Should I Go With An i5-4690K or Get the E3 Xeon 1231/41 v3?

[Faa]

1. Not all. Only their SuperFlower units. Their NEX1500 was quite shit, the nex750G things don't even have fan control fan just spins at max speed, etc. However their 1600G2/1300G2/1200 P2/1000G2/1000P2/850G2/750G2/750 B2/and probably a few more are topnotch ones which are on par with Seasonic for a much lower price. I have a Supernova 1000 P2 laying somewhere in my room, quite fantastic unit although I wasn't really happy with how loud the fan was.. The minimum rpm was around 800 rpm which is a bit too much for me and actually it never spins faster than that. The casing feels really sturdy, I like heavy PSU's  
2. Both when OC'ed; 2m 38s -> 158 secs & 3m 41s -> 221secs. 221-158/158 = 40% difference. Theoretical performance is 50%, most applications aren't perfectly multithreaded to achieve this although you can see that in the difference between the 5820K & 5960x, DDR4 can perform worse than DDR3 (not that I have checked the benchmarks). You can play with 1.40V if you like as long as you have the cooling but with 4790K's you're mostly limited to ~1.25V. 
3. BCLK is unlocked on X79/X99. Pushing 100MHz out of the BCLK instead of the multiplier gives more performance. Why? The CPU/Memory controller & pcie controller are connected in a ring bus, so increasing the bclk improves communication between all of them. 

Installing coolers is much easier on X99 as well, the pre-installed backplate is just fantastic and sturdy, the mount is usually much tighter there than on lga1150. My 3930K at 180W with a H100i was running like 20° cooler than my 2600K at 180W mainly because the backplate Corsair offers is really garbage.

4. Yes http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820211853&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10446076&PID=3938566&SID=

About SSD performance; well I've gone from an OCZ agility 3 to a Corsair Performance Pro to a 850 pro 512GB and now I have a EVO 1TB as storage drive, well there was no noticeable difference in real world for me. If I'm interested in max read/write speeds then I'd be looking at M2 drives instead. I'd probably swap my drives with M2's (X99 can take 2 of them right?) because it doesnt require any cables and don't have to bother mounting it in stupid 5.25" bays and my choice has little to do with performance. Why wouldn't you spend 20$ more on that Adata or just 30$ more for the MX100?

Btw just a question; any reasons why you're going for a 120Hz or 144 we monitor? I actually own one but I regret I've got one imo. Can't really enjoy any other screen thats 60Hz, got extremely sensitive to motion blur - I get dizzy of motion blur lol, complaining all the time that sports games need to be streamed at 60 fps atleast (preferably 120 fps ), but I'm stuck with shitty colors and viewing angles. Even when browsing I can't stand 60Hz. All I can really handle is 25-30 fps are video's when the camera is mostly static, if the camera changes a lot I hate it. Atm I kinda want an IPS monitor, preferably one thats 21/9 with a bunch of pixels makes productivity much easier, but it really depends how much motion blur there actually is. I'd say go with IPS instead, you won't need a 2nd GPU at all, that's 350$ saved in the future which you can spend on other things..

Soon they're bringing 1440p 144Hz AMVA panels out (isn't the same as VA) which has the colors of IPS and viewing angles, looking forward to them but it would probably take a year or whatever and they'd have a stupid matte coating so I'll have to wait longer for a glossy one.

[MeesterJackson]

1. Not all. Only their SuperFlower units. Their NEX1500 was quite shit, the nex750G things don't even have fan control fan just spins at max speed, etc. However their 1600G2/1300G2/1200 P2/1000G2/1000P2/850G2/750G2/750 B2/and probably a few more are topnotch ones which are on par with Seasonic for a much lower price. I have a Supernova 1000 P2 laying somewhere in my room, quite fantastic unit although I wasn't really happy with how loud the fan was.. The minimum rpm was around 800 rpm which is a bit too much for me and actually it never spins faster than that. The casing feels really sturdy, I like heavy PSU's  

2. Both when OC'ed; 2m 38s -> 158 secs & 3m 41s -> 221secs. 221-158/158 = 40% difference. Theoretical performance is 50%, most applications aren't perfectly multithreaded to achieve this although you can see that in the difference between the 5820K & 5960x, DDR4 can perform worse than DDR3 (not that I have checked the benchmarks). You can play with 1.40V if you like as long as you have the cooling but with 4790K's you're mostly limited to ~1.25V. 

3. BCLK is unlocked on X79/X99. Pushing 100MHz out of the BCLK instead of the multiplier gives more performance. Why? The CPU/Memory controller & pcie controller are connected in a ring bus, so increasing the bclk improves communication between all of them. 

Installing coolers is much easier on X99 as well, the pre-installed backplate is just fantastic and sturdy, the mount is usually much tighter there than on lga1150. My 3930K at 180W with a H100i was running like 20° cooler than my 2600K at 180W mainly because the backplate Corsair offers is really garbage.

4. Yes http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820211853&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10446076&PID=3938566&SID=

About SSD performance; well I've gone from an OCZ agility 3 to a Corsair Performance Pro to a 850 pro 512GB and now I have a EVO 1TB as storage drive, well there was no noticeable difference in real world for me. If I'm interested in max read/write speeds then I'd be looking at M2 drives instead. I'd probably swap my drives with M2's (X99 can take 2 of them right?) because it doesnt require any cables and don't have to bother mounting it in stupid 5.25" bays and my choice has little to do with performance. Why wouldn't you spend 20$ more on that Adata or just 30$ more for the MX100?

Btw just a question; any reasons why you're going for a 120Hz or 144 we monitor? I actually own one but I regret I've got one imo. Can't really enjoy any other screen thats 60Hz, got extremely sensitive to motion blur - I get dizzy of motion blur lol, complaining all the time that sports games need to be streamed at 60 fps atleast (preferably 120 fps ), but I'm stuck with shitty colors and viewing angles. Even when browsing I can't stand 60Hz. All I can really handle is 25-30 fps are video's when the camera is mostly static, if the camera changes a lot I hate it. Atm I kinda want an IPS monitor, preferably one thats 21/9 with a bunch of pixels makes productivity much easier, but it really depends how much motion blur there actually is. I'd say go with IPS instead, you won't need a 2nd GPU at all, that's 350$ saved in the future which you can spend on other things..

Soon they're bringing 1440p 144Hz AMVA panels out (isn't the same as VA) which has the colors of IPS and viewing angles, looking forward to them but it would probably take a year or whatever and they'd have a stupid matte coating so I'll have to wait longer for a glossy one.

1. They've updated the G1 units, they used to all have red cables for the GPU's now they're black, people have also complained about them less as well, so I'm assuming they did SOMETHING to them. Yeah I like heavier PSU's too.

 

2. Ah so it's more so 40% performance? Well that's still a nice boost I guess (REALLY still wants to replace the Samsung SyncMaster 730b he owns though lol). 

 

4. I can in the Z97 build, not so much the X99 build. 

 

For games? Dude I keep telling you this, gaming monitor 1st, then the editing monitor 2nd. LOL Getting a 60Hz monitor would hold back my hardware. My hardware is obviously capable at running games over 60 FPS why not take advantage of this? I'm not just an editor, I'm a pretty hardcore and competitive gamer as well. People have told me countless times that the jump from 60 FPS to over 100 FPS and actually noticing it (by having a monitor that can go past 100Hz) is AMAZING and helps A LOT in gaming (especially shooters obviously). 

[Faa]

 

2. Ah so it's more so 40% performance? Well that's still a nice boost I guess (REALLY still wants to replace the Samsung SyncMaster 730b he owns though lol). 

- 5820K at 4.6GHz 1356 in Cinebench R15: http://hwbot.org/submission/2631311_trisk3l_cinebench_r15_core_i7_5930k_1356_cb
- 4770k at 4.6GHz 941 in Cinebench R15: http://hwbot.org/submission/2476643_agent_cinebench_r15_core_i7_4770k_947_cb

Thats 45% already. Some benchmarks show like a 10% difference between the 5960x & 5930K, so don't let those 20% things mislead you lol. 
 

For games? Dude I keep telling you this, gaming monitor 1st, then the editing monitor 2nd. LOL Getting a 60Hz monitor would hold back my hardware. My hardware is obviously capable at running games over 60 FPS why not take advantage of this? I'm not just an editor, I'm a pretty hardcore and competitive gamer as well. People have told me countless times that the jump from 60 FPS to over 100 FPS and actually noticing it (by having a monitor that can go past 100Hz) is AMAZING and helps A LOT in gaming (especially shooters obviously). 

Wasn't expecting you to be a hardcore/competitive gamer though. Then you should. It makes a massive difference. Give 120Hz a few months the time, you'll understand why any other monitor can be extremely shit Btw lots of games I've tried where you had plenty of GPU horsepower but mostly the CPU was holding back especially in BF3, a bit less in BF4 so be aware that if you don't get 120 fps all the time, monitor your gpu loads and crank the clock speed up. For me, difference between 3.5GHz and 4.8GHz was like going from 52 to 72 fps which is massive.

X99 allows you to cherrypick the cores you want to have enabled, usually if you disable lets say 5 cores on a 3930K it's always #core0 that's active. With X99 you can manually enable/disable core#0, core#1, core#2 etc. If your game only uses 3 cores, just use the 3 best binned ones and go higher on the clock speed. AI suite 3 can automatically swap the OC profile when you launch a particular app/game afaik.
 

 

1. They've updated the G1 units, they used to all have red cables for the GPU's now they're black, people have also complained about them less as well, so I'm assuming they did SOMETHING to them. Yeah I like heavier PSU's too. 

G1's are FSP afaik. I hate FSP. I mainly like Seasonic, Superflower (they're unbeatable when it comes down to build quality/performance/price), Delta (best build quality), CWT sometimes especially the new HXi and Flextronics but Corsair really failed with the fan profile for the flextronics units although its fixed for the AX1500i.

My supernova is like 5.3 pounds, the special coating they use on the metal looks quite nice, no lifted up fan grill or just a cheap 140mm grill you can buy anywhere, they're probably the most sturdy PSU's I've ever had

[MeesterJackson]

 

 

 

- 5820K at 4.6GHz 1356 in Cinebench R15: http://hwbot.org/submission/2631311_trisk3l_cinebench_r15_core_i7_5930k_1356_cb

- 4770k at 4.6GHz 941 in Cinebench R15: http://hwbot.org/submission/2476643_agent_cinebench_r15_core_i7_4770k_947_cb

Thats 45% already. Some benchmarks show like a 10% difference between the 5960x & 5930K, so don't let those 20% things mislead you lol. 

 

Wasn't expecting you to be a hardcore/competitive gamer though. Then you should. It makes a massive difference. Give 120Hz a few months the time, you'll understand why any other monitor can be extremely shit Btw lots of games I've tried where you had plenty of GPU horsepower but mostly the CPU was holding back especially in BF3, a bit less in BF4 so be aware that if you don't get 120 fps all the time, monitor your gpu loads and crank the clock speed up. For me, difference between 3.5GHz and 4.8GHz was like going from 52 to 72 fps which is massive.

X99 allows you to cherrypick the cores you want to have enabled, usually if you disable lets say 5 cores on a 3930K it's always #core0 that's active. With X99 you can manually enable/disable core#0, core#1, core#2 etc. If your game only uses 3 cores, just use the 3 best binned ones and go higher on the clock speed. AI suite 3 can automatically swap the OC profile when you launch a particular app/game afaik.

 

 

G1's are FSP afaik. I hate FSP. I mainly like Seasonic, Superflower (they're unbeatable when it comes down to build quality/performance/price), Delta (best build quality), CWT sometimes especially the new HXi and Flextronics but Corsair really failed with the fan profile for the flextronics units although its fixed for the AX1500i.

My supernova is like 5.3 pounds, the special coating they use on the metal looks quite nice, no lifted up fan grill or just a cheap 140mm grill you can buy anywhere, they're probably the most sturdy PSU's I've ever had

 

How are you splitting my comment up like that? I wanna do that lol. 

 

1. Oh...well damn Huh...Idk like I said, I never really go off of percentages, just raw data and benchmarks. 

 

2. Yeah I play things like Halo, CoD, Gears, I'll get into Battlefield more when I buy it on PC (I play more casual games too, and fighters, racing, etc). Though...hmm....now that I think about it, I might just keep buying CoD on console though as CoDs Xbox Competitive MP base is mainly on Xbox, PC players and PS players aren't so competitive....not to mention Xbox gets all the DLC a month before everyone else....lol. I'm starting to wonder if I should just opt for that BenQ I was originally going to buy that's 180 USD....hmm...

 

That's an interesting feature, I believe I've heard of that before. 

 

3. So all the AX's are bad? lol Yeah man, I freaking love 'em.  

[LemonSpice]

Well I'll be getting the next i7 and OC'ing that so if I wanted the i5 to perform nearly as good as the Xeon in rendering, I'd need to OC it. 

 

Which more benefits to the Xeon is that it performs like an i7 and an OC'd i5 in rendering for TONS less power consumption. 

it would run at 3.4 base and with bclk tuning you could get it to liek 3.9 maybe so not that far from an i5 but in rendering it will destroy the i5

[Faa]

3. So all the AX's are bad? lol Yeah man, I freaking love 'em.

The AXi? They're perfect other than the flawed fan profile. Corsair designs their own fan profiles for Flextronics units or some CWT but Seasonic rebranded one Seasonic designs it.

Also just press quote, select it and copy paste it multiple times, then remove what you need to remove.

[MeesterJackson]

The AXi? They're perfect other than the flawed fan profile. Corsair designs their own fan profiles for Flextronics units or some CWT but Seasonic rebranded one Seasonic designs it.

Also just press quote, select it and copy paste it multiple times, then remove what you need to remove.

Ah alright. 

 

Awesome.

 

Soooo in the end, which build do you recommend for me to make? But also, which one do you think fits me more? 

 

EDIT: I wonder if @Faa got this notification?...lol

[MeesterJackson]

it would run at 3.4 base and with bclk tuning you could get it to liek 3.9 maybe so not that far from an i5 but in rendering it will destroy the i5

I've kinda gotten past the Xeon now, deciding if I should go with Z97 or X99. 

 

(There are pros and cons to both, the X99 doesn't immediately win just because it performs better). 

[Faa]

@MeesterJackson

I already told you a 5820K clock for clock is up to 50% faster, the difference when streaming is freaking huge and you'll have much more frames. I cant imagine streaming with 4 cores & HT, kinda really need the extra 2 cores. Although 1080p 60 fps streaming.

Have you maybe considered the MSI X99s SLI plus? It's 50$ cheaper. Imo its completely worth it in your case, you can anytime upgrade to a 8 core if you won the lottery, we might see 10/12 core Broadwells and the 8 core being 500$ with broadwell etc. In the end you are making the choice, not me. I wouldn't sacrifice X99 for a monitor, that can wait, X99 can wait as well but its kinda stupid if you went with the 4790k and you upgraded to X99 later on.

[Sintezza]

5820k isnt that mind blowing faster then an 4790K in rendering if im right.

With the price of current DDR4 ram, and very expensive X99 boards.

the 4790K will realy give it a run for its money, most of the time.

Unless you need allot of pci-e lanes, but then you should concider a 5930k instead.

 

For gaming a 5820k adds nothing to gaming performance.

Only Watchdogs maybe..

 

The only + from X99 is, that its a 4 year platform.

[MeesterJackson]

5820k isnt that mind blowing faster then an 4790K in rendering if im right.

With the price of current DDR4 ram, and very expensive X99 boards.

the 4790K will realy give it a run for its money, most of the time.

Unless you need allot of pci-e lanes, but then you should concider a 5930k instead.

 

For gaming a 5820k adds nothing to gaming performance.

Only Watchdogs maybe..

 

The only + from X99 is, that its a 4 year platform.

No it is quite faster in rendering, and in terms of performance the extra cores will obviously help with doing multiple tasks at once.

Also it helps A LOT in live streaming. 

 

The Crucial DDR4 isn't that expensive actually in terms of DDR4 pricing. 

 

The 5930k is a pointless CPU the 5820k is just fine and you can still do like triple CFX and SLI with it. The only advantage to the 5930k other than the extra GPU power is the like 10-20% performance gain in rendering and probably live streaming as well, which doesn't really justify the price....though the 5960x is just not worth it at all in my opinion so I'd still buy the 5930k over that. 

 

No it doesn't add to gaming performance, but that's not what the Extreme series is made for. 

[MeesterJackson]

@MeesterJackson

I already told you a 5820K clock for clock is up to 50% faster, the difference when streaming is freaking huge and you'll have much more frames. I cant imagine streaming with 4 cores & HT, kinda really need the extra 2 cores. Although 1080p 60 fps streaming.

Have you maybe considered the MSI X99s SLI plus? It's 50$ cheaper. Imo its completely worth it in your case, you can anytime upgrade to a 8 core if you won the lottery, we might see 10/12 core Broadwells and the 8 core being 500$ with broadwell etc. In the end you are making the choice, not me. I wouldn't sacrifice X99 for a monitor, that can wait, X99 can wait as well but its kinda stupid if you went with the 4790k and you upgraded to X99 later on.

Ugh I know...it's just...I love ASUS. :C LOL 

[Sintezza]

well i think you in some kind of a fairytail realy.

 

in live streaming the 5820k will not be much faster then a 4790k. (maybe even slower on stock)

For gaming more cores doesnt realy matter.

HT will help with streaming there.

 

in rendering, sure the 5820k is faster, however it isnt realy that much faster.

Unless you can show me trustfull benchmarks that show otherwise?

 

If you are not an professional video renderer, the whole X99 platform is kinda pointless then.

offcourse it will be faster in rendering, however the price of expensive DDR4 ram quad channel, and an expensive X99 board.

[MeesterJackson]

well i think you in some kind of a fairytail realy.

 

in live streaming the 5820k will not be much faster then a 4790k. (maybe even slower on stock)

For gaming more cores doesnt realy matter.

HT will help with streaming there.

 

in rendering, sure the 5820k is faster, however it isnt realy that much faster.

Unless you can show me trustfull benchmarks that show otherwise?

 

If you are not an professional video renderer, the whole X99 platform is kinda pointless then.

That's all your opinion then. I'm not going to argue with someone over the internet lol. 

 

There were already benchmarks posted in this thread. 

[Sintezza]

its better but not by 50% i dont believe that

more expensive mobo´s + DDR4 pricings, all together in my opinnion is not worth it over 4790K.

Unless you are an professional video renderer

 

And by the way, its not about arguing.

I just give my opinnion, what you do with it, thats up to you.

in the end i dont care what you get lol

 

The only thing i do know, is that you allready made tons of topics about cpu´s questions.

On diffrent community´s this year.

I would say, finaly make a decission atleast haha

[MeesterJackson]

its better but not by 50% i dont believe that

more expensive mobo´s + DDR4 pricings, all together in my opinnion is not worth it over 4790K.

Unless you are an professional video renderer

 

And by the way, its not about arguing.

I just give my opinnion, what you do with it, thats up to you.

in the end i dont care what you get lol

 

The only thing i do know, is that you allready made tons of topics about cpu´s questions.

On diffrent community´s this year.

I would say, finaly make a decission atleast haha

It's about 40%. 

 

So why keep commenting on my posts if you don't care?  

 

That's all for experience and knowledge. Not to mention my budget keeps changing. If you don't like it, again, don't leave a comment.

[Sintezza]

It's about 40%. 

 

So why keep commenting on my posts if you don't care?

 

That's all for experience and knowledge. Not to mention my budget keeps changing. If you don't like it, again, don't leave a comment.

 

okay so you creating a topic, just for knowledge.

That seems vallid

 

It doesnt matter if i like it or not.

I just give my advice. What you do with it, is up to you.

Just buy whatever you think is the best for your money.

 

Because in the end, you have to be happy with it.

And realy nobody care´s what you get in the end.

 

You need to get what works for you, not what works for me.

I suppose you get my point.

[Faa]

 

in rendering, sure the 5820k is faster, however it isnt realy that much faster.

Unless you can show me trustfull benchmarks that show otherwise?

Maybe you should drop from where you found that "its not that much faster"?

There are plenty of Sandy Bridge-E reviews, showing a gain of 50% over the 2600K. Besides clock a 5960x to a 4790K, it's twice as fast.
 

Ugh I know...it's just...I love ASUS. :C LOL 

Same

[Sintezza]

 

 

Maybe you should drop from where you found that "its not that much faster"?

There are plenty of Sandy Bridge-E reviews, showing a gain of 50% over the 2600K. Besides clock a 5960x to a 4790K, it's twice as fast.

 

Same

 

 

We dont talk about a 5960X here.

thats not apples to appels compairisson.

The 5960X has twice as much cores lol

So it will indeed be twice as fast..

 

Sandybridge-E is kinda irrelevant

 

its 5820k vs 4790K where we talk about here.

On which i allready said that the 5820k is faster in rendering, however will the diffrences realy be that big?

 

Sure it will be faster, thats a fact quadchannel will help with this aswell, but concidering the price for quadchannel DDR4, and more expensive mobo.

Its highly the question if its worth it, for only a bit of rendering.

Not professional wise.

 

pure from render times, point of vieuw.

And price to performance.

 

Offcourse if op, wants to spend the money for X99 and 5820k then dear god just do it.

If the 5820k is realy 50% faster, then i would be completely blown away by its performance.

You both could offcourse be right, if i look at the core counts, offcourse the 5820k has 2 more cores, thats indeed 50%. if they scale liniar

I would like to see it in real world, in terms of render times diffrences, and price diffrences.

[Faa]

We dont talk about sandybridge dont we?

We also dont talk about a 5960X here.

thats not apples to appels compairisson.

No but pretty much tells us that the extra cores are scaling lineairly. 

 

 

its 5820k vs 4790K where we talk about here.

On which i allready said that the 5820k is faster in rendering, however will the diffrences realy be that big?

How much difference can you logically expect? 4 vs 6 cores thats 50% more cores so 50% performance theoretically. If you think 50% isnt much well what can I say to that? I've linked benchmarks earlier in this thread showing 45% considering that DDR4 atm quite sucks, that CPU still has a bit more potential to reach out that 5%. It's very very close reaching its theoretical performance difference. Same applies to a 8350 vs 4300, the 8350 is twice as fast as the 4300. Aslong as it's properly multithreaded (some benchmarks are still shitty multithreaded).

I posted earlier some Cinebench clockforclock results in this thread between the 5820K/4790K, it's 45%. Haven't checked how much faster the 5820K at stock is than a 4790K but that's irrelevant if we're planning to OC it anyways, but clock-for-clock it's up to 50% faster.

Just to add; streaming BF3 1080p at 60 fps at 5Mbps with 4 cores (no HT) only enabled on my 3930K wasn't working out. OBS was reporting like encoding times takes too long, with all cores enabled the difference was significant. CPU was still capping at 100% out, clocking it to 4.5GHz makes again a huge difference.

 

Sure it will be faster, thats a fact, but concidering the price for quadchannel DDR4, and more expensive mobo.

Its highly the question if its worth it, for only a bit of rendering.

Not professional wise.

That choice is sadly not in our hands. Atm in the states the 5820K is 380$, most i7 owners actually mostly go with a 150$ board, cheapest X99 board costs 50$ more, if you don't mind having a 8GB DDR4 set for 100$ rather than a 8GB DDR3 set for 70$, actually its price/performance can be great.

[Sintezza]

 

No but pretty much tells us that the extra cores are scaling lineairly. 

 

 

How much difference can you logically expect? 4 vs 6 cores thats 50% more cores so 50% performance theoretically. If you think 50% isnt much well what can I say to that? I've linked benchmarks earlier in this thread showing 45% considering that DDR4 atm quite sucks, that CPU still has a bit more potential to reach out that 5%. It's very very close reaching its theoretical performance difference. Same applies to a 8350 vs 4300, the 8350 is twice as fast as the 4300. Aslong as it's properly multithreaded (some benchmarks are still shitty multithreaded).

I posted earlier some Cinebench clockforclock results in this thread between the 5820K/4790K, it's 45%. Haven't checked how much faster the 5820K at stock is than a 4790K but that's irrelevant if we're planning to OC it anyways, but clock-for-clock it's up to 50% faster.

Just to add; streaming BF3 1080p at 60 fps at 5Mbps with 4 cores (no HT) only enabled on my 3930K wasn't working out. OBS was reporting like encoding times takes too long, with all cores enabled the difference was significant. CPU was still capping at 100% out, clocking it to 4.5GHz makes again a huge difference.

 

That choice is sadly not in our hands. Atm in the states the 5820K is 380$, most i7 owners actually mostly go with a 150$ board, cheapest X99 board costs 50$ more, if you don't mind having a 8GB DDR4 set for 100$ rather than a 8GB DDR3 set for 70$, actually its price/performance can be great.

 

 

Yeah i have to agree, now i realy think about it more deeper.

2 cores is 50%..

If they scale liniary

 

The Cinbench scores that i have seen where indeed stock 5820k vs 4790K overclocked.

I suppose thats the reason why they where a bit missleading.

Because the 4790K wasn't that far behind, but sure stock vs overclock.

 

So im obvious a bit wrong.

 

Sorry guys

 

I need to drink less Bacardi razz lol

 

I was realy concidering a 5820k aswell my self for an upgrade over my FX8350. instead of a 4790k

Hmm now i think about it, the 5820k is only €40 more then a 4790K.

But yeah those ram prices doe..

[Faa]

But yeah those ram prices doe..

I'm getting a 5960x/X99-WS or X99-a and guess what? A single..

50 eur thing.

But honestly, you should go with the 5820K, why didnt I tell you this a few days ago? If you're already considering a maximus vii hero, well a X99-a is only 20-30 eur more expensive, 40 eur more for the 5820K, and you were already going to spend money on new ram for a 4790k Get two of those sticks, 100 eur is still acceptable. It's a platform thats far more fun to overclock than Z97. It will feel a bigger upgrade than a 4790K over your 8350 tbh.

This ram btw: http://afuture.nl/productview.php?productID=2454717

[Sintezza]

I'm getting a 5960x/X99-WS or X99-a and guess what? A single..

50 eur thing.

But honestly, you should go with the 5820K, why didnt I tell you this a few days ago? If you're already considering a maximus vii hero, well a X99-a is only 20-30 eur more expensive, 40 eur more for the 5820K, and you were already going to spend money on new ram for a 4790k Get two of those sticks, 100 eur is still acceptable. It's a platform thats far more fun to overclock than Z97. It will feel a bigger upgrade than a 4790K over your 8350 tbh.

This ram btw: http://afuture.nl/productview.php?productID=2454717

 

Hmm 50 euro for 4GB DDR4 thats not bad.

Afuture is a good shop by the way, i boaght my case and cooler there.

Hmm i could think about it.

 

i do maybe have the workload for it.

[Faa]

Hmm 50 euro for 4GB DDR4 thats not bad.

Afuture is a good shop by the way, i boaght my case and cooler there.

Haha I bought my case from there as well lol Dutch shops usually have better prices than belgian shops here, sometimes the price difference is easily over 200 eur but there are like 5-6 hardware shops I can think of here in BE so there's not a lot of competition like in NL.

[MeesterJackson]

-snip-

-snip-

I believe he was talking about me. lol