Which is better?

[ShiroArikawa]

1231 v3 or 4690k

Threads or ghz basically the 4690 will be oc'd workload is games, the user would like to keep open his mass amount of chrome tabs (100+) and other windows whilst gaming, which one?

[Dresta]

100+ tabs? Jesus Christ,i need only 2 (LTT and [You]Tube² Red¹

 

Go for the corz and threadz then

[Mark77]

1231v3 is like an i7, without graphics.

 

The 4690k is an i5, with graphics. 

 

So basically its hyperthreading versus non-hyperthreading.

 

There is likely to be a benefit to a heavy browser-open scenario with hyperthreading.  I'd accordingly choose the 1231v3, providing you are comfortable with the fact that you will always need to supply an external graphics chip.

[Scrulls]

By general "expected" behavior of the Chrome RAMHogger, should the user have 100+ tabs open, you should consider getting more RAM. As long as you have estimated around 2GB of free ram specifically for Chrome, the rest of the gaming platform should not feel a thing, but do remember to turn off "Hardware acceleration" from settings so that it does not take up more than the needed resources.

But generally, i personally prefer the "i" series processors, because i can run my second monitor using the integrated graphics. Should the GPU be capable of holding up more than 2 monitors while gaming, than opt in for the Xeon as that will be a less hit on the wallet when you are NOT paying for an integrated graphics.

But in this situation, concerning the pricing of both the CPU's and the fact that you will be overclocking should you go for the 4690k, i suggest going for the 4690k instead of the Xeon.

But if you will NOT go for overclocking (in the Xeon scenario) it outperforms the 4690k just because of the hyperthreading.

So its all down to the situation you are in.

 

Good luck on your build!

Cheers,

J.

 

[Dresta]

4 minutes ago, Mark77 said:

1231v3 is like an i7, without graphics.

 

The 4690k is an i5, with graphics. 

There's so much cringe in your comment i can't take it

 

This is false and is not true,the Single core performance on the i7 is MUCH better,the Quad core performance is MUCH better,the multi-core performance is MUCH better,the i7 oc's much higher speed from the box

 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Xeon-E3-1231-v3-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4790K/m11040vs2384

 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Xeon-E3-1231-v3-vs-Intel-Core-i7-2600K/m11040vs621 (As you can see that Xeon can only perfectly match with a i7 2600k

[Mark77]

3 minutes ago, Dresta said:

There's so much cringe in your comment i can't take it

 

This is false and is not true,the Single core performance on the i7 is MUCH better,the Quad core performance is MUCH better,the multi-core performance is MUCH better,the i7 oc's much higher speed from the box

 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Xeon-E3-1231-v3-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4790K/m11040vs2384

 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Xeon-E3-1231-v3-vs-Intel-Core-i7-2600K/m11040vs621 (As you can see that Xeon can only perfectly match with a i7 2600k

He said 4690k, not 4790k. 

 

You might want to reconsider your cringes in light of such. 

 

[Dresta]

Just now, Mark77 said:

He said 4690k, not 4790k. 

 

You might want to reconsider your cringes in light of such. 

 

You remember what you said?

 

15 minutes ago, Mark77 said:

1231v3 is like an i7, without graphics.

This is so false and is cringyer(Ik i spelled wrong) than Jacob Sartorius

[Mark77]

7 minutes ago, Dresta said:

You remember what you said?

 

This is so false and is cringyer(Ik i spelled wrong) than Jacob Sartorius

What's false about it?  You can go look up the Intel datasheets for yourself.  Both are Haswell chips, derived from the same physical masks and dies.  For yield and marketing purposes, Intel has selectively enabled features on each.

 

The Xeon E3 part is a 4 core part with hyperthreading enabled, but the graphics disabled.  Certain Xeon-specific features are also enabled (ie: ECC primarily).

 

The i5-4690 is a 4-core part without hyperthreading, but with the on-die graphics enabled.

 

Clocking is similar.  So the question is simply that of whether hyperthreading is worthwhile.

 

Most benchmarks do ascribe at least some benefit to hyperthreading in heavily threaded workloads.  Hence, the Xeon part is the one to go for, assuming its a choice between the two, and cost isn't a consideration.

 

edit:  the "k" SKU is probably significantly more overclockable than the Xeon.  If that's your thing. 

[Dresta]

Just now, Mark77 said:

What's false about it?  You can go look up the Intel datasheets for yourself.  Both are Haswell chips, derived from the same physical masks and dies. 

 

The Xeon E3 part is a 4 core part with hyperthreading enabled, but the graphics disabled.

 

The i5-4690 is a 4-core part without hyperthreading, but with the on-die graphics enabled.

 

Clocking is similar.  So the question is simply that of whether hyperthreading is worthwhile.

 

Most benchmarks do ascribe at least some benefit to hyperthreading in heavily threaded workloads.  Hence, the Xeon part is the one to go for, assuming its a choice between the two, and cost isn't a consideration.

 

 

You still do not understand,look what you said

 

21 minutes ago, Mark77 said:

1231v3 is like an i7, without graphics.

And this is false,since the i7

 

Has MUCH higher single core performance

Has MUCH higher quad core performance

Has MUCH higher Multi-Core performance

 

And will do much better in rendering since it has much stronger cores

[Mark77]

Just now, Dresta said:

You still do not understand,look what you said

 

And this is false,since the i7

 

Has MUCH higher single core performance

Has MUCH higher quad core performance

Has MUCH higher Multi-Core performance

 

And will do much better in rendering since it has much stronger cores

What "i7" are you talking about?

 

The OP was comparing an i5-4690k to the E3-1231v3. 

 

The E3-1231v3 and the i7-4790 are almost identical chips and have similar performance.  But the OP asked about the 4690k, which is clearly an i5 chip.

 

 

 

[Scrulls]

5 minutes ago, Mark77 said:

*ranting* snip

7 minutes ago, Dresta said:

*ranting* snip

 

Umm.. gentlemen, can we please be a little bit more civilized? There are a few things that we need to consider to answer OP's question and that is:

 

Singe/Quad/Multi-core performance on either  Xeon 1231 v3 or i5-4690k

Overclockability on EITHER of them

*on a side note thats not that relevant here at all* Compatibility with the GPU (disregard this part of my comment)

 

Now, lets weigh in the benefits between these two instead of arguing about i7 performance, as apparently the OP does NOT wish to use i7. Otherwise they would have said so.

 

Now then, onto the main topic, start getting out statistics if you two have any disagreements between yourselves, and most preferably, do not do arguing on this thread about I7's as it will not be all that relevant unless OP joins. 

 

Cheers,

J.

 

 

[Dresta]

4 minutes ago, Mark77 said:

What "i7" are you talking about?

 

The OP was comparing an i5-4690k to the E3-1231v3. 

 

The E3-1231v3 and the i7-4790 are almost identical chips and have similar performance.  But the OP asked about the 4690k, which is clearly an i5 chip.

Were comparing the Haswell family,the Xeon E3-1231v3 and i7-4790/4790k and not close,did you even see the benchmarks?the i7 its 20% faster in single core performance,quad core performance,Multi-Core performance.the i7 2600k comes very close to the Xeon but the i7 4790k/4790 is better

 

The OP was comparing the Xeon with the i5 and you were comparing the Xeon with a i7 which is stupid

31 minutes ago, Mark77 said:

1231v3 is like an i7, without graphics.

It's not like a i7,xeon's and i7 use the same silicon but are different,the i7's are desktop CPU's and are made for raw performance where a couple more watts means nothing,xeon's are made for low wattage to reduce cost for servers while having decent performance for the price,since the cost for the wattage between 6000 i7's and 6000 xeon's in a server is a major difference

[Mark77]

2 minutes ago, Scrulls said:

 

Now, lets weigh in the benefits between these two instead of arguing about i7 performance, as apparently the OP does NOT wish to use i7. Otherwise they would have said so.

 

 

The E3-1231v3 *is* equivalent to an i7-4790 in terms of its core count, and hyperthreading capability.   If its any slower, its only because Intel, for marketing reasons, has implemented less aggressive clocking and/or a slight de-rate. 

 

I'm not sure why the OP picked those two CPU's, other than, they might be what he has readily available.  Given that he's configuring a Haswell system, and Haswell has been out of production for a while here, its a perfectly reasonable proposition that he's not ordering a brand new CPU from the factory.

 

Leaving overclocking out of this, most heavily threaded workloads do benefit significantly from hyperthreading.  Therefore, the i7-equivalent E3-1231v3 is a better choice than the i5-4690.

 

[Mark77]

3 minutes ago, Dresta said:

Were comparing the Haswell family,the Xeon E3-1231v3 and i7-4790/4790k and not close,did you even see the benchmarks?the i7 its 20% faster in single core performance,quad core performance,Multi-Core performance.the i7 2600k comes very close to the Xeon but the i7 4790k/4790 is better

 

The OP was comparing the Xeon with the i5 and you were comparing the Xeon with a i7 which is stupid

It's not like a i7,xeon's and i7 use the same silicon but are different,the i7's are desktop CPU's and are made for raw performance where a couple more watts means nothing,xeon's are made for low wattage to reduce cost for servers while having decent performance for the price,since the cost for the wattage between 6000 i7's and 6000 xeon's in a server is a major difference

 

 

http://cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+E3-1231+v3+%40+3.40GHz&id=2246

 

Score = 9616

 

http://cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-4690K+%40+3.50GHz&id=2284

 

Score = 7695

 

And that particular Xeon is equivalent to an i7.  You are wrong. 

[Scrulls]

3 minutes ago, Mark77 said:

The E3-1231v3 *is* equivalent to an i7-4790 in terms of its core count, and hyperthreading capability.   If its any slower, its only because Intel, for marketing reasons, has implemented less aggressive clocking and/or a slight de-rate. 

 

I'm not sure why the OP picked those two CPU's, other than, they might be what he has readily available.  Given that he's configuring a Haswell system, and Haswell has been out of production for a while here, its a perfectly reasonable proposition that he's not ordering a brand new CPU from the factory.

 

Leaving overclocking out of this, most heavily threaded workloads do benefit significantly from hyperthreading.  Therefore, the i7-equivalent E3-1231v3 is a better choice than the i5-4690.

 

But then again the OP is not talking about the newest generation, such as skylake, right otherwise I personally would have recommended the E3-1230V5, but whatever the scenario.

 

Which is better in terms of Gaming:

E3-1231v3 or the i5-4690k ? Overclockability is certain to be won by the 4690k without a doubt.

Hyperthreading IS a plus indeed i agree, but having compared those two exact CPU's its down to what situation you are in and what you will be considering for the future. 

 

My statement stays with the i5-4690k OC'd 

 

Cheers,

J.

 

 

[Dresta]

1 minute ago, Mark77 said:

And that particular Xeon is equivalent to an i7.  You are wrong. 

Wrong,the i7 4790k is 20% better single core,multi-core,quad core

[HKZeroFive]

Let me clear up a few things:

 

-The Xeon 1231 v3 is basically the i7 4770 without the iGPU.

-I guarantee those userbenchmark scores are showing the i7 4790K as 20% faster because it's taking the average score of an overclocked i7 4790K. Not a stock one.

-Compare the Xeon 1231 v3 to the i7 4770 or i7 4790. The difference is marginal at best.

[Dresta]

1 minute ago, HKZeroFive said:

Let me clear up a few things:

 

-The Xeon 1231 v3 is basically the i7 4770 without the iGPU.

-I guarantee those userbenchmark scores are showing the i7 4790K as 20% faster because it's taking the average score of an overclocked i7 4790K. Not a stock one.

-Compare the Xeon 1231 v3 to the i7 4770 or i7 4790. The difference is marginal at best.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Xeon-E3-1231-v3-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4790/m11040vs2293 The difference is %5 which is not that huge,but he says the Xeon is same as the i7 4790k which is falty

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Xeon-E3-1231-v3-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4790K/m11040vs2384 and no it was not OC'ed,it was running at 4.0GHz

 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4790/2384vs2293 as you can see there is a difference between a i7 4790k and 4790,some people think there is not but there surely is

[HKZeroFive]

1 minute ago, Dresta said:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Xeon-E3-1231-v3-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4790/m11040vs2293 The difference is %5 which is not that huge,but he says the Xeon is same as the i7 4790k which is falty

He is right in the sense that the Xeon 1231 v3 matches the i7 4790K at stock speeds.

1 minute ago, Dresta said:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Xeon-E3-1231-v3-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4790K/m11040vs2384 and no it was not OC'ed,it was running at 4.0GHz

That is the base frequency. They're not including the numerous overclocks made by people. Compare the i7 4790 to the i7 4790K and it'll show a considerable difference. Why? Because the i7 4790K is overclocked.

1 minute ago, Dresta said:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4790/2384vs2293 as you can see there is a difference between a i7 4790k and 4790,some people think there is not but there surely is

Again, that's an overclocked i7 4790K. Average user bench doesn't mean that everyone was running a i7 4790K at stock speeds.

[Dresta]

1 minute ago, HKZeroFive said:

He is right in the sense that the Xeon 1231 v3 matches the i7 4790K at stock speeds.

That is the base frequency. They're not including the numerous overclocks made by people. Compare the i7 4790 to the i7 4790K and it'll show a considerable difference. Why? Because the i7 4790K is overclocked.

Again, that's an overclocked i7 4790K. Average user bench doesn't mean that everyone was running a i7 4790K at stock speeds.

And how do we know everybody was running the Xeon at stock? if it's like that then its impossible to get a clean perspective

[HKZeroFive]

Just now, Dresta said:

And how do we know everybody was running the Xeon at stock? if it's like that then its impossible to get a clean perspective

Because you can't overclock the Xeon...

 

Even if you tried BCLK overclocking, you might get 100MHz if you're lucky before it goes unstable since it's a Haswell CPU.

[Dresta]

Good,since the OP is willing to OC,and a 4790k oc'ed would crush a Xeon

[Scrulls]

34 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

Because you can't overclock the Xeon...

 

Even if you tried BCLK overclocking, you might get 100MHz if you're lucky before it goes unstable since it's a Haswell CPU.

THANK YOU . For ending this drbate

 

 

33 minutes ago, Dresta said:

Good,since the OP is willing to OC,and a 4790k oc'ed would crush a Xeon

And let me remind you that the op mentions i5 4690k and not i7 4790k

[HKZeroFive]

38 minutes ago, Dresta said:

Good,since the OP is willing to OC,and a 4790k oc'ed would crush a Xeon

The i7 4790K is also $100 more expensive.

[Mark77]

Even then, those Xeons tend to find themselves on less aggressive motherboards (ie: Supermicro) which don't clock them as high "stock" as the i7's that find themselves on Asus and other motherboards that tend to be a bit more aggressive.

 

I moved my i7-2600 from an Asus P8H67 board to a Supermicro X9SAE-V (Panther Point C216) recently.  Even though I don't overclock, there was still a slight loss in performance on the Linux RAID calculation benchmarks (ie: what the kernel does at boot-up).

 

Why was the Supermicro board (which was built mainly to run Xeons, with its support of ECC) slower?  I chalk it up to design philosophy.  Supermicro designs/sells their boards for stability.  Asus, at least to some extent, clocks their boards slightly higher, even from a factory "stock" configuration to show better numbers on benchmarks. 

 

I remember as well, circa 1995 or so, looking at i430FX or i430HX boards at my local computer shop.  Asus had a chart showing that their particular board was faster than the Gigabyte or the Tyan boards of the time *using the same chipset*.  Hence, it was very likely that the "33MHz" crystal Asus was deriving their clock from was really 34 or 35MHz.  Of course no reviewer *ever* put a scope on the Asus board to see if they were cheating or not.