bit-tech.net

Intel Core i7-4770K (Haswell) CPU Review

Comments 76 to 100 of 138

Reply
POMLORE 2nd June 2013, 18:56 Quote
Have taken the plunge, jumping from an i7 930 @ 4.2,
Parts coming wed
YEHBABY 2nd June 2013, 19:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by POMLORE
Have taken the plunge, jumping from an i7 930 @ 4.2,
Parts coming wed

Have fun :D
SchizoFrog 2nd June 2013, 19:27 Quote
It would still be nice to see the difference between the Gamer's choice of the last few generations going back to the venerable Q6600...
Cei 2nd June 2013, 19:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by POMLORE
Have taken the plunge, jumping from an i7 930 @ 4.2,
Parts coming wed

Good choice to be honest, you'll be getting a nicely noticeable upgrade with Haswell. Sure, it may not be worth it for those on SB/IB, but was it ever going to be? I'm happy to wait for the next socket revision, which'll mean I'll have gotten 3+ years out of my IB rig.
Combatus 2nd June 2013, 19:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrevDX
Any idea when you'll have the review of i5-4670k? Or is that in the hands of when intel give you the review chip? i7 is not really worth the extra cash for me in a strictly gaming/browsing rig :(

As soon as we possibly can!
TrevDX 2nd June 2013, 19:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Combatus
As soon as we possibly can!

Figured that would be the case but no harm in asking ;) Looking forward to reviews of that and the M6G to go in my new build :)
Waynio 2nd June 2013, 20:12 Quote
Looks like nice power usage difference for a bit more power than my 2500k, if I had the money I'd go for it.
forum_user 2nd June 2013, 22:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waynio
Looks like nice power usage difference for a bit more power than my 2500k, if I had the money I'd go for it.

The cost would be £350+ for CPU and board. I'm guessing I wouldn't see any performance difference in Battlefield 4 or HL3 (if it ever surfaces) from my 2500K, and I don't get the fascination with energy/power saving when we're spending such large amounts building rigs. The significant cost of the new parts surely outweighs noticeable savings from drawing fractions less power?
Waynio 2nd June 2013, 22:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
The cost would be £350+ for CPU and board. I'm guessing I wouldn't see any performance difference in Battlefield 4 or HL3 (if it ever surfaces) from my 2500K, and I don't get the fascination with energy/power saving when we're spending such large amounts building rigs. The significant cost of the new parts surely outweighs noticeable savings from drawing fractions less power?

Know what you mean, I guess I meant it would make a good difference for anyone who wants good performance with less energy usage like if they are running on cleaner more natural energy or are due an upgrade & they'd prefer to use less.

Plus once manufacturers get the required energy use down they could work on getting more performance I imagine.

I am plenty happy with the 2500k though, very nice CPU. :)
Elton 2nd June 2013, 23:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizoFrog
It would still be nice to see the difference between the Gamer's choice of the last few generations going back to the venerable Q6600...

You'd be surprised, it's about 50% faster across the board.

Then again it's been like 6 generations and 7 years since the Q6600.
Corky42 3rd June 2013, 00:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
and I don't get the fascination with energy/power saving when we're spending such large amounts building rigs.

Its this whole fascination everyone has with tablets and such.
People keep saying desktops are dead so all the big names are pushing low power CPU's with integrated GPU's and all that other junk we are told people want.
Waynio 3rd June 2013, 01:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Its this whole fascination everyone has with tablets and such.
People keep saying desktops are dead so all the big names are pushing low power CPU's with integrated GPU's and all that other junk we are told people want.

That has well.
Elton 3rd June 2013, 02:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
The cost would be £350+ for CPU and board. I'm guessing I wouldn't see any performance difference in Battlefield 4 or HL3 (if it ever surfaces) from my 2500K, and I don't get the fascination with energy/power saving when we're spending such large amounts building rigs. The significant cost of the new parts surely outweighs noticeable savings from drawing fractions less power?

Actually power savings theoretically should increase overclockability. If you have higher thermal headroom you can theoretically push more.

Of course in practice this is much less obvious, but it is still something to consider. (Note the later steppings of OC'ed Intel chips tended to have lower TDPs and much lower operating temperatures).
SchizoFrog 3rd June 2013, 03:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elton
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizoFrog
It would still be nice to see the difference between the Gamer's choice of the last few generations going back to the venerable Q6600...

You'd be surprised, it's about 50% faster across the board.

Then again it's been like 6 generations and 7 years since the Q6600.

That is why I want to see the results side by side as I find that it is only 50% faster hard to believe. I mean on average each gen has been what? 10-15% faster? Which means that over 6 generations it would be at least 60% faster but as each gen is fast, the percentage gap of the next gen is incrementally larger too (10% of 10 = 1,, next gen is 11, 10% of 11 = 1.1, next gen is 12.1, 10% of 12.1 = 1.21... etc). So I would expect with the architectural changes, substantial increases in clock speed and increased memory bandwidth that the increase in performance should be at least twice as good (100% increase).
forum_user 3rd June 2013, 06:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Its this whole fascination everyone has with tablets and such.
People keep saying desktops are dead so all the big names are pushing low power CPU's with integrated GPU's and all that other junk we are told people want.

I get the relationship of low power components in tablets. We wouldn't want to turn one on and have to charge it 10 minutes later.

Does AMD have something coming out, to get our teeth in to?

I can't seem to hide my disappointment in this new gen of intel chip.
Nexxo 3rd June 2013, 07:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Its this whole fascination everyone has with tablets and such.
People keep saying desktops are dead so all the big names are pushing low power CPU's with integrated GPU's and all that other junk we are told people want.

Because it is what people want. The sales figures kind of prove that. But laptops are also getting thinner and lighter because that is what people want, and batteries have to last all day because that is what people want.

What people want not so much is SLI desktop gaming rigs costing £1000,-- or more. Only us niche geeks want those.
Parge 3rd June 2013, 10:22 Quote
I'm surprised no one has pointed out the fact that Intel have been creeping up the costs of their i5 CPUs.

The 2500k was $216, this new 4670k is $250.

As well as locking off OCing in the low end parts, they've been pushing up the cost of owning a mid range chip too.
Yslen 3rd June 2013, 10:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parge
I'm surprised no one has pointed out the fact that Intel have been creeping up the costs of their i5 CPUs.

The 2500k was $216, this new 4670k is $250.

As well as locking off OCing in the low end parts, they've been pushing up the cost of owning a mid range chip too.

Standard procedure, really.

We reached the point where a mid range CPU is more than enough for almost everyone a few years ago. It makes sense that Intel will be trying to monetise the mid-range as much as possible, now that high-end CPUs are rare even among enthusiasts.

How many SB/IB owners on BT have an i7 over an i5? I bet it's a much smaller number than the previous generations of Intel CPUs. They need to make that money back from somewhere, especially as the more expensive CPUs are probably where the largest profit margins lie.

Also worth pointing out that the price rise is smaller if you consider inflation; the 2500k launch price is just inder $225 in terms of today's money.

As for Haswell itself, all this review has done (aside from make me want my very own BanHammer TM) is remind me how big the efficiency jump was when we went from SB to IB. Seriously, 300 W at 5 GHz to ~170 W?
wuyanxu 3rd June 2013, 10:50 Quote
Any way to make use of the improved integrated graphics? the point of Haswell is power efficiency, then when can my desktop do 20w idle by powering down the graphics card when not gaming?

(doable with single SSD and everything powered by the monitor through TB, which can be easily turned off when AFK)


finally, what's the maximum resolution of integrated graphics? Sandy and Ivy are only 1920x1200 IIRC.
reyan 3rd June 2013, 10:52 Quote
I don't know what to say except, ahahahahahahahah, nice difference between Intel and AMD CPU's, i mean how much did you get to write this review!
GeorgeStorm 3rd June 2013, 11:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
finally, what's the maximum resolution of integrated graphics? Sandy and Ivy are only 1920x1200 IIRC.

It can do 4k.
wuyanxu 3rd June 2013, 11:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeStorm
It can do 4k.
why most motherboards don't offer displayport or higher spec'd HDMI?

I didn't buy into Virtu because most Sandy motherboards I looked at are limited to single link DVI.
Freemanator 3rd June 2013, 11:59 Quote
Sounds good enough to me.
I have a Core i7 920 and thanks to my old PSU misfiring, my motherboard is now rather erratic when it comes to recognising hard disks and any networking devices.

A decent performance upgrade, at a mid range price, with my old memory and a new ac wireless mobo, and probably a new SSD to boot, and maybe Windows 8 (gasp) and I should be set for at least another 2 or 3 years.
SchizoFrog 3rd June 2013, 12:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeStorm
It can do 4k.
why most motherboards don't offer displayport or higher spec'd HDMI?

I didn't buy into Virtu because most Sandy motherboards I looked at are limited to single link DVI.

HDMI 1.4 supports 4k resolutions as does DisplayPort 1.2.
Corky42 3rd June 2013, 13:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Because it is what people want. The sales figures kind of prove that. But laptops are also getting thinner and lighter because that is what people want, and batteries have to last all day because that is what people want.

So your saying if we can only buy low power, integrated GPU and hardware designed for computing on the move that people don't wants the other hardware ?

My point is that its a bit hard to buy something that isn't being made, Its a bit like when the gaming industry said no one wanted to play TBS (turn based strategies) games. But when Firaxis recently took a punt on a new XCOM it sold well received some GOTY awards and good reviews.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
What people want not so much is SLI desktop gaming rigs costing £1000,-- or more. Only us niche geeks want those.

You mean the kind of niche geeks that make up the vast majority of people who visit the bit-tech.net forums ?
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums