When is a Ivy Bridge i7-4930k outdated?

[David89]

2 hours ago, mihapiha said:

The benchmark which made me consider Intel over AMD was Civ 6: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x-cpu,5167-5.html

My current CPU needs about 21 seconds for that AI Benchmark. 19 if I turn off HT. That game loves high frequencies apparently, and the idea was getting a very capable CPU and because I hardly ever need more than 8 cores for gaming, I'd deactivate HT. A Core i7-7820X could be overclocked past 4.5 GHz with my cooling (I hope) and with HT off I could improve the round time from 21 down to around 15 seconds, which would be nearly 30% faster. And that does feel like money well spend and me actually noticing a difference in gameplay.

The TR4 CPUs are at around the 20 seconds to maybe 18 second mark with SMT turned off and an overclock around the 4 GHz, which doesn't really make it that much of an improvement. However it would be so nice to switch to a TR4...

 

Actually, Civ 6 loves Clock and especially I/O. For that reasoning, you could go with an i3-8350K: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/intel-core-i3-8350k-cpu,review-34095-4.html

 

Funny thing with Civ 6 Turn-Times is: They are heavily depended on SSD-Speeds, because it writes all those bits in the save file (apparently deactivating virus protection does help, as well as indexing). Especially 4k write. So first of all, i'd like to see a Benchmark AFTER Meltdown patches for Intel (AMD isn't affect by Meltdown, and Spectre 1+2 are not nearly as much of a performance penalty). So not only are they absolutely dependent on the SSD, they are rarely even tested. Also, Civ 6 is absolute crap. It runs on max. 4 Threads and even then it doesn't use them properly. Apparently in 2016 the game run a lot faster, than it does now.

 

2 hours ago, mihapiha said:

Indeed the Ryzen 2 and especially newer Threadripper generation will run on that MB, so I could change parts much more easily. Also the TR4 has no PCIe lane limitations, which is something Intel just doesn't want to provide unless you pay premium money. That is the big big plus point for any AMD rig. But I'd also have to worry about the possibility that the newer Gen will still be quite a few 100 MHz behind Intel, which really sucks. And who knows whether these CPUs (which are high-end) will be resellable in a few months time when the newer gen comes out. If you spend premium money on a MB would you buy a cheap used CPU?

 

Depends. If i plan to upgrade in a few months? Yes, i would. But: You have pretty much made up your mind, they way you are arguing. Because all those concerns you have: I bet you a whole new TR System, that you won't notice them, unless you put an FPS counter at the top and measure the time between turns in Civ 6.

 

2 hours ago, mihapiha said:

 

Ideally My rig will hold up for a few more months, but I am legit torn between the two systems and I cannot find the right solution. 

I really don't play any other game that utilises the processor that much. I only know that No Man's Sky, which I also play on a regular bases (even after +300h) won't run stutter-free with HT turned off. That means 6 cores + 2 GPUs for a game that poorly optimized is also no good, and I think it will benefit form additional cores.

I tell you if I could push the AMD CPUs to 4.2 GHz to 4.5 GHz than I'd absolutely favor the AMD TR4 over Intel. With the short-comings of AMD in terms of OC potential I am not sure if an TR4 would be justified right now.

Strictly speaking, even a 8700K i7 doesn't make any sense, if you just game. If you really just game, get an i5-8600K, overclock it to 5.1 GHz and be done.

 

For me, buying Intel is out of the question. There is not a single reason, why i would care for 10% more performance with that many trade-offs. Meltdown, Intel ME, Intel's business practice, Intel doesn't care shit about us gamers, many many bugs in Intel Software, horrible TIM and so on - the list goes on and on for me personally, to not buy anything from Intel ever again. Well - i guess it shows i'm kind of an AMD Fanboy as well, but i have reasons and facts for it.

 

Bottom line is: If you only play Civ 6 - just get a cheap i3 System with a good GPU and keep your other system for productivity. Or: Get an iPad Pro and play Civ 6 on that. I have no idea why, but turn times on that thing are around 10 seconds.

Basing your decision on turn times alone in Civ 6 is...well, not a good idea.

[mihapiha]

36 minutes ago, David89 said:

 

Actually, Civ 6 loves Clock and especially I/O. For that reasoning, you could go with an i3-8350K: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/intel-core-i3-8350k-cpu,review-34095-4.html

 

Funny thing with Civ 6 Turn-Times is: They are heavily depended on SSD-Speeds, because it writes all those bits in the save file (apparently deactivating virus protection does help, as well as indexing). Especially 4k write. So first of all, i'd like to see a Benchmark AFTER Meltdown patches for Intel (AMD isn't affect by Meltdown, and Spectre 1+2 are not nearly as much of a performance penalty). So not only are they absolutely dependent on the SSD, they are rarely even tested. Also, Civ 6 is absolute crap. It runs on max. 4 Threads and even then it doesn't use them properly. Apparently in 2016 the game run a lot faster, than it does now.

 

 

Depends. If i plan to upgrade in a few months? Yes, i would. But: You have pretty much made up your mind, they way you are arguing. Because all those concerns you have: I bet you a whole new TR System, that you won't notice them, unless you put an FPS counter at the top and measure the time between turns in Civ 6.

 

Strictly speaking, even a 8700K i7 doesn't make any sense, if you just game. If you really just game, get an i5-8600K, overclock it to 5.1 GHz and be done.

 

For me, buying Intel is out of the question. There is not a single reason, why i would care for 10% more performance with that many trade-offs. Meltdown, Intel ME, Intel's business practice, Intel doesn't care shit about us gamers, many many bugs in Intel Software, horrible TIM and so on - the list goes on and on for me personally, to not buy anything from Intel ever again. Well - i guess it shows i'm kind of an AMD Fanboy as well, but i have reasons and facts for it.

 

Bottom line is: If you only play Civ 6 - just get a cheap i3 System with a good GPU and keep your other system for productivity. Or: Get an iPad Pro and play Civ 6 on that. I have no idea why, but turn times on that thing are around 10 seconds.

Basing your decision on turn times alone in Civ 6 is...well, not a good idea.

 

Your advice is much appreciated and I would like to make sure you understand, I haven't made up my mind. I am still torn; very much so.

 

The TR4 Build I'm looking at ist the following:

 

- Asus ROG Zenith Extreme

- Corsair Vengeance RGB DIMM Kit 32GB (DDR4-3200 MHz)

- AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X

- EK Water Blocks EK-FB ASUS ROG ZE RGB Monoblock

 

Total cost locally: about 1.750 - 1.800 EUR 

 

Alternatively I was looking at a X299 core system:

 

- ASUS ROG Strix X299-E Gaming

- Corsair Vengeance RGB DIMM Kit 32GB (DDR4-3200 MHz)

- Intel Core i9-7900X, 10x 3.30GHz

- EK Water Blocks EK-FB ASUS Strix X299-E RGB Monoblock

- EVGA Pro SLI-HB-Bridge, 60mm (due to the new MB PCIe layout)

 

Total cost locally: about 1.750 - 1.800 EUR 

 

Alternatively, I could get the 8-core i7-7820X or the 8-core Threadripper 1900X and save a couple hundred EUR. And the third option I see is a pretested i7-7820X from Der8auer which I know I'll be able to run at 4.9 GHz.

 

And let me tell you why I'm torn: The Zenith is just such a sweet MB that it actually makes me really thrilled, and I know I'll have that for years to come. And with Threadripper it just makes more sense going with the 12 core over the 8 core, especially with that expensive MB. It also has 2x 8-Pin CPU power connectors, which means it will be able to handle OC and future CPUs much more easily. However, that is a banging productivity and rendering foundation, and not really a "gaming" setup. Singe threaded performance won't be much beyond what I have now, maybe even lower than my 4930k @ 4.4 GHz. At least that is my main concern.

 

The X299 makes much more sense gaming wise, however is yet again, Intel. And after I think more than a decade I do want to switch, especially because AMD is competitive. The recent Intel news in terms of security aren't good, nor is the fact that I need the damn 10-core CPU for 44 lanes seem reasonable. The MB doesn't even remotely get me excited and the new Rampage's RGB is just annoying. I know I can run that system for probably 3 years gaming wise, and probably I won't change much on it for the next couple to 3 years and then replace the core components again. Also proper memory support can't possibly be an issue @ 3200 MHz with an Intel CPU.

 

I'd love to have the Zenith MB, with the single core performance of the 7820X wihtout it being an Intel CPU, with all the annoying crap that Intel has.  Basically as soon as the Ryzen 2 comes out and hopefully allows clocks to 4.5 GHz, I will be more than happy. Either way I will not buy a CPU with a low core count anymore and I wan't to disable HT/SMT for 24/7 use, something I can't do with the 6-core 4930k I've been using now, without significant changes in performance.  

[David89]

49 minutes ago, mihapiha said:

 

Your advice is much appreciated and I would like to make sure you understand, I haven't made up my mind. I am still torn; very much so.

 

Sorry - i've read what i wrote again - sounds a bit "mean". Wasn't my intention.

 

49 minutes ago, mihapiha said:

The TR4 Build I'm looking at ist the following:

 

- Asus ROG Zenith Extreme

- Corsair Vengeance RGB DIMM Kit 32GB (DDR4-3200 MHz)

- AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X

- EK Water Blocks EK-FB ASUS ROG ZE RGB Monoblock

 

Total cost locally: about 1.750 - 1.800 EUR 

 

Alternatively I was looking at a X299 core system:

 

- ASUS ROG Strix X299-E Gaming

- Corsair Vengeance RGB DIMM Kit 32GB (DDR4-3200 MHz)

- Intel Core i9-7900X, 10x 3.30GHz

- EK Water Blocks EK-FB ASUS Strix X299-E RGB Monoblock

- EVGA Pro SLI-HB-Bridge, 60mm (due to the new MB PCIe layout)

 

Total cost locally: about 1.750 - 1.800 EUR 

 

Alternatively, I could get the 8-core i7-7820X or the 8-core Threadripper 1900X and save a couple hundred EUR. And the third option I see is a pretested i7-7820X from Der8auer which I know I'll be able to run at 4.9 GHz.

 

That's a pretty unfair comparison, TBH. The ROG Strix X299-E Gaming is a totally different class of Board. You need to compare it with the ASUS ROG Rampage VI Extreme.

At least around here, both boards are around 500 €, i guess that's roughly the same range everywhere else. But the Strix X299-E is nearly 250€ cheaper. (as is the Strix X399-E Gaming)

 

But buying any of those CPUs for Gaming while arguing about better Framerates is - pardon my language - is stupid. Because if that is your intention, you need to get a 7700K (the 8700K is slower in some games even overclocked - unless you get it to 5 GHz).

 

Let's use the all time favourite Car comparison. The i9 is like a Bentley, the Threadripper is the Rolls-Royce. Both are extremely comfortable and can get you to your destination extremely fast. The Power of the RR is "adequate" and the Bentley is faster - but does anyone care about that in those regions? No. Because you buy those cars for other reasons, NOT performance.

Difference is: In the RR you can just swap the engine if something more suitable comes along. While on the Bentley, you will need to buy everything new.

 

 

 

49 minutes ago, mihapiha said:

The X299 makes much more sense gaming wise, however is yet again, Intel. And after I think more than a decade I do want to switch, especially because AMD is competitive. The recent Intel news in terms of security aren't good, nor is the fact that I need the damn 10-core CPU for 44 lanes seem reasonable. The MB doesn't even remotely get me excited and the new Rampage's RGB is just annoying. I know I can run that system for probably 3 years gaming wise, and probably I won't change much on it for the next couple to 3 years and then replace the core components again. Also proper memory support can't possibly be an issue @ 3200 MHz with an Intel CPU.

I'd love to have the Zenith MB, with the single core performance of the 7820X wihtout it being an Intel CPU, with all the annoying crap that Intel has.  Basically as soon as the Ryzen 2 comes out and hopefully allows clocks to 4.5 GHz, I will be more than happy. Either way I will not buy a CPU with a low core count anymore and I wan't to disable HT/SMT for 24/7 use, something I can't do with the 6-core 4930k I've been using now, without significant changes in performance.  

 

Well, in the end you have to prioritize if you are okay with 10-15 FPS less in games but - considering Intel finally putting more cores on their cpus - far better multi threading, and being able to just slot in a new CPU in 2 years and use it for another 2 years, or having to change the core components in 3 years again.

 

There are other reasons, why i would get the Threadripper. One pretty big one is Power Draw and the potential TR has in terms of optimizing. Even if it only gains 10% over the next few months.

[mihapiha]

1 hour ago, David89 said:

 

Sorry - i've read what i wrote again - sounds a bit "mean". Wasn't my intention.

 

That's a pretty unfair comparison, TBH. The ROG Strix X299-E Gaming is a totally different class of Board. You need to compare it with the ASUS ROG Rampage VI Extreme.

At least around here, both boards are around 500 €, i guess that's roughly the same range everywhere else. But the Strix X299-E is nearly 250€ cheaper. (as is the Strix X399-E Gaming)

 

But buying any of those CPUs for Gaming while arguing about better Framerates is - pardon my language - is stupid. Because if that is your intention, you need to get a 7700K (the 8700K is slower in some games even overclocked - unless you get it to 5 GHz).

 

Let's use the all time favourite Car comparison. The i9 is like a Bentley, the Threadripper is the Rolls-Royce. Both are extremely comfortable and can get you to your destination extremely fast. The Power of the RR is "adequate" and the Bentley is faster - but does anyone care about that in those regions? No. Because you buy those cars for other reasons, NOT performance.

Difference is: In the RR you can just swap the engine if something more suitable comes along. While on the Bentley, you will need to buy everything new.

 

Well, in the end you have to prioritize if you are okay with 10-15 FPS less in games but - considering Intel finally putting more cores on their cpus - far better multi threading, and being able to just slot in a new CPU in 2 years and use it for another 2 years, or having to change the core components in 3 years again.

 

There are other reasons, why i would get the Threadripper. One pretty big one is Power Draw and the potential TR has in terms of optimizing. Even if it only gains 10% over the next few months.

 

It's not about the class of boards, it's about the design. Yes the Rampage VI Extreme is the same, but it looks awful and its RGB are super annoying. It also doesn't offer 2x 8-Pin for the CPU, which for a higher OC on multiple cores I'd like to see. It just doesn't get me excited at all.

 

The Strix X299-E is just a more "reasonable" compensation, because I sort of was just looking for a quick solution as my system was starting to die on me a couple of days ago. I've always had high-end gear and I didn't plan on going with a "mid range" 1151 socket or AM4 socket now. It is not a small investment in money, so it is worth considering all options.

 

My CPU's tend to always cost around 500 Euro and up... Even the last AMD I had was the dual core was the top tear Athlon 64 FX-60.

 

However you did make a really good point for the Threadripper just there. It is still being optimized, and properly improve for a few percentage points. I am now leaning much more towards AMD's TR4 solution, I must say. 

[Prash]

 

On 1/27/2018 at 5:49 PM, mihapiha said:

Hello everybody!

 

I consider myself as an enthusiast when it comes to PC Hardware. Usually I have a much more powerful system than I ever need and it is my pride and joy. I do spend much time looking at my PC, besides using it. So I want it to look fantastic. Therefore I tend also to purchase quite high end gear, especially if I can rational the upgrade. I build myself my last major computer in 2014 and maintained the same X79 plattform ever since. Also, I get a real kick out of having multiple GPUs, apart from the sick look.  

 

Back then I decided to really get myself a  big time high end water cooling rig, and cool CPU and graphic cards with it. Here a picture of it: 

 

 

Since I have really not done many updates. I switched my initial 3x R9 290Xs (reasons being running out of VRAM) for 2x GTX 1080s, but that's pretty much it. I haven't found the rational to replace a Ivy-Bridge 4930k with anything worth investing in, especially because I primarily game on my system. The only think I actually really considered was updating to X299 + i7-7820X with 8 cores and disabling HT. However I just couldn't find the upside of spending over 1000 EUR on this...

 

My i7 4930k is an average overclocker and unfortunately really doesn't have a good memory controller. Basically the maximum I am able to get out of it 24/7 happens to be 4.4 GHz with the high voltage of 1.48V. Which I am not sure is more than average at this point. 

 

Now I saw this video: 

 

 

I figure that my 4930k is still hanging on well with 2x 1080s. The fact that I'm using a 4k monitor makes it less likely that I would see a real difference upgrading, however I do wonder at which point I ought to really get rid of this setup an move to a newer generation hardware for MB, CPU & Memory.

 

However, in that video the single core clock speed was higher and I do know games favor the single clock speed vs. many cores. The big problem I have with the initial idea of the 7820X was the fact that the PCIe lanes are a bit limited for multi-GPU owners; a habit I intend on keeping.

 

This video is also a great idea for Linus, if he chose to make a series and get the strongest single GPU of each generation and say at which point users ought to upgrade their CPU gen....

 

 

 

We render 3D and edit 4k videos. It takes it all. Not outdated for sure... Even in 2020!

 

Thats an asus motherboard? Eh? I have a WS motherboard. Great VRMs!

 

It should run easily at 4.5 ghz with the help of 125 bclk and 125 base strap. Mine is still running smoothly 24/7 at 4.5 ghz with 1.290 voltage and 1.5V for Ram. Infact I am using a corsair h100x cooler. (Recently changed it)

 

This link should help?

https://www.gskill.us/forum/forum/general-discussion/overclocking/intel-socket-lga-2011-2011-v3-2066/9279-asus-intel-x79-motherboard-overclocking-guide

 

Also get a m.2 pci expansion if you don't have.

 

 

Edited March 6, 2020 by Prash

[ImNotNeko]

1 hour ago, Prash said:

 

We render 3D and edit 4k videos. It takes it all. Not outdated for sure... Even in 2020!

 

-

 

You know what is outdated...?

This post from 2018.

 

Amazing 2 year necro lol