Core i7 920 to 4690k upgrade?

B

biggles

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
2,215
Using computer mainly for gaming, internet video (youtube, etc), and occasional video encoding. Is this a smart upgrade? Main reason I ask is that the 4690k doesn't have hyperthreading and it has a 6 mb cache vs 8 mb on the core i7 920. Also, I am a light overclocker (I don't like increasing voltage, but do have aftermarket cooling).

Obviously the 4790k would be more powerful but the consensus opinion seems to be that the 4690k is a better bang for the buck processor right now.

Games I played recently include Bioshock Infinite, Spec Ops the Line, Borderlands 2, and Tomb Raider.

I have seen some good deals on 4690k with motherboard combos, including a $300 deal over at newegg with the asrock fatality board.
 
if you want to keep that machine as long as you kept that i7 920 then buy the 4790K.. at this point game are starting to be CPU hungry and loving more threads so the i5 will be out the formula soon... buy the 4790K and you will not have to even overclock as that chip its already at 4ghz with a max of 4.4ghz. the i5 its 3.5ghz with a turbo max of 3.9ghz.. so my vote go with the 4790K and you will be able to keep a longer time..
 
Yeah 4790k if you need a cpu now or wait for Haswell E. No point in going with just 4 cores at this point especially since you seem to keep cpus for many years.
 
Just get a Xeon x5670 (6C/12T, 12MB cache), overclock it to 4.2-4.4ghz, and sell the 920. Get a decent increase in performance for $100 and just ride the x58 for another year or so. I believe the Asus P6T v2 deluxe will work, but you will have to search to verify.

Also, I think it may worthwhile to upgrade the 7870.
 
I made the same jump and went with the 4790k. Most games are still only single/dual threaded, so the higher clock speed helps. Realistically, you can't go wrong with either, buy what you can afford.
 
4690k is actually a downgrade score wise from 3dmark skydiver compared to a xeon 5670 clocked at 4200mhz......just look in the new 3dmark thread here http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1823384...i could never downgrade to an i5 or i3 lol especially if you do video encoding which benefits from more threads
 
Last edited:
I'm in the same boat and been looking at the same deal. I am coming from an overclocked Phenom 2 X4 955 Black Ed. I run it with a 6950 so I'm trying to plan a whole new build. I like the idea of grabbing that combo, knowing Broadwell will be compatible with the board and saving for a new or better GPU, R9 290. (or the 8xx or the next AMD release)

What I saw on pricing guesses at $900+ for about 16GB DDR4, a board and Skylake chip.

I have a tough time picking through all the info since I'm not used to all the names. Plus you have the Y, U, E now one the upcoming chips...halp. :(

EDIT: I plan to overclock too, so the lower TDP to start is very appealing to me. I also know Intel has talked big about CPUs just as much(maybe) as AMD has in the past but they fall short.
 
For video encoding specifically, the jump will be very noticeable. Even my 3770 can encode at about twice the speed my 920 could.

The thing to understand about Hyper Threading is that it still has to split the total capability of the core. So if you have Thread 1 using 50% CPU usage, you can introduce Thread 2 and it will be able to use up to 50% CPU usage. This is very useful for multi-tasking that is light usage. You can have multiple "normal" usage programs running in parallel, instead of having to wait for each other.

However if Thread 1 needs 100% of the CPU, then Thread 2 can be introduced to the core, but there simply isn't any resources available for the core to set aside. So in the case of video encoding, Hyper Threading does not offer much advantage, because it is not a true "8 Core". That's why the AMD 8 Core systems still show some good advantage in that 1 particular benchmark. Because they are a somewhat true 8 core.
 
westrock2000 said:
For video encoding specifically, the jump will be very noticeable. Even my 3770 can encode at about twice the speed my 920 could.

The thing to understand about Hyper Threading is that it still has to split the total capability of the core. So if you have Thread 1 using 50% CPU usage, you can introduce Thread 2 and it will be able to use up to 50% CPU usage. This is very useful for multi-tasking that is light usage. You can have multiple "normal" usage programs running in parallel, instead of having to wait for each other.

However if Thread 1 needs 100% of the CPU, then Thread 2 can be introduced to the core, but there simply isn't any resources available for the core to set aside. So in the case of video encoding, Hyper Threading does not offer much advantage, because it is not a true "8 Core". That's why the AMD 8 Core systems still show some good advantage in that 1 particular benchmark. Because they are a somewhat true 8 core.
Click to expand...

ok you clearly don't know how work HyperThreading.. please do some googling about hyperthreading and then try to inform user about how it work and how in fact hyperthreading its a HUGE advatange over i5s performance in encoding, and how it blow off any AMD TRUE 8 cores chips..
 
Man, I still have a 2500K because an upgrade would be basically a side-step. What happened to Moore's Law?
 
WildMonkey said:
Man, I still have a 2500K because an upgrade would be basically a side-step. What happened to Moore's Law?
Click to expand...

thats only apply to be truth if you have overclocked at more than 4.8ghz to mitigate the 20-25% of extra performance on haswell.. however as we said you will find that 2500k even overclocked at some good 4.5ghz be insufficient to keep up with more recent games and will certainly hurt the performance of some games like hitman absolution for example and will seriously bottleneck games like crysis 3 and that will start to happen from now on.. thats why its worthless to buy a i5 at this point to be forced to upgrade soon..
 
Araxie said:
thats only apply to be truth if you have overclocked at more than 4.8ghz to mitigate the 20-25% of extra performance on haswell.. however as we said you will find that 2500k even overclocked at some good 4.5ghz be insufficient to keep up with more recent games and will certainly hurt the performance of some games like hitman absolution for example and will seriously bottleneck games like crysis 3 and that will start to happen from now on.. thats why its worthless to buy a i5 at this point to be forced to upgrade soon..
Click to expand...
The i7 certainly helps in Crysis 3 but does not really make any difference over the i5 at the same clocks in Hitman Absolution. That game does need a really fast i5 though to stay above 60 fps. Before the last 2 sets of drivers that helped with cpu bottlenecks, I would drop into the low to mid 50s in some spots with 4770k at 4.4. The 2500k at 4.4 was in the upper 40s to low 50s in same spots so that extra IPC of Haswell was helping a little. Again though HT does not seem to do more than 1fps better where I was testing. With latest drivers I dont go below 60 fps and I wish these had been released before I played the game.

But yeah NO reason in going i5 at this point going forward.
 
1- you don't NEED an upgrade: none of your games settings that are unplayable now will become playable with an upgrade, and video encoding is not your job/ money making.
2- we still don't know if Haswell-e will bring high clocks or better single thread performance than 4790K, so it could also be a side-grade.
3- 4690k and 4790k will keep lowering prices after Haswell-E. Expect some insane deals once Haswell-E hit the stores
4- a VGA based video decoder would help you more with gaming and video editing than a CPU upgrade.
 
WildMonkey said:
Man, I still have a 2500K because an upgrade would be basically a side-step. What happened to Moore's Law?
Click to expand...

I get annoyed every time I hear this.

Just because the clock rate is the same or just slightly higher does not mean the performance is the same.

Haswell significantly outperforms Sandy.
 
WildMonkey said:
Man, I still have a 2500K because an upgrade would be basically a side-step. What happened to Moore's Law?
Click to expand...

Moore's law states that number of transistors in an IC doubles every two years, NOT performance. Yes, transistor count is related to performance, but Moore's law states nothing about performance.

geok1ng said:
1- you don't NEED an upgrade: none of your games settings that are unplayable now will become playable with an upgrade, and video encoding is not your job/ money making.
2- we still don't know if Haswell-e will bring high clocks or better single thread performance than 4790K, so it could also be a side-grade.
3- 4690k and 4790k will keep lowering prices after Haswell-E. Expect some insane deals once Haswell-E hit the stores
4- a VGA based video decoder would help you more with gaming and video editing than a CPU upgrade.
Click to expand...

3 is false. Intel NEVER lowers prices, just phases them out.

Zangmonkey said:
I get annoyed every time I hear this.

Just because the clock rate is the same or just slightly higher does not mean the performance is the same.

Haswell significantly outperforms Sandy.
Click to expand...

If by significant you mean ~10% outside of AVX2 and FMA3 things, sure. And when you factor in the fact that SB tends to clock 5-10% higher than Haswell...

As for the OP's question:

None of the things you currently do warrants a CPU upgrade. If you want to spend money to upgrade for the sake of upgrading, that's your choice.
 
I picked up a x5650 for 75$ on e-bay. Hitting 4ghz is easy on my Asus P6T deluxe.
 
I went from i7 870 OC'd to 3.7GHz to a 4.5GHz 4790K. There is definite performance increases. It was easier to OC the 4790K obviously, and allowed me to OC much higher than 3.7GHz compared to before. Also the same clock for clock does much more work compared to the 1st gen i7.

Is it worth upgrading? Possibly not. I just figured I'd have a second comp around for the gf / guests. We don't really play anything overly demanding either so it'll do just fine. My 870 didn't really have issues playing games I threw at it as I only play @ 1080p resolution anyways and I don't require maxed out settings in every game. I personally would say that your 920 could last you a bit longer, but if you'd like to turn your old comp into a spare, it wouldn't hurt to grab a Haswell i7 as they do OC much better compared to the old days of having more variables to a good OC. Just don't expect monumental performance gains.
 
Zangmonkey said:
I get annoyed every time I hear this.

Just because the clock rate is the same or just slightly higher does not mean the performance is the same.

Haswell significantly outperforms Sandy.
Click to expand...
Nope. +3% from SB -> IVB, tack on another +10% from IVB -> HW.
Say you can (realistically, ie. no delidding or silicon lottery winning) clock a 4770K to 4.4GHz, and a 2600K to 4.6GHz.

4.4GHz 4770K ~= 4.98GHz 2600K ~= +8% performance increase --> big whup.
Obviously the newer platform, TSX, AVX2, etc. are definitely nice additions, but it's up to someone to decide whether it's worth the premium and hassle of swapping out their old SB / IVB.

On another note :
4.4GHz 4770K ~= 5.48GHz i7 920 ~= +37% performance increase (over a 4GHz i7 920) --> nice, but big whup considering it's been 5+ years!


Bill1024 said:
I picked up a x5650 for 75$ on e-bay. Hitting 4ghz is easy on my Asus P6T deluxe.
Click to expand...
Should be interesting for threaded stuff, where a 4GHz x5650 will be ~= 4.9GHz 4770K.
 
westrock2000 said:
The thing to understand about Hyper Threading is that it still has to split the total capability of the core. So if you have Thread 1 using 50% CPU usage, you can introduce Thread 2 and it will be able to use up to 50% CPU usage. This is very useful for multi-tasking that is light usage. You can have multiple "normal" usage programs running in parallel, instead of having to wait for each other.

However if Thread 1 needs 100% of the CPU, then Thread 2 can be introduced to the core, but there simply isn't any resources available for the core to set aside. So in the case of video encoding, Hyper Threading does not offer much advantage, because it is not a true "8 Core". That's why the AMD 8 Core systems still show some good advantage in that 1 particular benchmark. Because they are a somewhat true 8 core.
Click to expand...

Not quite. Simply put, Hyperthreadig allows sharing of a processor core's execution units between two execution threads simultaneously. This kind of sharing prevents a core from stalling when some requested data, requested by the thread 1, is being transfered from the RAM (RAM is much slower than a CPU cache), because thread 2 can do some of its work during this time and thus improve the overall speed of execution. Video encoding is the field where Hyperthreading really shines, offering up to ~30-35% more speed compared to a non-hyperthreaded similar processor. However, if, say, thread 1 uses 100% of RAM bandwidth then hyperthreading won't give any performance boost at all. HT may even hinder the performance to some degree if thread 1 overwrites the cache written by thread 2 or vice versa, though, it's quite a rare case. You can think of some real life examples regarding the HT: suppose we have a small shop (a CPU) which has two registers (threads) but only one cashier (an execution unit). Say customers (instructions) are allowed to stand in either queue. If a queue the cashier currently sits at (queue 1) moves fast enough, the customers in the queue 2 won't be served and this represents the 100% RAM bandwidth usage by one thread. However, say an old woman turns up in queue 1. She keeps looking for the money long enough for the cashier to have time to serve a client in queue 2 (in order not to keep execution units stalled, thread 2 kicks in). By the time the old woman has found the money, the cashier was back in queue 1 having served one additional client in queue2.
 
biggles said:
Using computer mainly for gaming, internet video (youtube, etc), and occasional video encoding. Is this a smart upgrade? Main reason I ask is that the 4690k doesn't have hyperthreading and it has a 6 mb cache vs 8 mb on the core i7 920. Also, I am a light overclocker (I don't like increasing voltage, but do have aftermarket cooling).

Obviously the 4790k would be more powerful but the consensus opinion seems to be that the 4690k is a better bang for the buck processor right now.

Games I played recently include Bioshock Infinite, Spec Ops the Line, Borderlands 2, and Tomb Raider.

I have seen some good deals on 4690k with motherboard combos, including a $300 deal over at newegg with the asrock fatality board.
Click to expand...

I think an i5 haswell fits the bill & is cheap. If you have an MC nearbythey have some good combos.

I'd avoid 1366 based stuff due to lower featureset, age, and heat. Also, motherboards are probably more expensive and you have less choices.

Sure, more threads are better for video encoding, but IMHO single core performance is _good_enough_ on i5-haswell, the price is right, power usage is low, and you should always be able to bach up video encoding jobs. Who cares if they run overnight?

I say go i5. I went i5-4570 (non-k) with vt-d and it's been awesome so far.

Another great option (if you have a motherboard already) is to get the Xeon E3-1230v2, currently $199.99 at MC. A great/cheap option for 8 threads. Not sure how/if it overclocks though. v2 is ivy-bridge based so is socket 1155, not 1150. Many desktop boards officially support the Xeon.
 
PureBooYah said:
I just upgraded a couple weeks ago from a 920 and Asus p6t that I had for 5+ years to the 4790k and an MSI z97 mpower max. 920 was oc'd to 3.9ghz, haven't oc'd the 4790k yet. Honestly the only differences I really notice were with the motherboards, just because the P6T is so old now, power consumption, and temps. But those alone made the upgrade worthwhile for me. Everything else seems pretty much the same. Didn't make any noticeable difference in any games I play which is all I use the computer for.

I'm pretty satisfied. My 920 used to be able to do 4ghz and this last year I've had to start lowering the oc. It was time for a change for me.
Click to expand...

That about sums it up. If you have reasons to upgrade other than gaming performance reasons, then it may be worth it. If you want to upgrade for gaming performance, it's not worth it. Unless you're playing games that demand single-core performance (Starcraft 2 for example).
 
Tsumi said:
That about sums it up. If you have reasons to upgrade other than gaming performance reasons, then it may be worth it. If you want to upgrade for gaming performance, it's not worth it. Unless you're playing games that demand single-core performance (Starcraft 2 for example).
Click to expand...

Even then it probably have to be set at some silly resolution like 1024/768 to see the difference, 1080p and up i bet the card would be back to being the bottleneck:D
 
I'm surprised no one is really focusing on the price difference. $100 bucks difference between the i5 and it's i7 counterpart. That's kind of a big deal.

I'm personally looking at upgrading within the next few weeks - to either a 4670K or 4690K from my 930 build in my sig. I have plans to move my current platform over to a family member and give them an upgrade from a Phenom II 955. But I'm also interested because single threaded performance is going to be better. I primarily game as well as rip some movies. I don't do much encoding or anything real strenuous that would force me to need as many cores as possible. Add to it the lower TDP with Haswell - heat is a very big issue in my room and the improvements with the motherboard... And yeah I think an upgrade isn't a bad choice right now.

Of course it doesn't help that I have the upgrade bug going on right now, but I typically won't make a big move like this until I've contemplated it in my head over and over deciding whether it's a good idea or not. I'm well aware I probably won't see much of an improvement over my current setup since I don't see a bottleneck in anything I currently play. But the overall benefit of having a newer architecture isn't such a bad idea, especially if I'm able to run it ~four or five years again. And of course if I wind up going with an i5 I'll always have room to upgrade to an i7 if needed.
 
JL6speed said:
Here you go. They aren't extremely overclocked or anything, but there is difference within benches.
Click to expand...

So what? Benches don't necessarily translate to in-game performance improvements. You would need a high end GPU setup to be CPU bottlenecked.
 
Tsumi said:
So what? Benches don't necessarily translate to in-game performance improvements. You would need a high end GPU setup to be CPU bottlenecked.
Click to expand...

Well just posted results as requested by primetime.

Personally I noticed slight improvement in gaming, but that's cuz I'm using a GTX 670 in my 870 and a GTX 770 on my 4790K. The graphics cards are already fairly adequate for 1080p gaming.
 
JL6speed said:
14636409803_4a1abc5b82_o_d.jpg

14430070937_3c31d02377_o_d.jpg

Here you go. They aren't extremely overclocked or anything, but there is difference within benches.
Click to expand...

lol thats a downgrade from my 1366 lol but thatnk you for doing the benchmarks to prove its not worth it for me to rebuild yet....naw but bullshit aside i usually score around 960 since i really only run 24/7 at 4200mhz:)
4400cinibench_zpsa0f7b989.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]
 
JL6speed said:
Well just posted results as requested by primetime.

Personally I noticed slight improvement in gaming, but that's cuz I'm using a GTX 670 in my 870 and a GTX 770 on my 4790K. The graphics cards are already fairly adequate for 1080p gaming.
Click to expand...

Ah, my bad.
 
King Icewind said:
Just get a Xeon x5670 (6C/12T, 12MB cache), overclock it to 4.2-4.4ghz, and sell the 920. Get a decent increase in performance for $100 and just ride the x58 for another year or so. I believe the Asus P6T v2 deluxe will work, but you will have to search to verify.

Also, I think it may worthwhile to upgrade the 7870.
Click to expand...

+1 to this.

OP, you mentioned that you primarily game, so a GPU upgrade would be substantially more to your benefit. If you want to upgrade the CPU, I second the Xeon X5670 suggestion as it's an awesome upgrade for only $100 (net money spent). Having 4 more threads will make things seem snappier, and multi-core applications will see a significant boost.
 
I still like my i7-930 as it still runs any game I want to run as I also thought about the 4690K upgraded but mine can still run 4Ghz easy so it just isn't worth the total platform cost to me yet and I will just spend it on a gpu.. also windows 8.1 64bit really gave it new life..
 
I don't know where to buy a Xeon x5670. Is that a used cpu?

What are the best places for buying a cpu and motherboard combo? I live in the San Jose, CA area. We used to have a Microcenter here but it closed down a few years ago.
 
biggles said:
I don't know where to buy a Xeon x5670. Is that a used cpu?

What are the best places for buying a cpu and motherboard combo? I live in the San Jose, CA area. We used to have a Microcenter here but it closed down a few years ago.
Click to expand...

Yes, you can only get those used, usually off of ebay.

As for best places... that's Amazon, Newegg, or TigerDirect for Northern California. Fry's can price match internet deals if you want to buy local, but otherwise, internet retailers are your best bet. TigerDirect has had a few good combos lately. The best way to not miss out is to check slickdeals.net whenever you get the chance.
 
that's a sidegrade at best. You won't notice any difference. Take the 6 core 1336 advice if you really want a new cpu as they're cheap and perform great. I have a similar setup to you and am very glad I went 6 core instead of buying a whole new set-up. I have 24gb triple channel so that also factored in my decision.

I have another 3960x machine in the house that I bought for my girl's professional video editing and after bringing my old 1336 rig to hexacore I really wish I hadn't dropped all that cash on the newer rig.

If you really want to see gaming performance increase sell your 7870 and get a gtx 780. My 3960x setup has 2 gtx 580 and my old 930 @ 4ghz with a 780 beat it for gaming any time.
 
So what i read is that my i7 960 to 4790k is just a sidestep? I mostly game on my rig.
 
For a single GTX 680 system, the 4790k would be a sidestep. You would need dual 780tis to see some sort of upgrade in most games. Then again, it depends on the game, as some games massively benefit from better cpus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top