Please, for the love of all that is holy, compare the 4790k OC to the 4930k. Or at least add the 4930k to the benchmark comparison page. We get it, the 4790k is faster than the 4770k. A lot less obvious and a lot more interesting is how the chip stacks up in multi-threaded applications versus a hexa-core.
A lot of benchmarks are out there on the web for these two separately; go look yourself - what's the problem?
Regarding multithreading business, for example, Core i7-4790K at stock scores 850 in Cinebench R15, and Core i7-4930K at stock scores around 970. So, the hehacore only wins by 970/850 = 1.14, or 14%. And so on - somewhere 4930K does even better, but not principally better.
IMHO, 4790K is a better buy among the two, because, to me, the 4930K's multithreaded lead is not justified by its much higher price, higher M/B cost, older X79 chipset, older Ivy Bridge cores and thus considerably slower single thread operation and lack of newest CPU instructions such as AVX2, FMA3 and TSX, all of which are present in Haswell, but absent in Ivy Bridge.
If you really need more cores, then I advise to wait till Haswell-E arrives next month and go for Haswell-E.
Regarding the lack of LGA2011 CPUs (and plenty of other CPUs as well), this was specifically intended as a short overview of Devil's Canyon, putting it's performance in perspective relative to existing mainstream CPUs. I'm working on a separate article that will look at a larger selection of CPUs, which will likely post some time later this week.
Pretty useless to compare those two, single core it will be slower, multicore, would be pretty close. Real life, not much uses 6 cores. I used my old i7-970 in my media center and the only thing I ever used 6 cores for was compiling.
How does it stack up against a 2500k? I bet that is what a LOT of people want to know as they are hanging on to their 2500k waiting for a something worth buying.
What I would like to see is a comparison of a 2500k OC'd to 4.8 GHz vs whatever OC can be had with the 4790k. I imagine many enthusiasts with the 2500k are not running it at stock speeds.
Then go dig the pro/dedicated/geek overclockers forums - there are plenty of them out there. It's all there in numbers (but yes, this info is sparse and scarce and not in a single place - geek overclockers rarely bother to systematize the performance information, with a few exceptions).
Don't make it too complicated. If you finally find benchmarks with OC clock speeds comparable to yours they will probably have run at different memory settings, will have used not the software you're going to use etc.
On average Ivy is about 6% faster per clock than Sandy, and Haswell is about 8% faster per clock than Ivy. Together you can expect on average 14.5% more performance per clock, plus whatever HT and the larger L3 cache give you in your applications. The latter is good for a few % at most, whereas the latter depends strongly on your software (0 - 30%).
A nice rule of thumb is that upgrades with less than a 50% CPU performance increase won't be subjectively noticeable. So if you're still pleased with your Sandy, don't upgrade yet. Devils Canyon can't change this obvious conclusion, which is valid since the initial launch of Haswell.
Good answer to his question right there, it's uninspiring that there still isn't anything worth upgrading to (unless you use your system for actual time sensitive work) but at the same time it's kind of satisfying that we might get as much mileage out of the trust 2500K/2600K as we did out of the old Q6600.
Well, this is not surprising, since i7-4790K is around 3 times faster than Core 2 Quad Q6600 (considering both at stock frequencies). This comparison case is actually a comparison case of the first & slowest and latest & fastest quad core Intel CPUs being produced up to date :)
Ahh, I'm currently in the process of moving my Q6600 out of service, having run it as a server at stock speed with 1.15V since it was replaced by a 2500K for the gaming setup :)
"The i7-4790K on the other hand has the highest stock clocks of any CPU Intel has ever released..."
Not entirely accurate. The Xeon X5698 has a stock speed of 4.4 Ghz. The only catch is that the X5698 was an OEM only chip due to the niche it was targeting.
Yes, but there was no turbo on the X5698 AFAICT. It was a weird chip, regardless, and the fact that Intel doesn't even list it in ARK makes it even more of an oddity. So it was a six-core chip with all but two cores disabled, with the clock speed goosed to 4.4GHz and a codename of Everest, and it was largely ignored. Basically it was the last gasp of the "clock speed is king" era IMO. Now we're back up to 4.4GHz, but at roughly half the power draw as Everest.
Don't be so picky - I guess, 97% of desktop customers are unaware of such an oddity from the past as X5698 :) Only server guys and geeks may remember now about this SKU, I think :)
OK, I'm stumped. I've been trying to puzzle out the nature of the "Short Bytes" series. There's only this + one more that comes up when I click on the tag for it so not a big sample size to extrapolate from so far. Where do these fit in vs. say reading just the conclusion of the original review? And why have it come so far after the original review? Maybe they're intended to provide updates once there's been more field experience to draw from (ie like the likely 4.7 max o/c provided here?)
I'm guessing there's an answer and its bothering me I can't figure it out...
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
30 Comments
Back to Article
RadicalEntity - Monday, August 4, 2014 - link
Please, for the love of all that is holy, compare the 4790k OC to the 4930k. Or at least add the 4930k to the benchmark comparison page. We get it, the 4790k is faster than the 4770k. A lot less obvious and a lot more interesting is how the chip stacks up in multi-threaded applications versus a hexa-core.takeshi7 - Monday, August 4, 2014 - link
I think they should just wait and compare it to Haswell-ETiGr1982 - Monday, August 4, 2014 - link
A lot of benchmarks are out there on the web for these two separately; go look yourself - what's the problem?Regarding multithreading business, for example, Core i7-4790K at stock scores 850 in Cinebench R15, and Core i7-4930K at stock scores around 970. So, the hehacore only wins by 970/850 = 1.14, or 14%. And so on - somewhere 4930K does even better, but not principally better.
IMHO, 4790K is a better buy among the two, because, to me, the 4930K's multithreaded lead is not justified by its much higher price, higher M/B cost, older X79 chipset, older Ivy Bridge cores and thus considerably slower single thread operation and lack of newest CPU instructions such as AVX2, FMA3 and TSX, all of which are present in Haswell, but absent in Ivy Bridge.
If you really need more cores, then I advise to wait till Haswell-E arrives next month and go for Haswell-E.
JarredWalton - Monday, August 4, 2014 - link
Regarding the lack of LGA2011 CPUs (and plenty of other CPUs as well), this was specifically intended as a short overview of Devil's Canyon, putting it's performance in perspective relative to existing mainstream CPUs. I'm working on a separate article that will look at a larger selection of CPUs, which will likely post some time later this week.RadicalEntity - Tuesday, August 5, 2014 - link
Amazing! Thanks Jarred, can't wait to read.RadicalEntity - Tuesday, August 5, 2014 - link
That actually answers my question very well, thank you.designgears - Sunday, August 10, 2014 - link
Pretty useless to compare those two, single core it will be slower, multicore, would be pretty close. Real life, not much uses 6 cores. I used my old i7-970 in my media center and the only thing I ever used 6 cores for was compiling.klmccaughey - Monday, August 4, 2014 - link
How does it stack up against a 2500k? I bet that is what a LOT of people want to know as they are hanging on to their 2500k waiting for a something worth buying.DanNeely - Monday, August 4, 2014 - link
That's what bench is for:http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/288?vs=1261
SpeedMan88 - Monday, August 4, 2014 - link
What I would like to see is a comparison of a 2500k OC'd to 4.8 GHz vs whatever OC can be had with the 4790k. I imagine many enthusiasts with the 2500k are not running it at stock speeds.TiGr1982 - Monday, August 4, 2014 - link
Then go dig the pro/dedicated/geek overclockers forums - there are plenty of them out there.It's all there in numbers (but yes, this info is sparse and scarce and not in a single place - geek overclockers rarely bother to systematize the performance information, with a few exceptions).
MrSpadge - Monday, August 4, 2014 - link
Don't make it too complicated. If you finally find benchmarks with OC clock speeds comparable to yours they will probably have run at different memory settings, will have used not the software you're going to use etc.On average Ivy is about 6% faster per clock than Sandy, and Haswell is about 8% faster per clock than Ivy. Together you can expect on average 14.5% more performance per clock, plus whatever HT and the larger L3 cache give you in your applications. The latter is good for a few % at most, whereas the latter depends strongly on your software (0 - 30%).
A nice rule of thumb is that upgrades with less than a 50% CPU performance increase won't be subjectively noticeable. So if you're still pleased with your Sandy, don't upgrade yet. Devils Canyon can't change this obvious conclusion, which is valid since the initial launch of Haswell.
Impulses - Monday, August 4, 2014 - link
Good answer to his question right there, it's uninspiring that there still isn't anything worth upgrading to (unless you use your system for actual time sensitive work) but at the same time it's kind of satisfying that we might get as much mileage out of the trust 2500K/2600K as we did out of the old Q6600.klmccaughey - Monday, August 4, 2014 - link
YEah I will take that as a NO then. There is no point in upgrading. Will checlk back next tick or tock or whatever.idless - Monday, August 4, 2014 - link
Just upgraded to 4790k all the way from q6600. A very satisfying experience! Will be exciting to see how long the new CPU will last (as viable).TiGr1982 - Monday, August 4, 2014 - link
Well, this is not surprising, since i7-4790K is around 3 times faster than Core 2 Quad Q6600 (considering both at stock frequencies).This comparison case is actually a comparison case of the first & slowest and latest & fastest quad core Intel CPUs being produced up to date :)
slacr - Tuesday, August 5, 2014 - link
Ahh, I'm currently in the process of moving my Q6600 out of service, having run it as a server at stock speed with 1.15V since it was replaced by a 2500K for the gaming setup :)iamezza - Tuesday, August 5, 2014 - link
That bench comparo shows the 4690K as more than double the speed of the 2500K in all the gaming benchmarks. Something is messed up there.extide - Tuesday, August 5, 2014 - link
No, just read the charts man... The ones with the 2x speed increase are using the integrated Processor Graphics (HD3000 vs HD4600)HardwareDufus - Monday, August 4, 2014 - link
The article was titled 'Short Byte'.Why are so many of you complaining it's not a 7 course meal?
Me thinkest thou art of the 'give me everything now!' set.
Alexey291 - Tuesday, August 5, 2014 - link
In half a year or so (when everyone on this forgot that this cpu even existed) there might be a review on it.Or more likely yet - never.
Instead they will review some 4 year old phones and look at how colour accuracy has improved from 2010 to 2012... Or something :/
JarredWalton - Tuesday, August 5, 2014 - link
Umm... we already have a full review of Devil's Canyon; it's linked in the first paragraph.homerdog - Monday, August 4, 2014 - link
Devil's Canyon CPUs also support VT-d and TSX, whereas the 4670K and 4770K do not. I'm just putting that out there.JarredWalton - Monday, August 4, 2014 - link
Thanks! I was actually in the process of updating the text to note this when I saw your comment. :-)Kevin G - Monday, August 4, 2014 - link
"The i7-4790K on the other hand has the highest stock clocks of any CPU Intel has ever released..."Not entirely accurate. The Xeon X5698 has a stock speed of 4.4 Ghz. The only catch is that the X5698 was an OEM only chip due to the niche it was targeting.
JarredWalton - Monday, August 4, 2014 - link
To be fair, it's still tied for the highest clock and is thus "the highest". Plus, dual-core Nehalem is a bit long in the tooth now.Kevin G - Monday, August 4, 2014 - link
Except 4.4 Ghz was that Xeon's base speed, not turbo.JarredWalton - Monday, August 4, 2014 - link
Yes, but there was no turbo on the X5698 AFAICT. It was a weird chip, regardless, and the fact that Intel doesn't even list it in ARK makes it even more of an oddity. So it was a six-core chip with all but two cores disabled, with the clock speed goosed to 4.4GHz and a codename of Everest, and it was largely ignored. Basically it was the last gasp of the "clock speed is king" era IMO. Now we're back up to 4.4GHz, but at roughly half the power draw as Everest.TiGr1982 - Monday, August 4, 2014 - link
Don't be so picky - I guess,97% of desktop customers are unaware of such an oddity from the past as X5698 :)
Only server guys and geeks may remember now about this SKU, I think :)
brucek2 - Friday, August 8, 2014 - link
OK, I'm stumped. I've been trying to puzzle out the nature of the "Short Bytes" series. There's only this + one more that comes up when I click on the tag for it so not a big sample size to extrapolate from so far. Where do these fit in vs. say reading just the conclusion of the original review? And why have it come so far after the original review? Maybe they're intended to provide updates once there's been more field experience to draw from (ie like the likely 4.7 max o/c provided here?)I'm guessing there's an answer and its bothering me I can't figure it out...