Tuesday, May 6th 2014

Intel Core i7-4790 Incrementally Faster than i7-4770K: Review

by
btarunr
 Discuss (58 Comments)
TweakTown went ahead and posted the first formal review of Intel Core i7-4790, the fastest Core "Haswell" Refresh quad-core processor. Tested on an unnamed Z97 Express motherboard, with discrete graphics, the chip was found to be only incrementally faster than the i7-4770K, and just what you'd expect from a 100 MHz clock speed bump. The i7-4790 is clocked at 3.60 GHz, with a maximum Turbo Boost speed of 4.00 GHz, compared to the 3.50 GHz and 3.90 GHz clocks of the i7-4770K. It lacks an unlocked base-clock multiplier, and so its overclocking potential is severely limited, and close to non-existent; and so the i7-4790 is really a chip for those who want the best gaming performance, and don't intend to overclock their CPUs. Enthusiasts may want to hold out for "Devil's Canyon." Find the full review at the source.
Source: TweakTown

Related News

Add your own comment

58 Comments on Intel Core i7-4790 Incrementally Faster than i7-4770K: Review

#51
radrok
Yeah I can't wait for X99, I've loved this 3930K which does 5.3 GHz reliably but it is time for more cores.

Could really use them.
Posted on Reply
#52
GhostRyder
radrokYeah I can't wait for X99, I've loved this 3930K which does 5.3 GHz reliably but it is time for more cores.

Could really use them.
Yea, I am a bit worried though because now the predictions sound like its going to be 4 core at 3-400, 6 core at 5-600, and 8 core at 1k+ which saddens me because I could never justify spending 1k on a processor chip for my home machine :(. No matter what happens though I definitly will be grabbing whatever is the mid range chip unless they do something unexpected and maybe the new MSI Big Band Edition motherboard or Asus Rampage.

BTW 5.3ghz on the 3930K? Nice, thats an extreme overclock level.
Posted on Reply
#53
radrok
GhostRyderYea, I am a bit worried though because now the predictions sound like its going to be 4 core at 3-400, 6 core at 5-600, and 8 core at 1k+ which saddens me because I could never justify spending 1k on a processor chip for my home machine :(. No matter what happens though I definitly will be grabbing whatever is the mid range chip unless they do something unexpected and maybe the new MSI Big Band Edition motherboard or Asus Rampage.

BTW 5.3ghz on the 3930K? Nice, thats an extreme overclock level.
I hope for a smaller cached CPU like 3930K-3960X. I wouldn't like getting again the X chip, did it once for the 980x (it was worth it though) but they are too expensive.

Binned two CPUs to get this nice 3930K, I admit I was rather lucky. It still doesn't show degradation, it also keeps up with 2400 MHz on its IMC like a champ!
Posted on Reply
#54
GhostRyder
radrokI hope for a smaller cached CPU like 3930K-3960X. I wouldn't like getting again the X chip, did it once for the 980x (it was worth it though) but they are too expensive.

Binned two CPUs to get this nice 3930K, I admit I was rather lucky. It still doesn't show degradation, it also keeps up with 2400 MHz on its IMC like a champ!
Same, I have never seen the point of those X series chips as much anymore due to the huge price difference without having much of a gain. The scenarios that chip would be useful I just feel a Xeon would be just as good or better.

I like the mid range E chips, they are real power house chips with good clocking and a ton of power.
Posted on Reply
#55
HumanSmoke
GhostRyderSame, I have never seen the point of those X series chips as much anymore due to the huge price difference without having much of a gain. The scenarios that chip would be useful I just feel a Xeon would be just as good or better.
Actually there is a pretty distinct segment difference between the two.
Xeon's are multiplier locked. You typically get between 300 and 900MHz from Turbo on a Xeon depending on number of cores involved, and that's it for the most part. You'll also pay handsomely for a Xeon that has a core count and clock speed in the same neighbourhood as an Extreme Edition i7. If you need a better runtime guarantee, maybe a larger cache, and ECC and/or high density memory support then a Xeon fits the bill, but a typical i7 EE user tends more toward overclocking + multi GPU. You can certainly use the i7 platform for workstation use, but the lower price trades off against the much reduced system memory limits- both in density and channels if you take the (LGA2011) Xeon's 2P operation into account.
Posted on Reply
#56
radrok
Lovely times when LGA 1366 Xeons were BCLK unlocked, you could put them on an SR-2, reach 4.5GHz on both, and have a multithreaded beast.
Posted on Reply
#57
HumanSmoke
radrokLovely times when LGA 1366 Xeons were BCLK unlocked, you could put them on an SR-2, reach 4.5GHz on both, and have a multithreaded beast.
Yes, I think the benchmarking fraternity is still mourning the passing of days of the Westmere Xeon. Pity Intel couldn't have had at least one or two unlocked LGA2011's - you'd think the PR would outweigh any cost. If Intel can come up with a special SKU for what amounts to a sole deployment (the E5-2692v2 for the Chinese HPC centre), you'd think that the world's enthusiasts should warrant at least the same consideration.
Posted on Reply
#58
GhostRyder
HumanSmokeActually
Actually that was my opinion you took out of context of that entire conversation I was having with someone else about what I would buy and the k vs x chips.
radrokLovely times when LGA 1366 Xeons were BCLK unlocked, you could put them on an SR-2, reach 4.5GHz on both, and have a multithreaded beast.
Indeed, though it's sad to see them go it's from intels newer perspective. Similar to nvidia, it's all about keeping all the markets completely separate to give very little wiggle room. I doubt we will ever see those again except in some weird thing like with the pentium anniversary chip.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 24th, 2024 04:27 EST change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts