Upgrade or new build?

[Thresh25]

What is the difference between these two processors? I would have thought the 4.0ghz i7 is better, but it's cheaper for some reason.

Intel Core i7-4790K Haswell Refresh Quad-Core 4.0GHz LGA 1150 Processor BX80646I74790K - Newegg - Newegg.com

Intel Core i7-5820K Haswell-E 6-Core 3.3 GHz LGA 2011-v3 140W BX80648I75820K Processor - Newegg - Newegg.com

 

[Yami]

The core count is the main difference. The i7-4790K has four cores. The i7-5820K has five cores. They also fit into different sockets. There are other differences.

 

[Thresh25]

oh whoops, didn't notice the difference in socket, I thought I had the 1150 filter on the results list. Thanks for that answer.

So what about the difference between the 4.0ghz one I posted and this one?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117553

Both are lga 1150 and both are quad cores. Why is this one more expensive? Is it actually better?

 

[PP Mguire]

THat's a broadwell chip. It's 5th gen and low power. 66w vs the 88w of the 4790k.

So basically what I was saying earlier, is you have graphical content that needs to be rendered too unless you just plan to play on all low settings. The gist I was getting at with my previous post that got deleted in the abyss is, the difference between the 955BE at stock and my 3960x @ 4.5GHz was a measly 5fps at large unit and all low settings. It's just like Supreme Commander. I played that game with an Athlon X2 4800+ @ 2.9GHz all the way up to my current chip and all it did was smooth out playability with a 500 unit cap. If I try 700 or 1000 it gets super slow real quick. Good thing about that game is it doesn't drop FPS, it just drops game speed. Seems Total War still doesn't do this so you suffer.

I mean if all you plan to do is run only this game you can get the best chip you can (HT won't help, so don't get an i7) and lower all settings to try and increase unit cap.

 

[Thresh25]

So how does a 5th gen 3.2ghz compare to 4th gen 4.0ghz?

Is a 4.0ghz i7 not faster than a 4.0ghz i5? I guess I don't understand why an i7 wouldn't be the way to go. This is for my buddy btw, I am sticking with my set up for now until the game is released.

And you say the difference was 5FPS at low settings, but wouldn't the difference go up if you increased the settings to ultra?

 

[PP Mguire]

So how does a 5th gen 3.2ghz compare to 4th gen 4.0ghz?

The 4.0GHz chip would be faster. Can't forget about turbo either. Broadwell is only a shrink so IPC is practically the same as Haswell.

Is a 4.0ghz i7 not faster than a 4.0ghz i5? I guess I don't understand why an i7 wouldn't be the way to go. This is for my buddy btw, I am sticking with my set up for now until the game is released.

Only for applications that take advantage of HT, otherwise they perform the exact same. In the case of gaming, games don't utilize HT the same as they do physical cores. So in that case, it's not worth the extra 100+ for HT, because that's the only difference an i7 brings to the table.

And you say the difference was 5FPS at low settings, but wouldn't the difference go up if you increased the settings to ultra?

Have to understand benchmarking methodology. We don't want graphics to be compared, the CPUs were compared. If I crank up the graphics then we're just seeing how well a small Quadro M4000 pairs against 2 Titan X under water. So with all settings on low and using 1080p as a set resolution we compare CPUs and framerates by upping unit size. In the benchmark all it does it increase the number of units on the screen which is what we want. For a complete comparison I'd have to take out my Titans and insert the M4000 in my rig which isn't happening. This weekend I CAN put a Titan X in her machine and compare single to single with all low settings. Then we would get a true apples to apples comparison. Spoiler alert, it'll be about the same. Unit size is dependent on CPU which is what I was saying before, but giving it more horsepower doesn't help that much. Y'all just need to hope like hell they integrate DX12 into the newer one and that's where my recommendation of a newer GPU comes into play.

 

[forrestcupp]

Just a few thoughts. First, you really need to have realistic expectations. You can't just say you want Ultra requirement performance, but you're only willing to pay $600-$700. If you want the best, you have to pay for the best. Honestly, the rig you have in the OP isn't that bad. And just for your info, the 970 isn't going to be a huge leap over the 780. In some benchmarks, the 780 still does significantly better than the 970, but in others, then 970 barely squeaks ahead. It's not really going to be worth the money to buy a 970 over the 780, and I know some people who swear by their 780s that they're getting 4K performance. If you're going to upgrade your video card, you need to either wait for the next generation to come out in a couple of months, or go with at least a 980, which is going to blow through most of your budget right off the bat.

We can put you together a part list for the CPU, motherboard, and RAM if you want, but it's probably not going to make a huge difference until you upgrade the GPU. Anyway, if that's what you want, I would recommend going with Skylake and DDR4 RAM. So if that's what you're after, here you go:

Intel Core i7-6700K - System Build - PCPartPicker

It's an i7-6700K, a good Z170 board that supports overclocking and SLI, a Hyper 212 EVO cooler, and 16GB of DDR4 RAM for $539. If you need a case and PSU, you can add it in for more money. Your friend would definitely be better off going with an i5-6600K and putting the extra cash towards a better GPU. You would probably be ok with your 780 until you're ready to lay down $600 or so on a better GPU. I'm not guaranteeing what the performance will be on your specific game, but that's what you asked for.

About the i7 vs the i5, I actually think it's a waste of money to go with the i7 if you're only gaming, at least until we get more DX12 multicore support. Personally, I would only spend the extra cash on the i7 if I were going to be doing things like CAD or video/music editing. Either that, or if you're just in a pissing contest.

 

[PP Mguire]

Just a few thoughts. First, you really need to have realistic expectations. You can't just say you want Ultra requirement performance, but you're only willing to pay $600-$700. If you want the best, you have to pay for the best. Honestly, the rig you have in the OP isn't that bad. And just for your info, the 970 isn't going to be a huge leap over the 780. In some benchmarks, the 780 still does significantly better than the 970, but in others, then 970 barely squeaks ahead. It's not really going to be worth the money to buy a 970 over the 780, and I know some people who swear by their 780s that they're getting 4K performance. If you're going to upgrade your video card, you need to either wait for the next generation to come out in a couple of months, or go with at least a 980, which is going to blow through most of your budget right off the bat.

We can put you together a part list for the CPU, motherboard, and RAM if you want, but it's probably not going to make a huge difference until you upgrade the GPU. Anyway, if that's what you want, I would recommend going with Skylake and DDR4 RAM. So if that's what you're after, here you go:

Intel Core i7-6700K - System Build - PCPartPicker

It's an i7-6700K, a good Z170 board that supports overclocking and SLI, a Hyper 212 EVO cooler, and 16GB of DDR4 RAM for $539. If you need a case and PSU, you can add it in for more money. Your friend would definitely be better off going with an i5-6600K and putting the extra cash towards a better GPU. You would probably be ok with your 780 until you're ready to lay down $600 or so on a better GPU. I'm not guaranteeing what the performance will be on your specific game, but that's what you asked for.

About the i7 vs the i5, I actually think it's a waste of money to go with the i7 if you're only gaming, at least until we get more DX12 multicore support. Personally, I would only spend the extra cash on the i7 if I were going to be doing things like CAD or video/music editing. Either that, or if you're just in a pissing contest.

Whoever claims 4k with a 780 is simply lying. Period.

Also, have to read the thread to get an idea of what's being talked about here. Regardless of what they up their platform to they won't get the performance they're expecting. It's all because of how the game was designed and although the CPU is limiting, it'll still be a big bottleneck no matter how much horsepower you throw at it until the Total War games go DX12.

 

[forrestcupp]

Whoever claims 4k with a 780 is simply lying. Period.

Also, have to read the thread to get an idea of what's being talked about here. Regardless of what they up their platform to they won't get the performance they're expecting. It's all because of how the game was designed and although the CPU is limiting, it'll still be a big bottleneck no matter how much horsepower you throw at it until the Total War games go DX12.

I read the thread, and that's why I said what I said. If you re-read my post, you'll see that I said he needs a new GPU at some point, but since he specifically asked, I gave him a part list that was what he wanted. But I mentioned more than once that it wasn't necessarily going to give him the performance he was looking for. But still, that's no reason to not give them what they're asking for, even if you warn them that's not necessarily what is best. You have to let them make their own decisions.

About the 780, it all depends on the game. I've been able to pull off 4K at lower than ultra settings on a few older games with my 970. On newer games, of course that isn't possible. I had Arkham Knight running at 4K, but it was only running at 30fps with drops to the low 20s. So I reverted to 1440p, and it's running fine. I'm sure the people running 4K on their 780s weren't talking about new games.

 

[PP Mguire]

I read the thread, and that's why I said what I said. If you re-read my post, you'll see that I said he needs a new GPU at some point, but since he specifically asked, I gave him a part list that was what he wanted. But I mentioned more than once that it wasn't necessarily going to give him the performance he was looking for. But still, that's no reason to not give them what they're asking for, even if you warn them that's not necessarily what is best. You have to let them make their own decisions.

About the 780, it all depends on the game. I've been able to pull off 4K at lower than ultra settings on a few older games with my 970. On newer games, of course that isn't possible. I had Arkham Knight running at 4K, but it was only running at 30fps with drops to the low 20s. So I reverted to 1440p, and it's running fine. I'm sure the people running 4K on their 780s weren't talking about new games.

I had already told him twice the list he had was fine for what they wanted.

Tested a 6GB 780 @ 4k when it came out which was almost 2 years ago. The games at the time at medium settings struggled to run 30-40fps. Some people call this acceptable but I really don't unless you're playing an RPG like Skyrim. TPUs own review has #s that line up basically right along mine with all those same games. link

I wouldn't say that's 4k playable. As it stands, today I'm running 2 Titan X under custom water and on some games still need to turn down some settings to get acceptable frame rates that keep me from having a bad dip. People tend to forget that if you're averaging 40fps you're going to dip into the teens during an intense scene. This is like a slide show and not acceptable. Therefor, I don't call it 4k capable.