Intel Core i7-5820K vs i7-4790K for sw development & gaming

[darthdeus]

Hi guys,

I'm looking to build a powerful desktop PC for my programming and gaming needs, and currently I'm having trouble deciding between i7-4790K and i7-5820K. Comparing the stats it seems that 5820K should be a clear winner, but it seems almost too good to be true.

• Pros:
  - 6 cores
  - newer SSE 4.2 + AES instructions (not sure if I'd benefit from this yet, but I guess AES could be a plus)
  - 15MB L3 cache (still not sure if this is per CPU, or in total? though 15/12 is still better than 8/8)
  - DDR4 support
  - higher memory bandwidth and addressable 64GB

• Cons:
  - 3.3GHz, while 4790K has 4.0GHz
  - no integrated graphics card (given that I'll have an external one, I guess I don't really care about this)
  - probably higher power usage
  - 2011-3 socket - not sure if this is a pro or a con, but since it forces me to buy a more expensive motherboard, I'll put this as a con ... but I'd like to know if there are any benefits here
  - price - though at my local retailer I can get 5820K with a nice heat sink (which I'd buy anyway), which brings the price basically equal to 4790K

 

[darthdeus]

Another important decision to make here is how much and how fast of a ram you need.

Yes, this is one of the things I'm currently working through to decide. Ultimately I'd want 32GB RAM, but right now I'll just buy 2x8GB with a possibility to upgrade with another 2x8GB in the near future. I've had 16GB on my laptop for the past 3 years, and it suits me just fine, but I have the feeling that for this machine I'd really like to have a bit more, since those 16GB are usually used up to 80-90% most of the time.

My current favorite for RAM is http://pcpartpicker.com/part/crucial-memory-bls2k8g4d240fsa

I'm not really sure how this forum works, should I start another thread, or is it ok to continue the discussion here, even though it's offtopic?

 

[DubbleClick]

Hah, if I just knew that, guess it comes down to personal preference.

As I guess you'd prefer to keep ram and motherboard expense arguable, but still don't want to miss out on performance, this is the best 2x8 kit I could find for a reasonable price: https://pcpartpicker.com/part/gskill-memory-f42400c15d16grr

2400mhz, too, lower timings (=latency) and more important lower price.
Next kit I'd recommend would be: https://pcpartpicker.com/part/corsair-memory-cmk16gx4m2a2400c14 which however sells for quite a bit more.

 

[darthdeus]

Hah, if I just knew that, guess it comes down to personal preference.

As I guess you'd prefer to keep ram and motherboard expense arguable, but still don't want to miss out on performance, this is the best 2x8 kit I could find for a reasonable price: https://pcpartpicker.com/part/gskill-memory-f42400c15d16grr

2400mhz, too, lower timings (=latency) and more important lower price.
Next kit I'd recommend would be: https://pcpartpicker.com/part/corsair-memory-cmk16gx4m2a2400c14 which however sells for quite a bit more.

Thanks for the tip!

Also, I've created a followup thread regarding a motherboard in the motherboard section, here's a link if anyone's interested http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-2693081/picking-motherboard-cpu-intel-5820k-2011-socket-development-gaming.html

 

[Karnivore]

Amusing some of you are still harping on how expensive X99 is. Seven months ago it cost a fortune, today a mid-level X99 system would cost you as much as a high end Z97 system - and that mid-level system wipes the floor clean with any Z97 CPU/Mobo. Native USB3/SATA, more cores, next gen RAM and more PCI-E lanes, among other things.

The X99 loses out on Single core workload only, but you can bridge that gap through overclocking. No brainer IMO.

 

[JingLuci]

Amusing some of you are still harping on how expensive X99 is. Seven months ago it cost a fortune, today a mid-level X99 system would cost you as much as a high end Z97 system - and that mid-level system wipes the floor clean with any Z97 CPU/Mobo. Native USB3/SATA, more cores, next gen RAM and more PCI-E lanes, among other things.

The X99 loses out on Single core workload only, but you can bridge that gap through overclocking. No brainer IMO.

Why go for mid level when you can get a high end for the same price. Same price and you get so much more utilities from a z97 board instead of going mid level x99 with lesser function. And no, x99 does not wipe the floor clean with any Z97 CPU/Mobo. The fact that the Z97 can still destroy the X99 in certain application is enough prove that the X99 is not always the best choice. And no matter how much you overclock your X99 CPU, you can never out overclock a Z97 ones. No brainer IMO.

 

[terry4536]

As I said at the beginning of this thread, if cost isn't an issue then go for it. But just with the items I listed a LGA 2011 v3 system is going to be several hundred dollars more than a similar high end i7-4790K system. And particularly for a gaming system, the value isn't there. The only area that it does make sense is one that involves a lot of computations where the extra PCI lanes can be effective. The fact that you have two extra cores is very limited in practice. It is limited by the fact that the individual cores are significantly slower. But it is also limited by the fact that six cores are seldom necessary. If six cores were such a great feature , then the six core AMD processors would be dominating the Intel four core systems. Even when the six core processor are cheaper (as in AMD six cores) they aren't dominating the market.

 

[darthdeus]

And particularly for a gaming system, the value isn't there. The only area that it does make sense is one that involves a lot of computations where the extra PCI lanes can be effective. The fact that you have two extra cores is very limited in practice. It is limited by the fact that the individual cores are significantly slower. But it is also limited by the fact that six cores are seldom necessary.

This is why I mentioned that I need the PC for programming. My current i7 has 4 cores (8 logical cores), and most of the time when I'm doing something, all 8 are being utilized. This is because most of my work is actually implementing things that run in parallel, or at least try to utilize multicore processor.

I guess I should've asked my question differently, as my concern was about the total power of 6 cores at lower clock speed, vs the total power of 4 cores at higher clock speed.

 

[terry4536]

Programming in of itself wouldn't require six cores. But your particular area of programming may. I guess I would think of it this way, most of the time you are going to be using just a single core. The additional cores will be implemented only on an as needed basis. If you think of it in that manner, the processor with the fastest single core operating frequency is your best bet (most of the time). Of course additional features like memory cache are also important.