Is it worth buying the 4690k over the 4670k for a gaming rig?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Solution
mapesdhs
Factor in the overclocking option of course and it puts these plus/minus claims all over the place.
Hence why I went for a 2700K/5.0 setup, should do me for a while. I have a 3930K/4.7 rig for
video stuff.

Btw, g-unit1111, in many cases the differences between those various generations was as little as 5%,
not 10%; the latter is definitely on the high side of what is possible (best case scenario). For threaded
loads like rendering, a 4770K is 15% better than a 2700K (both at stock).

As test results show, a 4770K at (say) 4.5 is faster than a 2700K at 5.0, but it's hard to
get a 4770K running reliably at 4.5 (most will be lucky if they can get above 4.3), whereas
it's stupidly easy to get a 2700K at 5.0, and the latter can be done with...
Sort by date Sort by votes
IRONBATMAN

IRONBATMAN

Honorable
Aug 30, 2013
3,359
0
13,460
The differences between both is mainly clock speeds. Nothing more.

you might want to consider the Xeon E3-1230v3. It's basically a i7-4770 with 0.2 GHz lower clock speeds and is a lot cheaper. But of course, there isn't any overclocking feature. It should be 20 usd away form the i5-4690K
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
F

FunkyFeatures

Reputable
Mar 3, 2014
859
0
5,060
20 pounds more for the 4690k? Nah - more like if it was 10 pounds. I really hate the premium i have to pay for just a little better thermal performance. A 4670k, mediocre overclock, and a cheap cooler will do fine. Or as ironbatman said - the xeon e3-1230v3. Hyperthreading which MIGHT - i am not saying it is - begin to give a good performance boost in games.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
legend001523

legend001523

Splendid
Jun 3, 2014
7,394
0
29,960


There is like 1 or 2 fps difference in games and I'm pretty sure that I'm not paying like 100 pounds more for like 2 or 3 fps :) Plus I don't edit or render vids, so the i7, 99% of people would say for me is a no go.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
g-unit1111

g-unit1111

Titan
Moderator
Jul 27, 2011
42,542
815
104,940


There's no such thing as future proofing though. You can't predict what's going to be out 5 years from now and the differences in speed from one generation to the next is only very miniscule, something like 10%. There's a 10% difference between Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge, a 10% difference between Ivy Bridge and Haswell, a 10% difference between Haswell and Devil's Canyon, and so on and so forth.

i5 isn't worth it. Get an i7 4770k and be a happy gamer for 3 years.
Click to expand...

Uh... what? It's actually more the opposite - i7 isn't worth the extra $100 for a very minor increase in frame rates, and few games use the resources that Wolfenstein and BF4 do. Put that money in a better GPU.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
TheMagicalWallaby

TheMagicalWallaby

Dignified
Oct 9, 2013
2,696
1
13,960



An i5 will last him more than 3 years. An i7 would also last way longer than 3 years.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
mapesdhs

mapesdhs

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2007
2,507
0
21,160
Factor in the overclocking option of course and it puts these plus/minus claims all over the place.
Hence why I went for a 2700K/5.0 setup, should do me for a while. I have a 3930K/4.7 rig for
video stuff.

Btw, g-unit1111, in many cases the differences between those various generations was as little as 5%,
not 10%; the latter is definitely on the high side of what is possible (best case scenario). For threaded
loads like rendering, a 4770K is 15% better than a 2700K (both at stock).

As test results show, a 4770K at (say) 4.5 is faster than a 2700K at 5.0, but it's hard to
get a 4770K running reliably at 4.5 (most will be lucky if they can get above 4.3), whereas
it's stupidly easy to get a 2700K at 5.0, and the latter can be done with a low-cost, quiet
cooling solution too. An old TRUE with two NDS PWMs works nicely. The cost difference is
significant.

The big plus of newer 4K chips is less power consumption, newer chipsets, more features,
more Intel SATA3, PCIe 3.0, etc.


The o.p. says he doesn't edit/render video material, so he's right that an i5 should be more
than enough for a fair while, IF he chooses a model like the 4690K that allows for a good oc.
A high i5 oc in the long term can make up for the lack of HT, for those situations where HT
can help and thus a lower clocked i7 is normally quicker. In that sense, an i5 K-type offers
its own future proofing via oc potential. Excellent example of that years ago was the i5 760
which could happily run at 4.5, knocking the wind out of AMD for a fair while. Reduce the
cores and it gets even more extreme, eg. an i3 550 is fine at 4.7+, while I suspect my i5 670
will best 5+ when I get round to testing it.

Ian.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom