9900k VS 4790K

[yeeeeman]

4790k might still be reasonable for gaming, but newer games do like to have more than 4 physical cores and what usually happens is that 4790k will have stutters from time to time whereas r5 3600x will not. Also, we're talking about an ideal situation here. If you also have chrome open with many tabs and other stuff running in background, that magical, still alive, still rocking, great in IPC 4790k (this is irony) will show its weaknesses and you will quickly understand why you need a 9700k a 3700x or even more. So yeah, this discussion is good for those people that have 4790k but don't have the money or don't want to spend cash for upgrading, gives them a peace of mind. But the truth is that 4/8 cores CPUs are now at the very limit and cannot do too much with them if you are a real gamer. If you just casually game simpler games, I guess it is fine.

 

[trog100]

4790k might still be reasonable for gaming, but newer games do like to have more than 4 physical cores and what usually happens is that 4790k will have stutters from time to time whereas r5 3600x will not. Also, we're talking about an ideal situation here. If you also have chrome open with many tabs and other stuff running in background, that magical, still alive, still rocking, great in IPC 4790k (this is irony) will show its weaknesses and you will quickly understand why you need a 9700k a 3700x or even more. So yeah, this discussion is good for those people that have 4790k but don't have the money or don't want to spend cash for upgrading, gives them a peace of mind. But the truth is that 4/8 cores CPUs are now at the very limit and cannot do too much with them if you are a real gamer. If you just casually game simpler games, I guess it is fine.

anybody that has loads of chrome tabs and other stuff running in the background whilst gaming has to be some kind idle arsed idiot.. he he he

trog

 

[EarthDog]

anybody that has loads of chrome tabs and other stuff running in the background whilst gaming has to be some kind idle arsed idiot.. he he he

trog

Did you see the other people running two games at once???!!!!! Lol

 

[trog100]

Did you see the other people running two games at once???!!!!! Lol

no but i aint surprised..

any ways i am now emulating a 4790K with my 9900k.. four cores working at 4.4 ghz with HT on..

if i see any "stuttering" i will let folks know..

trog

 

[HUSKIE]

Infinity.........

 

[Vario]

anybody that has loads of chrome tabs and other stuff running in the background whilst gaming has to be some kind idle arsed idiot.. he he he

trog

Never had an issue doing this particular thing with a quad core.
I mainly went to a hex core i5 8600K because my i7 3770K was very unstable with frequent BSOD, and it was the last good time to sell it, as quad cores were still the standard in late 2017 and I expected that more core CPUs would cause the value of quads to plummet. I parted out and was able to sell the Z77 and 3770K and the 16GB Samsung Green DDR3 for about $400, IIRC, and it paid for most of the upgrade. The two NVMe drives are probably the biggest speed upgrade for me going from Z77 to Z370.
Actually I still play games that are from 2012 to 2015 when quads were dominant, not very many new games. Not finding that I need more than 6 threads as a result except when I compile videos occasionally.

 

[trog100]

i just had good session of division 2 with my emulated 4790K.. 100% spot on the game played the same as if i was running my 9900K as it should be run..

so i am gonna have to reiterate.. a 4790K is perfectly fine for gaming stuttering my arse.. too many people must be falling for all this more core hype..

trog

 

[Vlada011]

I have only ran a couple of benchmarks but overclocking my 4790k to 4.895 GHZ nets me better single core performance than the AVERAGE 9900k. Has Intel actually made any improvements other than core count and fab size??? Given the 10% generational increase in IPC there should be now way a 4790k even comes close to a 9900k in single threaded apps regardless of the benchmark used. 10% increase per generation for 5 generations is a 64% increase

Hahahahaa... Intel i7-4790K Core same performance as i9-9900K Core.
Logic reason why AMD is leader now. One generation should bring higher performance per core then i7-3770K vs i9-9900K.
if you disable all cores except first and set 4.5GHz on both CPU and benchmark you should get much bigger difference for 1 year, and Intel spent 5 years.

Intel several times launched new generations with higher multi threaded results because 2 or more number of cores but lower performance per core then previous generation.

 

[EarthDog]

but lower performance per core then previous generation.

This is patently false.

Look at reputable reviews instead of what a couple of lemmings using one test in a forum posts do...all these people thinking they have a clue and running a single test are ridiculous. I just ran cine or emulated some shit and played a game and my butt dyno tells me it felt the same. Puhleaaaase. Mofos running ONE bench/game and making a blanket statement that all are good.... come the hell on...think!

People are friggin ridiculous in how they come to conclusions sometimes.

 

[Mac2580]

4790k might still be reasonable for gaming, but newer games do like to have more than 4 physical cores and what usually happens is that 4790k will have stutters from time to time whereas r5 3600x will not. Also, we're talking about an ideal situation here. If you also have chrome open with many tabs and other stuff running in background, that magical, still alive, still rocking, great in IPC 4790k (this is irony) will show its weaknesses and you will quickly understand why you need a 9700k a 3700x or even more. So yeah, this discussion is good for those people that have 4790k but don't have the money or don't want to spend cash for upgrading, gives them a peace of mind. But the truth is that 4/8 cores CPUs are now at the very limit and cannot do too much with them if you are a real gamer. If you just casually game simpler games, I guess it is fine.

Thats quite interesting to me that a 4790k is for a casual gamer. Please let us know what game this is where the i7 will stutter and the R5 will not? #frdmftr, Yes we can match the 9900k in single core, but remember the i9 on that chart is stock with all cores enabled, its like the guy with his 2600k overclocking and beating your CPU stock.

 

[hzy4]

Its funny, the guy has a 9900k trying to argue that 4790k is enough for gaming. You cannot emulate a 4790k with your 4 active cores in 9900k.
8% IPC improvement, higher clocks, bigger cache, higher memory throughput, DDR4.
If you have a 4790k hold on to it as long as you can, for me I was wasting my GPU potential, bottlenecking it with the 4790k. It hit a wall at 4,7Ghz but thats just me. 4 Cores for gaming is a bad advice in 2019 - every reputable tech review benchmark chart tells you that. Bare in mind the 1% lows and the fps fluctuation. 6 cores is a much smoother framerate.

 

[trog100]

8% is genuinely not noticeable in the real world and my clocks were (still are i havnt changed things back yet) 4.4 ghz which is far lower than the 4.6 i ran mt 4790K at when i had one..

smoother frame rate ?? not noticeable.. people really are being fooled by all these reviews and youtube vids..

i dont need an excuse for moving from a 4790K to a 7700K an 8700K and now a 9900K.. i just like buying new stuff and can afford it.. but i am fully aware i dont need it.. he he

trog

 

[hzy4]

8% is genuinely not noticeable in the real world..

smoother frame rate ?? not noticeable.. people really are being fooled by all these reviews and youtube vids..

Its very noticeable, when you have a 144hz monitor and your fps drops from lets say 120 to 50 fps.
"Not noticeable", for me it was.

 

[yeeeeman]

He trying to be ironic, but in fact he's making a fool of himself
4790K is a good CPU still, but given its lower cache size, slower memory speed and lower frequencies it will suffer on newer games. And don't BS me with the fact that people close all other programs when playing games since most of them don't.

 

[trog100]

trog

 

[yeeeeman]

Add a 2080ti to those system instead of vega64 and you'll see the bottleneck.

 

[trog100]

Add a 2080ti to those system instead of vega64 and you'll see the bottleneck.

maybe but that still dosnt alter the fact that a 4 core 8 thread 4790K cpu is still a perfectly adequate gaming cpu.. which is the point i am trying to get across..

my own 4790K died on me which is why i moved on.. at the time it required a cost of £700 to make the move to a 7700K.. at the time i was running a pair of 980TI cards in sli.. my 4790K was doing a fine job of driving them..

trog

 

[EarthDog]

maybe but that still dosnt alter the fact that a 4 core 8 thread 4790K cpu is still a perfectly adequate gaming cpu.. which is the point i am trying to get across..

Adequate still leaves performance on the table in some titles, but I agree.

 

[Vario]

Add a 2080ti to those system instead of vega64 and you'll see the bottleneck.

Of course, however most do not need a 2080ti. Most do not need a 6 or 8 core modern CPU either. Nice to have but it isn't necessary for the average gamer and office user.

 

[trog100]

Adequate still leaves performance on the table in some titles, but I agree.

that applies to everything apart from the best hardware money can buy.. i doubt many TPU people fit in that category.. adequate means good enough.. not a concept many TPU agree with ether.. he he

eyes bigger than their wallets would be a good description of most TPU users..

decry everything except the best but dont have big enough wallets to ever buy the best.. window shoppers in essence.. he he

trog

 

[EarthDog]

that applies to everything apart from the best hardware money can buy.. i doubt many TPU people fit in that category.. adequate means good enough.. not a concept many TPU agree with ether.. he he

eyes bigger than their wallets would be a good description of most TPU users..

decry everything except the best but dont have big enough wallets to ever buy the best.. window shoppers in essence.. he he

trog

That isnt true. Weve seen games stop scaling with core count...I'm just saying 4c/8 is adequate...8c/16t is about as good as it gets. I dont recall one title scaling past that. If so, it's not like it scales much further.

 

[phanbuey]

That isnt true. Weve seen games stop scaling with core count...I'm just saying 4c/8 is adequate...8c/16t is about as good as it gets. I dont recall one title scaling past that. If so, it's not like it scales much further.

Im actually 'downgrading'/upgrading my system to an 8700k this week as I feel like with a 4.8 - 5.0Ghz OC and some tweaked ram it will be perfect for games even with 3080ti until zen 3 and intel's 10nm drop.

 

[Eskimonster]

Im on 3770k, and im saving up for new, i already burned out one GFX (evga) and one PSU (xfx) on this CPU.
If i was you i would also begin thinking bout next build