4930K or 4820K

[M76]

Here is my dilemma. They're basically the same CPU's with the latter having two cores disabled, but it has more cache/core.

Is it worth it to drop the extra 80% cash for the 4930K if I mostly play games? Sometimes I do run things that would benefit from the extra threads, but it's not my primary goal.

I've read a bad review of the 4820k that said a 4770k, or even a 3770K beats it. Is that true regardless of the benefit from the 4 Channel memory controller ?

Another question is OC potential. I'd rather have 4.6Ghz with 4 cores, than 4.2Ghz with 6 cores. How far can these be pushed with water?

 

[Araxie]

you need to seriously read more.. the 4930K hit easily 4.5-4.6ghz even with cheapo air coolers.... having in the market the 4790K which its stock 4ghz with turbo 4.4ghz, so the 4820K its worthless at this point, if you need the extra PCI lanes and quad channel RAM then go with the 4930K, absolutely no point to go with a 4820K.

 

[rhansen5_99]

I currently have a e5 2697w so the eight core version and a 4770k in my htpc I would say the on a clock for clock that the 4770k is way faster until you get to a game like bf4 that can use the actual cores. Encoding or rendering defiantly take advantage of the extra cores. I so like the 2011 socket as you are not limited to 16 PCI express lanes so if you plan on multi gpu you plan on that it makes sense. I haven't really noticed a difference with 2 or 4 memory channels but I'm sure it makes a little better performance.

 

[HobartTas]

Greetings

Is it worth it to drop the extra 80% cash for the 4930K if I mostly play games? Sometimes I do run things that would benefit from the extra threads, but it's not my primary goal.

Really hard to say at the moment because the 2 extra cores are not really needed, but since most people are still running X58 gear that's 5 to 6 years old I would expect a 2011 system to go for roughly that amount of time as well, you may need the extra horsepower when 4K gaming arrives in September when Nvidia releases the 800 series video cards, another reason is consoles are true 8 cores so PC ports probably could use a similar number of cores later on.

I've read a bad review of the 4820k that said a 4770k, or even a 3770K beats it. Is that true regardless of the benefit from the 4 Channel memory controller ?

Clock for clock it probably does, the 4 memory channels are probably overkill in a large majority of cases, certainly early X58 benchmarks with 2 of the 3 channels populated compared to all 3 filled showed less than a 5% difference and I expect similar results with 2011 systems. The reason this is not a big issue these days is that Intel CPU's have large caches and this is also evidenced by the fact that performance only goes up very marginally when using much faster RAM compared to the old days when memory speeds gave a much bigger difference in performance. The main advantage to 2011 vs 1150 is the 40 PCI-e lanes compared to 20 allowing you to run 16+16 (or 16+16+8 in tri-SLI) vs 8+8 but this is not much of bottleneck either way as we are up to PCI express version 3 which is 1GB's per lane bi-directionally (version 1 was 250 MB's and version 2 was 500 MB's).

Another question is OC potential. I'd rather have 4.6Ghz with 4 cores, than 4.2Ghz with 6 cores.?

Why? what does this 400 extra Mhz give you that's a dealbreaker if you don't have it? I play BF4 with two GTX660Ti's in SLI and I get about 70-90 fps on a 64 multiplayer at 1920x1080 res. I think the video cards are bottlenecking my system as the game is only using 30%-40% of all 12 cores and OC'ing the CPU did nothing for me.

How far can these be pushed with water?

Can't say but read my post here as I got to 4.2 easily on air with a good cooler just by increasing the multiplier and I didn't even bother touching the voltages, with water (and voltage tweaking you should go much higher).

If you want more longevity with your system then a hexacore is probably the way to go as it will probably see 2 or 3 different graphic cards in it before you retire it. Also the maximum of 64GB of RAM may be useful if you want to do things like run VM's later on, 1150 systems are restricted to 32 GB.

That's all I can help you with, hope it helps.

Cheers

 

[GameHard6]

I wouldn't go LGA 2011 for gaming purposes. Just go LGA 1150 and get the i7-4790K http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00KPRWAX8. Use all the money you saved to invest in something more important like the graphics card and SSD storage.

 

[M76]

But I already have 2011, that's a given. I see no point in dumping the board, and buying a 1150 with less features, and no 16+16 PCIE.

Hell I wouldn't even want to change the CPU if not for the fact that I can't OC my 3820 after I bought the R9 290X because touching the BCLK means bluescreens in 3D. My two GTX660 cards worked perfectly with 125 BCLK.

you need to seriously read more.. the 4930K hit easily 4.5-4.6ghz even with cheapo air coolers.... having in the market the 4790K which its stock 4ghz with turbo 4.4ghz, so the 4820K its worthless at this point, if you need the extra PCI lanes and quad channel RAM then go with the 4930K, absolutely no point to go with a 4820K.

I read they usually top out at 4,2-4,3 that's why I asked.

Greetings



Really hard to say at the moment because the 2 extra cores are not really needed, but since most people are still running X58 gear that's 5 to 6 years old I would expect a 2011 system to go for roughly that amount of time as well, you may need the extra horsepower when 4K gaming arrives in September when Nvidia releases the 800 series video cards, another reason is consoles are true 8 cores so PC ports probably could use a similar number of cores later on.

What does 4K Have to do anything? HD vs 4K only puts more stress on the Graphics card, and not the CPU in the same game.

I'm already looking at 4K gaming right now.
I'm not too worried about consoles, I7 have 8 Threads, that probably can handle more than the 8 cores of the consoles.

Why? what does this 400 extra Mhz give you that's a dealbreaker if you don't have it? I play BF4 with two GTX660Ti's in SLI and I get about 70-90 fps on a 64 multiplayer at 1920x1080 res. I think the video cards are bottlenecking my system as the game is only using 30%-40% of all 12 cores and OC'ing the CPU did nothing for me.

Because I'd be sorely disappointed if I'd see less in benchmarks after "upgrading" .

If you want more longevity with your system then a hexacore is probably the way to go as it will probably see 2 or 3 different graphic cards in it before you retire it. Also the maximum of 64GB of RAM may be useful if you want to do things like run VM's later on, 1150 systems are restricted to 32 GB.

That's all I can help you with, hope it helps.

Cheers

I feel the 80 percent extra price is robbery for the extra cores to sit idle during gaming.

Thanks

I wouldn't go LGA 2011 for gaming purposes. Just go LGA 1150 and get the i7-4790K http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00KPRWAX8. Use all the money you saved to invest in something more important like the graphics card and SSD storage.

Theoretically speaking if I'd build from scratch. How much would I save on an 1150 build compared to the 2011? 10 bucks? Or nothing if I want a decent MB.

 

[Araxie]

But I already have 2011, that's a given. I see no point in dumping the board, and buying a 1150 with less features, and no 16+16 PCIE.

Feature Wise the 1150 have more newer features.. as you know if you do not need the 40 PCI lanes then

What does 4K Have to do anything? HD vs 4K only puts more stress on the Graphics card, and not the CPU in the same game.

in part yes, the most stress will be to the Graphic card, but you also need to push more the CPU so also need a stronger CPU for 4k.. as the draw distance affect A LOT and that its handle mostly by the CPU. do not underestimate the CPU importance in any game resolution, thats why you see severe bottleneck with a i5 in Crysis 3 in comparison to a quad core i7..

I feel the 80 percent extra price is robbery for the extra cores to sit idle during gaming.


nope depending on the game you can see ALL the cores working in game specially if you are gaming at a high FPS rate (120+ FPS) if for example you want to play bf4 64player map and you aim at 120+FPS then you will need ALL the possible power in CPU..

Theoretically speaking if I'd build from scratch. How much would I save on an 1150 build compared to the 2011? 10 bucks? Or nothing if I want a decent MB.

from 0?. it could be a lot.. 4930K = ~550$ a good mobo Asus Rampage IV Black another 480$. so for CPU and Mobo only you have to pocket out ~1000$.. from the other side.. a 4790K = 340$ and a decent Board asus maximus VII board = 212$ so 552$.. and you can find a LOT of deals with 4790K with decent z97 boards. for less than 450$ if you have any microcenter near.. and being honest.. the 4790k at the same speed of your 3820 will be 20-25% more powerful in average....

Again it only depend on your needs and tastes.. but i have to say again.. the 4820K not worth having the 4770K and 4790K out there in the market offering better performance single threaded and multithreaded.. your real upgrade would be a 4930K and you can keep it for lot of time..

 

[M76]

Guess I'll play the waiting game for now.