Intel I7-4790k

[Triniz]

Does anyone have any benchmark on how the i7-4790k stacks up to the i7-8700k or Ryzen 5-2700x

[veli2501]

What benchmark?  I can get 930 in Cinebench when overclocked which is about on par with a 7700k at stock.  Can't remember my stock scores though.  From memory the 8700k scores around the 1200 mark.

[JoostinOnline]

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i7-8700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-2600X-vs-Intel-i7-4790K/3098vs3235vs2275

It's not a perfect comparison, but you get a basic idea of multi and single threaded performance.

[Triniz]

8 minutes ago, veli2501 said:

What benchmark?  I can get 930 in Cinebench when overclocked which is about on par with a 7700k at stock.  Can't remember my stock scores though.  From memory the 8700k scores around the 1200 mark.

Cinebench was a good benchmark. I'm still kind of confused because from what im seeing the 4790k is still holding up to most new cpu at the moment in most task, how can that be?

[veli2501]

2 minutes ago, Triniz said:

Cinebench was a good benchmark. I'm still kind of confused because from what im seeing the 4790k is still holding up to most new cpu at the moment in most task, how can that be?

Intel has had very small IPC increases over the last few generations (around 5% for each gen)

[davrosG5]

Basically because Intel has been sitting on their laurels for quite some time. Base clocks haven't increased by much and there have only realy been relatively minor increases in IPC as well. Plus the 4790K was something of an aberration at the time, almost a special edition for enthusiasts with a higher base clock than the 4770K and also IIRC it has a soldered IHS instead of using TIM

[JoostinOnline]

4 minutes ago, davrosG5 said:

Basically because Intel has been sitting on their laurels for quite some time. Base clocks haven't increased by much and there have only realy been relatively minor increases in IPC as well. Plus the 4790K was something of an aberration at the time, almost a special edition for enthusiasts with a higher base clock than the 4770K and also IIRC it has a soldered IHS instead of using TIM

It's not soldered thankfully. I delidded mine for better temps.

https://overclocking.guide/the-truth-about-cpu-soldering/

[Triniz]

3 minutes ago, davrosG5 said:

Basically because Intel has been sitting on their laurels for quite some time. Base clocks haven't increased by much and there have only realy been relatively minor increases in IPC as well. Plus the 4790K was something of an aberration at the time, almost a special edition for enthusiasts with a higher base clock than the 4700K and also IIRC it has a soldered IHS instead of using TIM

Well guess i'll have cancel my friend upgrade unlit a cpu worth upgrading to comes out. Thanks you

[JoostinOnline]

1 minute ago, Triniz said:

Well guess i'll have cancel my friend upgrade unlit a cpu worth upgrading to comes out. Thanks you

The 8700k is an enormous upgrade. It's got 6 cores instead of four.

[Triniz]

1 minute ago, JoostinOnline said:

The 8700k is an enormous upgrade. It's got 6 cores instead of four.

Yea i looked at that too but he mostly use it for gaming and some small video editing. I'm just letting him get as much use out of the cpu for now because when he needs an upgrade it will include motherboard, RAM and maybe a cpu fan depending on what he goes with.

[Bajantechnician]

14 minutes ago, davrosG5 said:

Basically because Intel has been sitting on their laurels for quite some time. Base clocks haven't increased by much and there have only realy been relatively minor increases in IPC as well. Plus the 4790K was something of an aberration at the time, almost a special edition for enthusiasts with a higher base clock than the 4770K and also IIRC it has a soldered IHS instead of using TIM

believe its not soldered..

[PianoPlayer88Key]

I have the 4790K as well, and the 8700K isn't even remotely close to good enough for an upgrade for me.  There are at least several things I'm looking for in my next upgrade, a few of which I'll mention in this post.

 

One - my current CPU gets about 0.5 to 0.8 fps encoding 4K UHD (3840x2160) H.265 (not H.264) video in Handbrake, with the Quality slider set at 0 (max quality).  Also, I recently had a process going in LibreOffice Calc (accidentally copied a formula down the entire 1048576-cell column) on my laptop's i7-6700K that took several DAYS to complete, then another few days for autosave to do its thing.

As an upgrade to that, I want my next CPU (that's priced the same as the 4790K dropped to at MicroCenter on Black Friday 2014, although I didn't buy mine then or there) to be able to do at least 60+ fps encoding 4K UHD H.265, before considering GPU acceleration, and I also want that same LO Calc activity to only take a few minutes at most.

 

Also I'd like to see a big jump in single-threaded performance as well.  My 4790K is about 2x or so faster single-threaded than my previous CPU (Athlon 64 X2 4000+) was multi-threaded, I'm estimating.  My next CPU needs to be at least the same factor faster in single-threaded loads (2x) than my 4790K is in multi-threaded loads.

Oh, and I don't want it to be by way of insanely high clock speeds, high power consumption, etc. either.  I want to see IPC and efficiency increased by at least several times.  (I'm disappointed we don't already have CPUs that can do 250-300 cinebench single-threaded at 3-3.5 GHz or so.)

 

I'm hoping I can make that upgrade either when DDR5 and PCI Express 5.0 are out, or when the warranty on my Corsair AX760 (bought in January 2015) expires.  (I'll only mention in passing my desire for CPU sockets and DIMM slots to be standardized like PCI Express, USB and SATA, so I could go through like 3 or 4 SeaSonic Prime Ultra PSUs dying of old age BEFORE I would even need to replace the mobo cause new CPUs, RAM, etc. aren't drop-in compatible.)

 

Maybe I'm reminiscing too much about years gone by, where some generations had a 100% IPC jump in a single generation, as well as other huge (by today's "standards") performance increases.  For example, my dad's upgrading from a 286-10 to a 486DX4-120 was a pretty big jump (60-80 times?), AND was about 1/3 the price, after about a 6 year gap or so.  Last I checked, the i7-7700K wasn't like 70 times faster than the i7-2600K, nor was it 1/3 the price.

[JoostinOnline]

16 minutes ago, PianoPlayer88Key said:

I have the 4790K as well, and the 8700K isn't even remotely close to good enough for an upgrade for me.  There are at least several things I'm looking for in my next upgrade, a few of which I'll mention in this post.

 

One - my current CPU gets about 0.5 to 0.8 fps encoding 4K UHD (3840x2160) H.265 (not H.264) video in Handbrake, with the Quality slider set at 0 (max quality).  Also, I recently had a process going in LibreOffice Calc (accidentally copied a formula down the entire 1048576-cell column) on my laptop's i7-6700K that took several DAYS to complete, then another few days for autosave to do its thing.

As an upgrade to that, I want my next CPU (that's priced the same as the 4790K dropped to at MicroCenter on Black Friday 2014, although I didn't buy mine then or there) to be able to do at least 60+ fps encoding 4K UHD H.265, before considering GPU acceleration, and I also want that same LO Calc activity to only take a few minutes at most.

 

Also I'd like to see a big jump in single-threaded performance as well.  My 4790K is about 2x or so faster single-threaded than my previous CPU (Athlon 64 X2 4000+) was multi-threaded, I'm estimating.  My next CPU needs to be at least the same factor faster in single-threaded loads (2x) than my 4790K is in multi-threaded loads.

Oh, and I don't want it to be by way of insanely high clock speeds, high power consumption, etc. either.  I want to see IPC and efficiency increased by at least several times.  (I'm disappointed we don't already have CPUs that can do 250-300 cinebench single-threaded at 3-3.5 GHz or so.)

 

I'm hoping I can make that upgrade either when DDR5 and PCI Express 5.0 are out, or when the warranty on my Corsair AX760 (bought in January 2015) expires.  (I'll only mention in passing my desire for CPU sockets and DIMM slots to be standardized like PCI Express, USB and SATA, so I could go through like 3 or 4 SeaSonic Prime Ultra PSUs dying of old age BEFORE I would even need to replace the mobo cause new CPUs, RAM, etc. aren't drop-in compatible.)

 

Maybe I'm reminiscing too much about years gone by, where some generations had a 100% IPC jump in a single generation, as well as other huge (by today's "standards") performance increases.  For example, my dad's upgrading from a 286-10 to a 486DX4-120 was a pretty big jump (60-80 times?), AND was about 1/3 the price, after about a 6 year gap or so.  Last I checked, the i7-7700K wasn't like 70 times faster than the i7-2600K, nor was it 1/3 the price.

You're asking for the moon then. First off, we're approaching the limit of architecture sizes. You can't get much smaller without having electrons interfere with each other. That's why we've been stuck on 14nm for so many years, putting an end to Moore's Law. Second, we've hit the Power Wall, which means frequency can't go up much higher. The only viable improvement is core count. Going to quad/hexa core CPU's has offered a 50% upgrade over previous generations. You couldn't ask for more. Of course it's also introduced some heating issues (even locked chips will throttle on a stock cooler), but those are being addressed with after market coolers.

 

A slowdown in performance gains isn't just because engineers have been lazy. It's because the laws of science don't care how fast you want to encode something.

[davrosG5]

My bad on the solder/thermal paste. The 4790K did use thermal paste but it was different from that used in the 4770K and resulted in better thermal performance, presumably to cope with the 500MHz higher base and boost clock.

 

I've got a 4790K in my system and I feel no particular need to upgrade at the moment especially now it looks like Asus is finally getting round to releasing Spectre patches for their Z97 boards.