Intel® Xeon® Processor E3-1240 v3 or i7 4790k

[PHInfinite]

I'm going to use this for gaming as well as video creation on Adobe CS.

 

If you have another alternative to this then do post it.

 

Thanks

[Duskie]

I'm going to use this for gaming as well as video creation on Adobe CS.

 

If you have another alternative to this then do post it.

 

Thanks

4790k

[TheAmazingCookieFromSquare]

i7 if you wanna overclock X-Eon if you don't

[flibberdipper]

Xeon 1231 v3.

[vembutech]

Without doubt i will prefer 

i7 4790k processor

[Fictionvl]

go with the 4790k 

[gazabi]

I'm going to use this for gaming as well as video creation on Adobe CS.

 

If you have another alternative to this then do post it.

 

Thanks

Save money by buying the xeon and spend more money on a gpu.

[Vek1313]

I'm going to use this for gaming as well as video creation on Adobe CS.

 

If you have another alternative to this then do post it.

 

Thanks

If you are going to OC then the i7, otherwise the Xeon but I would go with the E3 1231

[PHInfinite]

Cheers guys but the only issue with the i7 is it's price.

[WereCat]

Get the Xeon E3 1231 V3. You will get maybe 2-4 FPS less in games due to lower clock speed but thats not a big deal. Unless you want to play with overclocking you should pick Xeon over i7 and save some money.

[PineappleHolidays]

Isn't there a big difference ?

I would get the 1231V3 if the price is a lot lower and with it you can get a cheap mobo

 

Otherwise, at same prices, i7 all the way

[Duskie]

Cheers guys but the only issue with the i7 is it's price.

Yeah, Xeons are perfectly capable of gaming. It'll be a tiny bit slower but you won't notice, my 1276 v3 works fine for everything I do.

[SteveGrabowski0]

The i7-4790k is the better CPU in every way other than a slightly higher TDP at stock, so if the price difference isn't an issue get that i7.

[KemoKa]

The i7-4790k is the better CPU in every way other than a slightly higher TDP at stock, so if the price difference isn't an issue get that i7.

Explain to me the benefits of having the 4790K other than the ability to adjust the multiplier?

[SteveGrabowski0]

Explain to me the benefits of having the 4790K other than the ability to adjust the multiplier?

 

500 MHz higher all cores turbo at stock

[KemoKa]

500 MHz higher all cores turbo at stock

That's it? Come on, you can do better than that.

[SteveGrabowski0]

That's it? Come on, you can do better than that.

 

A 13.5% bump in clockspeed isn't significant?

[KemoKa]

A 13.5% bump in clockspeed isn't significant?

No, it isn't. The gigahertz war ended a decade ago. Besides, that extra 13.5% raw performance means nothing when 1) it's a $100 difference and 2) I can overclock a xeon anyway if I feel like it.

[SteveGrabowski0]

No, it isn't. The gigahertz war ended a decade ago. Besides, that extra 13.5% raw performance means nothing when 1) it's a $100 difference and 2) I can overclock a xeon anyway if I feel like it.

 

A 13.5% difference means a lot if you're playing something CPU bound like Arma and if $100 doesn't mean a lot to you. I don't know why you're taking issue with me saying the 4790k is a better CPU than the 1241v3. I never said it was a better value for AAA gaming; it isn't, which is why I have a 1231v3 in my own system, as all games I play are GPU bound.

[KemoKa]

A 13.5% difference means a lot if you're playing something CPU bound like Arma and if $100 doesn't mean a lot to you. I don't know why you're taking issue with me saying the 4790k is a better CPU than the 1241v3. I never said it was a better value for AAA gaming; it isn't, which is why I have a 1231v3 in my own system, as all games I play are GPU bound.

I don't take issue with you saying that the 4790K is a better CPU, in one or two cases it is, perhaps. The issue I take is with you saying:

"The i7-4790k is the better CPU in every way other than a slightly higher TDP at stock", something that simply isn't true.

 

The one thing you put forward was a 500MHz boost clock, something the average person on this forum could match with a Xeon with an FSB bump and a voltage tweak. Not hard.

 

Whereas for the Xeon I can put forward ECC memory support (not really relevant), slightly lower TDP (which you mentioned), hugely lower price (which you also mentioned, funnily enough), and being put through a more thorough binning process. Xeons are workstation and server processors, they are supposed to handle enterprise-grade workloads and conditions, something that might not be relevant to the average gamer, but something which can greatly affect the longevity of a system. In any case, you'd be better off spending the $100 on a better graphics card, because that would affect your framerates in a CPU-bound game like Arma much more noticeably than a better CPU would.

 

[SteveGrabowski0]

I don't take issue with you saying that the 4790K is a better CPU, in one or two cases it is, perhaps. The issue I take is with you saying:

"The i7-4790k is the better CPU in every way other than a slightly higher TDP at stock", something that simply isn't true.

 

The one thing you put forward was a 500MHz boost clock, something the average person on this forum could match with a Xeon with an FSB bump and a voltage tweak. Not hard.

 

Whereas for the Xeon I can put forward ECC memory support (not really relevant), slightly lower TDP (which you mentioned), hugely lower price (which you also mentioned, funnily enough), and being put through a more thorough binning process. Xeons are workstation and server processors, they are supposed to handle enterprise-grade workloads and conditions, something that might not be relevant to the average gamer, but something which can greatly affect the longevity of a system. In any case, you'd be better off spending the $100 on a better graphics card, because that would affect your framerates in a CPU-bound game like Arma much more noticeably than a better CPU would.

 

 

You're right about the ECC, I forgot about that, but I don't buy that they're better binned than CPUs designed to run almost 1GHz higher clockspeeds. Price doesn't affect whether one CPU performs better than the other, I never said the 4790k was a better value. I don't get your point on Arma III, that game is straight CPU bound by per core performance and going from a $330 GTX 970 to a $430 R9 390x won't improve framerate nearly as much as a higher clockrate to improve per core performance would.

[KemoKa]

I don't get your point on Arma III, that game is straight CPU bound by per core performance and going from a $330 GTX 970 to a $430 R9 390x won't improve framerate nearly as much as a higher clockrate to improve per core performance would.

No, but I bet going from a $220 280X to a $320 290X would. Want benchmarks?

[Cheddle]

Xeon has no iGPU.

 

You cannot increase the multiplier on a Xeon

 

The price argument is nonsense if you are thinking about gaming as a 4690k is the obvious choice over an e3-1231v3

 

depending on workload you may have better performance with an overclocked 4690k than an e3-1231v3 - and obviously better performance with a 4790k

 

In response to OP I say get the 4790k, worth the difference in price. don't sacrifice budget from other components for it though.

[PHInfinite]

However you can easily increase the base clock therefore adding a little extra power which on some chips pulls it up to 4ghz.