4690K with Z97 or 1231 V3 with H97?

[REX.exe]

I made a topic a while back asking about a similar performing Xeon to the 4790K, this was only for a friend though as he didn't want to overclock and needed to save $100 on his CPU. But it got me thinking, what if I got a Xeon? If the 1231 performs similar to a 4790K, has 4 cores, and a solid clock speed why not get it? It's the same price as the 4690K.

 

The only downside is no overclocking. But if it performs similar to a 4790K why bother? I can even save on my mobo by going H97 over Z97...

I know of the generalization that the Xeon is "bad for gaming" but I watched Linus's video on it and it's not that big of a difference...

 

Replies are appreciated!

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

That xeon is essentially a locked i7 without the igpu. 

 

So what you're basically comparing is a unlocked i5 and a locked i7. 

The reason people get the unlocked i5 is probably the intention to overclock. Also not many games utilize all 4 cores in the i5 let alone 8 cores in the i7. Since the i5 can be overclocked, that would mean a faster core at 4.0GHz+ as compared to a core at 3.4Ghz. Also availability is an issue. 

[Sir Asvald]

I made a topic a while back asking about a similar performing Xeon to the 4790K, this was only for a friend though as he didn't want to overclock and needed to save $100 on his CPU. But it got me thinking, what if I got a Xeon? If the 1231 performs similar to a 4790K, has 4 cores, and a solid clock speed why not get it? It's the same price as the 4690K.

 

The only downside is no overclocking. But if it performs similar to a 4790K why bother? I can even save on my mobo by going H97 over Z97...

I know of the generalization that the Xeon is "bad for gaming" but I watched Linus's video on it and it's not that big of a difference...

 

Replies are appreciated!

Xeon's have slower cores. 

[REX.exe]

Xeon's have slower cores. 

I still think that for $100 less than a 4790K with similar performance it's a good offer.

[stconquest]

I still think that for $100 less than a 4790K with similar performance it's a good offer.

 

i7 4770 not the i7 4790K.

 

...and Xeons CAN be overclocked.

[Bouzoo]

That xeon is essentially a locked i7 without the igpu.

So what you're basically comparing is a unlocked i5 and a locked i7.

The reason people get the unlocked i5 is probably the intention to overclock. Also not many games utilize all 4 cores in the i5 let alone 8 cores in the i7. Since the i5 can be overclocked, that would mean a faster core at 4.0GHz+ as compared to a core at 3.4Ghz. Also availability is an issue.

4 cores and 8 threads.

And xeons can be oc'd. It all depends on when he's gonna do the next cpu upgrade. Seems like a good bang for the buck. Base frequency is 0.1 GHz slower than a i5 with 2 MB more cache

[typographie]

The only downside is no overclocking. But if it performs similar to a 4790K why bother? I can even save on my mobo by going H97 over Z97...

 

It's more accurate to say it performs similarly to a -4770 or -4790. The i7-4790K can be overclocked and starts at a hefty 4 GHz clock speed out of the box.

 

Overclocking a -4790K or -4690K is going to make a significant difference in applications that don't make good use of eight threads. Basically it comes down to whether you want more threads (the Xeon) or faster threads (i5-4690K). Since you're talking about gaming, I'd recommend the i5-4690K as long as you're willing to overclock it.

 

That being said, if you don't want/don't plan to overclock either way, get the Xeon.

[vembutech]

An i5-4690k will probably be even more expensive, since youll need Z97, a decent cooler to overclock while the Xeon, not being too much more expensive by itself will easily run on stock cooler and on cheaper H97.

[SteveGrabowski]

That xeon is essentially a locked i7 without the igpu. 

 

So what you're basically comparing is a unlocked i5 and a locked i7. 

The reason people get the unlocked i5 is probably the intention to overclock. Also not many games utilize all 4 cores in the i5 let alone 8 cores in the i7. Since the i5 can be overclocked, that would mean a faster core at 4.0GHz+ as compared to a core at 3.4Ghz. Also availability is an issue. 

 

Virtually all recent games utilize four cores. The difference between my dual core 4.4 GHz Pentium G3258 and quadcore 3.6 GHz Xeon E3-1231v3 is night and day in every recent AAA game I have, save Bioshock Infinite, which does great on the Pentium even at stock 3.2GHz.

[SteveGrabowski]

I made a topic a while back asking about a similar performing Xeon to the 4790K, this was only for a friend though as he didn't want to overclock and needed to save $100 on his CPU. But it got me thinking, what if I got a Xeon? If the 1231 performs similar to a 4790K, has 4 cores, and a solid clock speed why not get it? It's the same price as the 4690K.

 

The only downside is no overclocking. But if it performs similar to a 4790K why bother? I can even save on my mobo by going H97 over Z97...

I know of the generalization that the Xeon is "bad for gaming" but I watched Linus's video on it and it's not that big of a difference...

 

Replies are appreciated!

 

I have that exact Xeon you're asking about, and it's a monster for gaming. It's a tough call for me between recommending the i5-4690k or the Xeon E3-1231v3. For most games they'll perform the same, since the majority of games are GPU bound at 1080p and above unless you're running an SLI/CF system or have a Titan X, as long as you have an Intel quadcore or better. You have the occasional game like Arma 3 or Total War Atilla that is really CPU bound by one core, in which case an overclocked i5-4690k will significantly outperform the Xeon E3-1231v3. But then you have the occasional game like Dragon Age Inquisition or Crysis 3 that is really core hungry and performs a lot better on a hyperthreaded quadcore like the Xeon E3-1231v3. I personally chose the Xeon because most games are now written to use all 8 threads (though they still perform the same as on an i5 in the overwhelming majority of cases), and because the consoles are octacores. I always expect AAA games to be written first and foremost for the XBox One and Playstation 4, since that's where the studios make the most money.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Virtually all recent games utilize four cores. The difference between my dual core 4.4 GHz Pentium G3258 and quadcore 3.6 GHz Xeon E3-1231v3 is night and day in every recent AAA game I have, save Bioshock Infinite, which does great on the Pentium even at stock 3.2GHz.

 

Yeap recent games do utilize all cores and a great example is GTA 5. But compared that to the whole library of games available on the PC....

Its not alot, in fact very little. We can't assume that one would only just play very well optimized AAA games. Take GW2 for example. A xeon 

won't be able to save you from massive fps drops when doing a massive raid. 

[incarnate]

i'd say get the xeon if you plan on doing anything that takes advantage of hyperthreading. if not, then go with the i5. that way you can overclock when the cpu is having a hard time keeping up in gaming years from now.

[SteveGrabowski]

Yeap recent games do utilize all cores and a great example is GTA 5. But compared that to the whole library of games available on the PC....

Its not alot, in fact very little. We can't assume that one would only just play very well optimized AAA games. Take GW2 for example. A xeon 

won't be able to save you from massive fps drops when doing a massive raid. 

 

A Core 2 Duo will smash most games in the whole library of PC games, but no one would recommend one now. No one choosing between an i5 and a Xeon E3 is looking to see which can run Half Life 2, League of Legends, Duke Nukem, or Call of Duty 4 better.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

A Core 2 Duo will smash most games in the whole library of PC games, but no one would recommend one now. No one choosing between an i5 and a Xeon E3 is looking to see which can run Half Life 2, League of Legends, Duke Nukem, or Call of Duty 4 better.

 

Agreed, many online games are only optimized to advantage of a single core. Two if the studio is kind enough.

 

Anyone looking at more than 4 cores probably wants the chip for productivity reasons. 

 

Lol look at the fps drops once the world boss starts with a Xeon cpu even  :lol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etn0wdaHY1w

[GarnetDevil]

4690K + Z97 or 1231V3 + H97 should be a million dollars question on PC forums

 

But seriously it all depends on your need for the PC, the major difference between the two CPU is that the i5 is unlocked, has Intel HD Graphic and has higher base clock (3.5 vs 3.4) but has no hyper-threading and no support for ECC memory (which is absolutely unnecessary for home use PC), whereas the Xeon is locked, no Intel HD Graphic and has lower base clock but supports ECC memory and hyper-threading. And for their platform, most medium to high-end Z97 supports SLI and Crossfire, but all H97 motherboard only supports Crossfire due to limited PCI-E bandwidth compare to Z97. So many gamers will choose the i5 route mainly because games usually need high clockspeed and more upgradeability, while video renderers prefer the Xeon due to the hyper-threading and as a cheaper solution to the i7 and they (probably) gives zero fucks when their GPU broke and can live without turning the PC on

[REX.exe]

An i5-4690k will probably be even more expensive, since youll need Z97, a decent cooler to overclock while the Xeon, not being too much more expensive by itself will easily run on stock cooler and on cheaper H97.

I can see that but H97 and Z97 cost around the same price in Australia. And the Xeon doesn't come with a stock cooler

[REX.exe]

4690K + Z97 or 1231V3 + H97 should be a million dollars question on PC forums

 

But seriously it all depends on your need for the PC, the major difference between the two CPU is that the i5 is unlocked, has Intel HD Graphic and has higher base clock (3.5 vs 3.4) but has no hyper-threading and no support for ECC memory (which is absolutely unnecessary for home use PC), whereas the Xeon is locked, no Intel HD Graphic and has lower base clock but supports ECC memory and hyper-threading. And for their platform, most medium to high-end Z97 supports SLI and Crossfire, but all H97 motherboard only supports Crossfire due to limited PCI-E bandwidth compare to Z97. So many gamers will choose the i5 route mainly because games usually need high clockspeed and more upgradeability, while video renderers prefer the Xeon due to the hyper-threading and as a cheaper solution to the i7 and they (probably) gives zero fucks when their GPU broke and can live without turning the PC on

I'm going to be using a 290X or a 300 series card in my build so SLI support on my board isn't an issue.

[Megahurt]

Xeon's have slower cores. 

They will perform exactly the same as their i5/i7 equivalent at the same clockspeed.

[GarnetDevil]

I'm going to be using a 290X or a 300 series card in my build so SLI support on my board isn't an issue.

Then you should go with the Xeon route

[CoolaxGaming]

That xeon is essentially a locked i7 without the igpu. 

 

So what you're basically comparing is a unlocked i5 and a locked i7. 

The reason people get the unlocked i5 is probably the intention to overclock. Also not many games utilize all 4 cores in the i5 let alone 8 cores in the i7. Since the i5 can be overclocked, that would mean a faster core at 4.0GHz+ as compared to a core at 3.4Ghz. Also availability is an issue. 

8 threads

[krnonthak0b]

I have that exact Xeon you're asking about, and it's a monster for gaming. It's a tough call for me between recommending the i5-4690k or the Xeon E3-1231v3. For most games they'll perform the same, since the majority of games are GPU bound at 1080p and above unless you're running an SLI/CF system or have a Titan X, as long as you have an Intel quadcore or better. You have the occasional game like Arma 3 or Total War Atilla that is really CPU bound by one core, in which case an overclocked i5-4690k will significantly outperform the Xeon E3-1231v3. But then you have the occasional game like Dragon Age Inquisition or Crysis 3 that is really core hungry and performs a lot better on a hyperthreaded quadcore like the Xeon E3-1231v3. I personally chose the Xeon because most games are now written to use all 8 threads (though they still perform the same as on an i5 in the overwhelming majority of cases), and because the consoles are octacores. I always expect AAA games to be written first and foremost for the XBox One and Playstation 4, since that's where the studios make the most money.

If that's true, then it's no longer true to say that i7-4790k is a waste of money and just stick with the i5-4690k. Or am I missing something?

 

I understand that price to performance, i5 (or in this case the E3-1231v3) is best bang for the buck, but I just wanted to clear this mystery up, cause everywhere I go ppl are telling me that you don't need hyperthreaded cores for games and yet the games you just mentioned are the games that I am looking to play. (not a huge starcraft or MOBA fan myself) If so then i7 is still a pretty good investment, even if it isn't the most cost effective?

[incarnate]

If that's true, then it's no longer true to say that i7-4790k is a waste of money and just stick with the i5-4690k. Or am I missing something?

 

I understand that price to performance, i5 (or in this case the E3-1231v3) is best bang for the buck, but I just wanted to clear this mystery up, cause everywhere I go ppl are telling me that you don't need hyperthreaded cores for games and yet the games you just mentioned are the games that I am looking to play. (not a huge starcraft or MOBA fan myself) If so then i7 is still a pretty good investment, even if it isn't the most cost effective?

 

an i7 is a good investment only if you plan on overclocking. otherwise get the xeon.

[SteveGrabowski]

If that's true, then it's no longer true to say that i7-4790k is a waste of money and just stick with the i5-4690k. Or am I missing something?

 

I understand that price to performance, i5 (or in this case the E3-1231v3) is best bang for the buck, but I just wanted to clear this mystery up, cause everywhere I go ppl are telling me that you don't need hyperthreaded cores for games and yet the games you just mentioned are the games that I am looking to play. (not a huge starcraft or MOBA fan myself) If so then i7 is still a pretty good investment, even if it isn't the most cost effective?

 

It's like gamer religion that i7 offers no benefit over i5 for gaming, and it's repeated over and over again in this forum. That and it's always said that games don't use hyperthreading. Both are dead wrong. 2013 and before it was exceedingly rare to see games use the 8 threads of say an i7-2600k, but 2014 to present most games can use all 8 threads. There is a CPU benchmark of all major 2014 AAA games on GameGPU.ru which shows the thread usage for either the i7-2600k or i7-4770k (I forget which), and all 8 threads are used in each game. This wasn't the case 2013 and before when the same site's benchmarks show most games using only 4 hardware threads of an i7, occasionally 5, but 8 only in Battlefield 4. However, those 8 threads typically don't offer much better or even better at all performance than just using 1 thread per core on an i5. Sometimes you'll even get slightly lesser performance using an i7 over an i5. But there are definitely games that can squeeze more performance out using the extra 4 threads of an i7, just like there are games that can make usage of higher clockspeeds of an overclocked 4690k/4790k. You just can't make a blanket statement which is most important for gaming: hyperthreading or clockspeed? Which is why I like the 4790k, because it offers both.

 

Here's their benchmark for DAI:

 

And Crysis 3:

[krnonthak0b]

It's like gamer religion that i7 offers no benefit over i5 for gaming, and it's repeated over and over again in this forum. That and it's always said that games don't use hyperthreading. Both are dead wrong. 2013 and before it was exceedingly rare to see games use the 8 threads of say an i7-2600k, but 2014 to present most games can use all 8 threads. There is a CPU benchmark of all major 2014 AAA games on GameGPU.ru which shows the thread usage for either the i7-2600k or i7-4770k (I forget which), and all 8 threads are used in each game. This wasn't the case 2013 and before when the same site's benchmarks show most games using only 4 hardware threads of an i7, occasionally 5, but 8 only in Battlefield 4. However, those 8 threads typically don't offer much better or even better at all performance than just using 1 thread per core on an i5. Sometimes you'll even get slightly lesser performance using an i7 over an i5. But there are definitely games that can squeeze more performance out using the extra 4 threads of an i7, just like there are games that can make usage of higher clockspeeds of an overclocked 4690k/4790k. You just can't make a blanket statement which is most important for gaming: hyperthreading or clockspeed? Which is why I like the 4790k, because it offers both.

 

Here's their benchmark for DAI:

 

And Crysis 3:

Thanks for the enlightening info. But you're right, everywhere I asked, people were telling me that the only reason why I would need a hyperthread cpu with 8 cores was if I was planning on doing video editing or other professional grade programs (which I am not). This inforgraphic has helped me to simply just choose the i7-4790k.

 

even if I don't overclock now, the option will be available. And the games that I am looking to play are mostly games like Dragon Age, Witcher, so thank you for those benchmarks.

[SteveGrabowski]

Thanks for the enlightening info. But you're right, everywhere I asked, people were telling me that the only reason why I would need a hyperthread cpu with 8 cores was if I was planning on doing video editing or other professional grade programs (which I am not). This inforgraphic has helped me to simply just choose the i7-4790k.

 

even if I don't overclock now, the option will be available. And the games that I am looking to play are mostly games like Dragon Age, Witcher, so thank you for those benchmarks.

 

The 4790k does 4.2 GHz on all cores at stock speed, or 4.4 GHz on dual core or single core workloads . On the downside though you really shouldn't consider using the stock cooler with the i7-4790k even at stock speed. You'll definitely want an aftermarket cooler. Those graphics I showed are some of the best case scenarios right now with the i7 though. I know Witcher 3 is recommending an i7-3770 or better, but so did Shadows of Mordor, which runs every bit as well with an i3 from 2011 (the 2nd and 4th generation i3, i5, and i7 are all at 100 FPS locked on the GameGPU benchmark for Middle Earth). But I like the thought of having 8 threads to simulate the 8 cores in the consoles. There is a big thread here with everyone complaining about Witcher 3 being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator (XB1), but that's something we all have to expect when playing console ports. The money is in the console releases, and the consoles are 8 very weak cores versus the 4 very strong cores in an i5. I'm not sure I trust studios to optimize their games for those four strong cores now.