Upgrading from i7 950. Go to 4790K, Haswell-E Variant or wait? Overclocking intended.

Papazmurf · Oct 25, 2014

Good day people of Toms Hardware *Note there is TLDR version at the bottom.

I should preface this by saying a few things. I currently have no absolute NEED to upgrade my hardware. Everything right now is a want. Also while I am not money bags by any means I would prefer that there be no suggestions for a CPU based off of the money I can save. While I can appreciate the example of buying a 4790K will save me x amount of money over a 5960x that I can spend on a better graphics card the reality is that regardless of the CPU I buy, it would have no effect on the type of graphics card, SSD, etc I buy to compliment the CPU. I would like this thread to be solely on what would be the best CPU with the best potential for overclocking based on what I will be doing. That being said lets get to it!

My current specs are as follows:
CPU: i7 950 at 3.84 Ghz (max OC 4.2 Ghz )
GPU: XFX HD6970 2x Crossfire
RAM: 24 GB Corsair Vengeance at 1600 Mhz
HDD: 120 GB RevoDrive, 2 x Corsair Force GT Pro 120 GB in Raid 0, and a 2TB Hitachi for Storage
MOBO: Gigabyte x58 USB3
Case: HAF 912
Cooling: Cooler Master V6GT
PSU: Thermaltake 850 Watts

So my issue is I got the Gigabyte mobo for xmas in 2010 and this was just as Sandy Bridge was coming out. At the time I did not know much about CPU's and had no plans to overclock. Things were strictly gaming. My curiosity into overclocking developed from my questioning of why my quad core processor was clocked lower than the Pentium 4 I had upgraded from, which had a stock clock of 3.2 Ghz. Long story short I love overclocking now and my goal in a new build is to achieve the best overclock I can get with as much future proofing I can get. I still feel slighted that I got a mobo that didn't support SATA III, which lead to me getting a PCIe based SSD initially to really feel the performance.

That being said I am a software engineer and I use my computer for gaming, programming and I run VMs for certain applications for work. As mentioned earlier, my current PC really does allow me to do everything I need, but I wouldn't be on this site if I just wanted to settle right? Gaming wise BF4 runs at 50+fps at mostly ultra settings 1440p. With my GPU's Crossfired, gaming performance on the newest titles hasn't been a concern yet. However I also use MS Flight Simulator (FSX) and this is likely the application that benefits most from an upgrade (a 2006 game....I know right?). I've done various amounts of research and it looks like there are two things i can do to improve FSX performance. Upgrade my CPU and switch to the best NVIDIA card I can. While this thread is not intended to be about gpus I'll say that I definitely plan to get an NVIDIA gpu, but I refuse to buy old tech now that Maxwell has arrived and i also refuse to buy a gpu with less than 6GB of VRAM. Whatever Titan comes out based on Maxwell or if something like 980 Ti came out, that is what I will eventually buy. I don't plan on doing SLI initially, but I didn't plan on doing Crossfire either but it was nice to have the option.

So I suppose it comes down to I'm upgrading to get better performance in FSX which crushes CPUs and for smaller reasons such that I would like to be able to finally use my SSDs to their capability at SATA III speeds. I suspect i'll get better performance for my work applications as well and as I progress in my career I am sure there are potential applications I haven't thought of that would benefit from an upgrade as well.

I originally was waiting for the x99 for DDR4 as I figured if I'm going upgrade i should try and be future proof. I've waited for overclocking results and it seems like the 5960X gets up 4.6ghz on average while the 4790K gets to about 4.7-4.8 ghz on average. While I understand a lot of overclocking has to with the chip lottery I'd like to try and get a good idea of what kind of overclock I can expect on average. For example if I knew that the 5960X would out clock the 4790K every time than this decision would be easy. The problem is from what I have read is I cannot get any such guarantee. While more cores would definitely help for future proofing, getting the best overclock I can is paramount. Since the 4790K and 5960X are the same architecture, for single threaded performance you should get the same performance at the same clocks while anything developed for multi-thread performance, the 5960X would kill it. (correct me if I m wrong)

I already have a Swifttech H220x CPU cooler on order for my first plunge into liquid cooling. I'm going to test it with my i7 950 to see if I can get a stable overclock at 4.2 or higher. This cooler would be used with whichever new CPU I decide to buy. So do I get a 4790K, which will limit potential SLI in the future, but I know what kind of overclock I can get. Do I go for a 5960X which is great for future proofing but I'm hesitant on the highest clock I can achieve? Do I go in between for a 5820K or 5930K and try and get the best overclock that way while still benefiting from extra cores? I should note I am one of the lucky people that live near a Microcenter and I could get a 4790K for $279 and a 5820K is only $20 more at $299 currently. Or should I wait a year or two for Skylake and see what kind of clocks it can achieve and make a decision then? Again I want to get the processor that I can I have a reasonable expectation is going to give me the highest overclock.

TLDR - Upgrading from an i7 950. Deciding between a 4790K, 5820K, 5930K, 5960X, or waiting for Skylake. I use my PC for gaming programming and running VMs for client apps. I want the processor that I can reasonably expect is going give me highest overclock possible as I run an application that benefits from multiple cores, but mainly relies on one and running at the highest clock will give it the best performance. I plan on upgrading to an NVIDIA GPU regardless of the CPU I decide based on Maxwell, but will not do so until they offer something with at least 6GB of VRAM, probably the next Titan or Ti version. I don't need SLI or Crossfire, but an option to do it at a later point would b nice. I already have a Swifttech H220x on order to try with my 950, but eventually will use with whatever processor I upgrade to. Other reasons for upgrading: finally being able to take advantage of SSDs at SATA III speeds, PCIe 3.0, etc all around better chipset features. DDR4 for future proofing would be nice. What should I do?

Thanks in advance for replies.

P.S. It is not lost on me that I didn't mention Broadwell before Skylake, however my understanding is Broadwell is based on Haswell architecture but made on a smaller nm process. I mention the wait for Skylake as that would be a totally different architecture which potentially could have tremendous upside. If I chose a 4790K and got a Z97 board, I would still able to upgrade to Broadwell. So i have taken it into consideration, but if I'm going wait, i might as well keep waiting for a brand new spec.

barto · Oct 25, 2014

So, I only read the TLDR version. If you want a CPU for overclocking, stick with the 4790k. The 6+ core Intel CPUs aren't the best at overclocking. But, for VMs, which you can tie to specific cores, the 6+ CPUs would be a great choice.

This is a tough spot.

Papazmurf · Oct 25, 2014

barto :

Yea it's like you can't have both and it annoys me. If you wait, you would think that newer architectures would give more cores with better overclock ability, but it seems that the shift is to just more cores to spread around work load. I have one app that really relies on a very high clock with great single thread performance as it is an older app, but it's not logical to build around that.

Ugh.

barto · Oct 25, 2014

I can't honestly say if the new arch would be better. I mean looking at the history of CPUs, the best overclocker was Sandy Bridge. Intel screwed up Ivy with solder. And Haswell doesn't compare to Sandy when it comes to cool running CPUs. So your guess is just as good as anyone's.

mdd1963 · Oct 25, 2014

I'd stand pat with your current rig, truthfully. Might not be latest generation, but, with a pair of 6970's, nothing it can't run or do, save for impress other folks with it's specs or 'newness' factor. If you can survive this, you have saved your money for another more significant tick or tock in Intel CPU performance.

kira70591 · Nov 12, 2014

VM's:

If you running any sort of VM's, more cores are your best friend. The 5960x would be your best friend if you do not want to go a Xeon route. As for clock speed, when you are talking those speeds, any performance increase would be marginal when looked at in comparison to the benefits you would get from the increase in cores.

Overclocking:

As I said before, any increase in performance is going to be marginal when approaching the 4ghz mark in comparison to the other benefits.

DDR4:

DDR4 is not a feature that should be the exclusive reason for upgrading. It is a nice feature to have, but the performance increase compared to DDR3 is not worth the monetary investment at this point. If there are other reasons to upgrade, then this feature is definitely a plus.

SSD:

SSD's are still screaming fast even on SATA II; however, it definitely would be a benefit with running multiple VM's.

PCIe 3.0 / GPUs:

This is an upgrade that is not really even fully being utilized to its potential yet so this is not a reason by itself for an upgrade. However, the amount of lanes that you have access to is limited on a 5820k CPU. You would either need to go with the 5930k or the 5960x to have full access to the 40 lanes. If you could find a massive discount on x79 parts then that could be an avenue worth pursuing as it would still last for years.

As for GPUs, if what you have currently is suiting your needs, there is really no point in upgrading unless you value newer features such as power consumption, etc. If you wish to go SLI or 3-way SLI in the future, power consumption starts to be come an issue and Nvidia is really leading the way in this endeavor at the moment.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-performance-myths-debunked,3739.html

Misc. Chipset Features:

You would benefit from native USB 3.0 instead of a hacked together third party controller. This could possibly be of benefit to you if you use any sort of external drive.

Conclusion:

In the end, with you still being on x58, it would be a great time to upgrade as you would benefit from many features not present on x58 and from the new CPU. If you have the money, a 5960x would be the way to go from what your usage needs sound like.

Duckhunt · Dec 25, 2014

Well my answer is all about the power bill.
I can tell you I use a xeon e3-1265L but it works well on everything but I just have not done any gaming on it. The power bill is down. Okay not a huge amount but its TDP =65w compared to a 130W TPD for i7-950.

Then again if you wait there is plenty of talk about the newer cpu/motherboard will have more agressive lowered power consumption during idle times and this might be better.

I had to include i7-4770K because many folks I know are very happy with it for gaming. There are many unresolved questions.

I quote myself, " the Core i7-4770S and i7-4770T with a TDP 65w and 45w, respectively.
The question is if you lower a standard CPU base frequency will you get the same effect?
It is reduced from 3.50GHz to just 3.10GHz for the i7-4770S and 2.50GHz for the i7-4770T."

synge · Jan 5, 2015

If your motherboard supports it, I'd go for a $90 Xeon X5660 and overclock that six core beast to ~4.0ghz. And I'd sit pretty on that until at least Skylake-E.

Papazmurf · Jan 10, 2015

I stopped getting e-mail replies that people were responding to my thread after October so I hadn't noticed there were still replies. Then I got one with best solution made and was a bit surprised.

I like Synge's answer for the short term as that would give the most direct benefit at the lowest price to keep holding out.

If I were to have selected an answer for best solution at this time it would have been Kira's as it was the most technically sound for what I need.

I have no idea how Duckhunt's answer would be selected as "best solution" (no offense to him he gave decent information) when I'm not concerned about power savings and I mentioned I need the highest clock possible. A lower clock would kill me in certain apps. To have that answer be the best solution to this thread I think gives potential viewers a disservice for what was trying to be done in the OP.

Maybe it was automatically chosen.

Anyways for all who care, I've 90% chosen to go with a 5960x (the 5930k intrigues me, but only because it's cheaper...). The 950 just really isn't cutting it anymore and I do feel quite a difference when going from 3.84 Ghz to 4.2 Ghz on the 950. The problem is I can't keep a stable OC at 4.2 on the 950 and now after 4 years the 3.84 OC with all the new stuff I've had to run is starting to fail on me. I've put as much as I could into this mobo with all PCI-e slots and SATA slots taken up and the RAM is at the max it can support. I would say I'm happy the mobo keeps up, but it's clear to me for what I do I need a robust mobo with lots of features that will give me more headroom. While I'm sure any upgrade would give me a noticeable difference (duckhunt's solution of a 4770 for instance) the various chipsets offer more or less features. A z97 system would be a significant upgrade, but I've realized for what I do, things like PCI-e lanes and max memory would eventually be an issue for me. The x99 or even x79 gives me way more headroom to account for unexpected upgrades I might have to use. I've taken the z97/h87 off the board. (yes despite overpriced DDR4, it still would be an upgrade from where I'm coming from).

That 10% I mentioned above would be waiting for Skylake, while doing what Synge suggested to at least get a little more performance for only ~$90. Still it doesn't address that my current mobo is already taxed with everything in it and the architecture is still the same so whatever performance gain I get would likely be minimal. Workload would be spread around better though and that's important.

Pretty much the decision has come down to future proofing to an extent (more cores), what's the best I can get now, and what is also going to give me the most headroom to run multiple apps, vms and not feel like it's being worked to death. Also the research that Skylake may be hit or miss. Waiting for a 6 or 8 core variant of it though could be at least 2 years though and I'd bet an 8 core Haswell-E will perform better significantly better than a quad Skylake when they initially come out and who knows what the performance gains will even be as Intel is gearing more toward efficiency and mobile devices than more power.

There are other things too like PCI-e lanes for SLI things I'd like to do in the future. Bandwidth is important, even if I won't be able to take advantage of all the things right away. My builds are every 5-6 years.

Duckhunt · Jan 19, 2015

Papazmurf :

I stopped getting e-mail replies that people were responding to my thread after October so I hadn't noticed there were still replies. Then I got one with best solution made and was a bit surprised.

I like Synge's answer for the short term as that would give the most direct benefit at the lowest price to keep holding out.

If I were to have selected an answer for best solution at this time it would have been Kira's as it was the most technically sound for what I need.

I have no idea how Duckhunt's answer would be selected as "best solution" (no offense to him he gave decent information) when I'm not concerned about power savings and I mentioned I need the highest clock possible. A lower clock would kill me in certain apps. To have that answer be the best solution to this thread I think gives potential viewers a disservice for what was trying to be done in the OP.

Maybe it was automatically chosen.

Anyways for all who care, I've 90% chosen to go with a 5960x (the 5930k intrigues me, but only because it's cheaper...). The 950 just really isn't cutting it anymore and I do feel quite a difference when going from 3.84 Ghz to 4.2 Ghz on the 950. The problem is I can't keep a stable OC at 4.2 on the 950 and now after 4 years the 3.84 OC with all the new stuff I've had to run is starting to fail on me. I've put as much as I could into this mobo with all PCI-e slots and SATA slots taken up and the RAM is at the max it can support. I would say I'm happy the mobo keeps up, but it's clear to me for what I do I need a robust mobo with lots of features that will give me more headroom. While I'm sure any upgrade would give me a noticeable difference (duckhunt's solution of a 4770 for instance) the various chipsets offer more or less features. A z97 system would be a significant upgrade, but I've realized for what I do, things like PCI-e lanes and max memory would eventually be an issue for me. The x99 or even x79 gives me way more headroom to account for unexpected upgrades I might have to use. I've taken the z97/h87 off the board. (yes despite overpriced DDR4, it still would be an upgrade from where I'm coming from).

That 10% I mentioned above would be waiting for Skylake, while doing what Synge suggested to at least get a little more performance for only ~$90. Still it doesn't address that my current mobo is already taxed with everything in it and the architecture is still the same so whatever performance gain I get would likely be minimal. Workload would be spread around better though and that's important.

Pretty much the decision has come down to future proofing to an extent (more cores), what's the best I can get now, and what is also going to give me the most headroom to run multiple apps, vms and not feel like it's being worked to death. Also the research that Skylake may be hit or miss. Waiting for a 6 or 8 core variant of it though could be at least 2 years though and I'd bet an 8 core Haswell-E will perform better significantly better than a quad Skylake when they initially come out and who knows what the performance gains will even be as Intel is gearing more toward efficiency and mobile devices than more power.

There are other things too like PCI-e lanes for SLI things I'd like to do in the future. Bandwidth is important, even if I won't be able to take advantage of all the things right away. My builds are every 5-6 years.

I got picked because many folks went that rout. They went to lga1150 motherboard because price/power is best. If you just want the most powerful and greatest then go that way. You probably won't use it because the software just ain't there.

I think that cheapest solution is to replace the i7-950 with a compatible xeon 6-core lga1366 that is compatible with your board. We are talking about US$150 or less for that option. Just make sure your BIOS is compatible and search the forums.

If you are already on the path to upgrade to entirely new system. Then the existing pc could be used as a NAS server and go for a low powered Xeon to run it. Or try to disable cores to see if you can down the power.

Anything left on 24/7 is going to eat up power.

Papazmurf · Jan 19, 2015

I took a look at Gigabytes support list for these 6 core xeons and the official site says my Gigabyte X58 USB3 doesn't support any 6 core variant xeon.
http://www.gigabyte.com/support-downloads/cpu-support-popup.aspx?pid=3571

However I have read in unofficial places that most will support it.

Should I be able to figure out something that works I'm still on the 1st gen architecture with limited overclock ability. (I was always under the impressions xeons were locked anyways).

I can see you are coming from a power savings standpoint, which you mentioned in your first post. You make sense, however for my needs (maybe wants ha) I literally have seen the difference (on the 950 at least) 400mhz in clock speeds can bring trying to keep a stable 4.2 clock and a 3.8 clock. It isn't VAST, but it is noticeable to me. Maybe to most it isn't, but in certain applications I've seen it first hand. On newer architecture at a lower clock I'd likely be able to get the same performance I currently get on my 950 and more often than not, better performance. Again whatever I upgrade to is going to be better, but I've never had an enthusiast chip and if I win the silicon lottery, well the overclocks I could get on the 5960x would be equal to what I could get on the quads. If I don't win the lottery, well I imagine those 8 cores would be useful somewhere down the line despite lower clocks.

You're right, there isn't much software using 8 cores right now, hell not even 6 fluidly. You could argue by the time 8 or 6 core is mainstream (if it ever becomes mainstream) I may want to upgrade anyways since a newer processor's architecture might be that much better. Or maybe I'll be happy 5 years from now getting comparable performance to whatever processor comes out then. Nobody knows.

I guess at the end of the day I'm tired of waiting especially when no one really has any clue of what is coming around the corner will be worth it. I think the most ideal situation would be to make two different builds for the different things I want to do, but I want it all. Can't have it all. I know that beyond my needs, I do like overclocking and tinkering though. I figure at least if I get an 8 core now with the current chip set features it offers, then I won't have any what ifs because it will support everything I could ever need or want in the short term and potentially long term.

For what it's worth, I was already planning to make the 950 system into a dedicated server. Since it's overclocked, I figure down clocking it to stock or even less would give me savings on the power. Not sure how much ~$90-180 for the xeon purchase would make up in power bills savings. My guess is not a lot.

Thanks for the replies and interest though, the xeon recommendations did get me thinking, but I'm not necessarily on a budget and I'm sure as you can see I've been getting more into want than territory as the time goes on. A wise man once told me, get what you want if you can afford it and I've yet to see anyone regret buying a 5960x (of course when you spend a $1k on a CPU, I doubt many would openly admit it either.)

Duckhunt · Jan 20, 2015

Papazmurf :

I see you are trying to get the best bang for buck. Many folks think that it just ain't worth it because there is no competitive pressure from AMD to make it worth it. The DDR4 does not seem to make any difference at this point.

The single on board graphic cards can't support 4k with decent frame rates and even two in sli don't really cut it. The problem is that the hardware and software are not up to the task to handling 4k resolution. I think you are jumping on the bandwagon before everything has settled down. Everything is going to 4k. I have a 4k tv and my pals all are looking for 4ks at affordable prices. It is really just much better.

Here is a link to one person who has your system. It does work.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1461359/official-xeon-x5660-x58-review-discussion-and-xeon-l5639-benchmarks-inside/2420. He has your motherboard updated witht he latest bios

Just remember to to leave your i7-950 on board the gigabyte motherboard and then flash the latest bios and then put the xeon cpu on the board.

Now the xeons idle lower power consumption then i7s by around 40W. I am guessing . I can't remember off hand but think about it like this. If you have 40W light glob on 24/7. How much does it cost? My bill is every 3 months.

Say it is US$0.20/Kw. So for 3 months at 40W comes at 86.4KW
Now the cost for $US17.28 for 3 months, So for 1 year we have $US69.12. So if your Xeon costs your $200. It would take 3 years to pay it off. The VM ware and other play things you can do make it worth it.

Papazmurf · Jan 21, 2015

Duckhunt :

Where in any of my replies or op do I say I'm trying to get the best bang for my buck? I said I wanted the best CPU that had great overclocking potential for what I do.

Papazmurf :

What I put in bold was the in very first paragraph in the OP.

I want to say you don't answer my question, but in essence you are saying stick with my x58, get more performance out of it with a Xeon for minimal price entry and wait for Skylake or better, which was an option in the OP. I guess I still just don't think it was the best answer for me.

Problem is Broadwell-E (if Intel even does it) or Skylake-E won't be out for at least 2 years I figure. None of us know what the performance gains will be and with the track record as of late, probably minimal. If I was coming from Ivy or even Sandy Bridge, I'd probably hold off, but I've just seen to many real gains from people who have made the switch in all aspects from X58 not to mention the little perks in the updated chipset features.

Yeah I could get something cheaper and still realize great gains, but I want that enthusiast platform and I'm just not going to wait another two years for the next E version. Going the enthusiast route now and If I ever want to add stuff I won't be contemplating decisions for an entirely brand new platform because my current rig doesn't support things I may want in the future like DDR4, etc and this is regardless if I see the gain now.

I will likely update my 950 to a Xeon for X58 however when I relegate that to only server status. I thank you for your insight on what I still can do with my platform.

Search

Upgrading from i7 950. Go to 4790K, Haswell-E Variant or wait? Overclocking intended.

Papazmurf

Reputable

Duckhunt

barto

Expert

Papazmurf

Reputable

barto

Expert

mdd1963

Titan

kira70591

Honorable

Duckhunt

Honorable

synge

Honorable

Papazmurf

Reputable

Duckhunt

Honorable

Papazmurf

Reputable

Duckhunt

Honorable

Papazmurf

Reputable

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page