i7 4820k Vs 4770k

vishalnagar

Honorable
Aug 13, 2012
56
0
10,630
hi guys , i m building a new machine For Vray Rendering ..still confuse between CPU. so which CPU is best for this Rig .



MotherBoard - Asus Maximus V1 Hero
Chassis - cosiar 400r
power supply - Seasonic S12II 620 Watts
SSD - 120 Gb Kingston
Ram - 16 gb ddr3 .1600mhz g skill
Graphic card - Asus NVIDIA 750 ti 2gb
Cpu cooler - water cooler h 100i
 
Solution
Oh. Ok. I though that was what were talking about. I noticed the GTX 750 Ti. In most 3d animation or video editing software Nvidia is more likely to perform better in more programs. I am not sure how maxwell unified shader cores will perform but I just wanted to add that I have used Trials of Adobe Premier pro CS6 and Adobe After affects CS6 using the mercury play back engine that supports Cuda. That being said Fermi actually outperforms Kepler. Even a GTX 560 ti would be better than a GTX 680 when using Cuda and reduce render times. I know of an article but I would have to look for it. Most will say that Kepler is better in every way. Not entirely true. USing a GTX 770 and an i5 3570k I did not get a huge boost from the 1536 Kepler...

JOHNN93

Honorable
in that motherboard you can install a 4770k lga 1150 socket cpu.
the 4820k is a lga 2011 socket cpu does not fit in the motherboard but if you had a motherboard that whould support it you whould have quad chanel memory faster memory speeds.up to 64 bg of ram.and a total of 40 pci express lanes compared to the 4770 k that has a max of 16 pci express lanes.
in other words a beast for crosfire and sli.
 

Vitric9

Distinguished
If your going with a i7 4820k and getting a 2011 motherboard in that price range of a Maximus VI it would be more sensible to spend the extra 100-150 on a 4930K. But I would opt for the i7 4770k as the performance is better anyway except in render times and encdoding and decrytping benchmarks.
 

Vitric9

Distinguished
Oh. Ok. I though that was what were talking about. I noticed the GTX 750 Ti. In most 3d animation or video editing software Nvidia is more likely to perform better in more programs. I am not sure how maxwell unified shader cores will perform but I just wanted to add that I have used Trials of Adobe Premier pro CS6 and Adobe After affects CS6 using the mercury play back engine that supports Cuda. That being said Fermi actually outperforms Kepler. Even a GTX 560 ti would be better than a GTX 680 when using Cuda and reduce render times. I know of an article but I would have to look for it. Most will say that Kepler is better in every way. Not entirely true. USing a GTX 770 and an i5 3570k I did not get a huge boost from the 1536 Kepler Shader Cores. I did help but not by the margin i was expecting. I scrapped pretty much all my projects as They were just junk anyway. But The GTX 580 would be ideal for Cuda enhanced applications and you could also game with it. Though I have a feeling that MAxwelll have much better render times that Nvidia's GK104 GTX 670,680, 770
 
Solution

uk1981

Reputable
Aug 27, 2014
7
0
4,510
I had the same question on 4770k v. 4820k. Price points are similar and so are the two mobo (Maximum VII Hero and Rampage IV Black). The primary difference is that the 1150 mobo is not professional level but lower level consumer level which is why they are replaced often as Intel pursues the tablet market. That also explains the 4770k. I picked the LGA 2011 and 4820k as it is a better performer on air and also on water. The 4820k clearly pulls ahead (see http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-Intel-Core-I7-4820k) with 100% better performance with bandwidth and memory. The only advantage for the 4770k is having built in poor boys video HD 4600. I will buy a video card instead. Yes, everyone thinks the 1150 and 4770k is better but the numbers say the opposite. You can either join the crowd with 4770k and LGA1150 so you can spend your money for the lousy HD4600 (already obsolete by the HD5200) or put your money into much better performance since you will likely buy a nice video card anyway. My use for the system is to use high end graphics with photoshop and premier plus games on a 4k flat screen. I want The Elder Scrolls and Grand Theft Auto San Andreas. I have rounded my PC parts with Asus 980, RAID 0 Samsung Pro 840 SSHDs, and a new OCZ 750w PS. I will stay with Corsair memory at DDR as the 4820k has quad channel memory instead of the dual on the 4770k. 4820k has DDR1866 64GB memory size v. 4770k DDR1600 32GB. So there you have my research - an easy choice now you have the facts; and I hope all those folks with 1150 with 4770k can still like their systems.
 

RobCrezz

Expert
Ambassador



I agree with many of your points, but why go though all the expense of the X79 platform but not get a 6 core CPU?

Also, in most benchmarks the 4770k is faster, by a tiny bit.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1330?vs=836
 

wireframed

Reputable
Jul 2, 2014
12
0
4,510

For After Effects, both CUDA and OpenCL are supported, and have been since CS6. The paths are only used with the Raytraced 3D renderer, which isn't the one most people use. The Classic 3D renderer isn't accelerated by CPU.

There is some OpenGL being used for swap buffer, but almost all recent GPUs, integrated or not, support this so it's a non-issue.

Earlier, AMD's OpenCL code was pretty horrible and buggy, so most didn't use it or support it. Today OpenCL is quite a bit more mature, and probably mostly equivalent to CUDA in performance. (I haven't tested, though I'm considering doing so).
I think implementing it is still more troublesome, since CUDA has a lot of high-level libraries, while OpenCL is a lot closer to the metal. That's not really the end-users problem when deciding on a platform, though.