# Is LGA 2011 better than 1150



## sebastian869 (Nov 24, 2013)

Im try to figure out should i get the i7-4770k or i7-4820k and there is a descent list of advantages to the 4820k. My question is the LGA2011 inferior to the 1150 or if not then is it possible that the chipsets are different and u can buy better mother boards for the 2011 than the 1150?

P.S. Which chipset would u guys recommend.

Thanks,
Sebastian


----------



## FR@NK (Nov 25, 2013)

1150 is better if you just want a quadcore CPU.

Socket 2011 is better if you want 6core or 3+ GPUs or 64GB ram.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Nov 25, 2013)

I'd say 1150 despite many 4770k's overclocking like shit just because of the never ending complaints I see on all 2011 boards. 1150 seems to have a lot of great boards.


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Nov 25, 2013)

This will either help or add to the confusion:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...i7-4930k-i7-4820k-ivy-bridge-e-review-18.html


----------



## radrok (Nov 25, 2013)

It would be easier for you to tell us what are you planning to do with your computer. 
It's easy to sort out though; if you know how to use more than six cores or you need 64 GB of ram or 40+ PCIe lanes then go for 2011.
If you don't then stick with 1150, because chances are that you'll only game on it.


----------



## Hood (Nov 25, 2013)

The 4820K should overclock better because the IHS is soldered on, while the 4770k uses TIM, so if you like running high OCs (or low temps), that's another reason to get the Ivy-E and one of the newer X79 boards (which have added chips for more SATA 6 GB/s and USB 3.0 ports, the latest audio chipsets, etc.).  40 PCIe lanes vs 16, quad channel memory vs dual, and an upgrade path to the world's fastest desktop processor - all good reasons to go for Ivy-E.   If you manage to get a motherboard that works as advertised, you'll be golden, because if at any time in the future you feel the need for more speed or power, you can get a 6-core CPU, add more or faster RAM,  and add more video cards, all without the usual bottlenecks you'd expect on the mainstream chipsets.  Also, plug-and-play PCIe SSDs are becoming more common and reasonably priced, so those extra lanes will come in handy.  If you are building a fairly high-end system, the prices are the same either way.


----------



## DF is BUSY (Nov 25, 2013)

IMO, 
lga 2011 users are the elite "1%" enthusiasts PC users
while 1150 (and 1155 before it) are for mainstream PC users like most of us who want better than entry level but dont wanna venture in the top elite tier just yet.

main rig parts (cpu,mobo) will be more expensive than 1150 and ram is can be either or (especially the way prices are today)
otherwise, other components are pretty much the same.


----------



## 15th Warlock (Nov 25, 2013)

sebastian869 said:


> Im try to figure out should i get the i7-4770k or i7-4820k and there is a descent list of advantages to the 4820k. My question is the LGA2011 inferior to the 1150 or if not then is it possible that the chipsets are different and u can buy better mother boards for the 2011 than the 1150?
> 
> P.S. Which chipset would u guys recommend.
> 
> ...



It depends, X79 is the way to go if you want to use 3 video cards or more natively in your system, but Z87 has a few advantages like more native SATA 3 ports, and a higher IPC from Haswell procs, it'll supposedly support Broadwell also once it's released, whereas you could say X79 is EOL, Haswell E will use X99 and a different LGA socket due to the need for DDR4 support.

X79 though still has a few tricks up its sleeve:


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 25, 2013)

SKT1150 is a "mainstream" platform. It does feature a couple of enthusiast-grade unlocked CPUs, but fundamentally, it's not really intended for high-end users, as is evident by the onboard GPU these chips include, but few of us use. Fortunately, the level of performance offered is so great that even "enthusiast" needs are met by this mainstream-grade platform.

SKT2011 is faster, overall, and is the real enthusiast platform, but today's computational needs aren't really great enough to make use of the power offered.

For me, it comes down to the number of GPUs. 1 GPU... SKT1150. 2 GPUs...SKT1150...unless you have high-end GPUs like the 290 or 290X. 3 and 4 GPU users need to go for SKT2011 too.


----------



## Jetster (Nov 25, 2013)

They are two different animals


----------



## LiveOrDie (Nov 25, 2013)

15th Warlock said:


> It depends, X79 is the way to go if you want to use 3 video cards or more natively in your system, but Z87 has a few advantages like more native SATA 3 ports, and a higher IPC from Haswell procs, it'll supposedly support Broadwell also once it's released, whereas you could say X79 is EOL, Haswell E will use X89 and a different LGA socket due to the need for DDR4 support.
> 
> X79 though still has a few tricks up its sleeve:



X89 some one needs to do some home work its X99.




sebastian869 said:


> Im try to figure out should i get the i7-4770k or i7-4820k and there is a descent list of advantages to the 4820k. My question is the LGA2011 inferior to the 1150 or if not then is it possible that the chipsets are different and u can buy better mother boards for the 2011 than the 1150?
> 
> P.S. Which chipset would u guys recommend.
> 
> ...



I've had both i went from a 3930K to a 4770K and the 3930K is faster most likely because it has more cache, pins also the memory controller, But all depend what your using your system for the 2011 socket is overkill for 90% of the people who use it, If you plan on just playing games go for Z87 and haswell.


----------



## radrok (Nov 25, 2013)

Live OR Die said:


> I've had both i went from a 3930K to a 4770K and the 3930K is faster most likely because it has more cache, pins also the memory controller, But all depend what your using your system for the 2011 socket is overkill for 90% of the people who use it, If you plan on just playing games go for Z87 and haswell.



I don't know what you are thinking but the 3930k is not faster because it has more cache, it was likely faster because you were using more than four cores.

Look up at the difference between 3960x and 3930k, you can't even tell the difference when looking at benchmarks because cache does not make any difference.

Same rule applies for 4930k and 4960x.

The 4770k is faster than a 3930k when only 4 cores or less are being used, the 3930k trumps the 4770k when all of its threads are being used but that's not because of the cache difference.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Nov 25, 2013)

radrok said:


> I don't know what you are thinking but the 3930k is not faster because it has more cache, it was likely faster because you were using more than four cores.
> 
> Look up at the difference between 3960x and 3930k, you can't even tell the difference when looking at benchmarks because cache does not make any difference.
> 
> ...



No your wrong even disabling cores on a 3930k is still slower as i see the difference on daily use as i used the 3930k from when it was released and also tested them side by side, it mite be hard to understand but the extra pins are there for more than looks.


----------



## radrok (Nov 25, 2013)

How have you been getting to this conclusion? Which applications or benchmarks or personal experience made your 3930k feel faster than the 4770k?

The 4770k while having less cache it still has two generations of IPC bumps, small bumps but they are there and they do make quite a difference clock per clock.

Also cache shouldn't be an argument because even though the 4770k has less cache it's still faster than the 3930k's cache.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Nov 25, 2013)

I cant give you any hard proof only personal experience going from one system to another i have no reason to bag the 4770K as i own one and have no problem with it, But from experience the 3930K would load my programs and games faster using the same RAID setup and this mite not just come down to the CPU my also be the board as well, Just using my system for what i normally do i can see the 4770K falls behind in these few areas.


----------



## radrok (Nov 25, 2013)

Don't worry I don't need proof, I can tell you are being honest about it.

I would say there is some kind of problem related to your 4770k setup then, it shouldn't be slower or feel noticeably different than a 3930k setup, to be fair you shouldn't even be able to tell any difference!


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Nov 25, 2013)

It boils down to applications, and how much money you'd like to spend.

Assuming you run highly threaded applications (of which there are currently few outside of image processing and crunching), socket 2011 has potential.  If you're a gamer or internet surfer then socket 1150 is for you.  


2011:
+
Ability to go to 6 physical cores (12 logical threads)
8 slots of RAM possible
Higher overclocking potential due to soldered chip-lid
More Pci-e lanes
-
Problems with the x79 PCH (of which I've experienced many)
4 SATA II ports and 2 SATA III ports from the PCH
One generation behind the 1150 socket
EOL for this socket (SB-e and IB-e are all we get)


1150:
+
Integrated graphics core (a positive for debugging issues and transcoding media)
Better IMC, allowing for higher RAM overclocking
Lower general cost to ownership (though this may not always be the case)
Newer features (sleep states, integrated power management, etc....)
Potential for expansion (though not confirmed, it will likely support Broadwell)
-
TIM used to connect chip to lid, so much poorer overclocking potential
Less available RAM slots
Poorer ability to use multiple GPUs (though by no means no ability to crossfire/SLI)


If you're asking the question of "which is better," then the answer is likely 1150.  You're unlikely to utilize the extra potential of 2011, and definitely likely to regret the difference in cost.  While you can minimize the cost of the socket 2011, minimizing the cost means keeping that potential locked away.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Nov 25, 2013)

radrok said:


> Don't worry I don't need proof, I can tell you are being honest about it.
> 
> I would say there is some kind of problem related to your 4770k setup then, it shouldn't be slower or feel noticeably different than a 3930k setup, to be fair you shouldn't even be able to tell any difference!



The difference doesn't bother me much at all i just think some programs may like the extra memory bandwidth or so, The main thing that stands out to me is Photoshop on my 3930K i could open it up and use it right away when my 4770K has 2-3 second delay for some reason.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Nov 25, 2013)

*If *broadwell is 1150 compatible then  1150 for gaming / general pc usage.   Running a 3820 now (other rig)  planning on going  6 core ivy ...just because


----------



## 15th Warlock (Nov 25, 2013)

Live OR Die said:


> X89 some one needs to do some home work its X99.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for pointing that out, I made a typo  it's fixed; however, my point to the OP stands, as far as future architectural updates X79 is EOL.

As for LGA2011 bigger cache or memory bandwidth advantages over LGA1150, even though the former has twice as many memory channels as the latter, this rarely ever translate to much real advantage and unless you plan on running synthetic benchmarks or memory intensive applications you won't see any difference.

Having more cores will help in multithreaded programs but the OP said he wants a quad core CPU so he shouldn't any major differences between both platforms.

Certainly not in games.

That is of course unless, he doesn't plan using multiple cards as stated before 

As for differences in SATA performance, I own both platforms, and all things being equal, (using the same SSDs, SATA 3 in RAID 0, and a fresh OS installation) you shouldn't see any difference in performance, at least not perceptible during boot or loading times, I have to agree with what was suggested before and think that some other factor may have affcted your system...


----------



## The Von Matrices (Nov 25, 2013)

The OP made one post then disappeared.  I don't think he even cares about the discussion that followed.  Am I imagining things or are these types of 1-post accounts becoming more common?


----------



## TheHunter (Nov 25, 2013)

If you have no interest in Ib-e 6core then get 4770K, that 4820K acts the same as 3770k in raw core perf.. and this is at least 250-350mhz slower then 4770k clock for clock.

ps, Asus Z87-WS is a good mobo for 2-3SLI or xfire, has full 2x16 pcie3.0.




Cinebench15 Single threaded test

4770k @ 4.7Ghz, 2200mhz: 188points

4930k@5Ghz,2400mhz: 188points

I tested this and compared to one member over at guru3d.



Aida64 gpgpu - check cpu side

4770k@4.6ghz




3930k @ 4.5ghz


----------



## Vario (Nov 27, 2013)

I'd do X79 with a 4820k or better, quad channel memory and more pcie x16 lanes.  Dual channel CPU's don't like running a lot of dimms in my experience.  Probably won't notice any difference in speed at all except benchmarks.  Delidding sucks, never doing it again.  Such a hassle.  The CLU somehow dried up into white powder.  It also alloyed into some weird hard to remove crud with my H100's copper because I put it on both sides of the IHS.  Now my H100 warranty is voided because I'll have to lap it to get it smooth.  If you get a non-soldered cpu, don't even bother trying to overclock unless you are a binning master with lots of disposable income and a microcenter near by.  I've owned an i5 3570k and two 3770ks, all three suck at overclocking with really high stock vids.  Delidding helps but makes you paranoid any time you pick up the computer because the damn lid could somehow dislodge.

As far as supposed per clock improvements, my Sandy i5-2550k at 5.0 ghz is quite a bit faster than a lot of stock Haswell stuff in benchmarks.  3770k isn't much slower either.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Nov 27, 2013)

Delidding is easy to do you should of read up before putting it on the top side of the ihs, and theres no way the lid can come off when installed.


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Nov 28, 2013)

so.... only reason to go LGA 2011 right now is if you want to run 3 or more GPU's is that correct? other than that no point?

But.... I also thought.... with a 64 bit games started to come out now..... and more and more 64 bit applications.... can we then agreed that in the near future, 6 cores will be fully utilized... making it the 6 core or more CPU's will become more future proof?


----------



## The Von Matrices (Nov 28, 2013)

night.fox said:


> so.... only reason to go LGA 2011 right now is if you want to run 3 or more GPU's is that correct? other than that no point?



LGA2011 is _not a clear winner_ for the best gaming platform at the moment even with multiple GPUs.  Current games don't use more than 4 cores and current graphics cards aren't limited by the PCIe bandwidth of LGA1150.  The LGA1150 platform ties the LGA2011 platform in gaming performance but is $400-$500 less expensive.  This is an extremely helpful article on the impact of CPU performance and PCIe bandwidth on multi-GPU gaming.  If you really want the PCIe lanes for gaming get a LGA1150 board with a PLX bridge.  The reason to go for LGA2011 is if for compute applications - where you may need 6 cores, the memory capacity/bandwidth for those applications, or the PCIe lanes for specialty PCIe cards like hardware encoders and RAID controllers.  I am running 3 GPUs on a LGA1150 platform for this exact reason.



night.fox said:


> But.... I also thought.... with a 64 bit games started to come out now..... and more and more 64 bit applications.... can we then agreed that in the near future, 6 cores will be fully utilized... making it the 6 core or more CPU's will become more future proof?



Maybe; with the new game consoles having 6 usable cores (2 are reserved for the OS in the XBOX One) then it's a reasonable prediction.  At the moment CRYSIS 3 is the only PC game I know of to use more than 4 cores.  I wouldn't base a purchase on a prediction of the future.


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Nov 28, 2013)

The Von Matrices said:


> LGA2011 is _not a clear winner_ for the best gaming platform at the moment even with multiple GPUs.  Current games don't use more than 4 cores and current graphics cards aren't limited by the PCIe bandwidth of LGA1150.  The LGA1150 platform ties the LGA2011 platform in gaming performance but is $400-$500 less expensive.  This is an extremely helpful article on the impact of CPU performance and PCIe bandwidth on multi-GPU gaming.  If you really want the PCIe lanes for gaming get a LGA1150 board with a PLX bridge.  The reason to go for LGA2011 is if for compute applications - where you may need 6 cores, the memory capacity/bandwidth for those applications, or the PCIe lanes for specialty PCIe cards like hardware encoders and RAID controllers.  I am running 3 GPUs on a LGA1150 platform for this exact reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe; with the new game consoles having 6 usable cores (2 are reserved for the OS in the XBOX One) then it's a reasonable prediction.  At the moment CRYSIS 3 is the only PC game I know of to use more than 4 cores.  I wouldn't base a purchase on a prediction of the future.




Thanks for the answer VON... do you have any links with multi GPU cards thats uses PLX chips vs native x79..ive been trying to search for days now I cannot seem to find any regarding that.. only with reviewers saying add latency but no real wold benches I could find


----------



## The Von Matrices (Nov 28, 2013)

night.fox said:


> Thanks for the answer VON... do you have any links with multi GPU cards thats uses PLX chips vs native x79..ive been trying to search for days now I cannot seem to find any regarding that.. only with reviewers saying add latency but no real wold benches I could find



Are you referring to a single card with two GPUs that does not use a PLX bridge?  If so one does not exist.  If you want multiple GPUs without PCIe bridges then you need multiple single GPU cards.  That article I linked to does compare performance of multiple cards with and without PLX bridges on a ton of platforms including LGA1150 and LGA2011.


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Nov 28, 2013)

The Von Matrices said:


> Are you referring to a single card with two GPUs that does not use a PLX bridge?  If so one does not exist.  If you want multiple GPUs without PCIe bridges then you need multiple single GPU cards.  That article I linked to does compare performance of multiple cards with and without PLX bridges on a ton of platforms including LGA1150 and LGA2011.  It's




aha! very very very much... this is what I was looking for..

yes a multiple single GPU card...

I read more on the link you gave me.... im so happy finally found what I was looking for days now.. lol


----------



## Vario (Nov 28, 2013)

Live OR Die said:


> Delidding is easy to do you should of read up before putting it on the top side of the ihs, and theres no way the lid can come off when installed.


I move my computer around a lot.  The heavy weight of the cooler shifted it.  I have delidded 6 CPUs.  I started with $5 celeron cpu's from ebay.  Done it with hammer and with razor blade.  No big deal.  What sucks is the CLU dried up under the lid after it shifted and it also dried up and alloyed to the bare copper, ruining my $100 H100i's waterblock.  Fuck it.  Don't count on delidding to make it worthwhile.   Just buy the intel performance plan, exceed your limits, and get a new chip after the first one dies.


----------



## Enterprise24 (Dec 1, 2013)

3770K delidded is rock like 2600K.
4770K delidded is still hot when pass certain voltage  cause FIVR on die.

Broadwell-K will move FIVR back to motherboard so it may not compatible with 1150 socket.


----------



## Hood (Dec 2, 2013)

Vario said:


> I move my computer around a lot.  The heavy weight of the cooler shifted it.  I have delidded 6 CPUs.  I started with $5 celeron cpu's from ebay.  Done it with hammer and with razor blade.  No big deal.  What sucks is the CLU dried up under the lid after it shifted and it also dried up and alloyed to the bare copper, ruining my $100 H100i's waterblock.  Fuck it.  Don't count on delidding to make it worthwhile.   Just buy the intel performance plan, exceed your limits, and get a new chip after the first one dies.


I thought you were using an H100i, so what "heavy weight of the cooler" are you referring to?  The pump/waterblock isn't heavy and should be tight enough to stay put.  If you're talking about an air cooler you used in the past, why would you even run an air cooler on a delidded chip?  The idea is to get the lowest possible temps, and you might start with an air cooler, then go for water cooling, then delid the CPU to replace the TIM, and lastly, scrap the lid and run it naked with a modified water block mount for the best possible cooling.  To run an air cooler on a delidded chip is skipping the most important step, the water cooling, and as you noted, large air coolers shift around a bit when moving or working inside the case, so it's no wonder the CLU dried out.


----------



## BiggieShady (Feb 9, 2014)

Oldgeek said:


> I found this forum in a Google search because of a build I am considering. I have always wanted an ATX mini-tower super computer for the kind of semi-portable setup that is a little more serious than you would use a laptop for. I want to use the Coolermaster Elite 343 (USB 3.0), with the best Asus mobo and i7. I haven't built a machine for 5 or 6 years (no $), but it's always an itch. My two previous builds were 939s. Both Coolermaster and Asus. My own personal build was an A8N-SLI 32 Deluxe, with an Opteron 165, and the other was an A8N-E with a 3200 (now the family computer).
> 
> So for the mini-tower, I was thinking of the Asus Sabertooth Z87 with an i7 quad and 32gb of Corsair RAM, but I kept looking around and saw the 2011 socket, and found the X79, so my choices became more complicated.
> 
> ...



Very elaborate and completely misplaced first post. 
I suggest creating a new thread with same opening post + information about how much you are willing to spend.


----------



## typicalintrovert (Feb 9, 2014)

short answer: yes

long answer: yesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

only bad thing about 2011 is necessity for quad channel ram, and only a select few motherboards are good enough to really consider buying and they are all over 400 dollars. but if you can hack the investment, its better than 1150. but if you are on a budget, go with 1150 as the quality boards start around $250


----------



## Oldgeek (Feb 9, 2014)

BiggieShady said:


> Very elaborate and completely misplaced first post.
> I suggest creating a new thread with same opening post + information about how much you are willing to spend.


I figured I was just continuing the conversation of 1150 vs. 2011, but okay....

I deleted the post. It is now in the New Build forum.


----------

