3 year old OC'd intel hardware still faster than top stock chips?

M

mikeo

Gawd
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
659
So a friend of mine was building a PC and asking me about parts, and I was excited to find that a 4930k and even 5930k have been released....

I then checked out the passmark benchmark site cpu charts and found out that my Q4'11 released 3930k turbo boost at 4.8 GHZ still wipes the floor with a stock and oc'd 5930k and is about on par with a stock 5960x...

Anyone else still using the 3930k with a high 24/7 OC?

Maybe the 6930k or 7930k will be a worthwhile upgrade? :)
 
Zero reason to upgrade from Ivy Bridge, hell not really a reason to upgrade from Sandy Bridge either.
 
If you are doing extreme CAD or something that makes use of many cores then X99 & 5960X is a great upgrade. Just gaming- no need to upgrade!
 
There is a long list of reasons to upgrade to the new platform but gaming isn't one of them, yet.

All that I/O in an enthusiast platform, only seen in enterprise/server hardware before...
 
I am at this stage myself, 2700k OC, The only thing worth upgrading to for gaming is something intel hasn't invented yet.
 
Maybe the 6930k or 7930k will be a worthwhile upgrade?
Click to expand...

To me its all in the silicon. 22nm tri-gate did not allow for higher clocks than 32nm. Hopefully 14nm will allow for higher clocks than 32nm.
 
drescherjm said:
To me its all in the silicon. 22nm tri-gate did not allow for higher clocks than 32nm. Hopefully 14nm will allow for higher clocks than 32nm.
Click to expand...

Clocks haven't been going up since the Intel's Pentium 4, AMD's Phenom, and IBM's 970. The only thing that will bring up clocks now is graphene.
 
I've been looking at i7-3930k vs i7-49xx vs i7-59xx series ...

From my perspective, I don't see any tangible benefits of i7-49xx or i7-59xx over an i7-3930k.

NOTE: I once had an i7-3930k so I know what it's like to use it for gigapixel panos, Lightroom, Far Cry 3, etc
 
cyclone3d said:
Still not worth it for the price though, especially over an LGA2011 setup.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you're trying to do. PCI-e 2.0 vs. 3.0 means X99 has effectively 2x the bandwidth over X79. Multi-GPU setups with other addon cards and it wouldn't be hard to see a graphics card ended up on X79 running @ PCI-e 2.0 x4.

X79 also only had 2 SATA3 ports which means at most you can run 2 SSDs. 6 SATA ports total also isn't that much. I'm using 7 SATA ports right now (4 SSDs, 1 mechanical, 2 BD drives).

Those are pretty big deals. The only reason I went with a 3770/4770k over -E was because the chipset was better. X99 turned the tables though and offered (up to) 2x the cores at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Those are pretty big deals.
Click to expand...

I do not believe only running 2 SSDs at SATA III is that big of a deal. It's not like you hit SATA III speeds that often in normal desktop usage and I do not spend all day copying files from 1 SSD to a second.
 
dr/owned said:
Depends on what you're trying to do. PCI-e 2.0 vs. 3.0 means X99 has effectively 2x the bandwidth over X79. Multi-GPU setups with other addon cards and it wouldn't be hard to see a graphics card ended up on X79 running @ PCI-e 2.0 x4.

X79 also only had 2 SATA3 ports which means at most you can run 2 SSDs. 6 SATA ports total also isn't that much. I'm using 7 SATA ports right now (4 SSDs, 1 mechanical, 2 BD drives).

Those are pretty big deals. The only reason I went with a 3770/4770k over -E was because the chipset was better. X99 turned the tables though and offered (up to) 2x the cores at the same time.
Click to expand...

x79 is PCIe 3.0 and has the same exact number of lanes as x99
 
Yeah the x79 has been awesome from an upgrade stance, now that bitcoin mining isn't really profitable with video cards it's possible to pick up a 2nd cheap 7970 card off Ebay for crossfire gaming pcie 3.0 16x. The sata 3 doesn't affect me much as I have a boot ssd for Windows and games, and anything else that matters goes on a network zfs array to prevent silent corruption.
 
Still rocking an i7-970 on an X58 Sabertooth platform here. Throw in a 480gb SSD and a 970 for graphics, and it does just fine for everything I need.
 
Axdrenalin said:
Still rocking an i7-970 on an X58 Sabertooth platform here. Throw in a 480gb SSD and a 970 for graphics, and it does just fine for everything I need.
Click to expand...

I'm still on an i7-920, and I'm in the exact same boat. This thing is almost 6 years old, and it still handles everything like a champ. The only noticeable upgrades I've done are adding an SSD and upgrading the video card every once in a while.
 
Personally, I feel that if DDR4 had 16gb overclockable DIMMs, X99 would be an awesome platform for weekend enthusiasts. As it stands, there is no system you can't build using X79 that you can with X99. (Aside from 8 core unlocks)
 
Nope. Intel is only improving performance mildly every 16ish months. 10-15% per generation since Sandy Bridge. Just not worth it IMO. It's going to take another big jump (like from Core2 to Nehalem), or many years of incremental jumps to make it worth my $ to upgrade. My current machine is closing in on 4 years old and I don't see a need to upgrade the CPU - and I'm a reasonable enthusiast - I have three socket 1155 machines. Generally the stuff I replace gets recycled to my wife's machine. Currently she has a Q6600, which is about 7 years old, she doesn't game so that thing still does OK for her, but I'd like to pass on a 2500K to her, she would like the USB3, etc. I'm really hoping that Skylake/Cannonlake has something worth upgrading to.
 
At this stage it's more of an 'update' than an 'upgrade', I upgraded from Sandy to run 2x SLI in PCI-E 3.0, and its 600Mhz stock speed boost over 2600, other than that rather niche of a use, No need to upgrade until probably at least Skylake, if Skylake IS worth the upgrade.

It won't be another 1~2 years though.

I did once consider going to IB-E (4820k) for X16/X16 SLI though (5820k is one of the worst in your face things I have seen...), too bad X79 mobos are either ancient, out of production or (in case of R4BE) stupidly expensive, so I just settled on x8/x8
 
tell me about it, if i even had an i7-920 i wouldnt want to upgrade. Between my Xbox one and my lenovo Y50 i have no interest to actually use a desktop anymore

i still love shopping for desktop hardware and building them...
 
Still rocking 2500K @4.2GHZ sandy bridge. No reason to swap for several more years to come. SSD was the big thing in my eye's for standard desktop computing.
 
i don't really need to upgrade. i have money though, and i like new shiny things. so.. i'm upgrading :D
 
I do a bunch of video encoding and that would be the only slight benefit for me, gaming would be no gain
 
KazeoHin said:
Personally, I feel that if DDR4 had 16gb overclockable DIMMs, X99 would be an awesome platform for weekend enthusiasts. As it stands, there is no system you can't build using X79 that you can with X99. (Aside from 8 core unlocks)
Click to expand...

X99 have a bunch of benefits over the X79 chipset. You are right though, for a majority there won't be very many with the need for this.
 
I have a [email protected]. I had looked at x99 but it's not worth it for me. I run 2x290s right now thinking about a 3rd. Never use USB 3.0 and only have 1 ssd and no other drives at all in my rig. It's for gammING and that's it. So going to x99 isn't worth the extra 400 or 500 I would need to come out of pocker to pick one up. [email protected] should last me a few years to coming for gamming.
 
I've found the same thing really. The CPU is no longer the bottleneck. If you're on a quad core platform, you probably don't have to upgrade it.

Memory expansion if you're lacking, and SSD are the biggest bottlenecks on a system these days.

Even my 6970 still plays everything I've played flawlessly.
now that I have a 144Hz monitor, I might consider an upgrade, but the price range I wanna spend, is not comparable enough to the performance
 
Not many reasons to upgrade.

For me, I went from a Q9550 to a Haswell-E. Big difference there. That was definitely well worth the coin.
 
I think part of the issue is that some of the new CPU architectures have introduced new instructions that generally take a few years for software to catch up with through new compilers, etc. Enhanced vector instructions, etc. -- these are all things that you will not see software performance improvements until software is recompiled to take advantage of the new instruction sets.

This may not affect gaming, but if you're in the science community, a lot of these new instructions really do offer substantial speed improvements.
 
I have 2xE5-2699V3s and I also don't see a need to upgrade. :p

Yes, just bragging.
 
My board /ram and power supply will be 5 years old come March and it's running a X5660 at 4.4Ghz on 1.29 v and it still runs great!
 
leeleatherwood said:
Zero reason to upgrade from Ivy Bridge, hell not really a reason to upgrade from Sandy Bridge either.
Click to expand...

indeed, but rather depends on the pace of your upgrade cycle.

i went from a 1090T to a 5820k and remain delighted with the choice:
faster CPU
PCIe 3.0
triple the memory bandwidth
m.2
etc
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Not many reasons to upgrade.

For me, I went from a Q9550 to a Haswell-E. Big difference there. That was definitely well worth the coin.
Click to expand...

I got a Q9550 in my HTPC and I want to upgrade so badly but it continues to meet my needs :(.

Its like an itch thats just not bad enough to scratch, you want to, but why bother?
 
At home I did my 2-3 yearly upgrade recently. From a 4.8GHz i5 2500k to a 4790k - I oc'd it to 4.5GHz and I'm limited due to heat...I like my rig quiet, and the H80 can't handle 1.25V+ with HT on under stress tests. I gotta say that for every day use, I noticed very little gain. I like the extra threads for my virtual machine work and video editing - but other than that - there is little reason to upgrade. I play with these chips at work all day, a customer wanted to upgrade from a 4770k to 4790k because it was newer...I had to convince him it wasn't worth his money but he persisted.

At work I use a Dell Precision M4600, has an i7 2720QM 2.2GHz (turbo 3.3GHz), 16GB 1600 RAM, 256gb SSD/750GB HDD - and I notice very very little difference between this in daily use and my home desktop. Feels just like my 2500K but with HT (durr hurr I know that is the exact difference). I use a dock here and output to a monitor/kb/mouse/speakers etc - extended desktop, has a dedicated GPU - AMD HD 7700M - I take it home at the end of the day and chilling in bed with the wife it still feels like my desktop even on battery.

My experience is if you are on any i5/i7 that is older & oc'd - just wait for the next big step. Adding more RAM or a SSD will vastly increase your speed/performance over stepping up for that extra 5%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top