Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

I7 4790K vs i7 5820K: worth the wait and extra cost?

Tags:
  • Intel i7
  • SLI
Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 18, 2014 3:20:16 PM

How much more will the 5820K cost compared to the 4790K in the UK. Also, how much will a 4-way sli mobo cost for x99 chipset. Heard the ddr4 ram is more expensive is this true. Taking all the above into consideration, is it worth the extra cost? Gonna primarily use pc for gaming, and intense schoolwork with some coding,
Btw got a sweet deal for both an i7 4790K and Asus Z97-WS 4-Way SLI mobo (£410). Should I get this instead of 5820K?

More about : 4790k 5820k worth wait extra cost

July 18, 2014 3:28:55 PM

youre asking questions about pricing for things that havent even been released yet. shall i roll my magic 8-ball?

but generally, newer tech is more expensive
m
0
l
July 18, 2014 3:31:22 PM

the extra cores is only good if you are doing video edditing / 3d moddeling
its not worth it if you are just doing some gaming and coding
m
0
l
Related resources

Best solution

July 18, 2014 3:36:18 PM

Ehm no, DDR4 is no worth at this time, not even for professional use given that we haven´t exploited the full potential of DDR3 yet.
Rick Kraster, the games are starting to use more cores, so that argument is not longer valid. I would be more worried about the overprice of Intel's i7s than the count of cores.

Quote:
Btw got a sweet deal for both an i7 4790K and Asus Z97-WS 4-Way SLI mobo (£410). Should I get this instead of 5820K?


Yes, that CPU will last you a couple of years. Go for it.
Share
July 18, 2014 3:39:25 PM

Thanks guys, 4790K it is!
m
0
l
July 18, 2014 3:56:02 PM

the move to ddr4 should represent a giant leap in performance... and a 6 core cpu could be a nice jump as well if you run VMs or do any rendering or massive multitasking. I know I can cause an quad core haswell i7 to hickup from time to time, so more cores is always nice.
m
1
l
July 18, 2014 4:00:35 PM

ingtar33 said:
the move to ddr4 should represent a giant leap in performance... and a 6 core cpu could be a nice jump as well if you run VMs or do any rendering or massive multitasking. I know I can cause an quad core haswell i7 to hickup from time to time, so more cores is always nice.


A giant leap for professionals and industry. The charts tell us there is 3 fps difference from DDR3 1333 to 2400. And the DDR4 price plus the supporting platforms will make it impossible for a sane guy to spend on it. He will simply not get any advantage on gaming or desktop life.

Intel hates the budget users. There are only dual and quad cores on the consumer oriented platform, reserving the six and more cores to the guys who can pay their insane prices. Not with AMD, where you can get a octo-core for the price of a I5-4440.
m
0
l
July 18, 2014 4:04:56 PM

well, that's also an issue with Intel's Core I structure. i've long suspected the massive amounts of insanely good l3 cache was basically rendering pointless for Intel performance improvements. That's either the reason or there is a bottleneck in Intel's core i design that doesn't' respond to fast ram well.

but i suspect the jump in performance at ddr4 will be quite nice. we'll see when it rolls out.

besides, i'm rocking a heavily overclocked fx8320... i'm one of a handful of people on this planet who can honestly claim he'd rather an 8 core fx over a 4c/8t haswell. Having used both, i gotta say it's nice to have 8 real cores. hyper-threading just isn't the same.

This is also why come xmas time i'll probably break the bank on that 8c/16t i7 coming out soon.
m
0
l
July 19, 2014 4:47:46 AM

I'm not doing anything insane, just some basic coding, youtube-level video production, gaming and some work. Is 4790K good enough for that, or is 5820K worth the cost? And btw, what do you guys expect the price difference to be?
m
0
l
July 19, 2014 4:54:17 AM

the 4790k is more than good enough for that
m
0
l
July 19, 2014 6:44:36 AM

I bet the performance of the 4790K and the 5820 will be identical.
m
0
l
July 19, 2014 7:43:35 AM

There will always be more, better technology right around the corner. The 5820k has a pre-order price of $425.92USD, which translates into £249.27. This is considerably more expensive than the 4790k and even encroaches towards the price of the 4930k. The benefits of the 5820k are DDR4, 6 cores, and the X99 chipset. Honestly, I do not think this is worth it. An X99 motherboard is far more expensive than a Z97, DDR4 prices are still sky high, and, during gaming, the benefit of 2 more cores are not always evident. Furthermore, the 4790k boasts some tricks of its own: a far lower power consumption and an excellent clock speed. Thus, it should be superior to the 5820k in gaming. I think that the 4790k has far and away a better value than the upcoming 5820k.
m
0
l
July 19, 2014 8:15:51 AM

Thanks. So basically, the 4790K has better overclocking potential?
m
0
l
July 19, 2014 9:29:30 AM

Yes because of higher stock clocks.
m
0
l
August 14, 2014 5:39:25 PM

Intel i7-4790k($339.99) @4ghz IMPORTANT!(4 cores) compared to Intel i7 5820k($394.99) @3.3ghz (6 cores)? Are you guys even seriously recommending the 4790k?

Difference in price is what $55. But you get...
1- 2 more cores = 4 more threads.
2- double of Cache(15 vs 8).
3- Works with ddr4, x99 chipset (huge advantage here, main reason why to go with the 5820k if 2 extra core haven´t convince you yet)
4- quad channel? still reading....?

Down side!! 300mhz slower! o.O who cares!! There is a reason to why intel and amd stopped the mhz race in the first place, to favor parallelism or multitasking.

Some thoughs on the mhz thing....
1- stock clock 3.3ghz(5820k) vs 4ghz(4790k)
2- regular overclocking 4.4ghz(5820k) vs 4.6ghz(4790k) //any overclocking marks for the 5820k is pure speculation, but im assuming a little better overclockability than my 4930k.
3- extreme overclocking(using over stock voltages and a great cooling system, something like corsair h110, not talking about nitrogen or something like that) 4.6ghz? vs 5ghz. //considering i have my 4930k clocked @ 4.5ghz and with an h110 30c idle and 70c full load, it is ok to assume that the 5820k will do a little better than that.
4-super extreme overclocking- No one cares!!!!

other downside... you have to wait until aug 29th.





m
0
l
August 15, 2014 3:16:20 AM

etzel said:
Intel i7-4790k($339.99) @4ghz IMPORTANT!(4 cores) compared to Intel i7 5820k($394.99) @3.3ghz (6 cores)? Are you guys even seriously recommending the 4790k?

Difference in price is what $55. But you get...
1- 2 more cores = 4 more threads.
2- double of Cache(15 vs 8).
3- Works with ddr4, x99 chipset (huge advantage here, main reason why to go with the 5820k if 2 extra core haven´t convince you yet)
4- quad channel? still reading....?

Down side!! 300mhz slower! o.O who cares!! There is a reason to why intel and amd stopped the mhz race in the first place, to favor parallelism or multitasking.

Some thoughs on the mhz thing....
1- stock clock 3.3ghz(5820k) vs 4ghz(4790k)
2- regular overclocking 4.4ghz(5820k) vs 4.6ghz(4790k) //any overclocking marks for the 5820k is pure speculation, but im assuming a little better overclockability than my 4930k.
3- extreme overclocking(using over stock voltages and a great cooling system, something like corsair h110, not talking about nitrogen or something like that) 4.6ghz? vs 5ghz. //considering i have my 4930k clocked @ 4.5ghz and with an h110 30c idle and 70c full load, it is ok to assume that the 5820k will do a little better than that.
4-super extreme overclocking- No one cares!!!!

other downside... you have to wait until aug 29th.



did you just really made a account so you can react on a topic from a month ago.

there wasn't even a price for the 5820k back than.

m
0
l
August 23, 2014 1:07:11 AM

Lol, I think he did.
m
0
l
!