People please stop telling people not to get the 4790K for gaming

[i_build_nanosuits]

And a 1-3 FPS is more likely due to something on the graphics card rather than from the CPU. And if you run a test with the same GPU and CPU combo twice, you will get different results, which means that 1-3 FPS is well within a margin of error.

iuf you'd check benchmarks where the game is not GPU bound (it's pretty much always is) you would realise a core i7 can push a lot more than 1-3FPS more than the i5 in MANY games...

[threadysparrow]

iuf you'd check benchmarks where the game is not GPU bound (it's pretty much always is) you would realise a core i7 can push a lot more than 1-3FPS more than the i5 in MANY games...

source?

 

and you say that it's almost always GPU bound but then you say there are many CPU bound games. Which is it?

[Faceman]

You are sadly misinformed. I hereby revoke your right to offer advice to others.

[D2ultima]

source?

If a game makes use of the hyperthreading cores, it makes a difference. If it doesn't (and I've never even SEEN a game that does; though not to say that there are none out there) then it won't.

[threadysparrow]

If a game makes use of the hyperthreading cores, it makes a difference. If it doesn't (and I've never even SEEN a game that does; though not to say that there are none out there) then it won't.

So then there aren't any games that take advantage of it then is what you're saying. So I still need a source. I will give you guys 4 games that take advantage of an i7 that benefit from hyperthreading and can provide significantly more frames. Otherwise I stick by my statement that games don't need hyperthreading.

[D2ultima]

So then there aren't any games that take advantage of it then is what you're saying. So I still need a source. I will give you guys 4 games that take advantage of an i7 that benefit from hyperthreading and can provide significantly more frames. Otherwise I stick by my statement that games don't need hyperthreading.

Your post confuses me.

 

But what I *AM* saying is, for the most part, an i5 == an i7 as far as games are concerned (clock speed, core count & architecture equal). I don't know of any games that use the hyperthread cores properly, but I'm certain one or two out there will.

[Faceman]

We have been promised hyperthreading optimized games for many years now, and no game has delivered a drastic improvement went going from i5 to i7. The most recent being Watch Dogs. The difference between i5 and i7 is minimal, and not worth $100. That money is better spent on your GPU, a component that'll actually give you a tangible improvement.

We likely won't see games that really thrive with hyperthreading or more than 4 cores for many many years. Game developers make games for the masses, not for the select few who have hyperthreading and more than 4 cores. It doesn't make sense for them to alienate the majority of their target market. If you go back and watch the "Ask an Intel Engineer" video that Linus did a few months back, one of the questions was if games will start to encorporate hyperthreading, and the answer was no.

For gaming, i5 = i7

[Jey R.]

Well, I hear lots of mantle... But have you guys heard about dirextx 12?

[i_build_nanosuits]

source?

 

and you say that it's almost always GPU bound but then you say there are many CPU bound games. Which is it?

 

 

You are sadly misinformed. I hereby revoke your right to offer advice to others.

 

 

If a game makes use of the hyperthreading cores, it makes a difference. If it doesn't (and I've never even SEEN a game that does; though not to say that there are none out there) then it won't.

 

 

So then there aren't any games that take advantage of it then is what you're saying. So I still need a source. I will give you guys 4 games that take advantage of an i7 that benefit from hyperthreading and can provide significantly more frames. Otherwise I stick by my statement that games don't need hyperthreading.

 

 

We have been promised hyperthreading optimized games for many years now, and no game has delivered a drastic improvement went going from i5 to i7. The most recent being Watch Dogs. The difference between i5 and i7 is minimal, and not worth $100. That money is better spent on your GPU, a component that'll actually give you a tangible improvement.

We likely won't see games that really thrive with hyperthreading or more than 4 cores for many many years. Game developers make games for the masses, not for the select few who have hyperthreading and more than 4 cores. It doesn't make sense for them to alienate the majority of their target market. If you go back and watch the "Ask an Intel Engineer" video that Linus did a few months back, one of the questions was if games will start to encorporate hyperthreading, and the answer was no.

For gaming, i5 = i7

 

Tested this myself, here's the result for watchdogs (i get similar results with BF3, BF4, crysis 3, far cry 3 and max payne 3)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbXZF7yUhgc&list=UUp5U3S9JtO4LTCTKK3TMgmw

 

As you can see the 4770K run's the game much smoother with a much higher minimum framerate and a much more consistent GPU load and see how the load distribute on the CPU cores HT is kickin butt at full throttle.

But i do rekon that HT is not a big help in MOST current games out there but it might be a deal breaker down the road.

[VoxPopuli]

In my gaming experience, there is a situation that 4790k outperforms i5 4690k.

 

I have both 4690k and 4790k. and I oc'ed 4690k to 4.2Ghz and left 4790k to its stock clock.(4cores boosted to 4.2Ghz, so both cpu were the same clock)

 

I played Crysis 3 "Welcome to the jungle" chapter, and there was a huge framerate, load level difference between 4790k and 4690k.

 

Option was all maxed out except AA(it was FXAA), so the game demanded high physics operation due to dense grass rendering.

 

4790k was at 50~70% load with smooth 60fps(my VGA is R9 290x Lightning) and 4690k was at 99% load. fps was not stable between 40~60.

 

My point is, if you're playing games that demand massive physics operation, i7 is much better. If not, just stick with i5.

[D2ultima]

Tested this myself, here's the result for watchdogs (i get similar results with BF3, BF4, crysis 3, far cry 3 and max payne 3)

I know BF3 and 4 are CPU-bound games, but I did not know about FC3, and Max Payne 3/Watch Dogs I don't own. But there we go, look some games that benefit a bit from hyperthreading I guess.

 

Not a huge amount, and 10fps is a fairly decent CPU advantage. Oh well. #TheMoreYouKnow

[Faceman]

I don't think anyone only runs one game and nothing else. All those benchmarks don't have a VOIP program, WMP, OC utilities, hardware monitors, web browsers, etc running in the background. Run the benchmark with all those running and see the difference in FPS then. i7 haters love those benchmarks. They're not real world results. With all the background processes even on consoles, they prove you need more threads.

I have an i5-4670k, I play BF4 + Teamspeak/Ventrillo/Mumble/Skype + Netflix + Asus AI Suite 3 + CAM + Web Browsing + HWiNFO + GPU-Z + FRAPS/MSI Afterburner + RTSS + iTunes.

I have zero issues whatsoever. My usage is at 75-80% while doing this. The i5 is the processor of choice for gaming.

An i7 is for serious work related tasks. When doing a build, if you have no budget, by all means, get the i7. But if you are on a budget and the sole purpose is gaming, the i5 coupled with the best GPU you can afford is the optimal solution.

[bear5532]

Around the forums I have noticed a lot of people who tell people not to get the i7 4790K for gaming because the i5 4690K is cheaper and preforms the same. NOT TRUE. Yes it is  cheaper but the 4790K will outperform the 4690K since it has a higher clock speed. Then they to buy a CPU cooler and over clock the 4690K so it preforms the same or slightly better then the 4790K. Sure you could do that, but with the money you spent on the cooler you could of almost bought a 4790K it it will preform the same or just slightly worse then the over clocked 4690K. Then it the the future you can buy a CPU cooler for the 4790K and over clock it and it will destroy the 4690K. Plus you have to remember the over clocking is not guaranteed you might not be able to get your chip up to the clock speed you want. If you told a first time builder not to get the 4790K and get the 4690K and over clock it and they did that and their chip wouldn't overclock to the speed they wanted they would be mad. So please stop telling people not to get the 4790K.

is this a rant or a question

[GreatestGamerX1]

I have a I7 4790K + Gtx 780.

I do alot of video encoding and editing so I guess its worth it.

But has anyone here ever used a Video editing program that uses the GPU and CPU along along with hyperthreading.

Im able to edit a 2HR 1080p video in less than 10 minutes talk about crazy combination for editing.

Non in Gaming

[patrickjp93]

I have a I7 4790K + Gtx 780.

I do alot of video encoding and editing so I guess its worth it.

But has anyone here ever used a Video editing program that uses the GPU and CPU along along with hyperthreading.

Im able to edit a 2HR 1080p video in less than 10 minutes talk about crazy combination for editing.

Non in Gaming

I believe the Apple professional Final Cut does, but I'm not 100% sure.

[tautvydas]

We tell people to not get it if their budget isn't appropriate.

 

People that buy 4790Ks and GTX760s are doing it wrong. People who buy 4690Ks + 212 evo + gtx770/280x/290 are not.

 

On Haswell OC is determined 90% by chip and not by cooling. My G3258 could only do 4.2 @ 1.325v but my 4690k does 4.7 @ 1.31v. The G3258 was cooler. I'm using a £25 cooler.

wow i bought pc that had i5-4690 and GTX 760 >_> i'm planing to get 212 evo + new case to help the temps...

[harrynowl]

wow i bought pc that had i5-4690 and GTX 760 >_> i'm planing to get 212 evo + new case to help the temps...

That isn't too bad, the 4790K + GTX760 would be terrible, but i5 + 760 is pretty typical

[SHiFT]

So then there aren't any games that take advantage of it then is what you're saying. So I still need a source. I will give you guys 4 games that take advantage of an i7 that benefit from hyperthreading and can provide significantly more frames. Otherwise I stick by my statement that games don't need hyperthreading.

Actually Watch_Dogs does, and soon more to come WILL do. I dont mind paying 40-50 more £ to get a lot better CPU that will have an impact in more and more games. BF4 sorta uses it to some extent too, so will more than likely the new BF, and many more games to come out soon™

[Faceman]

Actually Watch_Dogs does, and soon more to come WILL do. I dont mind paying 40-50 more £ to get a lot better CPU that will have an impact in more and more games. BF4 sorta uses it to some extent too, so will more than likely the new BF, and many more games to come out soon™

Watch Dogs CPU Benchmark  Mmmm! That Zero FPS difference between i5 and i7.

 

We have had a discussion about this before, hyperthreading does not help in games.

[Faceman]

 

Here it actually does show a 10fps difference between stock i5 and i7.  This is the only game I know of that has a benefit with HT, and that benefit is small, and is erased once the i5 is overclocked. 

[SHiFT]

 

Here it actually does show a 10fps difference between stock i5 and i7.  This is the only game I know of that has a benefit with HT, and that benefit is small, and is erased once the i5 is overclocked. 

4790K isnt even there,  but even the 4770K does ~10FPS more, so you should get +10FPS in Watch_Dogs.. which I have said in my earlier post that Watch_Dogs DOES benefit from HT and the 4790K.

[Faceman]

4790K isnt even there,  but even the 4770K does ~10FPS more, so you should get +10FPS in Watch_Dogs.. which I have said in my earlier post that Watch_Dogs DOES benefit from HT and the 4790K.

That benefit is erased once the i5 is overclocked.  Not worth spending $100 more dollars.

[SHiFT]

That benefit is erased once the i5 is overclocked.  Not worth spending $100 more dollars.

Well, I have the money, and £50 more is not a problem to me specifically, it'll be more useful in the next year or two, and that's good nuff for me.

[juretrn]

-snip of OP-

You, sir, are sorely mistaken.

Yes, the i7 and i5 both OC. Yes, the i7 will go slightly higher with its clock. But how much higher? Do not forget- if you OC the i7, you will need a cooler too, if you don't get it, you might as well not overclock the processor. That means that for the same temperatures, you will still need to get a cooler in the same price range and the 100$ difference between the i5 and i7 option remains. And your i7 will not achieve frequencies that would justify that price difference, I would say 200-300 MHz tops. 

Just like @patrickjp93 said, the i7 remains unused in most modern games. By the time everyone starts using 8+ cores, it will be outdated anyway. 

The moral of the story is: if you play games on a budget, save those 100$ and get the i5 instead. However, if you want to be baller, no one is stopping you .

[grimmjow660]

I have the I7 4790k. I love it.

But I only got it because I could afford it, other than that I wouldn't have.