indy17 said:
If you go with the Z97 and 4790k, well that seems to be the last stop for this socket. In 5 years, if you want to upgrade, you`ll prolly have to toss all that out and get the modern staff.
Yeah, I'd heard that Broadwell would use it, but Skylake wouldn't, which gives it a year, maybe..? To be honest, I'd assumed that whatever I selected, any major upgrade would largely be a "purchase new computer" exercise, as I'm guessing PCI-E4+ or DDR5, etc would be out, and something wouldn't be compatible, and therefore require a new motherboard and/or CPU..? (I know the X-series chipsets tend to last longer, but LGA-2011 & LGA-1366 both managed 4 years?) I'm currently on nVidia nForce 570 ...
indy17 said:
The Z99 however is new and it looks like it is going to stay here for a while, CPU, PCIe lines, RAM wise.
Yeah, it does appear to have got all of the new shiny things.
indy17 said:
BUT the downside it will cost you 50 more pounds only for the CPU. Dont forget that the Mobo is almost 400 bucks atm. The RAM is expensive too.
I worked it out, and it was roughly another £220 in all - £50 for the 5820K (£290), £50 for the X99-A (£195), and £120 for 16GB Corsair 2666MHz DDR4 (£255). If I looked at Crucial's Ballistix 2400MHz C16 RAM, that would save £65, and there are some MSI/Gigabyte X99 motherboards in the £160-£180 bracket (UD3, SLI-Plus)...
indy17 said:
At this point, the ball is in your court as to decide whether you want to spend the extra buck for the future proof + upgradability or just stick with the best bang for the buck atm, but toss it all out in 5 years.
Honestly, the main reason for asking was my uncertainty around Lightroom and single-threaded applications. I know that it is multi-threaded when importing and exporting (which makes the 5820K look good, as this can be 100-200 images), but it (apparently) doesn't use all available cores, and editing is still (from what I can find) single-threaded (which makes the 4790K look good). I'm not sure if this behaviour means that overall there wouldn't be enough difference to justify the more expensive platform, or even make it slower..? (Obviously clock-speed doesn't solely determine performance, as you've got cache and memory bandwidths, etc)
Like I said, I'm leaning towards the Z97 platform, but part of me keeps on thinking I should look at X99 (possibly because it's "shiny"), and I'm just trying to avoid doing something dumb ...
indy17 said:
If you dont want any OC atm, then go with the NON K versions, CPU and Mobo wise
The only reason why I wasn't looking at the 4790 (non-K) was the K version is has a higher clock (4.0 vs 3.6), which I thought might be worth the extra £20 - if they were clocked the same, I wouldn't be looking at it.
guanyu210379 said:
if you do not OC, plan to get a dedicated GPU, do not plan to use the iGPU, you can consider E3-1231V3. That Xeon in a hidden price/performance monster. It is basically an i7 4790, slightly underclocked, without the iGPU and as expensive/cheap as an i5 4690k.
Whilst I was aware of them, I didn't realise that you could use the Xeons in the Z-series of boards, as ASUS, Gigabyte, etc didn't say on their specs sheet.
![:( :(]()
Typically, ASUS have it in their CPU list, but they say "some features may not work on consumer boards, check our support page" (which, when you search for Xeon, yields no results).
Sadly, Xeons are quite hard to find here, and those stores that do stock them, don't stock that one (only the 1230v3 and 1240v3). I could only find a third-party seller on Amazon selling it, and they wanted more than the 4790K for it...