Which CPU is better? A good questions for Intel CPU experts.

WhiteDeath

Reputable
Jan 28, 2015
28
0
4,540
Hello guys it me again, and i have another question(s).
I made a research and those processors caught my eye:
Intel Core i7 4790k 4GHz quad-core
and
Intel Core i7 5820k 3,3GHz six-core (i would oc to 4GHz)
My questions are:
1. I heard that 4790k has got better performance per core and 5820k offers more cores. Which of those you think is better?
2. Secondly, i would OC 5820k to 4GHz so the clock speed would be equal to 4790k. Some people say that i will get same performance per core. Is that true?
3. I kinda don't like 4790k because its quad-core. We are stuck with quads for a loong time now, and today's consoles have eight cores(low clocked tho), so that means future games will start to utilize more than four cores. This is why i like the 5820k more, so is 5820k a better choice?
4. Last one, 5820k supports DDR4 ram whilst 4790k supports DDR3. I know there is almost no difference, but i will not be upgrading my computer for 5 years from when i buy it (expect GPU). Is it worth it?
Guys will really appreciate your help!
 
Solution
1. It does, because you can clock it higher.
2. You can't assume that any chip will definitely hit a specific speed, but if you're overclocking the 4790K has more potential.
3. If you want the 6-core, just buy it.
4. Not at the moment, performance is about the same at similar clocks and high-clocked DDR3 is cheaper.

Beyond that, if you're a gamer there is currently no need have more than 4 cores and in a lot of cases 2 is enough. At some point in the future I foresee the possible need to have 8 cores, but I don't think the industry will ever standardize around 6 cores. You're not going to hit the same clock speeds with the 5820k, so the 4790K is better for gaming. If you're encoding videos or some other task that is easily...

Quixit

Reputable
Dec 22, 2014
1,359
0
5,960
1. It does, because you can clock it higher.
2. You can't assume that any chip will definitely hit a specific speed, but if you're overclocking the 4790K has more potential.
3. If you want the 6-core, just buy it.
4. Not at the moment, performance is about the same at similar clocks and high-clocked DDR3 is cheaper.

Beyond that, if you're a gamer there is currently no need have more than 4 cores and in a lot of cases 2 is enough. At some point in the future I foresee the possible need to have 8 cores, but I don't think the industry will ever standardize around 6 cores. You're not going to hit the same clock speeds with the 5820k, so the 4790K is better for gaming. If you're encoding videos or some other task that is easily multithreadable then the 5820K is a bit faster. I personally don't think the extra expense is justified, but if you feel like it, just buy the Extreme Edition.
 
Solution
1 it really depends on the use, for gaming the I7 4790K productivity 5820K because of its extra cores.
2 I believe it is true since IPC uses same tech but do not forget for gaming there is no point because of the extra cores give no added performance and the 4790K can OC even more.
3 it is a quad with HT which gives better performance in 8 threads than current AMD 8 cores. console games are not going to utilize any more than the 8 thread capability.
4 Like I said gaming 4790K productivity 5820K and either will serve well for the next 5 years.
 
The i7 4790k actually clocks to 4.4 turbo at stock and is 4 cores 8 threads so will have no issues handling console games programmed for 8 cores. You actually get slightly better performance in games going with the i7 4790k and you save about $500. (due to the motherboards and ddr4 ram for the 5820k costing so much). It really makes no sense at all to get the 5820k for gaming.

My vote is i7 4790k. With the extra money saved you could get a second video card.
 


The folks above me have given answers to all your questions, but just to focus in on this little bit:

No. It doesn't work that way. At all. Previous gen consoles had six to eight cores as well, and most ports for them were single-threaded on the PC. It was only in the past few years that the standard became to make your console ports be double-threaded.

Nobody is going to come out with a game that requires six cores fast to run, because a business has to support the most common denominator, and such a game would be accessible only to some very small sliver of the possible customer base. Games are tailored to support the lowest common denominator.

You obviously want the 5820k, and if you want to get it, that's fine... just know that for a gaming computer (as opposed to one you're also doing a lot of photo and video work on), that buying anything above an i5 is an absolute waste of money. The i7 and i5 perform, within the margin of error, exactly the same.
 

Very true. There are some games and/or engines which are designed to make more efficient use of more cores (e.g. the Star Swarm technical demo is supposed to efficiently scale to around 32 cores, and Planetary Annihilation is supposed to be reasonably well multi-threaded, IIRC), however, a publisher would be daft to make something that doesn't run well on a standard i5, as it's by far the most common processor.
 

Traciatim

Distinguished
If you are comparing a console processor to any of the desktop i7's then you are already wrong. The 8 cores in a PS4 would have a hard time keeping up with two of the 4690k cores let alone all four.

The question you really want answered comes down to price, performance, and workload. For a pure gaming rig if you have a budget in mind it might even make more sense to go with a 4690k and sink more money in to your video card setup depending on the budget you have available.

The 5830k is going to cost a huge amount more than the 4790k due to the motherboard and RAM as well... if that means eating in to your video card budget then what's the point of all that CPU power if you have to run at medium settings in 1080p because your video card just can't keep up.

I think you should take a look at some gaming benchmarks that show the 4690k, 4790k, and 5820k from all these games that claim to need 8 cores and notice that they don't even change the performance all that much.

Also, keep in mind that with the push to technologies like Mantle, DX12, and OpenGL that are relying less and less on CPU performance and pushing more and more over to video cards then CPU performance differences should matter less in the future so future proofing your machine on a gaming rig it seems to me that it would make more sense to lean your budget toward the best video cards you can afford.
 

Vici0us

Reputable
Mar 29, 2014
561
0
5,160
If you're looking at a CPU mostly for gaming then i7 4790K is more then enough. Yes it's 4 cores but it has 8 threads, hyper-threading and can be overclocked further then 5820K.
You will not find a game that i7 4790K can't handle. Either CPU will be fine for the next 5 years.
If you're not going to use more then two GPU's in SLI/Crossfire then it's pointless to get a 5820K.
 
I'd have to agree with the others above, either would be fine but for gaming no real point in paying such a premium for the hex core and the platform it takes to support it. Especially if not planning to crossfire/sli 3x or more. The 4690k is plenty capable for gaming so the 4790k is already a premium gaming cpu and doesn't perform a whole lot better at this point (diminishing returns on cost/performance). Increase the diminishing returns even more on a hex core.

Comparing to consoles is flawed, it's worse than trying to compare cpu speed in ghz between amd and intel. Apples and oranges. Things have to be similar to compare them in any meaningful way. An 8cyl car like a mustang with 200hp isn't going to out pull a tractor with a 4cyl engine and 80hp. That tractor would drag that car around all day long without breaking a sweat. The two aren't comparable, because they're entirely different platforms and designs.

Like DarkSable said, it would be poor business for game devs to suddenly require 6-8 cores. As a business, you want your product to appeal to as many people as possible. Cutting out everyone with an i3, i5, fx 4xxx, athlon ii x4 etc etc would be shooting themselves in the foot. Especially if some game tried that, all it would take is a competitor to see the backlash it causes and turn right around and produce a similar game that was in fact compatible and win over that large sector of gamers. Business is cutthroat enough without handing your competition the knife. The only gain by requiring more cores would be making your game exclusive to those few who have either top end flagship intel or aging and soon to be outdated amd. Neither of which makes sense from a business model standpoint.

If you're doing more than gaming and actually have a use for multiple cores beyond 4, then get the hex core. That's not really most users though and usually the people who need 6-8 cores already know they need it. Most people don't know the difference between a 72 and 80 or 84 tooth ratchet but the ones who would actually benefit from it do.