CPU Upgrade

Discussion in 'Processors and motherboards Intel' started by Spartan, Apr 22, 2016.

  1. Spartan

    Spartan Master Guru

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    R9 290 PCS+
    What do you guys think about mixing a 4690k with asus z97 pro gamer for gaming, and oc it with my current H80i to ~4,3?
     
  2. Undying

    Undying Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    14,531
    Likes Received:
    3,719
    GPU:
    Aorus RX580 XTR 8GB
    How do you mean? If its worth going from your 8350 to 4690k? Yes, definitely.

    Question is : Do you have a good deal on the combo?
     
  3. Spartan

    Spartan Master Guru

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    R9 290 PCS+
    Well, not really. I'm just curious, if someone here has this motherboard with devil's canyon and similar AIO.
     
  4. nz3777

    nz3777 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,467
    Likes Received:
    210
    GPU:
    Gtx 980 Strix
    I have a similar set-up to yours, came from a Fx 6300.

    My set-up....
    1) i7 4790k @ 4.6Ghz Corsair H-80i cooled
    2) Gigabyte Z-97 X Gaming 7 Motherboard.

    Hell yeah its worth the upgrade as Undying mentioned earlier.I have noticed a Huge speed-up in Games, Daily apps, running videos on 3 monitors,Multi-tasking ect....But in some games ( I cant specify ) exactly which ones now no time I say not so much of an improvment. It is in your best interest to hold-off until (Zen) comes out, your current Fx schould get you buy just fine.Just wait it out dude, We are all waiting to see what Zen can do!
     

  5. Spartan

    Spartan Master Guru

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    R9 290 PCS+
    Thanks for your feedback! I really appreciate it! I just go with this cpu+mobo combo. And, nope I'm not gonna buy any amd cpu in the next ~80 years. +/- 10 years.
     
  6. jura11

    jura11 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,393
    Likes Received:
    517
    GPU:
    GTX1080 Ti 1080 FE
    Hi there

    Depends there,if yours PC is used mostly for gaming then I would say,then 4690k should be better,but if budget allows then i7-4770k or 4790k I would probably choose,but still i would rather go with X99 than older 4790k

    But still think yours current FX-8350 is not bad and in some task,mostly multithreaded apps will be better than 4690k without the question and if games use more cores then 4690k will or can be slower

    I wouldn't upgrade right now there,I would wait a bit

    I've went from X58 and X5670 4.2GHz OC to current i7-4790K and if its worth,no,if you are using multithreaded apps and in games depends on games there,in some games my old X5670 has been faster than i7 4790k

    Hope this helps

    Thanks,Jura
     
  7. Tree Dude

    Tree Dude Master Guru

    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    Radeon R9 270X 2GB
    Hey that's my combo right there! I run at 4.4Ghz with a 212 EVO as my cooler. I tried 4.5 without a voltage increase and got some BSODs when playing demanding games. I am sure I could go higher, but have not had a need.
     
  8. Spartan

    Spartan Master Guru

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    R9 290 PCS+
    Thank you!
     
  9. Undying

    Undying Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    14,531
    Likes Received:
    3,719
    GPU:
    Aorus RX580 XTR 8GB
    Spartan, you willing to do some quick Cinebench R15 single/multi core performance test?
     
  10. thatguy91

    thatguy91 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,644
    Likes Received:
    98
    GPU:
    XFX RX 480 RS 4 GB
    Intel have had bad architectures as well. The original Pentium 4's on socket 478 were slower than the Pentium III's, yet it didn't hurt Intel. The original Celerons that had no L2 cache were so chronically poorly slow, yet they didn't hurt Intel. The socket 775 Pentium 4's were much better, however, they then added x64 to them. This probably was the single worst thing for the uptake of 64-bit, because they weren't specifically designed for it from the start 64-bit programs actually ran slower on them (faster on Athlon 64's though). It didn't hurt Intel, just the PC community as a whole. BTW, 64-bit gaming with Far Cry... back in 2005.

    Fast forward to now. Sandy Bridge was great at the time. Ivy Bridge was a nice upgrade. Haswell had the thermal paste issue, yet it didn't hurt them. You know, Intel really needed to cheap out on that processor right? Because they were doing so poorly... cough. Only real benefit of Haswell over Ivy is AVX2, in general for a new architecture the performance difference is minimal. Haswell Refresh, was just released because Broadwell was a failed architecture. Skylake, not much faster than Haswell again, real world results from people don't seem to necessarily correlate with some benchmarks online. Kaby Lake, just a interim architecture because Cannonlake is delayed. Cannonlake could be delayed even further than late 2017. Intel then have Icelake which is an updated Cannonlake, then Tigerlake which is just a refresh essentially.

    So really, if Cannonlake doesn't represent a noticeable leap over Kabylake, if you only buy Intel you probably could stick with say, Ivy Bridge until at least the end of 2019... put that into perspective! After Tigerlake who knows? Intel have just fired 12,000 people related to PC development, so that's a sign.

    The 40% gain on Excavator for single thread performance is yet to be seen, however that claim was done during Zen's early engineering, it could be better than that in certain workloads now. It could mean release Zen is on par with Skylake performance. Couple that with 8 real cores, with hyperthreading 16, it makes things interesting. Then, there's Zen+ which is 10 percent better again a year later, and apparently at least another two iterations. AMD looks like to be wanting a 10 percent gain per iteration, whether this is achieved we won't know until the final semi-confirmed iteration is related in late 2019/early 2020. Considering the gains seen by Intel, and Intel becoming a bit blase about the PC market, AMD will likely overtake them performance wise. Sales wise, no, because of the bad reputation AMD have built with Bulldozer, however that does not mean Zen is a bad choice. Furthermore, remember if they do overtake Intel performance wise, considering the gains seen from Intel in the last few architectures they are literally in the same shoes as AMD was, and still is. The difference is Intel is shielded with the brand name, which is why people still blindly bought the original Celerons instead of Athlons despite the similar price and Athlon's trouncing them. They still bought the original Pentium 4's despite the fact that even then it was known they were slower than the Pentium III's.

    Shunning a potentially very well performing CPU based on AMD's past is just stupid, you need to look at what is best for you at the time. It is especially stupid if you go to Intel to shun AMD based on the past processors, if their current processors are in the same situation as Bulldozer, Piledriver etc. The only difference is that Intel had a good starting point in which not to improve much on, AMD didn't. Considering the future outlook for performance from Intel, AMD really need to do well and provide some competition. In such a scenario, even an Intel fanboi will want AMD to do well (unless they're complete idiots), because currently, Intel really have no incentive to improve in a market seen as declining.
     

  11. nz3777

    nz3777 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,467
    Likes Received:
    210
    GPU:
    Gtx 980 Strix
    @ Spartan- I am just curious why you said you wont buy another Amd Cpu in the next 80 years lol/! Did you have some kind of bad experience with them or? I am not trying to start a flame-war here but I will say this much....Amd has its place in the Cpu market, without them i think Intel would be charging a hell of alot more then the current prices for HEDT cpu's. In most games its really hard to tell the diffrence between a Fx 8350 vs i7 4790k or even a 5960x aside from maybe a few xtra Fps, This only applys to single Gpu systems, In milti-gpu Intel blows them out of the water!

    I really hope Zen is a success, awaiting to see results if its good I will be picking one up for damm sure. :)
     
  12. Spartan

    Spartan Master Guru

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    R9 290 PCS+
    Single was 106, multi don't know and don't care.

    Yeah, several games are jumping between 40-60 or even 30-60 fps on my pc, regardless of the used graphics settings. So, I'm not gonna be amd's guinea pig again.
     
  13. Undying

    Undying Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    14,531
    Likes Received:
    3,719
    GPU:
    Aorus RX580 XTR 8GB
    This is only a Sandy, highly overclocked. I mean 4690k will be night a day difference. That R9 290 will finally show what i can do, not being bottlencked by a crappy cpu.

    [​IMG]
     
  14. Tree Dude

    Tree Dude Master Guru

    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    Radeon R9 270X 2GB
    The CPU you have was decent when it was released, AMD just has not had a proper refresh in far too long and so they continue to sell the old stuff. If Zen lives up to it's hype we may finally have some competition again. I would not shun AMD's future CPUs because of your current predicament.

    Like someone else said Intel had crappy P4s for a long time and AMD was the king for gaming. Things have shifted but they may shift back.
     
  15. Spartan

    Spartan Master Guru

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    R9 290 PCS+
    Feel free to donate them! I'm done with that. I even used this cpu for a year.
     

  16. nz3777

    nz3777 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,467
    Likes Received:
    210
    GPU:
    Gtx 980 Strix
    Well regardless the Fx 8350 is a more then decent cpu, I ran one for a while.
     
  17. oGow89

    oGow89 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,213
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte RX 5700xt
    I would consider skylake and an i7. i5 4690k will bottleneck you later on once you get a more powerful gpu. Overclocking mine made some difference, but if i ever gaming with an overclocked gtx 980ti, i would have been getting up to 10fps less than an i7 setup in many of the new games. There are many videos posted by digital foundry and Technokitchen showing benchmarking many games with overclocked cpus.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8gRDFdfxmg

    I couldn't get passed 4.4ghz with mine, they had to kill their chip to get 4.9ghz.
     
  18. PrMinisterGR

    PrMinisterGR Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,465
    Likes Received:
    491
    GPU:
    Sapphire 7970 Quadrobake
    Get an 8-thread CPU if you can man.
     
  19. Spartan

    Spartan Master Guru

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    R9 290 PCS+
    Nah, I'm not interested in HT. And I'm not going to spend 1000£ for an intel extreme.
     
  20. Undying

    Undying Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    14,531
    Likes Received:
    3,719
    GPU:
    Aorus RX580 XTR 8GB
    He thought if you can get a 4790k instead 4690k for 100$ more, not some overpriced i7-E.

    Either way let us know what happened and when you upgrade. ;)
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2016

Share This Page