i7 4770 equivalent to?

[Knifeboss]

so i'm going with an i7 4770 & 1660 6gb,but i can rarely find benchmarks of the i7 4770.Does anyone know what the i7 4770 is equivalent to?as in ryzen 5? or new intel cpus?i just want to see cpu benchmarks that are close to it

[Fasauceome]

it's just behind first gen ryzen, compare it to a ryzen 5 1400 more or less

[emosun]

its about the same as a ryzen 5 1500x

[Streetguru]

20 minutes ago, Knifeboss said:

so i'm going with an i7 4770 & 1660 6gb,but i can rarely find benchmarks of the i7 4770.Does anyone know what the i7 4770 is equivalent to?as in ryzen 5? or new intel cpus?i just want to see cpu benchmarks that are close to it

Why a 4770 and 1660 ?

[Jurrunio]

4770? Keeping the old CPU or keeping the board while upgrading?

[Mister Woof]

1 hour ago, fasauceome said:

it's just behind first gen ryzen, compare it to a ryzen 5 1400 more or less

i'd probably place it closer to 1500x

[kingmustard]

 

 

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

[Fasauceome]

12 minutes ago, kingmustard said:

 

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

This list shows an i7 4770k above a 4790, totally useless website and data

[Mister Woof]

Haswell may have suffered more from Meltdown/Spectre fixes last year than other Intel processors. So maybe despite similar performance to 1400/1500x, it probably performs a bit slower in reality from the nerfs.

[Knifeboss]

Id love to go with new gen ryzen but due to high prices in my country,i decided to get a pre built.Found a nice deal for 500 euros,8gb ram i7 4770 500gb hdd,1660,idk what ill do about the cooler though,should i keep the stock one?

[Mister Woof]

4 minutes ago, Knifeboss said:

Id love to go with new gen ryzen but due to high prices in my country,i decided to get a pre built.Found a nice deal for 500 euros,8gb ram i7 4770 500gb hdd,1660,idk what ill do about the cooler though,should i keep the stock one?

is it an office refurb?

 

if so, might be more limited on the cooler physical dimensions

[kingmustard]

7 hours ago, fasauceome said:

This list shows an i7 4770k above a 4790, totally useless website and data

Then with both at stock, it is.

[JayzSub]

10 hours ago, Knifeboss said:

so i'm going with an i7 4770 & 1660 6gb,but i can rarely find benchmarks of the i7 4770.Does anyone know what the i7 4770 is equivalent to?as in ryzen 5? or new intel cpus?i just want to see cpu benchmarks that are close to it

My brother says it's equivalent to a ryzen r5 2400G Intel wise he hasn't checked. 

[kingmustard]

7 minutes ago, JayzSub said:

My brother says it's equivalent to a ryzen r5 2400G Intel wise he hasn't checked. 

Compared to the Intel Core i7-4770 (2013) in question, the:

 

Intel Core i7-6700 (2015) is 2% faster

Intel Core i7-4790 (2014) is 2% faster

Intel Core i7-4820K (2013) is 1% slower

AMD Ryzen 5 2500X (2018) is 1% slower
Intel Core i7-3770K (2012) is 3% slower

[dgsddfgdfhgs]

7 hours ago, Knifeboss said:

Found a nice deal for 500 euros,8gb ram i7 4770 500gb hdd,1660,idk

after taking away the 1660 , its not cheaper. (I also doubt thats a real 1660, its a new card in current months bundled with old pc?)

also not that old pc may die anytime and ddr3 ram is not compatible with new system

[Knifeboss]

51 minutes ago, dgsddfgdfhgs said:

after taking away the 1660 , its not cheaper. (I also doubt thats a real 1660, its a new card in current months bundled with old pc?)

also not that old pc may die anytime and ddr3 ram is not compatible with new system

I believe ill get a 1 year or 2 warranty so if anything happens i can get either another systen or a full refund

[Fasauceome]

5 hours ago, kingmustard said:

Then with both at stock, it is.

How? 4770k is base 3.5 turbo 3.9 and 4790 is base 3.6 turbo 4.0

[kingmustard]

17 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

How? 4770k is base 3.5 turbo 3.9 and 4790 is base 3.6 turbo 4.0

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4790-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4770K/2293vs1537

 

The i7-4770K is faster.

[Fasauceome]

1 hour ago, kingmustard said:

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4790-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4770K/2293vs1537

 

The i7-4770K is faster.

And that's how you know userbenchmark is unreliable, it's literally not possible for the 4770k to beat the 4790 at stock. If it is, explain how.

 

In general, you can't trust these huge aggregate data sites for accurate data, because they control for variables so astonishingly poorly you get bullshit like this, two Haswell CPUs and the one with lower clock speeds is somehow faster.

[PianoPlayer88Key]

On 4/28/2019 at 3:41 PM, fasauceome said:

This list shows an i7 4770k above a 4790, totally useless website and data

 

On 4/29/2019 at 5:57 AM, fasauceome said:

And that's how you know userbenchmark is unreliable, it's literally not possible for the 4770k to beat the 4790 at stock. If it is, explain how.

 

In general, you can't trust these huge aggregate data sites for accurate data, because they control for variables so astonishingly poorly you get bullshit like this, two Haswell CPUs and the one with lower clock speeds is somehow faster.

 

I've liked those sites at least theoretically, because they have SUCH a wide range of CPUs, GPUs, etc. tested, especially the passmark family of sites.

 

If there's another site that has as many components tested, or even more, AND is accurate, I'd like to know.  (Also I would like to be able to account for multiple use scenarios, not just gaming.)

Here's a few comparisons I've found on passmark that I haven't yet found anywhere else.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i9-9900K-vs-Intel-Pentium-III-Mobile-750MHz/3334vs1699

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/AMD-Ryzen-Threadripper-2950X-vs-Intel-Pentium-III-1133/3316vs1694

https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/compare/GeForce-RTX-2060-vs-GeForce3-Ti-500/4037vs1485

 

Those examples were picked because they pretty much at opposite ends of the available spectrum (oldest vs newest parts) on that site, and launched at close to the same price for each comparison.

 

Another one I'd like to compare is exactly how much faster is my i7-4790K or i7-6700K than the 286-10 in my dad's first PC, or my GTX 970M 6GB or GTX 1060 3GB vs the EGA graphics card he had in that 286 system.  

 

Also, it'd be nice to know how much faster my dad's AMD 486 DX4-120 (his 2nd CPU) was vs his 1st CPU (Intel 286-10).

He bought the 486 CPU for $102 in October 1995, and the 286 as part of a $940 bundle (with case, mobo, 1MB RAM, 200W PSU, keyboard) in January 1989.  I'd like to calculate the price-to-performance increase, and knowing how much a 286 CPU cost in early 1989 on its own would help.  I've looked up 287-10 FPUs in old pc mag ads and iirc they ran around $270-300 or so, I would assume CPUs would have been about the same price.

(I'm hoping that when I upgrade from my 4790K, I would have at least the same gains in price/performance.  If I upgrade in October 2021 which is right in the range of when I tentatively plan to upgrade anyway (pending arrival of PCI Express 5.0 and DDR5, vs expiration of warranty for my Corsair AX760 PSU which was bought in January 2015), it would be the same time interval.  I bought my 4790K also in January 2015.)

 

[Fasauceome]

16 minutes ago, PianoPlayer88Key said:

I've liked those sites at least theoretically, because they have SUCH a wide range of CPUs, GPUs, etc. tested, especially the passmark family of sites.

They're good on paper, but in practical terms, only useful for very general info. You get a site that says a GPU is 23% better than another, people will cite 23 exactly instead of saying one is just better than the other. It quantifies and presents data in a way that is overly precise for how it was gathered.

 

Sometimes it's not even correct, the 780 ti is shown to be 3% better than the 290x when in fact driver updates have favored the 290x much more which gives it a decent advantage in performance, much larger than the 3% difference shown.

[PianoPlayer88Key]

2 hours ago, fasauceome said:

They're good on paper, but in practical terms, only useful for very general info. You get a site that says a GPU is 23% better than another, people will cite 23 exactly instead of saying one is just better than the other. It quantifies and presents data in a way that is overly precise for how it was gathered.

 

Sometimes it's not even correct, the 780 ti is shown to be 3% better than the 290x when in fact driver updates have favored the 290x much more which gives it a decent advantage in performance, much larger than the 3% difference shown.

Hmm so what resources would you use if you wanted to compare CPUs and GPUs that are either very far apart in age (like Pentium III to Ice Lake or Ocean Cove), or you're comparing now-ancient CPUs from before some of the current tech websites / youtube channels / etc were even founded (like 8086 to original Pentium)?  (I heard JayzTwoCents called the grandpa of the tech tubers fairly recently, and the 8086 came out a few years before he was born.)

[Fasauceome]

3 minutes ago, PianoPlayer88Key said:

Hmm so what resources would you use if you wanted to compare CPUs and GPUs that are either very far apart in age (like Pentium III to Ice Lake or Ocean Cove), or you're comparing now-ancient CPUs from before some of the current tech websites / youtube channels / etc were even founded (like 8086 to original Pentium)?  (I heard JayzTwoCents called the grandpa of the tech tubers fairly recently, and the 8086 came out a few years before he was born.)

If you're going that far apart in age, the devices aren't even comparable. You can't even compare the 8086 to modern processors, it doesn't do the same things your average LGA 1151 CPU does. Userbenchmark doesn't even have something like the 8086 on their site, neither does notebook check, so if you want to quantify performance difference between an ancient and new processor, you have to take into account huge architectural factors and entire structural changes in how CPUs are even made. 

[PianoPlayer88Key]

3 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

If you're going that far apart in age, the devices aren't even comparable. You can't even compare the 8086 to modern processors, it doesn't do the same things your average LGA 1151 CPU does. Userbenchmark doesn't even have something like the 8086 on their site, neither does notebook check, so if you want to quantify performance difference between an ancient and new processor, you have to take into account huge architectural factors and entire structural changes in how CPUs are even made. 

What about the 2nd example, where they're not all that far apart in age, but they're both ancient?

I'd like to find out what the price-to-performance difference was when my dad went from a 286-10 in Q1 1989 to a 486 DX4-120 in Q4 1995.  (I've seen the Instructions per Second page on Wikipedia, which lists the 286-12 at 1.28 MIPS and the DX4-100 at 70 MIPS, but idk how accurate those are.  Dad paid $102 for the 486 in Oct 1995, and while the invoice for the 286 doesn't list it individually, some pc mag / byte ads I looked up from the era said the 287-10 was kinda close to $300 or so, maybe a little less.)

I'm hoping that if I upgrade from my i7-4790K (bought in January 1995 for $330) in October 2021 (same time interval) I would have at least the same price-to-performance increase.  Ideally, my next $300-or-less CPU (on whichever platform supports DDR5 & PCI Express 5.0) would be able to encode 4K H.265 lossless video at least as fast as my current CPU encodes 320kbps mp3 audio.  (My current 4790K does about 1/60x with the video encode, and about 500x or so with the audio encode.)

[Mister Woof]

Moore's Law went out the window a while ago. You can't expect certain jumps in performance at a set time, it just depends.

 

You can probably ride out your 4790k a couple more years if you are being reasonable with expectations, but I would seriously look at what Ryzen 3000 offers in June.