i5-6600k vs i7-4790k

[Trav_X]

I'm guessing it's the 4790k, but I'm just asking anyways. I know, they are like $85 USD difference, but the more money I spend on a 4790k will allow me to keep my 16GB 1600mhz DDR3 RAM, so when you add up CPU and RAM in both circumstances, I will be paying the same. Add on motherboard for each one, and I'm kind of torn between which option. Is the 4790k simply better because of hyper threading and the fact it's an i7, or are the "newer technologies" of Skylake better? Please note, I don't want to wait for Zen, or the new Broadwell-E, since I don't want an AMD CPU and I won't be able to afford Broadwell-E. But should I wait to upgrade until Broadwell-E because prices of current Skylakes will go down? I'm torn, just need help. This is all without considering GPU choice or Power, I can provide both of those sufficiently. Just worry about Z97-Z170, and i7-4790k vs i5-6600k. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

4790K all day long

it's a more powerful CPU...it lacks around 5% in single-threaded performance but hyper-treading will allow it to perform anywhere from 20 to 40% better depending on the task when it comes to multi-threaded workloads...and many games these days love the extra threads of the i7 so it does perform better in recent games. It will be relevant longer as well, some demanding modern games are already pushing the i5-6600K to near 100% load and this is not looking very good for the future of those CPU's...meanwhile my i7-4770K is chilling at around 60/65% load in those games...so much more headroom left in it.

[Bananasplit_00]

4790K is way better performance wise

[Guest Kloaked]

I'd go 6600k, personally.

 

Number one, because it's newer. Two, you get DDR4 and you're on a newer platform. Three, Skylake is superior in every way. 

[stealth80]

2 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

4790K all day long

it's a more powerful CPU...it lacks around 5% in single-threaded performance but hyper-treading will allow it to perform anywhere from 20 to 40% better depending on the task when it comes to multi-threaded workloads...and many games these days love the extra threads of the i7 so it does perform better in recent games.

This is a genuine query rather than some smart arsed remark (I thought the exact same)

 

Do you know which games actually benefit from those threads? I know some prefer more cores but I couldn't find any that utilise the threads

[ExozeGD]

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-4790K+%40+4.00GHz

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-6600K+%40+3.50GHz

the difference is actually quiet big now when i see it like this but if you're gonna pay the same then go for the 4790k for sure

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, stealth80 said:

This is a genuine query rather than some smart arsed remark (I thought the exact same)

 

Do you know which games actually benefit from those threads? I know some prefer more cores but I couldn't find any that utilise the threads

most of them actually...i remember making this thread this was back in 2014 when i realised in my OSD that most games would use more than 3 or 4 threads on both my FX-8320 and my core i7-4770k...these days it's very uncomon to see games that won't use more than 4 threads...it depends on the game engine and in recent times only shadow or mordor (4 threads) and far cry 4/primal (2-3 threads...one main thread pin CPU core #2) are the exceptions...everything else i,ve played those last 2 years has been fully multi-threaded

 

 

[TheGamingBarrel]

6 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

I'd go 6600k, personally.

 

Number one, because it's newer. Two, you get DDR4 and you're on a newer platform. Three, Skylake is superior in every way. 

Why not X99? Same price roughly as Z170, Still get DDR4 And you are on a new platform.

[stealth80]

3 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

most of them actually...i remember making this thread this was back in 2014 when i realised in my OSD that most games would use more than 3 or 4 threads on both my FX-8320 and my core i7-4770k...these days it's very uncomon to see games that won't use more than 4 threads...it depends on the game engine and in recent times only shadow or mordor (4 threads) and far cry 4/primal (2-3 threads...one main thread pin CPU core #2) are the exceptions...everything else i,ve played those last 2 years has been fully multi-threaded

 

 

But is it actually utilising them fully, or is that just the CPU load sharing across the threads? I would like to see an actual benchmark because I've seen quite a lot where people bench an i7 with hyper threading enabled and disabled and actually they see a performance drop with it enabled

[handymanshandle]

If you don't plan on upgrading anytime soon the 4790K is the best option, though I'd say go the 6600K because the socket is newer and therefore has an upgrade path.

[Guest Kloaked]

4 minutes ago, TheGamingBarrel said:

Why not X99? Same price roughly as Z170, Still get DDR4 And you are on a new platform.

You don't need 6 cores for gaming as a lot of games aren't even properly utilizing four yet. Plus you can get better overclocks (which matter most on games) on Skylake out of the box.

[leonard_sun]

Stick with the 4790k. Though Skylake brings in some improvement, it's still a small incriment and since you are comparing an older i7 vs a newer i5, still go with the i7.

 

The only down side is that you'll be saddled with the older DDR3 instead of DDR4, but even that is not going to matter too much when it comes to gaming.

[i_build_nanosuits]

28 minutes ago, stealth80 said:

But is it actually utilising them fully, or is that just the CPU load sharing across the threads? I would like to see an actual benchmark because I've seen quite a lot where people bench an i7 with hyper threading enabled and disabled and actually they see a performance drop with it enabled

Right now it's doing both honestly...it does spread the load some and that will improve performance in SOME instances (not always but usually it does) and will also allow for more instructions to be processed simultaneously which will also help with better more consistent performance in games and allow for more overhead (like i said, monitor CPU usage in the witcher 3 galoping around novigrad and you'll see CPU usage at 95-99% on the core i5 with noticeable micro-stuttering and CPU limitations which can really hinder your overall smootness of animation which is not something you'd notice by looking at ''average FPS'' performance charts...)

 

Evaluation of CPU performance in games is more complicated than that...you can't capture an average with fraps like most people do online and say: ''well yeah ok the i5 gets 57FPS and the i7 gets 62FPS...no big deal they perform the same, end of the story) that's not how it works...i've messed around with my CPU so much with enabling/disabling hyper-threading, tested at various clockspeed, disabled cores to simulate core i3's and pentium etc. that i now have a youtube channel full of those testing videos of mine...i've even had the ''privilège'' of owning an FX-8320 so i was able to disable modules and run with only 2 or 3 modules enabled to simulate FX-4300 or FX-6300 performance in games etc. so i know very well how those performs as well and for example how the very very poor per core performance on AMD's chips can impact your gaming performance...just like lack of multi-threaded performance in some instances will impact gaming.

 

i know quite a bit actually and i don't even know where to begin to dump that knowledge on you but i will say this: hyper-threading is really nice...it makes a core i3 head and shoulders above a pentium in gaming...and when games get really demanding the core i5 can and will have a mouthful rather quickly and this will have a direct impact on your frame-pacing (frametime variances, minimum recorded framerate, micro-stuttering) the core i7 usualy does not suffer from that since it has significantly more computing headroom and more cache. the 4790K will be relevant longer and with DX12 around the corner the difference between the i5 and i7 in games will get even more noticeable over time that's a given.

[TheGamingBarrel]

Just now, Kloaked said:

You don't need 6 cores for gaming as a lot of games aren't even properly utilizing four yet. Plus you can get better overclocks (which matter most on games) on Skylake out of the box.

Except it is better in every way, you can also multitask and render for the exact same amount of money.

[Trav_X]

6 hours ago, TheGamingBarrel said:

Except it is better in every way, you can also multitask and render for the exact same amount of money.

From what I have seen, X99 seems like an expensive platform. Many places have crazy X99 socket CPU's and and mobo's at crazy prices, especially Newegg, their 2011-3 CPU's are like triple the price, but I am not sure about many other vendors.

 

6 hours ago, leonard_sun said:

Stick with the 4790k. Though Skylake brings in some improvement, it's still a small incriment and since you are comparing an older i7 vs a newer i5, still go with the i7.

 

The only down side is that you'll be saddled with the older DDR3 instead of DDR4, but even that is not going to matter too much when it comes to gaming.

What really is the difference between DDR4 and DDR3 besides socket size and faster speeds? Does it really make any difference at all? And on what tasks do you actually see a noticeable difference. 

 

6 hours ago, wcreek said:

If you don't plan on upgrading anytime soon the 4790K is the best option, though I'd say go the 6600K because the socket is newer and therefore has an upgrade path.

I plan on upgrading before the summer of 2016, and after that, I probably wouldn't upgrade again until sometime like Summer 2018 to maybe even 2019, and by that time I'd just buy a new rig since I'd be almost done with college by then. 

[archelocke]

7 hours ago, Trav_X said:

I'm guessing it's the 4790k, but I'm just asking anyways. I know, they are like $85 USD difference, but the more money I spend on a 4790k will allow me to keep my 16GB 1600mhz DDR3 RAM, so when you add up CPU and RAM in both circumstances, I will be paying the same. Add on motherboard for each one, and I'm kind of torn between which option. Is the 4790k simply better because of hyper threading and the fact it's an i7, or are the "newer technologies" of Skylake better? Please note, I don't want to wait for Zen, or the new Broadwell-E, since I don't want an AMD CPU and I won't be able to afford Broadwell-E. But should I wait to upgrade until Broadwell-E because prices of current Skylakes will go down? I'm torn, just need help. This is all without considering GPU choice or Power, I can provide both of those sufficiently. Just worry about Z97-Z170, and i7-4790k vs i5-6600k. 

The i7-4790k will clearly be doing a lot better. It's got higher clock speed and effectively double the threads. There's no way the i5-6600k would be able to outperform it. 

 

EDIT: Also take into account whether you're planning on using integrated graphics or not, lol... Integrated graphics on the i5-6600k is way more powerful, but doubt anybody would plan on using them for anything above light gaming. The Skylake motherboards are also a fair bit more expensive, especially the Z170 ones. 

[Trav_X]

6 minutes ago, archelocke said:

The i7-4790k will clearly be doing a lot better. It's got higher clock speed and effectively double the threads. There's no way the i5-6600k would be able to outperform it. 

 

EDIT: Also take into account whether you're planning on using integrated graphics or not, lol... Integrated graphics on the i5-6600k is way more powerful, but doubt anybody would plan on using them for anything above light gaming. The Skylake motherboards are also a fair bit more expensive, especially the Z170 ones. 

Thanks, that helps. I do plan on getting a dedicated GPU too  

[archelocke]

Just now, Trav_X said:

Thanks, that helps. I do plan on getting a dedicated GPU too  

Yeah, so go for the i7-4790k, definitely. 

[SteveGrabowski0]

I'm a big fan of going for i7s, but the platform upgrade to Skylake makes way more sense to me, at least from a gaming perspective. You're getting much better RAM with Skylake, which I think is largely responsible for the stock i5-6600k at 3.6 GHz turning in such great results vs the stock i7-4790k at 4.2 GHz. I would take an i5-6600k with DDR4-3000 RAM any day over an i7-4790k with DDR3-1600 RAM for gaming. Check out how well the 6600k is doing here with DDR4-2666 vs a 4790k when combined with a Titan X.

 

 

 

[SteveGrabowski0]

2 hours ago, Trav_X said:

What really is the difference between DDR4 and DDR3 besides socket size and faster speeds? Does it really make any difference at all? And on what tasks do you actually see a noticeable difference. 

What is the difference besides faster speeds? That's the big difference. Lower power consumption too I guess, but who cares about that in a desktop? When you measure latency as time (how it's actually experienced) and not in clock cycles (eg CAS numbers) you'll see the latency doesn't get much worse, if at all, with DDR4 thanks to the higher clockspeeds.

 

latency [in units of time] = latency [in units of clock cycles] / clockspeed

[SteveGrabowski0]

Now if you're building a workstation then it's 4790k all the way if you don't want to pay for a 6700k.