This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Poll version: 4670k vs 4770k?

#11Orestes417Posted 4/20/2014 4:09:46 PM
Even if you weren't pulling numbers straight out of your ass, a roughly 20% difference in performance over the course of 5 years is significant and the cost difference is trivial. & bucks is like skipping an order of dominos or two once per year over 5 years.

As for things switching over, you're already starting to see games taking advantage of all 8 logical cores the i7 has and at least one is recommending i7s and 8350s. Do you want to be the guy who spent a few more bucks on an undeniably better chip for the long term or the idiot who skimped and runs into a wall sooner?
---
Bled dry from the inside, darkest of weather
I'll be your mirror we can shatter together
#12NicodimusPosted 4/20/2014 4:45:46 PM(edited)
1) I actually provided a link, unlike you. You can google it yourself. Don't take my word for it. There are dozens of 4670k vs 4770k benchmarks out there.

2) If you want to round 19% up to 20%, that's fine, but you're missing the point. That 20% is only for a handful of programs. For the vast majority, we're talking about 3%. Three percent. That's nothing. You could run them side by side, start a task at the same moment, and you wouldn't even notice that one finished faster than the other. That's how miniscule it is.

3) I have to wonder if you're new to PC hardware, given your last statement. It simply doesn't work like that...you don't run into a wall. Your hardware generally runs things slightly worse each year until you upgrade, no matter what you buy. It's a slow decline, and if you're talking about gaming, as your machine ages, there are literally dozens of performance settings you can change in modern games to adapt it to your setup, maintaining a certain level of resolution, framerate, textures, and special effects.
---
My movie room: http://imgur.com/a/IjWr1
My pets: http://imgur.com/a/P9VGU
#13LOLIAmAnAltPosted 4/20/2014 4:55:18 PM
Get the i7.

it's 70 bucks...big deal, just do it. You won't upgrade for 5 years.


Sometimes people get way too crazy over performance to price to savings to what will be to what was to what will come to what has been to how the world will viewpoint this decision to financial gain to whatever else ratio.
---
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
#14BogePosted 4/20/2014 6:32:39 PM
Nicodimus posted...
Loserman15 posted...
Microcenter is basically offering an i7 at i5 prices. Why the heck wouldn't you?


http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/586/Intel_Core_i5_i5-4670K_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-4770K.html

Because in the vast majority of programs, another 3% gain in performance means basically nothing. It's so insignificant that you'd never notice. It's not worth the extra $80 or whatever the price gap is now.

Also, if the i7 is being offered at i5 pricing, it would stand to reason that the i5 is cheaper still and an even better value.


Agreed. Not worth the extra $80.
---
http://penguinpetes.com/gallery/MyWalls/pigeon_chess.png
#15Lucavi000Posted 4/20/2014 7:09:05 PM
The only time an i7 will truly shine over an i5 is when you are doing any kind of heavy editing.
#16popping4itPosted 4/20/2014 10:27:53 PM(edited)
games will never be cpu bound where they would need 4core HT, if they were they would kill their potential sell to user base.

people talking about video editing and such performance increase isnt even due to HT. HT threading helps more in the actual final render which is after you've already made your edits and want to render out the file basically the encoding process. but heres the thing if you use hardware encoding build into haswell "quicksync' it doesnt even matter because thats seperate silicon.
---
whens mahvel?
#17Sources(Topic Creator)Posted 4/21/2014 9:29:01 AM(edited)
popping4it posted...
games will never be cpu bound where they would need 4core HT, if they were they would kill their potential sell to user base.


since the inception of gaming, the hardware demands get higher as years go by. developers/publishers increased their hardware demands and didn't just stagnate to prevent "killing their potential sell to user base" -- why would that be any different for 4core ht? hardware demands will go up just like it always had.
#18SnickleseedPosted 4/21/2014 9:38:40 AM
Go with the i7. Like the guy said, don't half ass it. The price difference is nothing to be worried about if you want the computer to last longer without upgrading.

I went with an i7 for my build last year and I'm really happy with my choice. It is a multitasking tank.
---
not changing this sig until "being an idiot" is a moderation reason
#19godplaysSNESPosted 4/21/2014 9:47:14 AM
If you don't plan to upgrade in 4-5 years, go i7.
Hyperthreading makes a significant difference on core i3 CPUs, and will give i7 CPUs an advantage too once engines start using more than four cores/threads (which is very likely to happen since the PS4/Xbone has six cores available for gaming)

Crysis 3 is an example where an i7 is better than an i5
http://maldotex.blogspot.se/2013/02/hyperthreading-and-real-custom-graphics.html


Even Intel's single threaded performance is increasing slowly, so a new CPU 3-5 years from now may not be THAT much better on a core to core basis.
---
Super Mario Kart is the single best Mario Kart ever!