Building A New Rig : Z97 + i7 4790k or X99 + 5820k?

Cost isnt really an issue I'm looking basically for bang for the buck and little future proofing. I've read a lot of people saying the z97+ 4790k outperforms the x99 + 5820k set up currently.

I probably wont ever run more than two gpus, probably gtx 980s. (I know theres new AMDs on the way but I prefer intel/nvidia)

The main thing I'm wondering about is the DDR4, which you have to go x99 to use.

Anyone have any experience with both and can make a recommendation?

@oflow:

If you ask, then z97.

Currently facing the same dilemma. Leaning towards the X99 build for longevity and use with non-gaming applications. If you can find a reasonably priced motherboard and DDR4 RAM, the cost for the X99 build is not that much higher.

If gaming is your primary focus and you're trying to keep a tighter budget, the Z97 build will offer excellent performance for gaming. That option will allow you to spend (or save) a few extra bucks on other components (GPU?).

i5 4690K and Z97; there's no future proofing going with X99 nore i7 CPUs;

Future proof this: Z97 MOBO with SLI compatible and same goes for the PSU - make sure you get 650Watts if you plan SLIng two 980s.

Considering some game engines (and games) can already utilize hyper-threading, the i5 4690k would be more a budget oriented option, particularly when future proofing is a concern. Just to name a couple, Cryengine 3 and Frostbite 3 can both utilize hyper-threading.

If you're not going to use more then two GPUs than there's no reason to go with X99.
i7 4790K performs even better in games then i7 5820K. Both are good for video editing/rendering, etc.
Best bang for the buck would be to go with i7 4790K - Z97 mobo.

Where?

Clock speeds what matters the more - more horsepower - not hyperthreading; you're not making a workstation with Windows Server along with some virtual machines - that's what hyper threading is really for - save costs for corps.

@oflow: You've said cost isn't an issue so X99 is the obvious choice. DDR4 has come down a lot since release.

The 5820 k is defenitely more future proof. It has 50 percent more cores, more pci bandwith, more memory bandwith.

However the 4790 has faster clock speeds, even when overclocking the 4790 will get around 5 ghz, the i7-5820k will get around 4.5 ghz. Still that 5820k will overclock easily to 4 ghz without even touching the voltage and you still have a lot more cores.

The 5820k is defenitely a better option but it's also a more expensive option. Motherboards come at 200$ minimum and the ram is 50 percent more expensive. With 8 gb of ram. You're looking at 200$ extra if you were planning to pair your i7-4790k with a 100$ ish motherboard. It all depends what you're planning to do. 4k and VR at 100 fps. You'll probably need 3 cards sooner or later and then that i7-5820k is a lot more interesting but in that case i would even go for the i7-5930k.

But if you're not even thinking about sli, then that x99 setup is a bit expensive. Still, if you want to be safe , that i7-5820k is defenitely more futureproof.

@commander: "5820K has 50% more cores" ? What? 5820K is a 6 core, 4790K is a 4 core.

+1. Since cost isn't an issue...

@oflow: People that told you i7 4790K is faster, they are right. At the moment anything that runs up to 4 threads, will run better at the 4Ghz i7 4790K.

And thats more than the 99% of the games that they are out there and more than 90% of the games that devs are releasing lately.

But I don't know how many of you remember back in 2006, when core2duo was beating core2quad due to higher clocks.

The greatest fight was C2Duo @3Ghz vs C2Quad @2,4Ghz (they were both priced around $500 if I remember correctly). The dual core was winning at that time but, games started to use 4 cores and while C2Q was able to keep up with games, in C2D games became unplayable...

I keep my CPUs at least 5 years, unless huge generation leaps happen. So C2Q was the obvious choice. So...

Its up to you. Today or tomorrow?

edit: 2x GT980 will cost around $1200. I would wait to see the performance of TitanX which will be around the same price while it will give you 12GB VRAM.

This is from a tech reviewer (Tweaktown):

A quick look at the GeForce GTX Titan X before the big launch which will be happening soon. As for performance, we should expect 30-50% on top of what the GeForce GTX 980 is offering, as well as a huge increase in high-res situations thanks to its 12GB of VRAM.

50% of 4 = 2

2 + 4 = 6

Hence his comment it has 50% more cores.

Note the version number in your benchmarks (both version 1.0), in the case of Crysis 3, it only started to utilize hyper-threading benefits in version 1.3. I'm not sure about Battlefield 4.

Here's a Digital Foundry video (and results) showing the i5-4670k vs the i7-4790k for some games that utilize hyper-threading and some that don't:

Further more, for Crysis 3, some users found the difference to increase at higher settings:

Yeah, I went with a Q6600 at the time. It was definitely a much better choice in the long run.

I went with Q6600 too xD.

@klunt_bumskrint: we'll I made a build for both and the x99 build it's $300 more which isn't really an issue for me. I will probably do mostly gaming but I do plan on doing a bit if video editing as we'll.

I'm mostly concerned with future games using the hyper threading and the DDR4. I know they've been says games are gonna start using hyper threading for years but I just don't want to have to go thru the hassle of upgrading again If i get the z97 since it can't use DDR 4. I build a new rig every 5 years but I'm not one to really tinker or upgrade it because I don't have the time. I usually just build a completely new rig and sell the old one or give it to a kid in the family.

My best option would probably be going with the 8 core x99 CPU, but the price difference is kinda huge like an extra $600 and if I were to do that I might as well buy a third 980.

I just don't want to buy this and then all of a sudden all the games start using hyper threading and I have to buy a new CPU and mobo again. So basically I have the cash but would rather not waste it lol

@oflow: 4790K and 5820K both have HT.

@NVIDIATI said:

@PredatorRules said:

@NVIDIATI said:

@PredatorRules said:

i5 4690K and Z97; there's no future proofing going with X99 nore i7 CPUs;

Considering some game engines (and games) can already utilize hyper-threading, the i5 4690k would be more a budget oriented option, particularly when future proofing is a concern. Just to name a couple, Cryengine 3 and Frostbite 3 can both utilize hyper-threading.

Where?

Clock speeds what matters the more - more horsepower - not hyperthreading; you're not making a workstation with Windows Server along with some virtual machines - that's what hyper threading is really for - save costs for corps.

Note the version number in your benchmarks (both version 1.0), in the case of Crysis 3, it only started to utilize hyper-threading benefits in version 1.3. I'm not sure about Battlefield 4.

Here's a Digital Foundry video (and results) showing the i5-4670k vs the i7-4790k for some games that utilize hyper-threading and some that don't:

Loading Video...

Further more, for Crysis 3, some users found the difference to increase at higher settings:

Dude, 10fps more for extra 100$ is not worth it - that's not gaining benefit from hyperthreading

It's more like if 6 slower cores + HT for a total of 12 threads is better than 4 faster cores + HT for a total of 8 threads.

A 5820K at anything above 4GHz should be enough for today games, except the poorly optimized ones... Isn't ARMA one of those games? That likes a single core running at 6+ GHz instead 2 cores at 4GHz

See this is what I dont want to happen lol. I'm more worried about a change happening like what happened with the duo vs the quad where I buy the z97 and two years from now I have to buy a new CPU and mobo. I'm basically not trying to spend anymore money in it for at least 3 years once it's done. Also the ddr4 does look enticing and I guess eventually I will want to do vr/4k. Maybe I should wait....but I know how I am if I wait I'm gonna spend the money on something else and I'm to the point where I need a new rig on the sooner side my current one just isn't cutting it anymore

Just cause I just built one myself, go with x99 and have fun.

Honestly cpus are so negligent now with gaming.. The I5 2500k when it comes to gaming is marginally slower than the i5 4670k for instance, and the 2500k is over 4 years old now.. And the 2500k overtakes the 4670k for instance if overclocked to 4.4ghz.. Even when the 4670k is overclocked it is marginal over the prior.. With DX12 on the horizon promising even lower cpu demands, I don't see a reason ever to go with the best of the best cpu's if its just for gaming.. In less your planning some crazy sli build or things outside of gaming, I would not get a X99 build.. It is a tremendous waste of money imo..