Question cheapest i7 quad core with ddr4 support

I7 6700 or t likely, but we would need more info.

What motherboard? Why do you want to buy a 4 core i7 specificly? For what use?

Now none of the the newer i7 4 cores are a good idea. A cheaper but newer 6 core i5 or ryzen 5 with ddr4 support would be a better option.
 
Aug 31, 2019
12
0
10
0
I7 6700 or t likely, but we would need more info.

What motherboard? Why do you want to buy a 4 core i7 specificly? For what use?

Now none of the the newer i7 4 cores are a good idea. A cheaper but newer 6 core i5 or ryzen 5 with ddr4 support would be a better option.
I want it for gaming
 

QwerkyPengwen

Dignified
Herald
Well to answer your question directly, the cheapest i7 with ddr4 support according to pcpp is the i7-930.

But this is for pricing and availability in America.

But as others have stated, do you already have a motherboard? If so, then that will limit the i7 to only ones that work on that motherboard generation.

If you only have the RAM and no CPU or motherboard then much better bang for buck with Ryzen
 

QwerkyPengwen

Dignified
Herald
And in America that thing is $270 without the box and everything.

And at that price it's better to get a Ryzen 5 3600 and x570 mobo assuming the op doesn't already have a motherboard.

But honestly the op' s question is kind of pointless to answer right now since anything we say is strictly in response to "the cheapest i7 with ddr4 support" and what we say will completely change if the op already has an Intel motherboard and is just looking to upgrade. Because they could have an older ddr3 system and getting just a newer i7 wouldn't be enough and they would need to buy a new mobo and RAM, or if their platform is ddr4 then they are limited in choice to whatever generation i7 is compatible with that motherboard.

If they are asking simply because they want to build a system from scratch around the CPU as some people like to do then that is perfectly ok, but Ryzen would be a better choice for budget at that point
 
They already stated that they haven't bought a motherboard, and plan to get one that's compatible with whatever "quad core i7" they get.

Honestly, that's a bad idea though. Quad-core i7s are no longer relevent unless perhaps one is buying one used to upgrade an existing system. After AMD released the first Ryzen processors, Intel follwed up by increasing core counts at every price point with their "8th gen" Core processors to remain competitive. As a result, the 6-core, 6-thread 8th gen i5s perform very similar to the 4-core, 8-thread 7th gen i7s, only at much lower prices, making anything older not worth buying for a new system. And the 9th-gen models offer a bit better value still.

So, as an answer to the question of "what is the cheapest i7 quad core with ddr4 support?" The answer would be not a quad core i7 at all, but rather a newer 6-core i5, such as the i5-9400F (under $150 in the US) or an i5-9600K (around $220 in the US) if you want an overclockable processor.

Personally, I would go with a 6-core, 12-thread Ryzen 3600 in that price range though (just under $200 in the US), which offers better heavily-multithreaded performance due to its inclusion of SMT, which will likely keep it relevant a bit longer than a 6-core i5 without, even if it has slightly less per-core performance in current games than a 9600K.
 
Then the cheapest you can get is the i7 9700K - and it's crap when compared with the Ryzen R7 . Quad core I7s go back several years, and they get blown out of the water by the cheapest Ryzen 3xxx.
'crap'? :)

That's certainly a tad harsh of an assessment considering gaming was the sole issue raised in performance, and is the 9700K/9900K's 'reason for being' as of late.

Again, in light of a gaming system...how many Ryzens out-frame the 9700K (much less the 9900K) in pure gaming scenarios? (Hint: none, yet, in most games)

Yes, the 3600 is a very,very good performer as is the 3700X/3800X, with each now rivaling the 8700X in gaming. But the 9700K/9900K still sit on a proverbial wobbling gaming throne, however precarious of a position that is, and, with top GPUs, nothing can match them. (Granted, with mid-range GPUs that 95% of folks buy, the Ryzen such as a 3600 could provide $150-$200 savings allowing a better GPU purchase) Lots of facts to consider in processor/mainboard choice these days...

Were it for video editing, content creation, and lots of tasks that require and excel on more cores, however the Ryzen's place on that throne (all-around, content creation, value/performance) looks comfortable.,...
 

monitorlizard

Prominent
Aug 5, 2018
27
9
545
1
Then the cheapest you can get is the i7 9700K - and it's crap when compared with the Ryzen R7 . Quad core I7s go back several years, and they get blown out of the water by the cheapest Ryzen 3xxx.
You have a funny definition of "crap".
Please...enlighten us with your reasoning. Actual numbers would be preferable.
 
Reactions: NightHawkRMX

mitch074

Distinguished
You have a funny definition of "crap".
Please...enlighten us with your reasoning. Actual numbers would be preferable.
65W vs 105W for similar performance, i7 costs an extra $100 and doesn't come with a cooler (add $30)... "Same performance, hotter, more power hungry and more expensive" means a crap deal in my book. So yeah, the i7 is crap. If you only need gaming performance the i5 9600K performs similarly but is less expensive, and the i9 9900K is the performance leader - but is prohibitively expensive (when you can find it). As for the -F variant, its market price isn't much better than the -K one.
All right, the 9700K has one advantage over the 3700X ; it comes with an IGP. It makes it useful for those apps that make use of QuickSync.
 

mitch074

Distinguished
"Same performance"
Gotcha.
Well, for those few websites that compared these 2 CPUs (and not the 9900K) the 3700X was within spitting distance of the 9700K - win some, lose some - and simply slaughtered it when it came to productivity. Since we're talking game here, I simply used "same performance" instead of "much better value all around".
About older, DDR4-using quad core i7, the best was the 7700k - but it's still expensive, a technological dead end, and most games get better performance with more recent chips from both makers. It also got nerfed but good with the latest Spectre/Meltdown mitigations.
 
An locked Core i7 6700 is about the cheapest you can find, and its sti. A aillilar cost to an i5 9400f.
As I pointed out before, the biggest problem here is that the i5-9400F is faster than an i7-6700 in both games and applications, and is similar in performance to a stock i7-6700K. Since it costs less than either, there's no point in going with an older i7 for anyone who isn't upgrading an older motherboard that can't take the newer processors.

And while those older boards have no potential processor upgrades available beyond what those older i7s have to offer, the newer boards leave the option to swap that 6-core i5 with an even better performing i7 in the future. Or, simply go with a newer i7 now.

As far as pricing goes, the i5-9400F is available for under $150 in the US. The i7-6700 and 6700K are typically priced in the $250-$300 range, and even used chips are more than $200. Anyone wanting to spend around $300 on a new CPU would be far better off getting an i7-8700 or 9700, which should definitely remain relevant longer due to their higher core counts giving them better performance at heavily multithreaded tasks. Or, go with the Ryzen 3600 for around $200. Any of these newer processors should offer more value for your money than a quad-core i7.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS