# 4790k worth it?



## Horemheb (Apr 5, 2017)

As the title states I have been looking at a 4790k for my current system. I figure its the cheapest upgrade path. If I were to get it for around 200$-250$ would it make sense? If I upgrade to a newer cpu I will have to get a new motherboard and ram. I am trying to get a little more horsepower till I do a complete system rebuild.


Everyone has been very helpful in the past so I look forward to your suggestions.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Apr 5, 2017)

If your system specs are current,I would personally save my money for an actual upgrade. Meaning a full upgrade. That 200+ dollars could be used towards a newer generation chip, you wont see much jump in perf from 4 xtra threads unless your doing lots of rendering, or other thread heavy tasks,& even then it wont be worth the $ imo

And if all you really do his game on your PC you definitely don't want to waste the money on an i7


----------



## b214cm (Apr 5, 2017)

The 4790k is a great cpu. With your current system specs it would be a great upgrade. You will definitely see an increase in performance.


----------



## biffzinker (Apr 5, 2017)

I vote save the money for a Ryzen R5 1600X/1600 over haul when the wrinkles are ironed out.


----------



## evernessince (Apr 5, 2017)

For that kind of money you can get a Ryzen CPU brand new.  You'll save money on a CPU cooler as well and you'll have a warranty.


----------



## alucasa (Apr 5, 2017)

Not worth upgrading to anything. Your rig is fine.


----------



## Horemheb (Apr 5, 2017)

My system specs are current. I do see where everyone is going with their responses. I have been looking at lower core Ryzen chips. I am only thinking about upgrading my CPU because I spur of the moment bought a 1080ti. Now I am thinking "OMG MORE POWER!" I should have upgraded my system and then bought the new gpu.

Thank you for the responses so far.


Edit because I forgot to mention I do have it OC to 4.2ghz and it runs flawlessly. I can get it to run at 4.6ghz with no problem but my cooler can't keep up at that speed.


----------



## Kursah (Apr 5, 2017)

Love my 4790K's, but if your CPU is fine now...then stick with it or OC further, or OC if you haven't. Unless you do a lot of multitasking, heavily threaded tasks, games or workloads...odds are you won't see much that you wouldn't see by overclocking to 4.4GHz.

That said the extra threads are nice and that platform is solid still. If you have the upgrade itch that certainly isn't a bad decision IMHO. But if your current performance is acceptable for your needs then you're probably fine to stick with what ya got.


----------



## Sasqui (Apr 5, 2017)

My 2nd home rig is a 4790k / Z97 ...amazing chip, best I've ever owned and wow for overclocking on that platform, such a no brainer for high OCing...  That said, my main rig is a 3570k, and I don't notice that much diff in gaming, both have 290x's.


----------



## evernessince (Apr 5, 2017)

If you can wait might as well see what Intel and AMD bring to the table next year.  You should be fine enough with what you have now.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 5, 2017)

Because you have a 1080 Ti, I absolutely say "yes". A friend of mine did the same (had a i5 4670K and switched to i7 4790k), not only is HT of help (up to 30% more performance from the same 4 cores), but he also got increased overclocks, from 4.1 to 4.6 GHz by doing the upgrade (if you're not overclocking, you get 400 MHz more, 3.6 GHz -> 4 GHz, turbo excluded). The reason he did it was because he had not enough ressources to drive a 980 Ti in 1440p in CPU heavy games like BF1, with minimum background applications. In your case with a 1080 Ti, I would say, it's a absolute "must" to do it, because the i5 is in no way strong enough to feed that GPU + a CPU heavy game at the same time. 250 bucks minus 150 bucks (or more) you get for the i5 are only 100 bucks or less actually invested and absolutely worth the price, if you sell the i5. The 4790K (maybe with OC), would be good for another 2 years I'd say.


----------



## evernessince (Apr 5, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Because you have a 1080 Ti, I absolutely say "yes". A friend of mine did the same (had a i5 4670K and switched to i7 4790k), not only is HT of help (up to 30% more performance from the same 4 cores), but he also got increased overclocks, from 4.1 to 4.6 GHz by doing the upgrade (if you're not overclocking, you get 400 MHz more, 3.6 GHz -> 4 GHz, turbo excluded). The reason he did it was because he had not enough ressources to drive a 980 Ti in 1440p in CPU heavy games like BF1, with minimum background applications. In your case with a 1080 Ti, I would say, it's a absolute "must" to do it, because the i5 is in no way strong enough to feed that GPU + a CPU heavy game at the same time. 250 bucks minus 150 bucks (or more) you get for the i5 are only 100 bucks or less actually invested and absolutely worth the price, if you sell the i5. The 4790K (maybe with OC), would be good for another 2 years I'd say.



Lol, if you're going to recommend him a CPU and then say it's only going to last 2 years, it isn't a good recommendation.  

With Ryzen around it doesn't make sense to drop money on older, more expensive parts that don't come with a warranty, decent IHS solder, or decent CPU cooler.  Not to mention the lack of an upgrade path (Ryzen won't require you to buy a new mobo every time you want a better CPU) and newer features like M.2 and USB Type C and 3.1.  Ryzen's IPC is a bit above the Intel 4000 series and the 2 extra cores on the R5 will help immensely in CPU intensive games now and in the future, feeding more hungry GPUs.

OC is going to be based on silicon lottery and you are going to have to buy an aftermarket cooler with any Intel CPU if you want to OC..  The 4790k still has the crummy paste under the IHS as well.


----------



## Hood (Apr 5, 2017)

Horemheb said:


> My system specs are current. I do see where everyone is going with their responses. I have been looking at lower core Ryzen chips. I am only thinking about upgrading my CPU because I spur of the moment bought a 1080ti. Now I am thinking "OMG MORE POWER!" I should have upgraded my system and then bought the new gpu.
> 
> Thank you for the responses so far.
> 
> Edit because I forgot to mention I do have it OC to 4.2ghz and it runs flawlessly. I can get it to run at 4.6ghz with no problem but my cooler can't keep up at that speed.



I have a 4790k@4.6 (with H110 cooler), 16GB DDR3-2400, GTX 780 Ti, 1440p/60Hz and it runs very fast.  I was impressed with the Devil's Canyon i7, the first to reach 4 GHz base clock, but the headroom is not that good (4.4 turbo clock, and mine was never stable past 4.6 on all cores, 1.32v)  Like the Ryzen 1800x, it's factory clock is near the limit, which is fine, but no fun for playing with overclocking.  Your i5 can probably go a bit higher, maybe 4.7, if you use a 240 or 280mm water cooler ($100).  That's what I would do first, because you need better cooling to get the most out of any high end CPU.  That will get you a performance increase without costing so much, and the water cooler can be used on future upgrades.  But I also agree with others who suggested waiting and saving for a complete new system if you're mostly satisfied with the way your present one runs now.  At least the cooling upgrade would give you something to play with, if you enjoy finding your highest overclock (or highest stable OC).  I also have the upgrade itch, even though I don't need a better system (I just enjoy building/tweaking new hardware).


----------



## biffzinker (Apr 5, 2017)

Hood said:


> (I just enjoy building/tweaking new hardware).


Same here, but it's getting difficult to resist the temptation for a AMD R7 1700 overhaul from the current 4790K build.


----------



## Frick (Apr 5, 2017)

biffzinker said:


> Same here, but it's getting difficult to resist the temptation for a AMD R7 1700 overhaul from the current 4790K build.



I'm actaully betting on many people feeling this way so I can get a decent i3/i5 on the cheap.


----------



## biffzinker (Apr 5, 2017)

Frick said:


> I'm actaully betting on many people feeling this way so I can get a decent i3/i5 on the cheap.


Sorry, but your not getting my i7-4790K. 

Last Intel CPU was a Pentium 4 (Northwood) before this 4790K.


----------



## Toothless (Apr 5, 2017)

Unless you're going to use the extra threads, no. While it's a cheaper upgrade path it'll only be good for processing power.


----------



## Komshija (Apr 5, 2017)

If your main purpose is gaming and some occasional photo/video editing, than absolutely no. It would be a total waste of money. In other words, unless you are editing photos/videos for living, I would suggest saving money from something else.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Apr 5, 2017)

@Horemheb
if this helps You at all, ill share a similar situation w/ You that i was in.

I was running a 4690k oc'd like yours is, and had the "itch" , so i ordered a Xeon (basically the same 4 core 4 thread cpu as the i7 your considering), and i put my i5 in my daughters PC. I work/game (very little) watch videos, have recorded a game or two, and casually browse. I saw absolutely Zero difference in ALL scenarios. not 10%, not 25%, not even 2%, NONE(xeons don't oc like an i7 however, but still). *its like buying a pair of sunglasses in a way. If your going to be in the sun, then yes, you'll likely want them, and use them, but if your NOT going to be in the sun, well there isnt really any need for it*. You need to decide whether your usage will justify the cost, for the "scenario based performance increase". which is exactly what kind of performance increase  it would be, a scenario reliant  increase.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 5, 2017)

evernessince said:


> Lol, if you're going to recommend him a CPU and then say it's only going to last 2 years, it isn't a good recommendation.


Ryzen would cost him a entire new system and not only 100 bucks.  Stupid comparison you made here. And that 2 years I was talking of was a "minimum" baseline and just a guess btw, no one could know for sure, but 2 years is a good minimum guess I'd say.


> With Ryzen around it doesn't make sense to drop money on older, more expensive parts that don't come with a warranty, decent IHS solder, or decent CPU cooler.


Since when is a used 4790K more expensive? It is not. I don't think you understand the OP, he could simply replace the i5 with the i7 4790K *on the same mainboard/system. *Ridiculous being quoted by people and laughed at who didn't even understand the main post. And who needs warranty on a CPU? Nobody, it will work, else he can give it back. And if it works, it will never be defective, because it's a frickin CPU. Please go and troll somewhere else, Ryzen fanboy.


> Not to mention the lack of an upgrade path (Ryzen won't require you to buy a new mobo every time you want a better CPU) and newer features like M.2 and USB Type C and 3.1.  Ryzen's IPC is a bit above the Intel 4000 series and the 2 extra cores on the R5 will help immensely in CPU intensive games now and in the future, feeding more hungry GPUs.


Irrelevant, because again he wouldn't need a new CPU for another 2 years+ and would only spend about 100 bucks if he sells the i5.


> OC is going to be based on silicon lottery and you are going to have to buy an aftermarket cooler with any Intel CPU if you want to OC..  The 4790k still has the crummy paste under the IHS as well.


Bullshit, the 4790K is well overclockable to at least 4.4 GHz minimum with the stock cooler, and a aftermarket coolers are just a few bucks (212 Evo or so), if he wants to do higher OC.

That AMD fanboy is going nuts here. Quote someone else next time, I'm gonna counter your bs every time.

----

@Horemheb  i7 4790K is a good bet if you want to save money/not buy a entire new system. What I told you about my friend is 100% true, he had a nice increase in FPS after switching to the 4790K from the i5 4670K @ 4.1 GHz OC at heavy tasking games, and that is with a overclocked 980 Ti, so the 1080 Ti would profit even more. For such a GPU, a high clocked i7 is a must (4790K being one of the options), a 6 or 8 core i7 the optimum.

"Ryzen Ryzen Ryzen", first let the platform mature and have decent support in games, then we can talk about it again. At the time it's just slower than Intel's stuffs. Normally I'm always in to defend Ryzen, but not for someone who is strictly gaming, I would only recommend Ryzen for workstation and/or streaming while gaming usage, not for pure gaming, because it's simply not up to the game there, atm.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 5, 2017)

Horemheb said:


> Edit because I forgot to mention I do have it OC to 4.2ghz and it runs flawlessly. I can get it to run at 4.6ghz with no problem but my cooler can't keep up at that speed.



Then spend a lot less than $200, and get a better cooler.  In gaming, you will notice pretty much no difference in performance between the 4670K and the 4790K.



Kanan said:


> Bullshit, the 4790K is well overclockable to at least 4.4 GHz minimum with the stock cooler, and a aftermarket coolers are just a few bucks (212 Evo or so), if he wants to do higher OC.



Considering mine wouldn't even maintain the stock 4.2GHz turbo speed with the stock cooler, I'm saying 4.4GHz with the stock cooler is the actual bull.


----------



## biffzinker (Apr 5, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Bullshit, the 4790K is well overclockable to at least to 4.4 GHz minimum with the stock cooler, and a aftermarket coolers are just a few bucks (212 Evo or so)


I wasn't able to get mine to play along at 4.4 GHz with an aftermarket cooler without the core temps going nuts until I popped the heatspreader. I even tried it with the stock cooler for kicks at the time at default clocks, and nope wasn't happening nvm 4.4 GHz. No unrealistic stress testing either aka Prime 95.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 5, 2017)

biffzinker said:


> I wasn't able to get mine to play along at 4.4 GHz with an aftermarket cooler without the core temps going nuts until I popped the heatspreader. I even tried it with the stock cooler for kicks at the time at default clocks, and nope wasn't happening nvm 4.4 GHz. No unrealistic stress testing either aka Prime 95.


The 4790K is supposed to do a minimum of 4.4GHz because it's own turbo stock can do it, when less than 4 cores are used. I'd say you had bad luck. I'm not gonna change my opinion because of singular users that had bad luck. I saw countless users running it on 4.4 GHz or greater, I think the average overclocks are about 4.4-4.5 GHz.

And people who are saying i5 4670K = i7 4790K in performance with a highend GPU of 980 Ti or greater, are just wrong btw. the i7 4790K has a higher clock and HT, that sets it easily apart from the i5 4670K. It's a fact and I have proof for that aswell.



newtekie1 said:


> Considering mine wouldn't even maintain the stock 4.2GHz boost speed with the stock cooler, I'm saying 4.4GHz with the stock cooler is the actual bull.


Pretty irrelevant, because a aftermarket cooler like 212 Evo isn't expensive and would easily allow some overclocking. And doesn't change a thing about the other things I stated, and you are disregarding. Money, price/performance wise, the 4790K is his best bet atm, not a entire new system. Overclocking is just a bonus, the i7 4790K will be easily faster than the i5 4670K without it too. 

Anyway, not important. He can simply buy the i7 4790K and not overclock it, even then it's easily faster than the i5 4670K (400 MHz higher clock + Hyper Threading that is worth another up to *20%* performance in games).


----------



## biffzinker (Apr 5, 2017)

Kanan said:


> The 4790K is supposed to do a minimum of 4.4GHz because it's own turbo stock can do it, when less than 4 cores are used. I'd say you had bad luck. I'm not gonna change my opinion because of singular users that had bad luck.
> 
> And people who are saying i5 4670K = i7 4790K in performance with a highend GPU of 980 Ti or greater, are just wrong btw. the i7 4790K has a higher clock and HT, that sets it easily apart from the i5 4670K. It's a fact and I have proof for that aswell.


My bad, I forgot I was trying for 4.4 GHz over all cores with the third party cooler - CoolerMaster 212+.



Kanan said:


> the i7 4790K has a higher clock and HT


Plus the extra 2 MB of L3 cache.


----------



## peche (Apr 5, 2017)

@Horemheb why not adding a Closed water AIO to your system, enjoy better temps and also try better clocks when OC'ng, the 4790K its a beast, great chip, also if you upgrade may notice a boost (have seen people going from i3's to i7's and noticing 0.00% performance boost, but not all people give the same attention to the same details... results may vary according the user...) also in several things i7's are quite great, for example unlocked i7 resale prices... 



Regards,


----------



## biffzinker (Apr 5, 2017)

Kanan said:


> At the time it's just slower than Intel's stuffs. Normally I'm always in to defend Ryzen, but not for someone who is strictly gaming, I would only recommend Ryzen for workstation and/or streaming while gaming usage, not for pure gaming, because it's simply not up to the game there, atm.


Not sure about that it has Haswell-Broadwell IPC for single thread performance, and it only loses to Intel in games on maxium FPS, minimum FPS it always seems to be ahead of Intel to me. Was never implied that moving to the 4790K was a bad idea just seems late to even bother with dropping any money on another Haswell CPU.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 5, 2017)

Kanan said:


> The 4790K is supposed to do a minimum of 4.4GHz because it's own turbo stock can do it, when less than 4 cores are used. I'd say you had bad luck. I'm not gonna change my opinion because of singular users that had bad luck. I saw countless users running it on 4.4 GHz or greater, I think the average overclocks are about 4.4-4.5 GHz.



It will only turbo to those clocks when 1 or 2 cores are loaded.  It will only turbo to 4.2GHz with 4 cores, and it won't maintain those clocks for a significant period of time with the stock cooler.

There are plenty of people with 4.4-4.5GHz overclocks, but not with the stock cooler.  I can guarantee it.



Kanan said:


> And people who are saying i5 4670K = i7 4790K in performance with a highend GPU of 980 Ti or greater, are just wrong btw. the i7 4790K has a higher clock and HT, that sets it easily apart from the i5 4670K. It's a fact and I have proof for that aswell.



If he is running the stock 4670K speeds, sure.  But if that was the case(it isn't, try reading), then the simplest solution would be to overclock the 4670K.  Most of them will easily hit 4.4GHz with a decent aftermarket cooler.  And at that point, there will no noticeable difference in games by upgrading to a 4790K.

Even with a high end graphics card, there will be no difference, unless you aren't stressing the graphics card.  In which case, why even bother having the high end graphics card?  And by the time you do drop the resolution and settings to the point the CPU is making a difference, you're getting framerates so high, you won't ever notice the difference.  You'll be able to measure the difference, sure, but you won't be able to notice it while actually playing games.



Kanan said:


> You're just one guy with 1 CPU not 100 or 1000 or 10000 or even more, I'd say your data is 99% irrelevant. Early adopter bad luck or general bad luck, that is.



I've built and overclocked several 4790K systems. However, I get the impression that you've never even owned one yourself.  It will throttle down to 4.0GHz when fully loaded, or even when just playing games, for extended periods of time with the stock cooler.  There is absolutely no overclocking headroom with the stock cooler that ships with the 4970K.  In fact, I'd say it is underpowered even for stock operation due to the fact that it will get heat saturated very quickly and limit the clocks to 4.0GHz.  You're claim that you can overclock to 4.4GHz with the included stock cooler is just plain wrong.



Kanan said:


> Anyway, not important. He can simply buy the i7 4790K and not overclock it, even then it's easily faster than the i5 4670K (400 MHz higher clock + Hyper Threading that is worth another up to *20%* performance).



Since his 4670K can overclock to 4.6GHz, nothing you just said applies.  The clock speed advantage the 4790K has goes completely away.  So now we are just left with HT and a slightly bigger cache. The cache only really helps with HT, as it is cache intensive.  And HT is not worth anywhere near 20% in games.  It isn't worth really anything in games actually.

So, given everything we know.  That his 4670K does 4.6GHz already and his cooler is all that is holding him back.  I think we need to move on from comparing the stock 4670K to a 4790K and just accept that all he really needs is a better CPU cooler.  This is really the best option.  The cooler can be re-used with a new system when he finally does want to upgrade.  And upgrading to a 4790K from an overclocked 4.6GHz 4670K would give him no noticeable performance improvement.  These are the facts.


----------



## erocker (Apr 5, 2017)

newtekie1 said:


> It will only turbo to those clocks when 1 or 2 cores are loaded. It will only turbo to 4.2GHz with 4 cores, and it won't maintain those clocks for a significant period of time with the stock cooler.
> 
> There are plenty of people with 4.4-4.5GHz overclocks, but not with the stock cooler. I can guarantee it.


Agreed. I don't see the point in going from a 4 core 4 thread to a 4 core 8 thread CPU that really won't do anything for things like gaming. Stock cooler will run the chip stock and that's about it.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 5, 2017)

biffzinker said:


> Not sure about that it has Haswell-Broadwell IPC for single thread performance, and it only loses to Intel in games on maxium FPS, minimum FPS it always seems to be ahead of Intel to me. Was never implied that moving to the 4790K was a bad idea just seems late to even bother with dropping any money on another Haswell CPU.


Ryzen loses on Average FPS and in every other metric as well, but it depends which games you mean too. If you're strictly talking CPU heavy games Ryzen has better 1% low and 0.1% low FPS, perhaps (not 100% sure on this, and reviewers tell different things as well). In most reviews I saw Ryzen wasn't winning against Intel's stuff. But again I don't think Ryzen is really important here, if he wants to save money, Ryzen is no option. And if he's a pure gamer, Intel's stuffs (7700K, 5820K/6800K etc) is still faster. Again, I'd only recommend Ryzen atm for workstation and streamers, because streamers get a lot of threads for low money, something Intel can't offer for the same price (5820K or 6800K cost more and also offer 2 less cores which are important when doing workstation or streaming stuff).



newtekie1 said:


> It will only turbo to those clocks when 1 or 2 cores are loaded.  It will only turbo to 4.2GHz with 4 cores, and it won't maintain those clocks for a significant period of time with the stock cooler.
> 
> There are plenty of people with 4.4-4.5GHz overclocks, but not with the stock cooler.  I can guarantee it.


How many times are you gonna repeat this? And where in that quote did I even say this? Also please don't bore me off with basic informations that I know anyway.



> If he is running the stock 4670K speeds, sure.  But if that was the case(it isn't, try reading), then the simplest solution would be to overclock the 4670K.  Most of them will easily hit 4.4GHz with a decent aftermarket cooler.  And at that point, there will no noticeable difference in games by upgrading to a 4790K.


Bull. The 4670K is first gen Haswell it has a lot of problems when overclocking, my friends 4670K only did 4.1 GHz. With a lot of effort and temperature problems (because of the bad TIM) 4.2 GHz. "Easily 4.4 GHz" is a absolutely wrong statement. *4690K *(not 4670K) would maybe do that, but not "easily" aswell. Even then, the i7 4790K is a decent upgrade, it's faster because of way faster Cache and +2 MB L3 cache and Hyper Threading. I don't think you understand the difference between the i5 4670K and i7 4790K really well, by your statements that are still pretty wrong.  [This is a general statement and has nothing to do with the OPs i5, I saw later that he has OC at 4.6 GHz running which is pure luck from what I know of first gen Haswell]



> Even with a high end graphics card, there will be no difference, unless you aren't stressing the graphics card.  In which case, why even bother having the high end graphics card?  And by the time you do drop the resolution and settings to the point the CPU is making a difference, you're getting framerates so high, you won't ever notice the difference.  You'll be able to measure the difference, sure, but you won't be able to notice it while actually playing games.


Bull. Again, I have a friend who saw a great increase in FPS in BF1 and other heavy games, using highest settings with a 980 Ti. I can ask him for evidence and proof later, if you want. He has a lot of knowledge about these stuffs and made the move and wasn't disappointed, you're not making any sense here, saying i5 and i7 are the same. They are not. You can discuss it to death if you want, but you already lost this point, because your statement is totally wrong.



> I've built and overclocked several 4790K systems. However, I get the impression that you've never even owned one yourself.  It will throttle down to 4.0GHz when fully loaded, or even when just playing games, for extended periods of time with the stock cooler.  There is absolutely no overclocking headroom with the stock cooler that ships with the 4970K.  In fact, I'd say it is underpowered even for stock operation due to the fact that it will get heat saturated very quickly and limit the clocks to 4.0GHz.  You're claim that you can overclock to 4.4GHz with the included stock cooler is just plain wrong.


Are you so bored that you need to say the same thing over and over and over again? zzzZzzzzZz That wall of text, for nothing.



> Since his 4670K can overclock to 4.6GHz, nothing you just said applies.  The clock speed advantage the 4790K has goes completely away.  So now we are just left with HT and a slightly bigger cache. The cache only really helps with HT, as it is cache intensive.  And HT is not worth anywhere near 20% in games.  It isn't worth really anything in games actually.


HT, "slightly" bigger cache and way faster Cache too. Seems you own a lot of CPUs but are still not as good informed on them as I am. HT is worth a lot in games that would use it, BF1 for example. That statement you made is completely wrong. Actually i7s are now the best choice for highend gamers, because i5s aren't really fast enough anymore (background tasks + (heavy) gaming). I would even go as far as to only recommend 6 core i7s to highend gamers, because it's even faster (at least when OC) and has better future capabilities aswell.



> So, given everything we know.  That his 4670K does 4.6GHz already and his cooler is all that is holding him back.  I think we need to move on from comparing the stock 4670K to a 4790K and just accept that all he really needs is a better CPU cooler.  This is really the best option.  The cooler can be re-used with a new system when he finally does want to upgrade.  And upgrading to a 4790K from an overclocked 4.6GHz 4670K would give him no noticeable performance improvement.  These are the facts.


These are your wrong "facts" from your dream world, yes. I already explained that i7 4790K has more and faster cache and hyper threading is worth up to 20% more perf for games. So IF he is able to get the 4790K for about 250 bucks and sell off the i5 4670K for about 150 bucks or more, he can get a nice bump in speed without spending 500 bucks for a new system.


----------



## Ascalaphus (Apr 5, 2017)

Don't. the 4790K is still a beast of a GAMING cpu. I stress the GAMING part because like others have said in this thread if all you are doing is gaming it would be a huge waste of money to get something else.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 5, 2017)

newtekie1 said:


> WTF are you talking about?  Repeat this?  I said it once.  I'm not even going to bother responding anymore.  You're wrong, you're statements go against what several others have said.


Are you still going to kindergarten or what? You can't leave a discussion, essentially giving up and then say I'm wrong. I have facts, I know YOU are wrong, 100%. So wouldn't give a fuck anymore. I don't need to convince you. 

To OP: Good luck with so much distraction here. Don't waste your money. And don't go for Ryzen (7 1700 or higher) unless you're a workstation / streamer guy.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 5, 2017)

Kanan said:


> How many times are you gonna repeat this? And where in that quote did I even say this? Also please don't bore me off with basic informations that I know anyway.



WTF are you talking about?  Repeat this?  I said it once.  I'm not even going to bother responding anymore.  You're wrong, you're statements go against what several others have said.



Kanan said:


> Bull. The 4670K is first gen Haswell it has a lot of problems when overclocking, my friends 4670K only did 4.1 GHz. With a lot of effort and temperature problems (because of the bad TIM) 4.2 GHz. "Easily 4.4 GHz" is a absolutely wrong statement. *4690K *(not 4670K) would maybe do that, but not "easily" aswell. Even then, the i7 4790K is a decent upgrade, it's faster because of way faster Cache and +2 MB L3 cache and Hyper Threading. I don't think you understand the difference between the i5 4670K and i7 4790K really well, by your statements that are still pretty wrong. [This is a general statement and has nothing to do with the OPs i5, I saw later that he has OC at 4.6 GHz running which is pure luck from what I know of first gen Haswell]



The TIM is not that much better than the 4670K.  And the 4670K can easily hit 4.4GHz with a decent cooler.  Hell, the OP has his at 4.2GHz with a crappy 212+...

Also, you give me shit because I said my 4790K wouldn't do 4.4GHz with the stock cooler, and I'm just one person so my statement doesn't matter.  But now you're using "your friends" case to prove your statements.  Give me a break.  You're full of it.



Kanan said:


> Bull. Again, I have a friend who saw a great increase in FPS in BF1 and other heavy games, using highest settings with a 980 Ti. I can ask him for evidence and proof later, if you want. He has a lot of knowledge about these stuffs and made the move and wasn't disappointed, you're not making any sense here, saying i5 and i7 are the same. They are not. You can discuss it to death if you want, but you already lost this point, because your statement is totally wrong.



Ok, prove it.  And I don't want "your friends" one single game difference.  I want some review sites showing major differences at at least 1440p with max settings in games.



Kanan said:


> Are you so bored that you need to say the same thing over and over and over again? zzzZzzzzZz That wall of text, for nothing.



What are you on?



Kanan said:


> HT, "slightly" bigger cache and *way faster Cache* too.



WTF are you basing that on?  The cache defaults to a 1:1 with the base clock speed.  So that's 3.4GHz vs 4.0GHz.  That isn't exactly "way faster".  That's, what, like 15% faster clock speed.  And again, kind of moot if the OP is already overclocking his processor.  Which means he can easily change the cache ratio to run the 4670K's cache at 4.0GHz.  And before you say anything, yes it will easily do that.  I've done it with my 4670K when I had one.

When are you going to stop repeating stock useless garbage?  The OP is overclocking his processor.  All your arguments against a stock 4670K don't apply.



Kanan said:


> These are your wrong "facts" from your dream world, yes. I already explained that i7 4790K has more and faster cache and hyper threading is worth up to 20% more perf for games. So IF he is able to get the 4790K for about 250 bucks and sell off the i5 4670K for about 150 bucks or more, he can get a nice bump in speed without spending 500 bucks for a new system.



Show me 5 games where Hyperthreading makes a noticeable difference.  I bet you can't.  I bet you can't even show me even 2 games where HT gives even close to 20% performance boost.  I'm talking actually show me.  Not just make random statements.  Show me respected review sites, showing HT giving 20% performance improvements in games.

I'm done with you.  You make wrong statements, and then just throw insults when people call you on them.  You aren't worth my time.  Go ahead and respond with more BS.  I won't.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 6, 2017)

newtekie1 said:


> WTF are you talking about?  Repeat this?  I said it once.  I'm not even going to bother responding anymore.  You're wrong, you're statements go against what several others have said.


Yeah you're not bothering, but still you bother to continue? That's kinda crazy. oO



> The TIM is not that much better than the 4670K.  And the 4670K can easily hit 4.4GHz with a decent cooler.  Hell, the OP has his at 4.2GHz with a crappy 212+...


The TIM is a lot better, also explaining why the 4690K and 4790K are so much better at both stock clocks and overclocking vs. the 1st gen Haswells (4670k + 4770K). Did you actually read Anandtechs reviews or anything else about it? Yeah doesn't seem like it. 



> Also, you give me shit because I said my 4790K wouldn't do 4.4GHz with the stock cooler, and I'm just one person so my statement doesn't matter.  But now you're using "your friends" case to prove your statements.  Give me a break.  You're full of it.


I'm using "my friends case" since my first post, that was way before we started our argument here. Wow.... you're also full of shit yourself. Thanks I give that back. 



> Ok, prove it.  And I don't want "your friends" one single game difference.  I want some review sites showing major differences at at least 1440p with max settings in games.


Yeah I will ask him for more than just one game. I will ask him for his Aida screenshots with way higher Cache speeds as well. Everything. No problem. Funny that you need evidence for things everyone knows who has a actual real clue about i5 + i7 of the consumer Intel platforms. Just a small hint: i7 cache has more cache connections than i5 (easy to see in CPU-Z) that's why it's faster. But yeah, keep on dreaming about being better informed than me. 



> What are you on?


What's your problem?



> WTF are you basing that on?  The cache defaults to a 1:1 with the base clock speed.  So that 3.4GHz vs 4.0GHz.  That isn't exactly "way faster".  That's, what, like 15% faster clock speed.  And again, kind of moot if the OP is already overclocking his processor.  Which means he can easily change the cache ratio to run the 4670K's cache at 4.0GHz.  And before you say anything, yes it will easily do that.  I've done it with my 4670K when I had one.


Yeah just because two 4670K owners had luck with their CPUs proofs nothing, again, sorry. My friends and a lot of other i5s in mass threads where everyone posted at release, where clearly showing the i5 4670K has issues with overclocking, the i7 4770K aswell, essentially all of 1st gen Haswell because of bad TIM that got later fixed with Devil's Canyon. Everyone knows that. Everyone but you? 



> When are you going to stop repeating stock useless garbage?  The OP is overclocking his processor.  All your arguments against a stock 4670K don't apply.


Huh? I was already having a overclocked i5 4670K in mind when I was writing my stuff. At least try to understand the other person when you're having a discussion, your behaviour isn't exactly nice or of any help if you continue like this. 



> Show me 5 games where Hyperthreading makes a difference.  I bet you can't.  I bet you can't even show me 2 games where HT gives even close to 20% performance boost.  I'm talking actually show me.  Not just make random statements.  Show me respected review sites, showing HT giving 20% performance improvements in games.


For now I'm gonna ask you the same: please give me proof that HT did NOT help, because that is exactly what you said. I don't need to defend myself because my statements made a lot of fucking sense compared to yours. You seriously say *HT is of no worth in current games that use well over 4 threads and up to 16*, what a laughable statement that makes no f* sense. So again, YOU need to provide that proof. I will only provide the proof I promised from my friends, that will be easily enough.

btw. why is TPU using a i7 since many years to bench the games @ Ultra in 1080p and higher? Why waste the money, if the i5 is absolutely on the same speed level?  Yes, because it isn't. i7 is way better for gaming. Even my own 6 core 3960X had usage of 100% at *TWELVE threads* in BF1 at times, at 4.5 GHz. And you still think HT is of no use when using a quad core?  I'm laughing on multiple levels right now, because you're so obviously obviously wrong and always pretend to know everything, yet you didn't catch that i7's are better than i5's since *at least 1-2 years in gaming @ high end PCs.* More like 3 or 4 years I'd say.


----------



## biffzinker (Apr 6, 2017)

Well there is this: Gaming benchmarks: Core i7 6700K hyperthreading test, problem with the benchmarks is the extra 2 MB of L3 cache is likely influencing the results.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 6, 2017)

biffzinker said:


> Well there is this: Gaming benchmarks: Core i7 6700K hyperthreading test, problem with the benchmarks is the extra 2 MB of L3 cache is likely influencing the results.


Too many old games, and no background applications running (99% sure). The reason why I say, Hyper Threading is of help, is because of background applications aswell, not only the game itself. In a realistic scenario the CPU with HT is better, because it has more ressources that it can use for the many background applications that are running today on a average gaming PC.

My friend said the same, when he switched to the i7 4790K. Essentially he had decreased FPS in BF1 because the i5 couldn't handle everything at once, but the i7 can. That is, he isn't even using "Ultra", he uses Ultra with  a few things like post AA deactivated, and still, the CPU couldn't handle it, but the i7 can (1440p). And yet, he had up to 90% usage on some maps (that means all 8 threads were used) in BF1. And he told me, it's not just one game he is upgrading for.

To clarify it a bit more:

980 Ti OC @ 1460 MHz
i5 4670K OC @ 4.1 GHz
16 GB 2400 DDR3
1440p 100 Hz Korean IPS monitor

Couldn't handle the game + some small background applications on his system (basic stuff like Steam + TeamSpeak 3, nothing too fancy). He had a  CPU bottleneck, means 100% util on the CPU and less than the desired 100% util on the GPU (dropping down to as low as 70%). After he switched to the i7 4790K, the CPU bottleneck was gone and his FPS (average and especially minimums too) were a lot higher.


----------



## biffzinker (Apr 6, 2017)

Kanan said:


> 6 core 3960X had usage of 100% at *TWELVE threads* in BF1 at times, at 4.5 GHz. And you still think HT is of no use when using a quad core?


This was why I suggested either the 6 core/12 thread or the 4 core/8 thread R5 Ryzen. 8 core Ryzen R7 makes no sense to me for OP intended use.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 6, 2017)

biffzinker said:


> This was why I suggested either the 6 core/12 thread or the 4 core/8 thread R5 Ryzen. 8 core Ryzen R7 makes no sense to me for OP intended use.


The problem with Ryzen is, games are not really optimized for it, that's why the 6 core with 12 threads (eg R5 1600X) loses to a i5 6600K for example (R7 1800X loses to 7700K and barely manages a small win vs 6600K). If he's a workstation / streamer guy, that's fine, they are not opting for maximum FPS in games anyway, they want fast production performance and high enough FPS when streaming and Ryzen can easily do that. But if he's a pure gamer, Intel is better. He's sporting a 1080 Ti, a good CPU for that, on a equal level, is at least a 7700K, I'd rather take a 6800K and have some more headroom left for the future (prices are barely different, just mainboards pricier). As a matter of fact, a 4790K with OC would do the job too, I'm pretty sure, but the 7700K and higher, are of course better.


----------



## Eric_Cartman (Apr 6, 2017)

Kanan said:


> troll





Kanan said:


> fanboy





Kanan said:


> That AMD fanboy





Kanan said:


> Are you still going to kindergarten



Seriously is it possible for you to be in a discussion and not outright insult anyone that disagrees with you?

You are worse than my 5 year old.

You might as well not even bother arguing.

Because your insults make people just ignore you.

Buying a 4790K is not worth it over a 4670K.

Hyperthreading does not help in games.

This is common knowledge.

Move on.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 6, 2017)

Eric_Cartman said:


> Seriously is it possible for you to be in a discussion and not outright insult anyone that disagrees with you?
> 
> You are worse than my 5 year old.
> 
> ...


a) You're on my ignore list for many months now (I've just unhidden your shit to answer it), because you insulted me pretty harshly in the past. Funny reading something like that then from you - do you know what a glass house is? And yet you're throwing with stones. You just crushed yourself.

b) read what others write to me aswell, you are selective/partial and therefore nothing what you write is of any consequence. I could've simply ignored your post, that is just full of shit anyway.

c) Your opinion is irrelevant, because you didn't read / understand the discussion, that is already at a advanced point compared to your simple opinion that is wrong anyway.

You are a troll, I'd say that is common knowledge by now.

Move on.


----------



## sneekypeet (Apr 6, 2017)

First and only warning to the both of you! Move on and help, or leave the thread entirely! Any more personal banter will be rewarded with vacations.


----------



## Trinitrotoluen (Apr 6, 2017)

It's a great CPU overall, probably will switch to something in next 2 gens as moving even to e.g 7700k is kind of waste of money. However if you want to buy a new rig you should aim in sth else imo.
I never OCed my 4790k since I bought it like 2-3 years ago. Decided to check how much I can go and ye, first tests look kind of strange: http://prntscr.com/et3o1e
I'm on 4.6Ghz while being at 1.157V and 66C average. Tested it in Cinebench and some CPU-Z stress test. Need some longer testing still but ye, looks quite decent for now.
Not exactly sure why my voltage is so low with those clocks...


----------



## Hood (Apr 7, 2017)

Trinitrotoluen said:


> It's a great CPU overall, probably will switch to something in next 2 gens as moving even to e.g 7700k is kind of waste of money. However if you want to buy a new rig you should aim in sth else imo.
> I never OCed my 4790k since I bought it like 2-3 years ago. Decided to check how much I can go and ye, first tests look kind of strange: http://prntscr.com/et3o1e
> I'm on 4.6Ghz while being at 1.157V and 66C average. Tested it in Cinebench and some CPU-Z stress test. Need some longer testing still but ye, looks quite decent for now.
> Not exactly sure why my voltage is so low with those clocks...


Looks like you got one of the good ones - mine is average, requires 1.32v to run 4.6/all cores/stable, temps average high 70s-low 80s with H110.  Keep that CPU, possibly delid/relid.  If those clocks, volts, and temps are accurate, you might hit 5.0 after delid, and that's very good, as good as it gets for Devils Canyon.


----------



## Horemheb (Apr 7, 2017)

Thank you everyone for the responses. I think I am going to hold off on doing anything with my current system unless one heck of a deal comes my way. I am going to put a few dollars in the cookie jar here and there for a system overhaul in the future. I really do appreicate all of the feedback.  This is why I love the community here!  I will update this thread in the near future when I upgrade.


----------



## Jetster (Apr 7, 2017)

Smart move


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 7, 2017)

Jetster said:


> Smart move



Agreed.  LIke I said, the only thing I'd consider would be a better CPU cooler so he can run 4.6GHz all the time.  The CPU cooler is something that is pretty much guaranteed to be usable with a new system down the road.  So it wouldn't be wasted money.


----------



## purecain (May 4, 2017)

a 4770k delidded beats a 4790k under ln2. I have my system going for sale on the forum, i'd consider selling you my cpu for a good deal... I can get members to vouch for my honesty...

whatever you decide to do good luck!!! ps. I have a maximus exreme and 32gb of 2400mhz Kingston beast...all for sale.. just sayin lol...


----------



## Horemheb (Dec 10, 2017)

I know this is a thread Necro but I just wanted to give an update and  ping a question off of the members here. I have a 600$ gift card and I was thinking about using it on my pc. I have done a few things here and there since the last post but I am at a point now where I don't know what I should do. It still plugs along very well in just about every game I play. I just have that itch. With a 600$ budget what would you do at this point. 

$600.00 American

Here is my current PC.

*Processor* Intel Core i5-4670K Haswell 4.2 GHZ    
*Motherboard* ASUS Z87-A LGA    
*Cooling* Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO     
*Memory* G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB (4 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 2133     
*Video Card(s)* EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Hybrid     
*Storage* x2 Crucial MX300  275GB SSD x1 WD BLACK SERIES WD2003FZEX 2TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s     
*Display(s)* Acer 2560x1440 144hz 1ms     
*Case* Corsair Carbide Clear 400C     
*Audio Device(s)* Onboard Audio-Corsair Void Pro RGB     
*Power Supply* CORSAIR RM Series RM850 850W    
*Mouse* Razor Naga    
*Keyboard* Razer Blackwidow    
*Software* Windows 10 Home Premium


----------



## Toothless (Dec 10, 2017)

I'm running a 4790k with a 1080ti and I feel like it's a good balance, though you could get a coffee lake i5 combo if you sell off your current board/chip/ram combo.


----------



## Norton (Dec 10, 2017)

Your current specs are pretty nice- don't think an upgrade would be all that noticeable for your usage.

With that said, a $600 budget would get you a 7700k/8700k mb/cpu/ram setup- if it were my rig and the cash wasn't needed for something else irl I would likely go for it


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 10, 2017)

Norton said:


> Your current specs are pretty nice- don't think an upgrade would be all that noticeable for your usage.
> 
> With that said, a $600 budget would get you a 7700k/8700k mb/cpu/ram setup- if it were my rig and the cash wasn't needed for something else irl I would likely go for it



Agreed, I'd look into an upgrade to a 8700K or 8600K too. It should be a drop in replacement, probably won't even need to reinstall windows.


----------



## Horemheb (Dec 11, 2017)

Okay this is what I am looking at.  It seems like a decent upgrade for my older parts. What do you think?

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/39jhVY


----------



## purecain (Dec 13, 2017)

i would of bought another gpu....


----------



## jboydgolfer (Dec 13, 2017)

that looks like a nice build. nothing to Scoff @ certainly. a very capable machine.


----------



## Upgrayedd (Dec 13, 2017)

IMO Intel's new cpu's are too overpriced and RAM is WAYYY overpriced right now. RAM should be about half its actual price right now. I paid $30 less for my 4790K than what Intel wants for their current unlocked i5's. USD didn't inflate that much...

If you live fairly close to a Microcenter they always have the best deals on CPU/MOBO combos.


----------



## P4-630 (Dec 20, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> no



It's still a good 8 thread - 4 core CPU, depends on the price you can get it for IMO.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Dec 20, 2017)

Upgrayedd said:


> IMO Intel's new cpu's are too overpriced and RAM is WAYYY overpriced right now. RAM should be about half its actual price right now. I paid $30 less for my 4790K than what Intel wants for their current unlocked i5's. USD didn't inflate that much...
> 
> If you live fairly close to a Microcenter they always have the best deals on CPU/MOBO combos.



I was looking at the new six core 8600k i5. but $300 is a tad steep for an i5, maybe they have pushed it up towards the i7 level of performance, so its price is indicative. i dunno.
if i DO order an 8600k, im going to have to take a ride to Cambridge, and get it for $230.
but the prices have increased for sure, the 2500k cost me under $200 @ launch. 
View attachment 95065


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Dec 20, 2017)

Personally, I would push what you have now to 4.6Ghz and ride out a few more months till the new ryzen CPUs are out. Intel might drop prices around then so you have more choices in terms of budget.

Either way I dont think any price paid would make that 4790k worth it. Youre just paying for the same CPU as you currently have now but with the inclusion of Hyper Threading which doesnt do a whole lot for gamers in general. Dont waste your money. Keep saving, OC and be patient.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Dec 20, 2017)

id *not *buy a 4790k to replace a 4670k personally. the HT'ing isnt a true 4 physical core performance boost, its a small perf boost. I saw very little if any gain in ANY tasks when i went from 4690k to 4790. Its just not there. the 4790 is worth "it" as long as "it" is a justifiable upgrade. in this case, IMO, it is not.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 20, 2017)

Upgrayedd said:


> IMO Intel's new cpu's are too overpriced and RAM is WAYYY overpriced right now. RAM should be about half its actual price right now. I paid $30 less for my 4790K than what Intel wants for their current unlocked i5's. USD didn't inflate that much...
> 
> If you live fairly close to a Microcenter they always have the best deals on CPU/MOBO combos.



There is no way you bought a 4790K new anytime near its launch for $250.  Hell, I bought mine when Microcenter made a pricing error and priced the 4790K at the price of the 4690K in one of their ads and they honored the ad, and the 4790K was still $280.



jboydgolfer said:


> I was looking at the new six core 8600k i5. but $300 is a tad steep for an i5, maybe they have pushed it up towards the i7 level of performance, so its price is indicative. i dunno.
> if i DO order an 8600k, im going to have to take a ride to Cambridge, and get it for $230.
> but the prices have increased for sure, the 2500k cost me under $200 @ launch.



With 6 cores, the i5 pretty much beats the 4c/8t i7s of the last generation in anything multi-threaded.  It's a little behind in single threaded apps due to the lower clock speed compared to the 7700K, but that is easily fixed with an overclock, and once both are overclocked the 7700k pretty much loses in everything.

So, yeah, the performance fits the price tag.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Dec 20, 2017)

newtekie1 said:


> There is no way you bought a 4790K new anytime near its launch for $250.  Hell, I bought mine when Microcenter made a pricing error and priced the 4790K at the price of the 4690K in one of their ads and they honored the ad, and the 4790K was still $280.



 Maybe he speaking about the 8600k i5? The 6 core one? I dunno. They sell for $300'ish


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 20, 2017)

jboydgolfer said:


> Maybe he speaking about the 8600k i5? The 6 core one? I dunno. They sell for $300'ish



That's what I'm saying.  The i5 8600K sells for $280, and has since launch basically, and MSRP is actually $260, but supply has been short so prices have been a little inflated.  So $30 cheaper than that would be $250.  Like I said, there is no way he got a new 4790K for $30 cheaper than a current unlocked i5 8600K unless there was some kind of price error.  That would put the price at $250.  I bought my 4790K for $280, and that was a pricing error.  So, the only way he got one at $250 was by a pricing error(and Microcenter was making a shit-ton of them with the 4790k for some reason).  But it really isn't fair to compare the pricing error to prices of the processors today.

The MSRP price for the 4790K at launch was $340 and the MSRP on the 4690K was $240.  Now the i7 is $380 and the i5 is $260. So Intel hasn't really jacked the prices up.  Yes, during the initial launch the prices have been inflated, but not by Intel's direct doing.  The supply has been low, so the retailers have been raising the prices because they can.  The street price on a 8700K is over $400 right now, but not because of Intel raising the price, that's just a result of high mark-ups by the retailers.  And the 8600K street price is only $280, which really isn't that bad for a 6-core processor that's more powerful than the 7700K.


----------



## Regeneration (Dec 20, 2017)

4790K is probably still expensive. You should get a cheap Xeon E3-12xx v3 off eBay instead.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Dec 20, 2017)

newtekie1 said:


> That's what I'm saying.  The i5 8600K sells for $280, and has since launch basically, and MSRP is actually $260, but supply has been short so prices have been a little inflated.  So $30 cheaper than that would be $250.  Like I said, there is no way he got a new 4790K for $30 cheaper than a current unlocked i5 8600K unless there was some kind of price error.  That would put the price at $250.  I bought my 4790K for $280, and that was a pricing error.  So, the only way he got one at $250 was by a pricing error(and Microcenter was making a shit-ton of them with the 4790k for some reason).  But it really isn't fair to compare the pricing error to prices of the processors today.
> 
> The MSRP price for the 4790K at launch was $340 and the MSRP on the 4690K was $240.  Now the i7 is $380 and the i5 is $260. So Intel hasn't really jacked the prices up.  Yes, during the initial launch the prices have been inflated, but not by Intel's direct doing.  The supply has been low, so the retailers have been raising the prices because they can.  The street price on a 8700K is over $400 right now, but not because of Intel raising the price, that's just a result of high mark-ups by the retailers.  And the 8600K street price is only $280, which really isn't that bad for a 6-core processor that's more powerful than the 7700K.



I don't know I can't say for sure,all  I could find is those 8600K selling for $290 ,but you may very well be right, it could be due to demand. I never looked into them before this week.

I don't see in his post anywhere that he mentioned purchasing the 4790 "new", maybe he was making a comment on the fact that he simply bought an i7 4790 for less than what Intel wants for theiri5 (used or otherwise ).
It's anyone's guess

But I guess it wouldn't make much sense to comment on what someone paid for a used 4790 because that's moot, atleast in this matter. I paid $100 for my 4790 almost a year ago but that doesn't really reflect on what new processors are selling for.I just chalk it up to the fact that sometimes people's point doesn't come across very well in text form


----------



## jaggerwild (Dec 20, 2017)

Buy a used 4790K cheap on flee bay, call it a day like this thread.


----------



## 5DVX0130 (Dec 20, 2017)

NO.
For games you won’t notice much difference, and if you really need more CPU power you are better off with a six/eight core.
Soo either keep your current system, or sell it. With what you get, and the $200 planed for the 4790k, you can build a nice KBL/R7 system.


----------



## Kursah (Dec 20, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> no



Please take the time to post something of quality, or don't bother with posts like this. If anyone cannot provide any supportive arguments or content for a simple statement, it is better left unsaid.

This goes for everyone here. If you have any questions, please feel free to review our forum guidelines: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/forum-guidelines.197329/

I am still enjoying my 4790K, it is a beast of a CPU for sure and always has been, but I also knew I would use my system and its threads between gaming, virtualization, processing, work, etc.

Really for anyone wanting to go with an older CPU like this now depends on the usage, budget, and needs. If you need more threads, have $200 and a currently good & stable Z87/Z97 platform with the DDR3 you're content with, then it makes sense IMHO. There is the inherent age risk, but honestly with how many folks are still running SB and IB, it seems this isn't quite as scary as it could be. 

If you don't really need it or won't really use it, save your money for future upgrades or other purposes. I can find all sorts of uses for more threads on old, already paid for platforms, others might be more limited to simpler uses and lesser needs just wanting more to have it. Again, that's where it depends on the user's needs.

The OP's needs here from page 1 which was started 8 months ago, I'd say only if he's playing games that needs more threads, it is impacting his performance, and he doesn't want to invest in a newer platform yet but has enough to get a cheap, used 4790K, that'd be a good way to go. What looks like a bad decision for one person, might actually be a good one for someone else.


----------



## erocker (Dec 20, 2017)

Horemheb said:


> Okay this is what I am looking at.  It seems like a decent upgrade for my older parts. What do you think?
> 
> https://pcpartpicker.com/list/39jhVY


This looks like a good upgrade. You will be happy with it and it will run your 1080 Ti well.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Dec 20, 2017)

As i told OP in the 2nd post, he would be better off using that money towards a new (whole system ) upgrade in the future. adding a 4790 isnt going to bring any huge jumps (unless he is rendering or converting, or unzipping for hours/day, which if it was that type of situation, id guess he'd have mentioned it in the OP). I know on paper there are increases in perf in games, and in other applications, but in the real world, as a person who made almost this EXACT same "upgrade"(4690 -4790) the increase just isnt there. now im not slamming the 4790, (i currently own one) , im just saying , if i were asked the same question OP is asking of the community, but instead by a loved one, or family member, id tell them what i have told OP, which is No, not if gaming is your primary (cpu intensive) task. Only if your rendering, unzipping, compressing, converting a decent chunk during a given day (or regularly) enough to justify the money spent its just not there. I dont need charts, or sheets, or some flaky Youtuber to make a video to tell me otherwise, since ive done it.

OP asked what his new chosen build looks like & i told him


jboydgolfer said:


> that looks like a nice build. nothing to Scoff @ certainly. a very capable machine.



im guessing people didnt even bother looking at what OP has posted, once the arguing war began, but he posted a really good build from PCpartpicker. *HERE*

6 core i5
ROG motherboard
16Gb's RAM

I think your choice to make a proper upgrade is the right one @Horemheb , good luck.


----------



## Vayra86 (Dec 20, 2017)

Horemheb said:


> Okay this is what I am looking at.  It seems like a decent upgrade for my older parts. What do you think?
> 
> https://pcpartpicker.com/list/39jhVY



Looks good however I would take a beefier air cooler if you plan on an OC. The H7 isn't stellar and these chips do get hot.

Spend 50-70 on the air cooler, get a beefy tower, or at least something rated for 150w+ TDP. That way you can safely clock towards 5.0 Ghz without delid.

However if its about gaming primarily - the 8600k will only show tangible benefits when you want high refresh rates > 90-120 fps.


----------



## jaggerwild (Dec 21, 2017)

Now your upgrading his CPU cooler, lock this THREAD!!


----------



## Upgrayedd (Dec 21, 2017)

newtekie1 said:


> That's what I'm saying.  The i5 8600K sells for $280, and has since launch basically, and MSRP is actually $260, but supply has been short so prices have been a little inflated.  So $30 cheaper than that would be $250.  Like I said, there is no way he got a new 4790K for $30 cheaper than a current unlocked i5 8600K unless there was some kind of price error.  That would put the price at $250.  I bought my 4790K for $280, and that was a pricing error.  So, the only way he got one at $250 was by a pricing error(and Microcenter was making a shit-ton of them with the 4790k for some reason).  But it really isn't fair to compare the pricing error to prices of the processors today.
> 
> The MSRP price for the 4790K at launch was $340 and the MSRP on the 4690K was $240.  Now the i7 is $380 and the i5 is $260. So Intel hasn't really jacked the prices up.  Yes, during the initial launch the prices have been inflated, but not by Intel's direct doing.  The supply has been low, so the retailers have been raising the prices because they can.  The street price on a 8700K is over $400 right now, but not because of Intel raising the price, that's just a result of high mark-ups by the retailers.  And the 8600K street price is only $280, which really isn't that bad for a 6-core processor that's more powerful than the 7700K.


No pricing error. Bought for $250+tax. It was the price at the time, it was a black friday month long thing, but even after the whole month sale they kept the price throughout the lifetime. I think the i5's then were like $180. It was a great price, sucks the online retailers can't match it because it is in-store only deal.

Edit: It was the newest CPUs at the time. before Broadwell. Right now the 7700k is $260 and the 7600k is $180. Current CPUs are way overpriced. They want $380 for the new 8700K cause it finally has more than 4cores and everyone wants one. When the 4790k came out it was a nice CPU but it wasn't the core jump like 8700K so it wasn't in such high demand making it reasonably priced. Once the norm is 6-core instead of 4 it will lower in price I think. Bleeding edge bleeds wallets.


----------



## Vayra86 (Dec 21, 2017)

jaggerwild said:


> Now your upgrading his CPU cooler, lock this THREAD!!



are you trying to act like your forum avatar, or what's up?

OP wants an upgrade, we explore the options with him... problems? Note also my third sentence in the last post, pointing out the situational benefit.


----------



## Kursah (Dec 21, 2017)

Let's keep it from getting personal and insulting, not necessary for any reason here. Only warning.

Feel free to discuss and disagree, but please follow the *forum guidelines* while doing so.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Dec 21, 2017)

HT absolutely helps in modern CPU-intensive games. Especially when running a 1080Ti and 144Hz display on a 4 core.
Get a 4790K that can oc to 4.8GHz or higher. Ryzen ? Why ? That's clearly a productivity oriented CPU, it's good enough for gaming but sorry, if it can't break 4GHz while 4790K has the same IPC and can do 4.7-4.8GHz easily, then it's a very flawed way of thinking.
A new system on 8600K and DDR4 3200 would be better, though will cost you more. Neverthelss, it'll be worth it considering you GPU and display.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Dec 21, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> Note also my third sentence in the last post, pointing out the situational benefit.


as of late. i just ignore his posts.

I agree, an upgrade would be a good thing to consider....im unfamiliar with the Chip, and its running temps, but if theyre hot, OP will need to tweak here n there.



Kursah said:


> *forum guidelines*


You have to use this link a LOT dont You ?


----------



## cucker tarlson (Dec 21, 2017)

jaggerwild said:


> Now your upgrading his CPU cooler, lock this THREAD!!


That's obstruction of CPU performance. It's punishable by ban.



OP should go covfefe lake


----------



## Horemheb (Dec 30, 2017)

I would like to thank everyone for taking the time to respond to this post. I have taken into consideration all that was stated and decided to go with this build. I felt like I got a pretty good deal on everything except for the ram (holy hell its expensive at the moment). 

https://pcpartpicker.com/user/Horemhebb/saved/VDGJVn


----------



## Toothless (Dec 30, 2017)

Not a bad list. Gj op.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Dec 30, 2017)

Good choice going with DDR4 3600

https://www.purepc.pl/pamieci_ram/test_pamieci_ddr4_2133_3600_mhz_na_intel_core_i5_8600k?page=0,3

https://www.purepc.pl/pamieci_ram/test_pamieci_ddr4_2133_3600_mhz_na_intel_core_i5_8600k?page=0,8


----------

