
a c 118 å Intel
a c 506 à CPUs
March 28, 2014 7:18:03 PM

It's not bad ever, it's just isn't always useful.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
March 28, 2014 7:19:01 PM

There are only a few 'games' that take advantage of hyperthreading on a cpu such as a 4770K since hyperthreading is basically 'virtual cores' and most games don't use even all 4 physical cores anyways. As far as production goes with graphics apps and other non-game related stuff, then yes hyperthreading is of use, but unless you are really into 1 or 2 of those 'hyperthreading games' then for the 0%-5% fps (at 180+fps you really going to notice the extra 4fps??) the extra cost and heat really isn't worth it.
m
0
l
March 28, 2014 7:25:23 PM

rolli59 said:
It is not bad for gaming, if you already have a quad core the games with very few (1 or 2) exceptions do not benefit from it.


I haven't built the rig yet,
...
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
March 28, 2014 7:34:25 PM

Thanks to the new ps4 and xbox one 8 core processors, i guarantee games in the future will use more than 4 cores at once.
Even if now most games do not use more than 4 cores, i'm sure this will change.
So if you want extreme performance just get the i7 and be done with it.
m
0
l
a c 298 4 Gaming
a c 156 å Intel
a c 915 à CPUs
March 28, 2014 7:43:13 PM

And when that happens 2 years + down the road you could always upgrade to bigger and better things from current I5.
m
0
l
a c 305 4 Gaming
a c 118 å Intel
a c 506 à CPUs
March 28, 2014 7:46:06 PM

I promise you that the weak low power 8 cores in the new Xbox and Ps4 have absolutely nothing to do with PC gaming. Those cpus would make TERRIBLE PC cpus. You know they are 1.6ghz x 8 for the Ps4 and 1.75ghz x 8 for the Xbox? And that is weak AMD cores.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
March 28, 2014 7:46:35 PM

It seems that opinions are split.
If funds don't matter, just throw money at it.
Things that cost more tend to be better.
Get the i7

/solved
m
0
l
a c 305 4 Gaming
a c 118 å Intel
a c 506 à CPUs
March 28, 2014 7:52:26 PM

The i7 offers more L3 cache that will help in extreme gaming, and they are the better binned chips so they usually overclock higher than the i5s.


Again, I don't normally recommend i7s for strictly gaming, but the OP has made it clear he is willing to spend the money to get maximum performance.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
March 28, 2014 8:07:33 PM

CTurbo said:
I promise you that the weak low power 8 cores in the new Xbox and Ps4 have absolutely nothing to do with PC gaming. Those cpus would make TERRIBLE PC cpus. You know they are 1.6ghz x 8 for the Ps4 and 1.75ghz x 8 for the Xbox? And that is weak AMD cores.


I never said they were good.
I just said that if console games will be coded to use 8 corses, i am sure that games that are launched on both consoles and pc will also be coded to use 8 cores if available.
Is my logic flawed?
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
March 28, 2014 8:11:06 PM

Better get a good cpu cooler, 4770K's tend to run quite hot. Premium AirCooler would be Noctua NH-D14, Premium LiquidCooler would be CoolerMaster Eisberg 240L Prestige, but for premium performance, you should look to full boat water cooling, but that's more often used on the Intel Extreme (LGA 2011) systems.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
March 28, 2014 8:17:16 PM

Not flawed, but not realistic. with such weak, low speed processors, the games (which don't have Windows stupid power/cpu core saving crap, are almost forced to maximize use of multicore tech. PC's however don't have that limitation and have much more powerful cpu's, so multicore coding isn't needed, and since the majority of Intel cpu's are 2-4 core, that's where the game manufacturers are gonna sink their money into in order to maximize sales. If games started to be written that really needed 8 cores to run well, AMD would have a field day, and 100% of the Intel users would be S.O.L.
m
0
l
March 28, 2014 8:45:10 PM

sunder25 said:
Thanks to the new ps4 and xbox one 8 core processors, i guarantee games in the future will use more than 4 cores at once.
Even if now most games do not use more than 4 cores, i'm sure this will change.
So if you want extreme performance just get the i7 and be done with it.


Is the i7 better for overclocking?
m
0
l
a c 305 4 Gaming
a c 118 å Intel
a c 506 à CPUs
March 28, 2014 8:47:53 PM

Yes but not by a whole lot.
m
0
l

Best solution

March 28, 2014 8:59:17 PM

Go for the i7. It is more likely to be powerful for longer. Rumors are out about the next i core. When that comes out the i3 will most likely become obsolete and your i5 core will be shittier because of its weaker capabilities and more demanding games. That's just me though.
Share
March 28, 2014 9:26:23 PM

CTurbo said:
Yes but not by a whole lot.


Will it be speedier within the is as well? Booting apps?
m
0
l
March 28, 2014 9:28:52 PM

eden2012 said:
CTurbo said:
Yes but not by a whole lot.


Will it be speedier within the is as well? Booting apps?

Yes! Definitely. I am running an i5 (Mac) and an i7 (PC). My PC is super fast. Starcraft 2 launches instantly and so does Diablo 3. With my mac it is a bit slower. Also my Mac is nearly 2 years old.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
March 28, 2014 9:30:12 PM

eden2012 said:
CTurbo said:
Yes but not by a whole lot.


Will it be speedier within the is as well? Booting apps?


A good SSD will have the most impact when booting apps.
The i7 will be marginally better than the i5 when opening apps.
Where it will shine is data calculations, multitasking and such.
m
0
l
March 28, 2014 9:33:56 PM

sunder25 said:
eden2012 said:
CTurbo said:
Yes but not by a whole lot.


Will it be speedier within the is as well? Booting apps?


A good SSD will have the most impact when booting apps.
The i7 will be marginally better than the i5 when opening apps.
Where it will shine is data calculations, multitasking and such.

This seems more accurate than my post.

m
0
l
a c 305 4 Gaming
a c 118 å Intel
a c 506 à CPUs
March 28, 2014 9:34:11 PM

Let's get one thing clear, the i5 is close to the i7 in gaming only. The i7 stomps the i5 in everything else.
m
0
l
March 28, 2014 9:35:49 PM

CTurbo said:
Let's get one thing clear, the i5 is close to the i7 in gaming only. The i7 stomps the i5 in everything else.

Kind of. The cores are similar just the i7 is faster and typically goes on a faster socket (LGA 2011)
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
March 28, 2014 9:39:07 PM

benchmarks were putting the 4770k at opening a very large app @10 seconds, the 4670k @11 seconds. Anything smaller than that app and you'd not be physically able to tell the difference. Its only during high calculation, data processing, multithreaded stuff like some 3d rendering apps and parts of autocad and other apps like that that the hyperthreading really comes into its own.
m
0
l
March 28, 2014 9:46:02 PM

Karadjgne said:
benchmarks were putting the 4770k at opening a very large app @10 seconds, the 4670k @11 seconds. Anything smaller than that app and you'd not be physically able to tell the difference. Its only during high calculation, data processing, multithreaded stuff like some 3d rendering apps and parts of autocad and other apps like that that the hyperthreading really comes into its own.

Go for the i7. It is more likely to be powerful for longer. Rumors are out about the next i core. When that comes out the i3 will most likely become obsolete and your i5 core will be shittier because of its weaker capabilities and more demanding games. That's just me though. (Earlier post if you missed it)
i7 is more future proof. This dude has a high budget and personally I am a go big or go home kind of guy. SO, I highly recommend a faster core, especially if that is an option.


Side note: Where is the guy we are trying to help. Honestly we aren't even trying to convince him anymore. Just each other.
m
1
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
March 28, 2014 9:49:37 PM

Fewshin said:
Karadjgne said:
benchmarks were putting the 4770k at opening a very large app @10 seconds, the 4670k @11 seconds. Anything smaller than that app and you'd not be physically able to tell the difference. Its only during high calculation, data processing, multithreaded stuff like some 3d rendering apps and parts of autocad and other apps like that that the hyperthreading really comes into its own.

Go for the i7. It is more likely to be powerful for longer. Rumors are out about the next i core. When that comes out the i3 will most likely become obsolete and your i5 core will be shittier because of its weaker capabilities and more demanding games. That's just me though. (Earlier post if you missed it)
i7 is more future proof. This dude has a high budget and personally I am a go big or go home kind of guy. SO, I highly recommend a faster core, especially if that is an option.


Couldnt agree more.

The point of this whole thread is moot. There is no situation in which the i7 is worse than the i5
You can deal with heat since i will assume that you will get some serious cooling for your systemthatcostsasmuchasahouseinsomecountries.
Good luck.


m
0
l
March 28, 2014 9:54:32 PM

sunder25 said:
Fewshin said:
Karadjgne said:
benchmarks were putting the 4770k at opening a very large app @10 seconds, the 4670k @11 seconds. Anything smaller than that app and you'd not be physically able to tell the difference. Its only during high calculation, data processing, multithreaded stuff like some 3d rendering apps and parts of autocad and other apps like that that the hyperthreading really comes into its own.

Go for the i7. It is more likely to be powerful for longer. Rumors are out about the next i core. When that comes out the i3 will most likely become obsolete and your i5 core will be shittier because of its weaker capabilities and more demanding games. That's just me though. (Earlier post if you missed it)
i7 is more future proof. This dude has a high budget and personally I am a go big or go home kind of guy. SO, I highly recommend a faster core, especially if that is an option.


Couldnt agree more.

The point of this whole thread is moot. There is no situation in which the i7 is worse than the i5
You can deal with heat since i will assume that you will get some serious cooling for your systemthatcostsasmuchasahouseinsomecountries.
Good luck.



This post made my day. That is impressive considering it's almost midnight in my timezone. And honestly it is up to the dude who is actually buying the system. We have all of each other's opinions out he gets final pick. (I hope he picks me because I haven't gotten picked for a best solution yet).

m
0
l
March 28, 2014 10:06:12 PM

It's not bad ever, it's just isn't always useful.

m
0
l
March 28, 2014 10:32:34 PM

Okay everyone. I will probably go with the i7. This puts my build at a whopping 3.5 k USD.
I know Arma is very CPU intense as well. And I've heard from multiple sources that Watch Dogs recommends 8 cores for max performance.
m
0
l
March 28, 2014 10:33:37 PM

Thinking about getting the Kraken x60 for cooling... Good idea?
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
March 28, 2014 10:45:48 PM

Consider the radiator from an old car, or better yet, an air conditioning system. I heard samsung ones are tha bomb.

Im sorry it's late.
Long thread.
m
0
l
March 29, 2014 6:17:51 AM

eden2012 said:
Okay everyone. I will probably go with the i7. This puts my build at a whopping 3.5 k USD.
I know Arma is very CPU intense as well. And I've heard from multiple sources that Watch Dogs recommends 8 cores for max performance.

You are going for an AMD? I honestly wouldn't recommend it. They may look cool with their 8 cores and high GHZ but most are as strong as an i3 OVER CLOCKING. I would stick with the i7.

Edit: Also the i7 knows how to use its cores better and they are typically high class cores. It may seem expensive but it it will be worth it.
m
0
l
March 29, 2014 6:35:43 AM

Fewshin said:
eden2012 said:
Okay everyone. I will probably go with the i7. This puts my build at a whopping 3.5 k USD.
I know Arma is very CPU intense as well. And I've heard from multiple sources that Watch Dogs recommends 8 cores for max performance.

You are going for an AMD? I honestly wouldn't recommend it. They may look cool with their 8 cores and high GHZ but most are as strong as an i3 OVER CLOCKING. I would stick with the i7.

Edit: Also the i7 knows how to use its cores better and they are typically high class cores. It may seem expensive but it it will be worth it.

No I'm going with the i7 and it basically has 8 cores....virtual cores that is.
m
0
l
March 29, 2014 6:43:35 AM

Glad I could help.
m
0
l
March 29, 2014 6:46:29 AM

Fewshin said:
Glad I could help.


Is the Kraken x60 any good for overclocking?
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
March 29, 2014 2:00:43 PM

The NZXT Kraken X60 will handle anything you can throw at it. Beyond that cooling solution you are really well into full custom loop water coolers.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 29, 2014 2:03:08 PM

PS4 processor in not weak for $400 system. right? :D 
m
0
l
March 29, 2014 2:14:17 PM

Erman Yudhistira said:
PS4 processor in not weak for $400 system. right? :D 


The cores themselves SUCK. Just the fact that there are 8 of them is why the PS4 is super fast. So yes they are good for a $400 system.
m
0
l
!