How are the new CPUs compared to the 2600/2700K after overclocked?

[Lyane]

Just like the title says, How are the new CPUs compared to the 2600/2700K after overclocked?

I have a 2700k running at 4.4ghz very stable with Hyperthreading ON (But only single channel ram as Dual would crash) for alittle over 2 years now and it's been really good.

The question I have is how is that compared to the new CPUs running at the same clock speed after overclocking?

An example would be:

2700k @ 4.4ghz vs 4790K @ 4.4 ghz

(both senario with HT on)

 

[caddi daddi]

THAT is going to be a very hard question to answer, buying a haswell cpu is such a crapshoot.

 

[Lyane]

THAT is going to be a very hard question to answer, buying a haswell cpu is such a crapshoot.

From the homework I've been gathering I take it the reason is that the Haswell is really bad for overclocking?

I thought the Devil's Canyon fixed that issue?

 

[ATMINSIDE]

What's your usage?

If you're using a software that'll take advantage of the new instruction sets then a Haswell/Haswell Refresh/Devil's Canyon CPU will absolutely blister a Sandy Bridge CPU.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

Just like the title says, How are the new CPUs compared to the 2600/2700K after overclocked?



2700k @ 4.4ghz vs 4790K @ 4.4 ghz

(both senario with HT on)

I'd guess 10-20% gains on the 4790K @ 4.4ghz depending on what apps or games your running including but not limited to benchmarking.

I'd say a 4790K would be a pretty good upgrade from 2700K or Phenom II x6 or FX-8350.

From a 3770K stand point, it's an upgrade likely 5-10% @ 4.4ghz again depending on apps vs benchmarking.

Your big noticeable difference with these is more on the benchmarking side. But you would see an increase in frame rates while gaming as well even with the same GPUs.

If moneys tight and you don't have SSDs, perhaps a couple of 128GB in raid 0 for the OS (make frequent backups ) or larger if you so need the space. This makes rigs gety up pretty good having superior gaming load times and such.

 

[ATMINSIDE]

I'd guess 10-20% gains on the 4790K @ 4.4ghz depending on what apps or games your running including but not limited to benchmarking.

I'd say a 4790K would be a pretty good upgrade from 2700K or Phenom II x6 or FX-8350.

From a 3770K stand point, it's an upgrade likely 5-10% @ 4.4ghz again depending on apps vs benchmarking.

Your big noticeable difference with these is more on the benchmarking side. But you would see an increase in frame rates while gaming as well even with the same GPUs.

If moneys tight and you don't have SSDs, perhaps a couple of 128GB in raid 0 for the OS (make frequent backups ) or larger if you so need the space. This makes rigs gety up pretty good having superior gaming load times and such.

I would vote for one single SSD of a larger size, software RAID can be flaky at times, and best gains of an SSD over a HDD don't get accentuated by RAID0.

 

[pqwoerituytruei]

yes, the 4690k/4790k are better than there sandy bridge counterpart as the IPC gains offset the lower OC frequency, unless you need a instruction set that is not offered on the 2600k/2700k it is not worth the upgrade (assuming the new haswell chip has that)
the only other reason is new motherboard features like PCI express 3.0, M.2, and sata express, still i would suggest waiting for the next big thing, unless you are getting a bargain

 

[bdbarb]

yes, the 4690k/4790k are better than there sandy bridge counterpart as the IPC gains offset the lower OC frequency, unless you need a instruction set that is not offered on the 2600k/2700k it is not worth the upgrade (assuming the new haswell chip has that)
the only other reason is new motherboard features like PCI express 3.0, M.2, and sata express, still i would suggest waiting for the next big thing, unless you are getting a bargain

Resurrecting this thread for some testing I was doing over the weekend with my 2700k. I just traded in my 970GTX for a 980 TI and did some benching with 3dMark Firestrike. The 970 was getting about 10k scores, and the new 980 TI was only getting about 13k. For double the price I was thinking it would at least be 50% faster... Some digging around, found others complaining they must have a bad card to be getting that low of a score, only to be asked to overclock their CPU and report back, and it worked for them. I finally decided to give it a try and luckily am using an ASRock Fatality with auto overclock and went with a modest 4.4GHZ (900MHZ OC), as in the past going for higher like 4.8 would crash even with a good 1300W PSU and H100 cooler, only years later to find out that it wasn't stable due to one stick of ram was failing and finally started to cause a BSOD till I had to RMA. Here I am over the last weekend, 4.4GHZ, and my 980 TI is now in the top 300 percent for the 2700 and 980TI combo, at scores over 15k! Playing Assassins Creed Syndicate at about high 50-60ish fps, vs 40ish before the OC. How does this compare to the 4790k? While researching this I also ran into a bunch of threads of others using that CPU and they are getting between high 15-16k with overclocking. Right about the 10-20% better range. I think with that, I'm going to agree with pqwoerituytruei to wait for the next big thing as I don't see the 6700k being worth to upgrade yet. Perhaps spend a little on a good cooler (H100 for 100 bucks) and give yourself a 4.4 boost and see what comes out in a year or two. Sorry Intel, you made too good of a product for me to upgrade for now...

 

[Johan45]

With a 4790K I hit ~ 18K @ 5.1Ghz
With a bit of work I'm sure you could get a few more MHz out of that 2700K as well. That would give you just a bit more life as well. Another thing The GFX is much more CPU dependent when running lower resolutions.

 

[wingman99]

Glad to see your testimony, I am doing great with my i5 2500k OC to 4.5GHz on my great Gigabyte board using EVGA ssc GTX 970.

 

[NeonCancerCandy]

^^ same but a 980.

sandy bridge FTW