misterbobby
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2014
- Messages
- 3,814
A 960 at 3.2 is probably similar to around 2.2 for a 4790k so he most certainly does not need a 780 ti SLI setup to see the difference. But yes it depends on the games.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Core i7 920 to 4690k upgrade?
- Thread starter biggles
- Start date
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,755
More like a 2.6 ghz Haswell, the IPC difference is not that extreme, approximately 25-30%. This is of course ignoring AVX2 and other new instruction sets. Not to mention, with the right cooler a 960 can hit 3.8 ghz or higher. Making a cooler investment much more logical than a platform upgrade.
For most games, the bottleneck is the GPU. Obviously, the higher the resolution, the more the GPU becomes the bottleneck. In most scenarios where gaming is done on 1080p or higher, the GPU is the bottleneck even on something like a 2.8 ghz Nehalem. This is especially true for FPS games, where the CPU isn't very important at all for gaming performance.
So for many FPS games, a 2.8 ghz i7 Nehalem would be sufficient to drive 780ti SLI. In games like Starcraft 2, there is no current CPU that can ensure lag free gaming. Then you've got some that are in between, but the vast majority of games lean towards the GPU dependent side.
For most games, the bottleneck is the GPU. Obviously, the higher the resolution, the more the GPU becomes the bottleneck. In most scenarios where gaming is done on 1080p or higher, the GPU is the bottleneck even on something like a 2.8 ghz Nehalem. This is especially true for FPS games, where the CPU isn't very important at all for gaming performance.
So for many FPS games, a 2.8 ghz i7 Nehalem would be sufficient to drive 780ti SLI. In games like Starcraft 2, there is no current CPU that can ensure lag free gaming. Then you've got some that are in between, but the vast majority of games lean towards the GPU dependent side.
It depends on how high you overclock and if we talking benchmarks or day to day usage. Its already apparent that clock for clock, 4th gen i7 is > 1st gen to a certain degree. Also you didn't overclock your 1st gen as high. I was on the same boat. I managed a stable 4.5GHz vs 3.7 and on top of that, Haswell does much more work.
Personally I don't think the upgrade is drastically noticeable.
so false.... intel will never drop prices
Araxie
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 6,463
Absolutely nope.. you are forgetting that the jump from nehalem to sandy bridge was BIG.. and I dare to say that only from nehalem to sandy bridge the jump its like 20-25% of increased IPC.. another 10% to ivy bridge and another 10% to haswell??. without take into consideration that a 4790K its already high at stock.. 4.2ghz multi-threaded and 4.4ghz single threaded? and as a easy a 960 can hit 3.8ghz a 4790k can easy hit 4.6ghz.. so yes the difference from nehalem to haswell its high enough to a worthwhile upgrade, completely necessary? nope, but its really noticeable i had a 3.6ghz 920 and jumped to a 2600k and at stock speed the difference was noticeable not the same thing when I passed from a 4.2ghz 2600k to a 4.5ghz 3770k only worth for benchmark nothing more, but from the 920 to 2600k was a good noticeable difference gaming.. specially talking to be the more time possible locked at 60FPS..
A more specific question (OP here) is how a 4690k would impact minimum frame rates versus a core i7 920 in recent and popular games. First or third person shooters and racing games are what I mostly play. And how about in open world games like Watch Dogs or Saints Row the Third?
misterbobby
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2014
- Messages
- 3,814
You do not want to get only 4 cores at this point especially if wanting to keep your cpu for several years. Crysis 3 cannot even maintain 60 fps with a 4690k while a 4790k can when not gpu limited. I sometimes hit over 80% cpu usage on my oced 4790k with just a gtx780. It depends on where you are testing in some games but even parts of Watch Dogs need more than 4 cores to keep framerate up too.
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,755
General consensus was ~15% from Nehalem to Sandy Bridge. 5% for Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge. 5-10% for Ivy Bridge to Haswell. So yes, only about 30%. Maybe 35%.
I went from a 920 at 4.2 ghz to a 3930k at 4.3 ghz. Noticed absolutely nothing different in games besides Starcraft 2, and how hot my room got while gaming. And I am running GTX 580 SLI. I highly doubt you would have noticed a difference at all with a GTX 660 unless you were playing exclusively CPU bound games. Which I have already covered in a previous post, where unless you were playing CPU bound games, a GPU upgrade is more worthwhile unless you already have something on the level of 780ti SLI.
I decided to keep my x58 board as it supports Xeon without needing a mod..just bios update and I bought an X5660 6 core which is 32mn 95 watt part for $140 .vs my i7-930 4 core 45nm 130watt part. there is no way I can take that same money and build an upgrade to it as the cost of platform switch is to much.
If your board supports Xeon then that would be the way I would go and spent the rest in a video card upgrade as most x56XX can hit 4.4 to 4.6 Ghz and really make anything new look like a side step.
If your board supports Xeon then that would be the way I would go and spent the rest in a video card upgrade as most x56XX can hit 4.4 to 4.6 Ghz and really make anything new look like a side step.
For multi-threaded apps, yes, the Xeon will easily hold its own against any of the mainstream (non-E) CPUs. Single thread performance is another matter, however, and in most cases the Xeon loses. Any Sandy-E/Ivy-E/Haswell-E six core will also trump the earlier Xeon.
For the money, though, the old 5600 Xeons are tough to beat...
