Switching to Intel

[noisecreated]

Hey ho!

 

First up sorry for my bad english. After ~10 Years of being an AMD fanboy i'm going to get my first Intel CPU. Now i was wondering about this whole i5 / i7 hyperthreating thingy and i'm completly confused.

(I'm going to get a complete new desktop exclusive for gaming.)

 

After seeing some benchmarks on different sites i was going to get an i7-4790 now i read that the i5-4690 is nearly even with raw performance but doesn't have hyperthreating. And while looking for comparison i found the i7-5820 for only 40€+ which isn't going to help me chosse a CPU.

 

What i want to do with it; Mainly Gaming (90%), i have never OC'd a CPU but i'm willed to do so (i know how) if needed. I'm mainly focusing on getting Witcher 3 & GTA V on max possible fps or even 30~ fps @ 4k.

 

My question now is; will i be fine with the i5 or are the i7 for 100€+ (or 140€+) going to make such a big difference on future games? Don't get me wrong, i'm willing to pay that few €, but i'm not willing to pay 140€ more for about ~3fps like seen in recent benchmarks.

 

I'm also on 16GB DDR3 2400 Corsair, ATI 280x (going to get replaced by a 980). For a Mainboard i would probably go for a Asus Maximus VII Hero if no one complains.

 

 

Bonus question; Do i have to switch my 850W PSU (Cooler Master V850) if i'm going for 980 SLI?

[Enderman]

I would get the i7 if youre going for 4k. If you can afford the i7, it might last you a few more years than an i5 since games are starting to use more than 4 cores.

It doesnt seem like you have a small budget (since youre going for two 980s) so I suggest investing a little more into the 4790k.

 

And yes, 850W is enough for two 980s

[LemonSpice]

Hey ho!

not willing to pay 140€ more for about ~3fps like seen in recent benchmarks.

 

I'm also on 16GB DDR3 2400 Corsair, ATI 280x (going to get replaced by a 980). For a Mainboard i would probably go for a Asus Maximus VII Hero if no one complains.

 

 

Bonus question; Do i have to switch my 850W PSU (Cooler Master V850) if i'm going for 980 SLI?

4690k for gaming but if you have more of a budget 4790k as it has a 30% raw performance increase from the virtual cores but not in games . These cpus are on lga1150 it is like am2+ the 5820k is on lga 2011-3 which is like fm3+ so the mobo wont work with it

also 850w is good enough for 4 way 980's

[Luke]

Hey ho!

 

First up sorry for my bad english. After ~10 Years of being an AMD fanboy i'm going to get my first Intel CPU. Now i was wondering about this whole i5 / i7 hyperthreating thingy and i'm completly confused.

(I'm going to get a complete new desktop exclusive for gaming.)

 

After seeing some benchmarks on different sites i was going to get an i7-4790 now i read that the i5-4690 is nearly even with raw performance but doesn't have hyperthreating. And while looking for comparison i found the i7-5820 for only 40€+ which isn't going to help me chosse a CPU.

 

What i want to do with it; Mainly Gaming (90%), i have never OC'd a CPU but i'm willed to do so (i know how) if needed. I'm mainly focusing on getting Witcher 3 & GTA V on max possible fps or even 30~ fps @ 4k.

 

My question now is; will i be fine with the i5 or are the i7 for 100€+ (or 140€+) going to make such a big difference on future games? Don't get me wrong, i'm willing to pay that few €, but i'm not willing to pay 140€ more for about ~3fps like seen in recent benchmarks.

 

I'm also on 16GB DDR3 2400 Corsair, ATI 280x (going to get replaced by a 980). For a Mainboard i would probably go for a Asus Maximus VII Hero if no one complains.

 

 

Bonus question; Do i have to switch my 850W PSU (Cooler Master V850) if i'm going for 980 SLI?

 

Your power supply is enough for SLI 980. Also just go with the 4690K and save yourself some money (or take your mom out to lunch). The 0-3% performance different in gaming or whatever is not even close to being worth it. I would only recommend the i7 if you planned to do more than just gaming.

[noisecreated]

Ok thank you guys!

 

I think i'll stick with the i5 and upgrade if needed in the next months/years. So you're saying the Motherboard won't fit?

 

The following link tells me i have to look for a 1150 socket;

http://www.mindfactory.de/product_info.php/Intel-Core-i5-4690K-4x-3-50GHz-So-1150-WOF_968689.html

 

And this one is telling me that the Hero is a 1150 socket MB;

http://www.mindfactory.de/product_info.php/Asus-MAXIMUS-VII-GENE-Intel-Z97-So-1150-Dual-Channel-DDR3-mATX-Retail_961234.html

 

Or am i missing something? I can't find any difference on that site. Any MBs you would suggets?

 

 

[Edit] My bad, got it! (bad english sorry) Still hoping for suggestions!

[bomerr]

just get the 5820k; Microcenter combo deal FTW. 

 

as for PSU, check if it's haswell ready. 

[deathjester]

Hey ho!

 

First up sorry for my bad english. After ~10 Years of being an AMD fanboy i'm going to get my first Intel CPU. Now i was wondering about this whole i5 / i7 hyperthreating thingy and i'm completly confused.

(I'm going to get a complete new desktop exclusive for gaming.)

 

After seeing some benchmarks on different sites i was going to get an i7-4790 now i read that the i5-4690 is nearly even with raw performance but doesn't have hyperthreating. And while looking for comparison i found the i7-5820 for only 40€+ which isn't going to help me chosse a CPU.

 

What i want to do with it; Mainly Gaming (90%), i have never OC'd a CPU but i'm willed to do so (i know how) if needed. I'm mainly focusing on getting Witcher 3 & GTA V on max possible fps or even 30~ fps @ 4k.

 

My question now is; will i be fine with the i5 or are the i7 for 100€+ (or 140€+) going to make such a big difference on future games? Don't get me wrong, i'm willing to pay that few €, but i'm not willing to pay 140€ more for about ~3fps like seen in recent benchmarks.

 

I'm also on 16GB DDR3 2400 Corsair, ATI 280x (going to get replaced by a 980). For a Mainboard i would probably go for a Asus Maximus VII Hero if no one complains.

 

 

Bonus question; Do i have to switch my 850W PSU (Cooler Master V850) if i'm going for 980 SLI?

 

Mainboard all that matters is PCI lanes. The network stuff is advertising for the most part, and the software bios? Always better to manually dial in a OC anyways. Buy whatever has the lanes you need on MSI/Gigabyte/Asus that is on sale and from what I have read the Asrock's are fine to. You are pretty much paying for looks since they all will OC fine..

 

I5/I7 are about same gaming. I7 is better at streaming/rendering video if that is something you decide you want to do.

 

If you have a microcenter in state if you live in the U.S, you can add any motherboard and get the MB/cpu deal (usually like 40 bucks off) and they beat online on price on those two items by quite a bit. Also I7 makes a lot of sense at the price they sell it for.

 

Your PSU is more than enough for 2 980/70's. 

 

Best bang for buck for gaming would be cheapest z97 with enough lanes for two cards, I5 K with a evo 212 cooler and two GTX 970's. Gigabyte G1 would be the best ones. Past that? Figure out how much money you have extra, and how much aesthetics matter or noise (cooling), streaming or a little more gpu power on 980's means to you.

 

Like if you look at my build in my sig, it is pretty much the cheapest bang for buck you can get on one card (my board doesn't have lanes for 2) and I got the motherboard and 4770k combined for 260 at Microcenter (CPU was 199 alone). My case is ugly (but has good air flow), my fans are not that quiet (I play with headphones) and my MB is ugly as hell...but I don't care, and you might. No wrong or right choices on MB/cooling/fans. AMD/Nvidia GPU can also be debated based on what resolution you are playing at. Witcher 3 is "nvidia games works" though so Nvidia is the safest bet.

 

You basically have to figure out what you value more on your budget. Performance, aesthetics, things outside gaming. Anyways you will make the right choices, because it is YOUR computer and don't let anyone tell you different.  You might like an open case with a motherboard showing and cool LED's in which case a motherboard like a Hero is worth every penny to you.

[SteveGrabowski]

It's way more than 3% difference in some games. i_build_nanosuits showed a 9 fps difference in Watch Dogs on ultra running a GTX 780 at 1920x1080 between turning hyperthreading on and off in his 4770k. Turning it off and dropping 100MHz effectively simulates a 4670k with 2MB more cache. Crysis 3 is another game that benefits hugely from hyperthreading. So there are games where the hyperthreading of an i7 makes a significant difference. Star Citizen is another game that should run a lot better on an i7 than an i5, since it uses the engine from Crysis 3.

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/166470-watch-dogs-intel-cpu-benchmarked-pentium-to-core-i7/

But to be fair, most games now you won't be able to tell the difference between an i5 and an i7, as the i5's are awesome CPUs.

[Faceman]

It's way more than 3% difference in some games. i_build_nanosuits showed a 9 fps difference in Watch Dogs on ultra running a GTX 780 at 1920x1080 between turning hyperthreading on and off in his 4770k. Turning it off and dropping 100MHz effectively simulates a 4670k with 2MB more cache. Crysis 3 is another game that benefits hugely from hyperthreading. So there are games where the hyperthreading of an i7 makes a significant difference. Star Citizen is another game that should run a lot better on an i7 than an i5, since it uses the engine from Crysis 3.

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/166470-watch-dogs-intel-cpu-benchmarked-pentium-to-core-i7/

Watch Dogs is the only game that shows a tangible benefit between an i5 and an i7 at the same clock speed.  Don't get CPU usage and performance mixed up.  Yes, the usage will be lower on an i7, but the performance will be the same.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/5

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7189/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-september-2013/10

 

Star Citizen is not a finished product, but based on the information available, it is a CPU bound game, and hyperthreading does not show a benefit in performance, it actually shows less performance.

 

EDIT: not letting me post that benchmark, follow the link below.

 

-Source

 

There was also a post somewhere by a SC game developer saying how poorly the game runs on FX processors(which are multi-threaded)  If hyperthreading really helped a lot in this game, than the FX processor would be a lot more competitive.  I'm still searching for this source, will post back here when I find it.

[SteveGrabowski]

Watch Dogs is the only game that shows a tangible benefit between an i5 and an i7 at the same clock speed.  Don't get CPU usage and performance mixed up.  Yes, the usage will be lower on an i7, but the performance will be the same.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/5

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7189/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-september-2013/10

 

Star Citizen is not a finished product, but based on the information available, it is a CPU bound game, and hyperthreading does not show a benefit in performance, it actually shows less performance.

 

EDIT: not letting me post that benchmark, follow the link below.

 

-Source

 

There was also a post somewhere by a SC game developer saying how poorly the game runs on FX processors(which are multi-threaded)  If hyperthreading really helped a lot in this game, than the FX processor would be a lot more competitive.  I'm still searching for this source, will post back here when I find it.

 

http://www.techbuyersguru.com/haswellgaming2.php

 

Crysis 3 (February 2013)

Crysis 3, like its predecessor Crysis (2007), will probably be a stalwart of benchmarking suites for years to come. It is a fantastic game engine, and it’s actually quite efficient if you consider what it’s rendering. But easy on dual-cores it is not, and the Pentium simply gets demolished in this test. The game flat out isn’t playable. And while Hyperthreading provides a huge boost to the Core i3, it still isn’t able to conjure up enough processing power to get over the hump in this game. The Core i5 and its near-twin the Core i7-4770K without Hyperthreading perform similarly in this game, suggesting that the extra 1MB of cache on the 4770K makes no difference. What does make a difference, though, is Hyperthreading, which provides a much bigger boost in this game to the 4770K than even the 4790K's extra 500MHz of core clock.

Crysis 3, the oldest game in our benchmark suite, is ironically the clearast example of the potential of Hyperthreading. Unfortunately, besides the older Crysis 2, no other major PC game uses its advanced game engine, CryEngine 3, and as evidenced by the rest of our benchmarks, Crysis 3 stands alone in truly harnessing the power of Intel’s potent Hyperthreading technology.

[Spev]

Hey ho!

 

First up sorry for my bad english. After ~10 Years of being an AMD fanboy i'm going to get my first Intel CPU. Now i was wondering about this whole i5 / i7 hyperthreating thingy and i'm completly confused.

(I'm going to get a complete new desktop exclusive for gaming.)

 

After seeing some benchmarks on different sites i was going to get an i7-4790 now i read that the i5-4690 is nearly even with raw performance but doesn't have hyperthreating. And while looking for comparison i found the i7-5820 for only 40€+ which isn't going to help me chosse a CPU.

 

What i want to do with it; Mainly Gaming (90%), i have never OC'd a CPU but i'm willed to do so (i know how) if needed. I'm mainly focusing on getting Witcher 3 & GTA V on max possible fps or even 30~ fps @ 4k.

 

My question now is; will i be fine with the i5 or are the i7 for 100€+ (or 140€+) going to make such a big difference on future games? Don't get me wrong, i'm willing to pay that few €, but i'm not willing to pay 140€ more for about ~3fps like seen in recent benchmarks.

 

I'm also on 16GB DDR3 2400 Corsair, ATI 280x (going to get replaced by a 980). For a Mainboard i would probably go for a Asus Maximus VII Hero if no one complains.

 

 

Bonus question; Do i have to switch my 850W PSU (Cooler Master V850) if i'm going for 980 SLI?

If you have such nice memory and going SLI 980s why scimp for an i5 on your processor? Just curious. 

[Mush Brain]

Go x99 and just go for a single GTX 980 and a 2560x1440 monitor, it's really not worth going 4k right now.

[Briggsy]

definitely go for hyper-threading. My i5 @ 4.5Ghz is just not cutting it at times when multi-threaded tasks are involved, but I'm stuck with it for a while.

[typographie]

Watch Dogs is the only game that shows a tangible benefit between an i5 and an i7 at the same clock speed.

 

I'm going to add that the Core i5 was able to reach over 70 FPS in both average and maximum performance, which would be lost on a 60 Hz display anyway.

 

The only difference that would be meaningful to real performance was 11 FPS difference in the minimum framerates, and we don't have a graph showing how long was spent at what framerate and at what point during the run.

[i_build_nanosuits]

I'm going to add that the Core i5 was able to reach over 70 FPS in both average and maximum performance, which would be lost on a 60 Hz display anyway.

 

The only difference that would be meaningful to real performance was 11 FPS difference in the minimum framerates, and we don't have a graph showing how long was spent at what framerate and at what point during the run.

my benchmarking run of many intel cpu configs with real time data, check GPU loads...it's an overclocked GTX 780

min max and average FPS shown at the bottom where recorded with fraps in a previous run for each CPUs

 

[typographie]

my benchmarking run of many intel cpu configs with real time data, check GPU loads...it's an overclocked GTX 780:

 

Right, I read it and watched the video. But the biggest difference between the i5 and i7 occurred in the > 60 FPS range, and there are no 120 Hz 4K displays. My point about the minimum framerates is that while there is a practical difference, at least in the Core i5's case we don't have information telling us how long was spent at those framerates so its hard to say what the impact really is.

 

On top of that, the GPU workload at 4K is so much greater than it is at 1080p that differences between the i5 and i7 may vanish anyway.

 

I'm not trying to criticize your benchmarking, I'm just pointing out what it does and does not tell us for the OP's situation.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Right, I read it and watched the video. But the biggest difference between the i5 and i7 occurred in the > 60 FPS range, and there are no 120 Hz 4K displays. My point about the minimum framerates is that while there is a practical difference, at least in the Core i5's case we don't have information telling us how long was spent at those framerates so its hard to say what the impact really is.

 

On top of that, the GPU workload at 4K is so much greater than it is at 1080p that differences between the i5 and i7 may vanish anyway.

 

I'm not trying to criticize your benchmarking, I'm just pointing out what it does and does not tell us for the OP's situation.

no absolutely i agree on all that...but what will happen as games will evolve? ...i mean even the new call of duty AW now have many threads running and use a shit ton of CPU ressources:

[Vrbas]

http://www.techbuyersguru.com/haswellgaming2.php

Crysis 3 (February 2013)

Crysis 3, like its predecessor Crysis (2007), will probably be a stalwart of benchmarking suites for years to come. It is a fantastic game engine, and it’s actually quite efficient if you consider what it’s rendering. But easy on dual-cores it is not, and the Pentium simply gets demolished in this test. The game flat out isn’t playable. And while Hyperthreading provides a huge boost to the Core i3, it still isn’t able to conjure up enough processing power to get over the hump in this game. The Core i5 and its near-twin the Core i7-4770K without Hyperthreading perform similarly in this game, suggesting that the extra 1MB of cache on the 4770K makes no difference. What does make a difference, though, is Hyperthreading, which provides a much bigger boost in this game to the 4770K than even the 4790K's extra 500MHz of core clock.

Crysis 3, the oldest game in our benchmark suite, is ironically the clearast example of the potential of Hyperthreading. Unfortunately, besides the older Crysis 2, no other major PC game uses its advanced game engine, CryEngine 3, and as evidenced by the rest of our benchmarks, Crysis 3 stands alone in truly harnessing the power of Intel’s potent Hyperthreading technology.

Why dont they show the i5 overclocked? If they overclocked the i5 to say 4.2-4.4 it wiould be right back up there with the i7 with HT

[Faa]

no absolutely i agree on all that...but what will happen as games will evolve? ...i mean even the new call of duty AW now have many threads running and use a shit ton of CPU ressources:

Well hyperthreading re-uses the same execution resources. Sometimes a thread alone is not enough to keep all of the execution resources (6x 256bit FPU's and 4 ALU's etc) busy. If you manage to do it with 4 threads so all of your cores are out of resources, hyperthreading can't make a difference thats why you see almost no gain from HT in some tests but this is a very rare case. IBM has 8 Way HT, yes 8 threads per core, that's all targetted to keep all the execution resources busy as much as possible. Perhaps IBM chips have a shitload more execution resources so the choice for 8 Way HT makes sense. 

Most benchmarks I've seen where the i7 did better was around 20-30%, so if you think that's the extra 100$ worth it go for it - as long it's not AMD Just be aware, in Crysis 3 in the jungle map that's the only place I see my CPU ranking to 70% load, in the first map it bottlenecks at 12% load. Metro 2033 Redux benchmark (try it out with 720p/low settings your CPU will cap at 100% load) my CPU hits 70% load, with the same settings in the singleplayer it bottlenecks at 30% load. Tbh on forums you should recommend people the cheapest logical solution, I'm not going to recommend a 150$ motherboard over a 80$ Z97 board that will just overclock as good, or recommend a H320 for a quadcore CPU that wouldn't ever hit anything higher than 4.2GHz. A 4690K is a huge difference over the i3 especially with the 2 extra cores and unlocked multiplier, upgrading from a 8350 to a 4690K makes a lot more sense than chosing the 4790K over the 4690K. I won't say the 4790K is a mandatory purchase, it's optional. If the 4790K performs like twice as fast as the i5 in every game, then sure I'll say it's a mandatory purchase but 20-30% doesn't make it a mandatory choice.

 

 

I'm also on 16GB DDR3 2400 Corsair, ATI 280x (going to get replaced by a 980). For a Mainboard i would probably go for a Asus Maximus VII Hero if no one complains.

From a common sense perspective, a maximus vii hero doesn't make any sense at all. It doesnt overclock, perform, <fill in what you think> better. Theyre just niche boards. Yeah I agree they look nice but I'll take a board in all black anytime over a rog board. I'm bored of rog boards.

Why would you spend like 60% of what a 970 costs for a 980 that offers 10% more performance? For the price of two 980's you can get three 970's so whats the point of 980's anyways?

 

 

Why dont they show the i5 overclocked? If they overclocked the i5 to say 4.2-4.4 it wiould be right back up there with the i7 with HT

Because they're testing out of the box only? Also read my comment I made about the different workloads in Crysis 3, it's not always taking advantage of hyperthreading. Because a game can take advantage of HT doesn't mean they always do. In the jungle was the only place I've seen high CPU loads in Crysis 3, multiplayer never.

[SteveGrabowski]

Why dont they show the i5 overclocked? If they overclocked the i5 to say 4.2-4.4 it wiould be right back up there with the i7 with HT

 

Paying for a premium for that K at the end, for a Z97 board, and for an aftermarket heatsink to overclock that 4690k practically brings it to the price of a locked i7, and over the price of an LGA 1150 Xeon.

[BaSkA]

Bonus question; Do i have to switch my 850W PSU (Cooler Master V850) if i'm going for 980 SLI?

 

In terms of power, your PSU is just fine. You might need to buy some other cables to power up your new video card when you get it but then you just do a quick research and find out if you'll need them or not.

 

Just as a side note, I like to think like this: 4690k + 980 > 4790k + 970, for gaming, if money is an issue.

[Vrbas]

Paying for a premium for that K at the end, for a Z97 board, and for an aftermarket heatsink to overclock that 4690k practically brings it to the price of a locked i7, and over the price of an LGA 1150 Xeon.

Not at all.

I5-$240

Z97- $89

Hyper 212-$30

Total-360$

Locked i7 itself is 309$

The i5 will perform better in games because you can overclock.

[noisecreated]

If you have such nice memory and going SLI 980s why scimp for an i5 on your processor? Just curious. 

 

Cause i'm not willing to pay 140€ more on an CPU for only 2~3fps like i saw in several benchmarks. Since i'm not playing, Watch Dogs or any Egoshooter (Crysis, Advanced Warfare, etc.) i prefer to OC the i5 and see which future games are actually profiting from an I7.

 

So thanks guys. I'm getting the i5 and am searching for another MB right now!

[Vrbas]

Cause i'm not willing to pay 140€ more on an CPU for only 2~3fps like i saw in several benchmarks. Since i'm not playing, Watch Dogs or any Egoshooter (Crysis, Advanced Warfare, etc.) i prefer to OC the i5 and see which future games are actually profiting from an I7.

So thanks guys. I'm getting the i5 and am searching for another MB right now!

I recommend the z97-A or AR. A lot of features for little price. It's what I'm using now and I love it. No complaints.