[SOLVED] i7 4790 is still good?

[CactuarFF]

Hello guys, I want to buy an used i7 4790, is still good? I have an i3 4150, 8Gb RAM [16Gb coming soon] and a GTX 1660 6Gb [Normal, not super nor ti]. This option it's cheaper than upgrade the entire system to an i3 10100, and I can't spend in a full upgrade [CPU, RAM, Motherboard].

My question is if the i7 7490 [Normal, Not K] works fine for gaming with my GTX 1660 and 16Gb 1600 [Coming soon] and if the difference between an i3 10100 isn't big.

My other question is, what test or what I should see when I buy an used CPU to avoid malfunctions or scams. Thanks

Please, I don't want a Ryzen because Intel is my fav brand for years and I had zero problems with they. With AMD I had a problem in the past and I don't want to change to ryzen, at least for now, probably in the future.

 

[SamirD]

The 4790 is a nice boost in cores and single thread performance from the 4150. But the 4790k is even better than that even if you never overclock it. That's what I installed when I swapped my 4130. Huge difference you can feel even at stock clocks:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compar...el-i7-4790-vs-Intel-i7-4790K/2252vs2226vs2275

You just have to make sure you have enough cooling because you are going from a 54w to 84/88w, and the 4790k needs all that cooling. I usually just 100% the fan on a lesser heatsink and a higher tdp cpu will work fine, but not the 4790k as it would throttle under full load. Once I changed the heatsink it's happy and cool.

 

[theonerm2]

It's OK for gaming. Not great but it's still OK. It will play your games but the experience won't be that great. It depends a lot on what games you want to play too though.

 

[sizzling]

A big question is how much is it costing? I’ve seen the 4790k being sold for the price of a new cpu/RAM/motherboard. I know you are looking at the 4790 but still if you are a significant way towards the price of a new platform then go with a new cpu/RAM/motherboard, it should last you much longer.

 

[theonerm2]

A big question is how much is it costing? I’ve seen the 4790k being sold for the price of a new cpu/RAM/motherboard. I know you are looking at the 4790 but still if you are a significant way towards the price of a new platform then go with a new cpu/RAM/motherboard, it should last you much longer.

I personally was thinking about suggesting to sell the current platform and upgrade even to a Ryzen 3 3100. Those lga1150 motherboards are still selling high. At least the Z97 ones.

 

[CactuarFF]

The 4790 is a nice boost in cores and single thread performance from the 4150. But the 4790k is even better than that even if you never overclock it. That's what I installed when I swapped my 4130. Huge difference you can feel even at stock clocks:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compar...el-i7-4790-vs-Intel-i7-4790K/2252vs2226vs2275

You just have to make sure you have enough cooling because you are going from a 54w to 84/88w, and the 4790k needs all that cooling. I usually just 100% the fan on a lesser heatsink and a higher tdp cpu will work fine, but not the 4790k as it would throttle under full load. Once I changed the heatsink it's happy and cool.

Hi, thanks for your reply. I'll try to find a 4790k but looks difficult in the store, I can only see a 4790 I'll search more in the next days. About temperatures, at this moment mine are 75° for CPU and 70° GPU after 4 hours in Horizon Zero Dawn at Max Settings (excepting the last one, it's in High), will be ok with the same cooler? The purchase only includes the CPU and I'll use the cooler from the i3 and a thermal paste by Manhattan.

 

[CactuarFF]

It's OK for gaming. Not great but it's still OK. It will play your games but the experience won't be that great. It depends a lot on what games you want to play too though.

Hi, thanks for your reply, I'll play games like The Witcher 3, Horizon Zero Dawn, Hitman 3, games with storyline and RPGs, in online only Paladins and Fall Guys

 

[CactuarFF]

A big question is how much is it costing? I’ve seen the 4790k being sold for the price of a new cpu/RAM/motherboard. I know you are looking at the 4790 but still if you are a significant way towards the price of a new platform then go with a new cpu/RAM/motherboard, it should last you much longer.

Hello, thanks for your reply. The cost is 120 USD includes only the CPU, not fan nor thermal paste. I'll use the same cooler from my i3 and a thermal paste by Manhattan.

 

[CactuarFF]

I personally was thinking about suggesting to sell the current platform and upgrade even to a Ryzen 3 3100. Those lga1150 motherboards are still selling high. At least the Z97 ones.

The problem is they give me the money around 1 or 2 weeks later and I need my PC to work but thanks for the idea

 

[SamirD]

Hi, thanks for your reply. I'll try to find a 4790k but looks difficult in the store, I can only see a 4790 I'll search more in the next days. About temperatures, at this moment mine are 75° for CPU and 70° GPU after 4 hours in Horizon Zero Dawn at Max Settings (excepting the last one, it's in High), will be ok with the same cooler? The purchase only includes the CPU and I'll use the cooler from the i3 and a thermal paste by Manhattan.

If you're buying any of these processors new, unless they are old stock (very very unlikely), they are fakes. Buy a genuine used processor from someone upgrading and it will be cheaper and safer.

As far as the cooler, no. Actually, hell no. I used my existing i3 cooler and have the set set to 100% constantly and my 4790k would still thermal under testing load. Once I had the right heatsink the problem went away.

 

[CactuarFF]

If you're buying any of these processors new, unless they are old stock (very very unlikely), they are fakes. Buy a genuine used processor from someone upgrading and it will be cheaper and safer.

As far as the cooler, no. Actually, hell no. I used my existing i3 cooler and have the set set to 100% constantly and my 4790k would still thermal under testing load. Once I had the right heatsink the problem went away.

Ok thanks 😊, how do you see this?, is a 4790 used 24/7 for 2 years in a laboratory 115-120 USD, only office and and other software I don't remember the name. Or what time do you recommend to avoid malfunctions. A big question, in some photos I see the processor in its front face say Vietnam, other say Costa Rica, is that something important? And talking the temperatures, what was your temp before change the cooler? I'm thinking in a 212, everyone say is a good cooler for everything. Thanks

 

[King_V]

Please, I don't want a Ryzen because Intel is my fav brand for years and I had zero problems with they. With AMD I had a problem in the past and I don't want to change to ryzen, at least for now, probably in the future.

Just as a point of reference, when you eventually do move up to a new platform in the future, you are hurting yourself by assuming that AMD's Ryzen is anything like the AMD CPUs from the AM3+ and earlier era.

 

[CactuarFF]

Just as a point of reference, when you eventually do move up to a new platform in the future, you are hurting yourself by assuming that AMD's Ryzen is anything like the AMD CPUs from the AM3+ and earlier era.

Hi, ok, probably you're right, what Ryzen do you recommend me for my 1660?

 

[King_V]

Hi, ok, probably you're right, what Ryzen do you recommend me for my 1660?

Honestly, there's no such thing as a CPU-to-GPU ideal match. Even if you got an "ideal" CPU-to-GPU match for one game, play a different game on the same equipment, and the balance can change, sometimes dramatically.

It's a question of:

• What is your monitor's resolution?
• What is your monitor's refresh rate?
• Does your monitor have FreeSync, GSync, or neither?
• What specific games are you playing?

The GTX 1660 is excellent for 1920x1080 at 60fps at high/max details in the games Tomshardware tests with.

My son's screen is 2560x1080, and while it can do higher refresh, he prefers doing things around 60 fps with the details cranked high. He's using an RX5700, which is a bit overkill, but at the time, this particular model of 5700 was available for the same price as most of the RX 5600 XT cards. The RX 5600 XT is what I was actually looking for at the time.

My son has a Ryzen 5 1600 (12nm refresh version, usually designated as 1600AF), so a basically slightly detuned Ryzen 5 2600. I was shopping for a 2600, but the 1600, losing only a small amount of performance, was so much cheaper that it was the best bang-for-the-buck available.

I do agree with @dcvikes that the Ryzen 5 3600 is a good choice. However, if you can find it at a reasonable price, and if you're predominantly gaming (don't care about streaming, multi-tasking etc). the 3300X is worth considering. It's 4 core/8 thread (rather than 6/12 like the 1600, 2600, and 3600), but it can give the 3600 a run for its money when it comes to gaming performance. If it had been available when I was building my son's PC, I would've gone with the 3300X.

 

[CactuarFF]

Vanilla Ryzen 5 3600.

Hi, thanks for your reply I'll Start to consider this model too


Edit: I saw it and looks very good, do you recommend me this or the Ryzen 7 1700x?

 

[CactuarFF]

Honestly, there's no such thing as a CPU-to-GPU ideal match. Even if you got an "ideal" CPU-to-GPU match for one game, play a different game on the same equipment, and the balance can change, sometimes dramatically.

It's a question of:

• What is your monitor's resolution?
• What is your monitor's refresh rate?
• Does your monitor have FreeSync, GSync, or neither?
• What specific games are you playing?

The GTX 1660 is excellent for 1920x1080 at 60fps at high/max details in the games Tomshardware tests with.

My son's screen is 2560x1080, and while it can do higher refresh, he prefers doing things around 60 fps with the details cranked high. He's using an RX5700, which is a bit overkill, but at the time, this particular model of 5700 was available for the same price as most of the RX 5600 XT cards. The RX 5600 XT is what I was actually looking for at the time.

My son has a Ryzen 5 1600 (12nm refresh version, usually designated as 1600AF), so a basically slightly detuned Ryzen 5 2600. I was shopping for a 2600, but the 1600, losing only a small amount of performance, was so much cheaper that it was the best bang-for-the-buck available.

I do agree with @dcvikes that the Ryzen 5 3600 is a good choice. However, if you can find it at a reasonable price, and if you're predominantly gaming (don't care about streaming, multi-tasking etc). the 3300X is worth considering. It's 4 core/8 thread (rather than 6/12 like the 1600, 2600, and 3600), but it can give the 3600 a run for its money when it comes to gaming performance. If it had been available when I was building my son's PC, I would've gone with the 3300X.

Hi thanks for your reply , I'll play story games, like Horizon Zero Dawn, The Witcher, Detroit Become Human, RPGs like Final Fantasy, that kind of games and Paladins and Fall Guys . My monitor is 1080p @75 hz but not matter if I play at 20 or 30 fps because I look up for Ultra settings ,to stop in every landscape and enjoy the beautiful things of each level.

The situation is the following: I saw in the store and the Ryzen 5 3600 has a good price and looks awesome 215, the Ryzen 3 3300x it's around 50 less, BUT, the only one with a significant lower price is the Ryzen 7 1700x around 35 USD less than 3300x but with 8 cores and 16 threats. Between Ryzen 5 3600 and Ryzen 7 1700x which one do you recommend me? And why no one is interested in the 1700x? Thanks.

 

[King_V]

I don't know how demanding most of the games you listed are, except I know the original Witcher is older, and thus can't be too demanding.

But, given your monitor's specs, I think with the 1660, 75fps should be doable with high settings, though you can always turn that down if needed to keep the details cranked all the way up. What brand and model number is your monitor? If it has one of the adaptive sync settings, that would help smooth things in some of the areas where the frame rates dip.

That said, of the two CPUs, I would go with the 3600 for the following reasons:

• 6 cores/12 threads is PLENTY for gaming and streaming, there's no real need to go to 8 cores/16 threads.
• The 3600 consumes less power and runs cooler, 65W TDP vs the 1700x having 95W TDP.
• The 3600 has a higher IPC (instructions per clock) due to refinements in the Ryzen architecture since the 1000 series first came out.
• The 3600 has a higher base clock of 3.6GHz vs the 1700x having 3.4GHz.
• The 3600 has a higher boost clock of 4.2GHz vs the 1700x having 3.8GHz.
• The 3600 likely is able to better handle higher speed RAM modules than the 1700x (3rd generation vs 1st generation Ryzen)

Going for the 1700x:

• It has a better cooler.
  • But that's probably necessary for the greater number of cores and 95W TDP.
• Depending on the price of the 3600 vs the $35 less for the 1700x, the 1700x may have a better price/performance ratio, even if you're giving up a little bit of gaming performance.

Without knowing how much each costs, that last one is a little hard to determine.

 

[CactuarFF]

I don't know how demanding most of the games you listed are, except I know the original Witcher is older, and thus can't be too demanding.

But, given your monitor's specs, I think with the 1660, 75fps should be doable with high settings, though you can always turn that down if needed to keep the details cranked all the way up. What brand and model number is your monitor? If it has one of the adaptive sync settings, that would help smooth things in some of the areas where the frame rates dip.

That said, of the two CPUs, I would go with the 3600 for the following reasons:

• 6 cores/12 threads is PLENTY for gaming and streaming, there's no real need to go to 8 cores/16 threads.
• The 3600 consumes less power and runs cooler, 65W TDP vs the 1700x having 95W TDP.
• The 3600 has a higher IPC (instructions per clock) due to refinements in the Ryzen architecture since the 1000 series first came out.
• The 3600 has a higher base clock of 3.6GHz vs the 1700x having 3.4GHz.
• The 3600 has a higher boost clock of 4.2GHz vs the 1700x having 3.8GHz.
• The 3600 likely is able to better handle higher speed RAM modules than the 1700x (3rd generation vs 1st generation Ryzen)

Going for the 1700x:

• It has a better cooler.
  • But that's probably necessary for the greater number of cores and 95W TDP.
• Depending on the price of the 3600 vs the $35 less for the 1700x, the 1700x may have a better price/performance ratio, even if you're giving up a little bit of gaming performance.

Without knowing how much each costs, that last one is a little hard to determine.

Sorry the store has a bug and only display the correct prices in the shopping cart, the real prices are the following:

Ryzen 7 1700x 150
Ryzen 3 3300x 170
Ryzen 5 3600 220

The difference is huge and very very good,but I didn't know about that high TDP, if I buy the 1700x I'll have to spend 60 more in a hyper 212, I hope that's sufficient for the temp. In that case probably the Ryzen 5 is the better option or Ryzen 3 if I can't reach the other. My monitor is the LG 24MP59G-P, is Free sync compatible, adaptative sync works but only between 40-60/70 hz, isn't full compatible, or at least the people say that in a test they made in a dedicated web.

 

[King_V]

Yeah, 40-75Hz FreeSync range, according to what AMD's FreeSync Monitor Page says about the 24MP59G (not sure what difference the "-P" at the end makes).

Mostly, even if it's not on Nvidia's list, "G-Sync compatible" functionality should work. In my own personal experience, it had issues with a GTX 1080 combined with my specific monitor (Acer XR382CQK 38" 3840x1600 IPS, 48-75 FreeSync). But, it should, easily, I think, be able to handle 60fps in most cases, and it's likely that the "G-Sync compatible" functionality should work.

Hmm, that lower price for the 1700x is pretty darn good. The 3300x is an amazing little chip, and should be cheaper, but, well, things are a little crazy now.

That said, the advantages of the 3300x are the 3.8GHz base/4.3GHz boost, which put it over both the 3600 and 1700x in terms of gaming performance, overall.

Still, even though it's only 4 core/8 thread, the 3300x I think would be the better gaming chip. I've kind of had to extrapolate from a few performance review articles.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-3-3300x-3100-cpu-review/3

That's the 1080p gaming performance with an overkill video card, to compare the relative CPU performances.

Figure the Ryzen 1700x performs ROUGHLY around the level of the 1600AF. It is usually matched by the 2600, and the 2600 is a hair faster than the 1600AF. My estimate is that, in gaming the 3600 definitely is faster than the 1700x.

If I were choosing, and the focus was gaming, I'd probably still go with the 3300x. But, the 1700x isn't a bad choice. I would think its stock cooler for the 1700x, which is beefier than what comes with the 3300x or 3600, would be able to handle it fine, but I have no personal experience with it.

However, if the choice is between the 3300x and the 3600, I'd go with the 3300x.

 

[CactuarFF]

Yeah, 40-75Hz FreeSync range, according to what AMD's FreeSync Monitor Page says about the 24MP59G (not sure what difference the "-P" at the end makes).

Mostly, even if it's not on Nvidia's list, "G-Sync compatible" functionality should work. In my own personal experience, it had issues with a GTX 1080 combined with my specific monitor (Acer XR382CQK 38" 3840x1600 IPS, 48-75 FreeSync). But, it should, easily, I think, be able to handle 60fps in most cases, and it's likely that the "G-Sync compatible" functionality should work.

Hmm, that lower price for the 1700x is pretty darn good. The 3300x is an amazing little chip, and should be cheaper, but, well, things are a little crazy now.

That said, the advantages of the 3300x are the 3.8GHz base/4.3GHz boost, which put it over both the 3600 and 1700x in terms of gaming performance, overall.

Still, even though it's only 4 core/8 thread, the 3300x I think would be the better gaming chip. I've kind of had to extrapolate from a few performance review articles.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-3-3300x-3100-cpu-review/3

That's the 1080p gaming performance with an overkill video card, to compare the relative CPU performances.

Figure the Ryzen 1700x performs ROUGHLY around the level of the 1600AF. It is usually matched by the 2600, and the 2600 is a hair faster than the 1600AF. My estimate is that, in gaming the 3600 definitely is faster than the 1700x.

If I were choosing, and the focus was gaming, I'd probably still go with the 3300x. But, the 1700x isn't a bad choice. I would think its stock cooler for the 1700x, which is beefier than what comes with the 3300x or 3600, would be able to handle it fine, but I have no personal experience with it.

However, if the choice is between the 3300x and the 3600, I'd go with the 3300x.

Hello, I appreciate so much all the information you gave me, based in that I'll buy the 3300x then. I'll investigate a little more about the cooler of the 1700x I'm so curious if the stock cooler works fine. Thanks a lot.

 

[SamirD]

Ok thanks 😊, how do you see this?, is a 4790 used 24/7 for 2 years in a laboratory 115-120 USD, only office and and other software I don't remember the name. Or what time do you recommend to avoid malfunctions. A big question, in some photos I see the processor in its front face say Vietnam, other say Costa Rica, is that something important? And talking the temperatures, what was your temp before change the cooler? I'm thinking in a 212, everyone say is a good cooler for everything. Thanks

You really can't. Fakes can look identical to real ones. It's really about the seller and if they're shady or reputable. Most of the time corporate resellers won't mess around with fakes and whatnot since they have high-dollar repeat clients that will go elsewhere, so they're good to buy from. Plus, because they usually have high volumes, their prices can be better. That being said, someone who's upgrading and bought the processor new is almost as good as it gets. Usage time isn't very important on the processor as much as it was genuine. Processors usually don't fail.

Intel uses different plants around the world to make their processors. The key on those is that they should match verified legit processors.

It's a Dell Optiplex 3020 SFF that I keep in an 80F room, so I kept all the fans floored and the temps never broke 45C even under load with the i3. But once I put in the 4790k, it would not drop below 60-60C and under load would throttle out at 99C. Once I put in the 'performance cooler' for the 3020, temps dropped into the 50s, but not less than that. The 4790k runs hot because it's stock clock is 4Ghz.

The 212 is a great cooler for decades now--really can't go wrong with it.

 

[mdd1963]

The R3-3300X should be one of THE best budget gaming CPUs of the last 5 years!