# Intel Haswell Core i7-4790K vs. i7-4770K Comparison



## MSnyder (Aug 6, 2014)

Intel released the Intel Core i7-4790K, which created quite the stir with Intel Core i7-4770K owners. Does the Intel Core i7-4790K outperform the Intel Core i7-4770K in every way or does it fall a little flat? If you already own a 4770K, is the upgrade worth it?

*Show full review*


----------



## brandonwh64 (Aug 26, 2014)

So its like 1%? benches look to be not much of a fraction off a 4770


----------



## revin (Aug 26, 2014)

Thanks for the review. Do any of the adjustments involve the Core Current Limit ? As in how many A allowed to use?
That was _*the*_ key for my 2600K to reach 5-5.2 on air. All voltage were teawked to no avail, but after using XTU was able to allow the CCL from 97 up to 110 and bingo, all other voltages are stock, except the ram is slightly under volted even at 19xx.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Aug 26, 2014)

The fact that the temps aren't any better just highlights what others have found, that the problem was never the quality of the paste but the fact that it is paste and paste does poorly with gaps, like the one created by the epoxy layer. That's why you'll see people with no temp improvement after delidding but then after they go back and scrape off more epoxy they finally get a good temp drop. I suspect solder does much better with a gap and that's why the performance is so different.

Which all begs the question why did Intel bother to spend money on new paste to begin with? Did they really just take our word for it that paste was the problem? It would make sense since the importance of the gap only became common knowledge after they had finalized the design, but surely their engineers could have figured that out on their own, right?? I mean if they're going to spend money it should be on solder or some new IHS adhesion method that leaves no gap, not some meaningless new TIM just for the sake of flaunting it in a press release.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Aug 26, 2014)

You should have added a 3770K there just for the sake of it...


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Aug 26, 2014)

you should of added a 3930k just for the fun of it


----------



## Sasqui (Aug 26, 2014)

Other than idle power consumption... meh.  Waiting for Broadwell.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (Aug 26, 2014)

Skip Broadwell and go straight to Skylake.


----------



## MSnyder (Aug 26, 2014)

Thank you all for the incredible feedback! I think you will all find the newest generation Haswell-E review very interesting. In particular I actually wondered how many people would seriously consider going i7-4790K roughly 4 months before LGA2011-3. Probably not many unless they were in a rush. The pace of the CPUs seems to be advancing faster than before.


----------



## Ed_1 (Aug 26, 2014)

I don't see why it was faster than the 4770@4.8 other than the fact bus was OC to 102 .

Hmm, why was superPi slower with OC CPU's .


----------



## Sasqui (Aug 26, 2014)

Ed_1 said:


> Hmm, why was superPi slower with OC CPU's .



Look again, lower is better.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Aug 26, 2014)

> The newer Intel Core i7-4790K features the exact same die layout as the Intel Core i7-4770K. The processor is also built on a 22 nm process, but with a 88 W maximum TDP. Given we previously covered the specifications, there is no need to state the same information over and over again. What Intel does tout, however, is the latest 4.0 GHz base frequency. While it is nice, there is only a difference of 100 MHz overall.



Compared to the base frequency of the 4770k it is a 500MHZ boost, not 100MHZ. The same applies to their turbo speeds.


----------



## crmaris (Aug 26, 2014)

Welcome on board and many thanks for your effort and the review!


----------



## MikeMurphy (Aug 26, 2014)

I think your thermals graph is incorrect if you're saying the 4790k has better thermals.


----------



## MSnyder (Aug 26, 2014)

^ The 4790K had better thermals but was outstepped in that area by the 4770K  OCed. As people are mentioning, the actual space between the heatspreader and the chip inside is possibly the reason.


----------



## Ed_1 (Aug 26, 2014)

Sasqui said:


> Look again, lower is better.


hehe, you look again , the OC have more time in SuperPI .

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_4790K/4.html


----------



## MSnyder (Aug 26, 2014)

yogurt_21 said:


> Compared to the base frequency of the 4770k it is a 500MHZ boost, not 100MHZ. The same applies to their turbo speeds.



Thanks for pointing that out. It's a typo and will be fixed.


----------



## MSnyder (Aug 26, 2014)

Ed_1 said:


> hehe, you look again , the OC have more time in SuperPI .
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_4790K/4.html



Ideally overclocking them should have lead to lower SuperPi numbers, but it seems latency issues stepped up as well. Could be particular CPUs themselves but the test averaged out 3 times to give those numbers. In any case the other tests are more revealing than the SuperPi 

A lot of people have a hard time getting the 4790K to 4.7GHz - I got both to 4.8GHz. Can be possible that latency stepping is an issue when it comes to SuperPi array


----------



## Sasqui (Aug 26, 2014)

Ed_1 said:


> hehe, you look again , the OC have more time in SuperPI .
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_4790K/4.html



Yep, you are correct.  That is a big wow.



MSnyder said:


> Ideally overclocking them should have lead to lower SuperPi numbers, but it seems latency issues stepped up as well. Could be particular CPUs themselves but the test averaged out 3 times to give those numbers. In any case the other tests are more revealing than the SuperPi
> 
> A lot of people have a hard time getting the 4790K to 4.7GHz - I got both to 4.8GHz. Can be possible that latency stepping is an issue when it comes to SuperPi array



Memory timings changed with the OC?


----------



## MSnyder (Aug 26, 2014)

Memory was kept the same timing as the default RAM but it seems that turning the overclock up on those two processors leads to a stability issue - so timings were in fact loosened to get it both to 4.8GHz - yes - which would explain the 3/5 second differences compared to their stock clocks which SuperPi seems to be sensitive towards (Stock was tested at the loosened timings and showed better response). I did contact wPrime systems as well and they pretty much confirmed that if the BCLK requires memory timings to change for stability, then this can impact SuperPi results depending on the severity of the overclock and specific CPU. They also mentioned that overclocking does not always necessarily lead to lower SuperPi timing computation.


----------



## Ed_1 (Aug 26, 2014)

MSnyder said:


> Memory was kept the same timing as the default RAM but it seems that turning the overclock up on those two processors leads to a stability issue - so timings were in fact loosened to get it both to 4.8GHz - yes - which would explain the 3/5 second differences compared to their stock clocks which SuperPi seems to be sensitive towards (Stock was tested at the loosened timings and showed better response). I did contact wPrime systems as well and they pretty much confirmed that if the BCLK requires memory timings to change for stability, then this can impact SuperPi results depending on the severity of the overclock and specific CPU. They also mentioned that overclocking does not always necessarily lead to lower SuperPi timing computation.


I was going to say SuperPI is extremely sensitive to memory timing and only time I see it go down, is loosening the timing .
That makes sense now, did know it was changed .

Yes, they seem to hit a wall around 4.7 .
I still am surprised the OC 4790@4.8 is faster than 4770@4.8 , I would think it be very close .
I guess to check chip we would need to go down to 4.7 and keep all settings the same to see how each chip does with same exact settings .


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 26, 2014)

I'll just offer my own opinion...24/7 stable will never be much more than 4.7 GHz. However, if you like to run benchmarks only, more is possible. This wasn't really meant to be much more than an improvement for overclockers that like to run benchmarks, IMHO.


----------



## warhammer23 (Aug 27, 2014)

Just for my curiosity, may i ask what is the real difference between the 4790k at stock vs a 2700k at stock?
How better is it in gaming ?  10-15-20% ?
Thank you.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 27, 2014)

Considering the price difference of $5 right now, there isn't much sense in buying a 4770K.  However, I can see the usefulness of this review in informing people that already have a 4770K that it isn't really worth the upgrade.  Nice review.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 27, 2014)

Pretty big disappointment for intel camp...


----------



## trog69 (Aug 27, 2014)

warhammer23 said:


> Just for my curiosity, may i ask what is the real difference between the 4790k at stock vs a 2700k at stock?
> How better is it in gaming ?  10-15-20% ?
> Thank you.


I'd like to know that as well. I've had this i7-2600k @4.4ghz for as long as I've owned it, and I get the same or better frame rates in games as my friend's 4770k with the same GPUs. I'm still waiting to see a reason to upgrade from this chip.


----------



## Ed_1 (Aug 27, 2014)

warhammer23 said:


> Just for my curiosity, may i ask what is the real difference between the 4790k at stock vs a 2700k at stock?
> How better is it in gaming ?  10-15-20% ?
> Thank you.


it depends on app but probably "about" 15-20% with it being more towards 15% avg .

that is for same clock speed on each , as 2xxx tend to OC a bit higher verse IB and Haswell


----------



## Ed_1 (Aug 27, 2014)

eidairaman1 said:


> Pretty big disappointment for intel camp...


how is it a disappointment , its a re-release of basically same chip but clocked higher for same price .


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 27, 2014)

trog69 said:


> I'd like to know that as well. I've had this i7-2600k @4.4ghz for as long as I've owned it, and I get the same or better frame rates in games as my friend's 4770k with the same GPUs. I'm still waiting to see a reason to upgrade from this chip.


There really is no reason yet. A wise old goat showed me how to OC my chip a year ago and I have been stable at 4.5 ever since.

However I'm older now then when I first started PC gaming and I now ask myself, why. Why upgrade? What games justify upgrading? For me I've all but stopped playing games. I used to game to hang out with a group of TPU guys on TS. Now TS is all but dead expect for a few hardliners. The fun for me was crap talking and laughing at jokes. The games themselves are pretty boring nowadays. Top that off with all the micro transaction crap and well. Screw it. So unless you have some super high end card and are running multiple monitors at 4k to play a console port or you bench, stick with what you got.


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 27, 2014)

eidairaman1 said:


> Pretty big disappointment for intel camp...


Says the amd guy lol.. 
I have my own opinion on the 4790k vs the 4770k.. I've owned both and unless the reviewer used an odd paste his temps are way off compared to my testing. There is a huge drop in temps with DC compared to the 4770k. For a short review Its ok, but I'm more used to Dave's in depth reviews.. The DC chip yes is the same as the 4770k but its so different. Start messing with more voltages then the cpu vcore and you'll see what I'm talking about. I've been giving my tests to the true guru aka @cadaveca and we agree there's more to this chip then most think. I have a golden chip and maybe that's the reason but take 4770k and all there voltages and compare it to DC and it'll make you turn your head sideways saying wtf... 4.9ghz 24/7 is a breeze... 4.6ghz 24/7 @ 1.125


----------



## Ferrum Master (Aug 27, 2014)

fullinfusion said:


> Says the amd guy lol...



And I agree with him 

We are bored... really...


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 27, 2014)

I hear cricket chirps for this unit lol.


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 28, 2014)

Well that's good let them chirp.. Best move for me was dumping that hot ass 4770k for a DC chip.. Sure beats the hell outa those so called 8 core steam roller chips lol. 

But really I think the reviewer is lacking some info on these as IMO this review is more less a copy and paste of other reviews.. Just pointing it out that all other reviews are the same shit.. Bump the multi and set the vcore.. How about some real testing of cache and tweaking other voltages.

Another thing, why not get a DC if you already have a 4770k? Honestly look at how much cooler they run. At 4.9ghz with 1.40v I only see a max temp of 72-74c on the hottest core while running any stress test. All the retail 4770k's out there now just suck. 
It kinda bothers me that in reviews either the reviewer don't know what he or she is doing and they just give a meh score on the cpu. All I can say is by buying the DC your guaranteed a 4.4ghz clock speed at way less volts and a lot less heat.. I do say the reviewer messed up by saying there is little difference between the two CPUs.. Been there and done it. I just wish a reviewer would spend a month testing before publishing such results as Dave does. I'm babbling so forgive me lol, IMA going to be crunching tomorrow for a few days at 4.9 GHz so if anybody calls bs on me I'll be so happy to post temps and whatever else.. DC rock on baby!


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 28, 2014)

Not knockin ya. Post your temps anyway



fullinfusion said:


> Well that's good let them chirp.. Best move for me was dumping that hot ass 4770k for a DC chip.. Sure beats the hell outa those so called 8 core steam roller chips lol.
> 
> But really I think the reviewer is lacking some info on these as IMO this review is more less a copy and paste of other reviews.. Just pointing it out that all other reviews are the same shit.. Bump the multi and set the vcore.. How about some real testing of cache and tweaking other voltages.
> 
> ...


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 28, 2014)

I'm working on the road but will tomorrow for sure.. Pm me if I forget and I'll post


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 28, 2014)

eidairaman1 said:


> Not knockin ya. Post your temps anyway


I have some chips, temps are decent, like 75c loaded at locks and voltages that would have 4770K overheat. And for me, 4790K clocks with far lower voltage than 4770K.

But...not much better than a REALLY GOOD 4770K. Like, it's still the same silicon, but improved PCB for power delivery, better IHS metal, and better binning. Yet, even Intel admitted that 4790K would only be the best of whatever they had when the batch was made, while they were trying to pull PCUs form the same "source" so that they would be as consistent as possible. However, it's still silicon, so quality is varied. It's unavoidable.


----------



## gamingoodz (Aug 28, 2014)

MSnyder said:


> Thank you all for the incredible feedback! I think you will all find the newest generation Haswell-E review very interesting. In particular I actually wondered how many people would seriously consider going i7-4790K roughly 4 months before LGA2011-3. Probably not many unless they were in a rush. The pace of the CPUs seems to be advancing faster than before.



I actually just bought a 4790K instead of waiting for Haswell-E.. I hope I didn't make a mistake.. But I can't afford the prices that have been speculated for the Haswell-E I was lucky to afford the 4790K. I was using an i7-950 Bloomfield. I feel torn as If maybe I should have tried to find more money somehow and waited for the Haswell-E or If I made the right decision. I like to think that I made the right decision, at least I hope I did. 

I plan on hopefully upgrading again when Skylake comes out. But who knows. Someone put my mind at ease and reassure me that I made the right decision on my budget lol.


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 28, 2014)

gamingoodz said:


> I actually just bought a 4790K instead of waiting for Haswell-E.. I hope I didn't make a mistake.. But I can't afford the prices that have been speculated for the Haswell-E I was lucky to afford the 4790K. I was using an i7-950 Bloomfield. I feel torn as If maybe I should have tried to find more money somehow and waited for the Haswell-E or If I made the right decision. I like to think that I made the right decision, at least I hope I did.
> 
> I plan on hopefully upgrading again when Skylake comes out. But who knows. Someone put my mind at ease and reassure me that I made the right decision on my budget lol.


You made the right choice 
What's your clocks like?


----------



## Hilux SSRG (Aug 28, 2014)

gamingoodz said:


> I actually just bought a 4790K instead of waiting for Haswell-E.. I hope I didn't make a mistake.. But I can't afford the prices that have been speculated for the Haswell-E I was lucky to afford the 4790K. I was using an i7-950 Bloomfield. I feel torn as If maybe I should have tried to find more money somehow and waited for the Haswell-E or If I made the right decision. I like to think that I made the right decision, at least I hope I did.
> 
> I plan on hopefully upgrading again when Skylake comes out. But who knows. Someone put my mind at ease and reassure me that I made the right decision on my budget lol.



From your profile name, if you were looking to buy for gaming you made the right choice.


----------



## gamingoodz (Aug 28, 2014)

fullinfusion said:


> You made the right choice
> What's your clocks like?



I haven't actually got to really test much yet I just installed everything 2 days ago and between being busy and installing software and updates I really didn't get to mess around with it much. I doubt I will overclock it right away , I usually overclock as time goes on to pull me through and get that little bit of extra power until I can afford the newer CPU's. I think I might pull the Cooler off though and reapply my thermal paste as my temps are not quite as low as I would like. I think I actually used to little thermal paste, the hyper 212 evo has those small gaps between the heat pipes which suck up some of the paste and I didn't take that into account so I think I used to little paste to get good coverage. 



Hilux SSRG said:


> From your profile name, if you were looking to buy for gaming you made the right choice.



Yes Pc gaming is the main focus of my computer but I do use it for everything I do since its my only desktop computer. I also do some video editing but its gaming videos for my website and youtube channel. Well I "did" do some video editing for them I have since quit uploading videos because it was just taking to much time compounded by the amount of time it took to encode video on my i7-950 bloomfield. With this 4790K though I might start creating more gaming videos now that my encoding times should be significantly shorter. I know the Haswell-E would be more suited to video editing atleast I would imagine it would be but video editing is only a small percentage of what I do on my computer with the main percentage being PC gaming. 

Thanks for the replies I'm glad that I made the rite decision and can feel better about it now lol.


----------



## revin (Aug 28, 2014)

@cadaveca , and @fullinfusion, Is there some Core Current Limit adjustment to use ?
Can you guy's try XTU 2.1 [newer version's wouldn't give ME more than basic adjustment's.
That was the key we came across with you Dave ,when I was trying to get my 2600K OC.
Low and behold, all voltage's stock except undervolt on the Sammy mem.
But at any rate, just bumping the CCL to 110A from 97A was all it took.
AND on a MB that too many said "wont OC worth a damn".
BS, it's been like this for years now. And still on the modded Skt 478 Ninja cooler !
I think there's alot in DC,
If they can make DC work on the DZ87KLT-75K, I'd be all over those two like,like well you know


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 28, 2014)

revin said:


> @cadaveca , and @fullinfusion, Is there some Core Current Limit adjustment to use ?
> Can you guy's try XTU 2.1 [newer version's wouldn't give ME more than basic adjustment's.
> That was the key we came across with you Dave ,when I was trying to get my 2600K OC.
> Low and behold, all voltage's stock except undervolt on the Sammy mem.
> ...


Here Im testing as we speak, look at my settings.


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 28, 2014)

@MSnyder It's obvious you ran 4.8ghz so what voltage did you use to test?

Your 4.9GHz OC @ 1.34v was just a boot voltage right and wasnt test stable?


----------



## revin (Aug 29, 2014)

I see 5 Ghz coming around again !!!!!


----------



## TheHunter (Sep 1, 2014)

Some weird numbers by Cinebench 11.5

I get *10.39* @ 4.7ghz


----------



## fullinfusion (Sep 1, 2014)

Windows update lol... I sware that's it as 4.8 I'm getting 10.62-65


----------



## TheHunter (Sep 1, 2014)

I see you use cache @ 40x butr with a wooping 1.28v? Do you really need that much? Im now at 4.4ghz cache @ 1.185v (auto overvolts to 1.22v) and its enough. 

4.2ghz @ 1.140v (auto overvolts to 1.18v)



fullinfusion said:


> Windows update lol... I sware that's it as 4.8 I'm getting 10.62-65



Yeah that number looks more on track.


Btw I posted @ Haswell thread about LLC


----------



## fullinfusion (Sep 1, 2014)

@TheHunter the board gives the cache that much voltage on its own. It all depends what the cpu voltage is. If the vcore is set higher the cache automatically goes up.. Even if I lock it at say 1.20v in the bios it sets itself higher, way higher so I don't know.. Like I said I'm going for a z97 and hopefully that's the fix it solution.. Unless Asus puts a new bios out for my mfvi board to address this I'm totally clued out on it atm


----------



## TheHunter (Sep 1, 2014)

fullinfusion said:


> @TheHunter the board gives the cache that much voltage on its own. It all depends what the cpu voltage is. If the vcore is set higher the cache automatically goes up.. Even if I lock it at say 1.20v in the bios it sets itself higher, way higher so I don't know.. Like I said I'm going for a z97 and hopefully that's the fix it solution.. Unless Asus puts a new bios out for my mfvi board to address this I'm totally clued out on it atm




Have you tried monitoring it with Aida64 or hwinfo64 too? If you set total adaptive (Additional Turbo mode cpu cache voltage) to idk 1.15v it should stay there, ok with few volts more 0.04- 0.06v overvoltage max when @ max load.


----------



## fullinfusion (Sep 1, 2014)

No I haven't played with the adaptive because that's all new to me. And I'll have to use that tool and watch what volts do. I know I'm going to try changing the cpu strap from 100 to 125mhz and up from there when I find out how the chip reacts to the lower multi and higher strap

Remember I went from a 3770k to a 4770k and only tested for maybe 20hrs till I got the DC chip.. Way different then the 3770k voltage and setting wise lol


----------



## warrior420 (Sep 1, 2014)

> Upgrading from the Intel Core i7-4770K to the Intel Core i7-4790K is like going from a Honda to a Subaru, even if the Subaru is a newer model.



This isn't AMD to Intel here....


----------

