2600K to 4790K worth it?

P

pontiac4life

Gawd
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
903
Currently running the specs in my signature but I have a chance to get a free socket 1150 ASUS Z97-A mobo. The question is that I have my 2600K at 4.5Ghz and this 1150 mobo can use the current best 1150 cpu the 4790K. How much better will the 4790K be then my current setup? Trying to see if it's worth spending $339 on the new cpu.

I mostly game but also do large file extractions of 30+GB and video encoding too. If it's only like 10%-15% better then I'm not sure it's worth spending the money
 
it's worth it if you sell the other setup.
 
you'd probably see some measurable performance gains if you actually benchmark it.

I doubt you would actually perceive a difference though. I'd vote stay with your 2600k
 
Gaming - Not worth it at all with those 680s. A 4790k won't drive those cards any better than a 2600k at the resolutions you're likely playing at. Completely wasted $$$ going to a 4790k.

Encoding / Extracting - Yeah, the 4790k would be quicker, but not $340 quicker.

Here's the kicker though: You could likely sell your 2600k + board for close to the amount it would take to get the 4790k. I see the 2600ks at minimum going for $200+, and you could likely get at least $60-80 for the board, so in reality, you could get that 4790k for a whole lot less than the advertised price.

Just really depends on how badly you want that 4790k in the end ;)
 
if you build the 4790k then use your 2600k as a secondary machine for encoding, you will be able to save time as you can render two projects at the same time, or if you use a program that will render across multiple machines, then you can save time rendering that way.
 
Thanks for the relies everyone. I think I'll try to sell my current mobo/cpu first then maybe it will only be a $75 upgrade. I don't have the room for another complete computer. So basically it's not worth it at the $339 but will be worth it after selling my other stuff first. So is the 4790K at stock clock the same performance as my 2600K overclocked to 4.5Ghz? I'm just trying to see if the only performance gain will be from me overclocking the 4790K as I hear they don't overclock that well
 
pontiac4life said:
Thanks for the relies everyone. I think I'll try to sell my current mobo/cpu first then maybe it will only be a $75 upgrade. I don't have the room for another complete computer. So basically it's not worth it at the $339 but will be worth it after selling my other stuff first. So is the 4790K at stock clock the same performance as my 2600K overclocked to 4.5Ghz?
Click to expand...

The 4790k has a turbo mode of 4.4ghz so the second you throw some weight at it it's basically running right at the frequency of your 2600k OC'd. Seeing how Haswell IPC is 7-30% better than SNB IPC given the application, you can basically say that your 4790k bottomline peformance starts where your 2600k OC performance ends.
 
Last edited:
I've been pondering this myself being on a i5 2500k at 4.6ghz. I wanna retire this mATX set up so bad and use to replace my very aged E8500 HTPC build
 
I went from a 2600k to a 4770k and then to my current 5820k. For gaming it was not really worth it, but for encoding each jump offered some solid benefits. Plus getting to move to an updated chipset and getting to play with new hardware is always a bonus. I'd say sell your current stuff and pick up a used 4770k for $250-ish.
 
atp1916 said:
The 4790k has a turbo mode of 4.4ghz so the second you throw some weight at it it's basically running right at the frequency of your 2600k OC'd. Seeing how Haswell IPC is 7-30% better than SNB IPC given the application, you can basically say that your 4790k bottomline peformance starts where your 2600k OC performance ends.
Click to expand...

For single core only.

http://ark.intel.com/products/80807/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-4_40-GHz
Max Turbo Frequency refers to the maximum single-core processor frequency that can be achieved with Intel® Turbo Boost Technology.
Click to expand...

Op, I wouldnt upgrade unless you have a specific need for more performance in highly cpu limited situations.
Gaming is not often cpu limited on 60Hz displays.
 
I would read on the net New Egg and elsewhere where people could really notice the difference maybe not in FPS in games but overall PC performance.
 
I was in a similar situation with my 3570k. I just sold my whole platform and am waiting with a G3258. With the money I got from the 3570K selloff I could drop an equally powerful Haswell into my MB but why bother?

New architecture is right around the corner and the OC'ed pentium is powerful enough to hold me over for a few months. When the new stuff drops I'll relegate the pentium to HTPC use or sell it off here.
 
Nenu said:
For single core only.

http://ark.intel.com/products/80807/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-4_40-GHz
Click to expand...

With XMP enabled on an Asus board it will run at 4.4GHz on all four cores.

To the OP, $200 for your 2600K is at best, I was not able to get nearly that for mine a month ago.

I've got both a 4790K and a 5820K and would recommend hanging on to your setup until later this year when Broadwell K is released. Z97 still has teething problems with M.2, which is really the only killer feature to upgrade for. X99 is a mess. I think that upgrading solely based on CPU gaming performance would leave you a little disappointed, BUT if you're like me the allure of shiny new hardware can be hard to ignore.
 
I had the same question as the OP, and received the same answers. So I upgraded my video card, and am waiting for something that is a worthy upgrade over my 2600k. It's nice that hardware is starting to last a few years now.
 
The other end of the argument is that when hardware stops improving enough then games etc dont improve much either.
And we get bored.

Although in this instance it has prompted much needed better multi core CPU utilisation, so a pretty good result tbh.
 
Nenu said:
The other end of the argument is that when hardware stops improving enough then games etc dont improve much either.
And we get bored.
Click to expand...

I had that thought, but I don't think that will be the case. I believe cpu/mobo/ram are going to get to a point where upgrades are far in between. But I think we will always have reason to upgrade our video cards. And I'm more than fine with that. Single component upgrades every couple years vs. full system rebuild would be awesome.
 
The CPU puts the boundaries on how complex a game can be.
It can also put single cores on the limit for 100Hz+ gaming and multiple gfx cards use more cpu which are likely to be needed at those framerates.
It is slowing advancement.
 
Well I upgraded my sli setup instead. I went with x2 Evga Nvidia GTX 780 ti SC w/ACX coolers. From what I seen my 2600K @4.5Ghz shouldn't bottleneck them, atleast I hope not. I game at 2560x1440 @60Hz
 
What am I missing? I game at 1080p and games look amazing. I have ZERO want to upgrade to a higher res monitor. Is his an epeen thing or what because I don't get it....
 
officer921 said:
What am I missing? I game at 1080p and games look amazing. I have ZERO want to upgrade to a higher res monitor. Is his an epeen thing or what because I don't get it....
Click to expand...

What is it you're asking? It sounds like you're saying you find 1080p to be perfect and everyone else should too.
 
pontiac4life said:
Well I upgraded my sli setup instead. I went with x2 Evga Nvidia GTX 780 ti SC w/ACX coolers. From what I seen my 2600K @4.5Ghz shouldn't bottleneck them, atleast I hope not. I game at 2560x1440 @60Hz
Click to expand...
it won't bottleneck them but the 60Hz will...onward to G-Sync you go :D
 
RamonGTP said:
What is it you're asking?
Click to expand...

It was a very simple question. I find maxed 1080p to be awesome. What are the reasons everyone is so willing to spend extra on SLI/Crossfire to do 1440 when 1080 seems fine? I'm reading articles saying it equates to a 14% higher DPI but requires at least 100% more video card power to play the same games on Ultra settings. Is it worth it, or is it all about that giant epeen in your pants?
 
no idea what you're reading but I run bf4 on ultra @ 1440p with a single 780 HOF.

also not sure where the 14% figure comes from. The difference between 1080 and 1440 is over 1.5 million pixels--nearly double 1080's 2 million pixels.
also, horizontal pixel count is much more noticeable to the human eye and field of vision...it's better any way you look at it so your argument is bizarre to say the least.
 
officer921 said:
It was a very simple question. I find maxed 1080p to be awesome. What are the reasons everyone is so willing to spend extra on SLI/Crossfire to do 1440 when 1080 seems fine? I'm reading articles saying it equates to a 14% higher DPI but requires at least 100% more video card power to play the same games on Ultra settings. Is it worth it, or is it all about that giant epeen in your pants?
Click to expand...

As stated above, the pixel count as well as density on a typical 1440p display is much higher than your typical 1080p display. This equates to better visuals and/or larger viewable area.

So to answer your question, yes, you are missing something but if you're happy at 1080p there's nothing wrong with staying there.
 
RamonGTP said:
As stated above, the pixel count as well as density on a typical 1440p display is much higher than your typical 1080p display. This equates to better visuals and/or larger viewable area.

So to answer your question, yes, you are missing something but if you're happy at 1080p there's nothing wrong with staying there.
Click to expand...

Is what I'm supposedly missing worth the extra $550 that I'd have to pay for another GTX 980 for SLI? It's just hard for me to believe that people love their 1080P Blurays so much, but they can't deal with 1080P when it comes to games.

I can tell you right now that everything I play looks fucking beautiful and runs like butter on my current build at max settings. BF4, DA:I, Farcry 4, The Witcher 2, Star Citizen, FFXIV, and more I can't think of.

Why would I gimp my current setup just to run at a higher resolution that doesn't offer anything that the normal human eye would even notice? And if there are hardcore 1440 people out there, please post comparison pics or some other evidence. Numbers alone won't convince me, just like I can't be convinced that a dedicated sound card is still relevant today. Regardless of what "audiophiles" say they hear that apparently I can't.
 
this thread isn't about you and your computer or anyone trying to convince you to upgrade to 1440p so why are you crapping in it?
 
Last edited:
officer921 said:
Here you go cry baby.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1041351049#post1041351049
Click to expand...

If anyone is crying, it's you. Again, it's not about you. No one here cares what monitors or video cards you have, if you don't want to go higher, don't. Sounds like you're a bit jelly to me.

I'm well aware of what 1080p looks like as well as 1440p. If you think it looks the same then your mother did a very good job at raising you to think if you don't have it, you don't want it.
 
I bet if Officer 921had a 27" 1440p and a 27" 1080p right next to each other he'd get it. There is NO WAY the normal eye can't see the difference


P.S. Nobody said I needed to spend alot on the upgrade. Sold my other cards for $450 and bought the new ones for $650, a whopping $200 upgrade for massive performance increase
 
officer921 said:
Is what I'm supposedly missing worth the extra $550 that I'd have to pay for another GTX 980 for SLI? It's just hard for me to believe that people love their 1080P Blurays so much, but they can't deal with 1080P when it comes to games.

I can tell you right now that everything I play looks fucking beautiful and runs like butter on my current build at max settings. BF4, DA:I, Farcry 4, The Witcher 2, Star Citizen, FFXIV, and more I can't think of.

Why would I gimp my current setup just to run at a higher resolution that doesn't offer anything that the normal human eye would even notice? And if there are hardcore 1440 people out there, please post comparison pics or some other evidence. Numbers alone won't convince me, just like I can't be convinced that a dedicated sound card is still relevant today. Regardless of what "audiophiles" say they hear that apparently I can't.
Click to expand...

mad because you wasted $550 on 1 gtx 980 when you could have got 2 gtx 970s for nearly the same price? You sound like a console gamer or something, this is [H], so what kind of question is "why would I want a higher resolution". Better question would be why wouldn't you?? There's folks running 3x 1440p, 3x 1600p, 5x 1080p (elmy), and even 3x 4k. Go hard or gtfo
 
Last edited:
To answer the question, no. I am waiting for the next gen of processors so I can upgrade ram to DDR4 as well. I hope it's a sizeable upgrade. 2600 to 4790 isn't worth the time, in my opinion.
 
I considered all the opinions and agree. 10%-15% wasn't worth it. Used the money on graphic cards instead. At 1440p my x2 680's were fairly good but the higher resolution does require more power and vram. Most games were good at 1440p but noticed more and more newer games needed me to tone back settings for decent framerate. When I was on 1080p the 680's killed everything
 
Not worth it, especially since Sandy is so OC friendly.
Now if you had said 5820K, I would have agreed, depending on how cheap you could get DDR4.

Even upgrading from my old i7 920 @ 4.1GHz to the 4770K was meh, considering that 5+ years had passed in between (less than 50% OCed performance increase).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top