Core i7 4790 processor review

Posted by: Hilbert Hagedoorn on: 05/11/2014 09:00 AM [ 36 comment(s) ]

The long awaited Haswell refresh is finally official, we review the Intel Core i7 4790 processor. Join us as we look at the performance of this processor in a wide variety of benchmark, will it be noticeably faster then say the Core i7 4770 ? Let's find out shall we ?

Read article

Advertisement

pages 1 2

da_unique
Senior Member

Posts: 138

Posted on: 05/11/2014 11:34 AM

Run latest linx and check cpu temp and see if it downthrottles?

Illnino
Senior Member

Posts: 602

Posted on: 05/11/2014 01:45 PM

Nothing really exciting here... Anyhow guess its refreshes all round

Lucifer
Senior Member

Posts: 196

Posted on: 05/11/2014 02:17 PM

questions Hilbert, if you can't overclock this cpu over 4.0 GHz, does this mean this cpu not supporting limited overclock like i7-3770 (+4 bins from its max turbo) ? and what is its max turbo when all 4 cores are loaded ?

Anarion
Senior Member

Posts: 13272

Posted on: 05/11/2014 04:27 PM

I wouldn't have slapped recommended badge for this none. Bad value vs. K processors.

Solfaur
Senior Member

Posts: 6819

Posted on: 05/11/2014 04:29 PM

I'm more looking forward to DDR4 and 8 core Haswell-E, but even there, I don't think I'll jump for the first generation. I agree with Hilbert that motherboards have become more and more awesome since UEFI.

-Tj-
Senior Member

Posts: 15303

Posted on: 05/11/2014 04:33 PM

@Lucifer
half of your answer is @power consumption tab. its x38 multi

---------------------------------------------------------

Funny though 4790 vs 4770k both stock and 4770k ran cooler xD

4790 @ 3.8ghz 1.16v

max temp
48C
48C
49C
44C
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/core_i7_4790_processor_review,11.html

4770K @ 3.7ghz 1.025v

max temp
44C
47C
41C
41C
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/asus_z97_a_and_z97_deluxe_motherboard_review,10.html

So I guess this means Thermaplaste and IHS is still kinda crappy.. If it had improved stuff then it should have been cooler even with higher 100mhz freq. and a little higher voltage.

Fail'd, I will stick with my 4770k for now and wait until Broadwell :nerd:

leszy
Senior Member

Posts: 300

Posted on: 05/11/2014 05:11 PM

TheDeeGee
Senior Member

Posts: 5539

Posted on: 05/11/2014 05:32 PM

The voltage is the difference in temp. 1.160 vs 1.025 is a lot.

And no need to upgrade a 4770K for atleast 3 more generations.

-Tj-
Senior Member

Posts: 15303

Posted on: 05/11/2014 07:00 PM

Haswell is cool up to ~ 1.18v, really cool. Practically no difference if its 1.050 or 1.15v with ok H2O cooling.

I expected at least the same temp as 4770K with 100mhz less and lower voltage, not up to 5C more per core with so called improved TIM and IHS contact.
Or maybe its not included with these non K models?

Either way yeah I wont upgrade to 4790K, maaaybe to Broadwell.
But now I kinda doubt it even if my mobo supports it according to one YT Intel conference, Skylake's die-shrink Cannonlake looks better DDR4, etc :nerd:

sykozis
Senior Member

Posts: 20550

Posted on: 05/11/2014 07:07 PM

With a 4770K, there's really no reason to upgrade before Skylake.

BLEH!
Senior Member

Posts: 5770

Posted on: 05/11/2014 07:12 PM

Still not quite as fast as my old 980X

My next upgrade will be X99 most likely.

Koniakki
Senior Member

Posts: 2559

Posted on: 05/12/2014 04:59 AM

So, after a whole 3 years which is like "decade" in the Tech world and there's no real need to update over/from Sandy Bridge.. Geez.

lucidus
Senior Member

Posts: 10938

Posted on: 05/12/2014 05:00 AM

Still not quite as fast as my old 980X

My next upgrade will be X99 most likely.

Dat epeen

alxtorrentazos
Senior Member

Posts: 225

Posted on: 05/12/2014 08:48 AM

lucidus
Senior Member

Posts: 10938

Posted on: 05/12/2014 08:56 AM

I'm still sitting on my 920 and it is now over 5 years old

The PS360 generation didn't make it sweat at all. I'm waiting for Watch Dogs, let's see what that game is made of.

leszy
Senior Member

Posts: 300

Posted on: 05/12/2014 01:13 PM

Intel Core i7-3960X vs my Core i7-860 Nehalem 2800@3800 (r9 290 deafult)
Firestrike standard overall:
legitreviews - 9093
http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-radeon-r9-290-4gb-video-card-review_127216/9
tweaktown - 9172
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/5857/amd-radeon-r9-290-4gb-reference-video-card-review/index5.html

My system - 9080

I'm not sure if I need any new processor in next 4 year

Denial
Senior Member

Posts: 11542

Posted on: 05/12/2014 01:39 PM

Every time I read about new Intel processors I have mixed feelings. I owned a 2600k@4.8Ghz CPU for the last 3 years now and I cannot believe that after 1095 days they still struggling to get 20% performance gain over my CPU. Maybe I´m too old now, but I used the see like a 50% gain with every new generation.........now is only 5-10% and not new significant improvements.
Still waiting for a CPU that is 100% more powerful than what I have now, with DDR4 and USB 3.1 support and Sata-Express....... and more games that uses that technology, bc right now on PC, we only have like 1 or 2 games per year that really shines. Let´s see what Watch Dogs put on the table.

It's because outside of enthusiasts no one in the consumer space cares about having a faster CPU anymore. The market shifted and Intel isn't going to spend billions in R&D to make faster CPU's. They are going to spend it on shrinking X86 and driving power as low as they can so they can compete with ARM.

People keep saying they are going to wait for skylake and stuff, I doubt that's going to bring a huge performance increase either. I mean maybe if you have a Sandy all the little 5-10%'s in between then and skylake will add up to some performance, but if you're expecting like 25-30% gains on skylake over broadwell I think you're going to be disappointed.

Although obviously people looking for new motherboard features will upgrade.

moab600
Senior Member

Posts: 5950

Posted on: 05/12/2014 02:03 PM

Sandy Bridges cpu were perfect, godlike. nothing can touch them... and here we are today moved a TINY BIT from there... i wonder if Devil's Canyon will bring the demon that intel has been hiding?

-Tj-
Senior Member

Posts: 15303

Posted on: 05/12/2014 02:13 PM

lol apparently 4790K will have base 4ghz and turbo up to 4.4ghz..

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/intel-devils-canyon-to-usher-in-5-ghz-on-air-overclocking-era.200725/

This guy claims 5ghz OC, although I doubt it very much, not with ultra low volts :nerd:

But then again, I dont really care at this point. If I still had my old q9450 then maybe a little.

TheDeeGee
Senior Member

Posts: 5539

Posted on: 05/12/2014 02:16 PM

But then again, I dont really care at this point. If I still had my old q9450 then maybe a little.

I wouldn't risk the lottery if your 4770K can go past 4,5 GHz below 1.3 volts.

Loobyluggs
Senior Member

Posts: 2467

Posted on: 05/12/2014 02:27 PM

Sandy Bridges cpu were perfect, godlike. nothing can touch them... and here we are today moved a TINY BIT from there... i wonder if Devil's Canyon will bring the demon that intel has been hiding?

Fair comment.

schmidtbag
Senior Member

Posts: 3163

Posted on: 05/12/2014 06:20 PM

Intel is standing against the wall, in relation to the squeezing performance from a single core.
The only way for the future, to increase the performance of processors (not to say 3%, but 100, 200, 400%) is to multiply the quantity of cores and improved multithreading support.

That's true, but that all becomes theoretical performance in the end. The reason x86 doesn't really stray beyond 8 total threads is because most users can't do anything with more than that. Software needs to be designed to work with all of those cores. As long as a realtime task (such as a game) is still capable of maxing out a core, adding more cores is not the solution. Sure, the software at hand could just be very poorly optimized, but so are most programs it seems, and I guess that means the hardware must compensate (even though it shouldn't HAVE to). Look at architectures like SPARC T5 and you can get 128 threads under 1 package. That's pretty impressive.

I feel like what needs to be done is some sort of new hardware instruction that somehow automatically manages to divide a single-threaded task among multiple cores simultaneously. Logically, I don't know how this would be doable, but I'm sure if enough minds were put together it could be done.

A M D BugBear
Senior Member

Posts: 2540

Posted on: 05/12/2014 09:47 PM

I am still waiting for the X99 Mobo/DDR4 along with Haswell-E based cpu, are they coming out soon??

-Tj-
Senior Member

Posts: 15303

Posted on: 05/12/2014 10:07 PM

I am still waiting for the X99 Mobo/DDR4 along with Haswell-E based cpu, are they coming out soon??

Last time I checked its due sometime around August - September.

Not much said here in this article, other then its due H2 2014 instead of 2015.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7874/haswelle-8-cores-x99-ddr4

Maybe middle July, but I think that will be 4790K month, like it was with 4770K last year, July 2013.

tsunami231
Senior Member

Posts: 8613

Posted on: 05/13/2014 12:23 AM

REALLY for once Would love to see first gen i7 compared to current i7 not just cpus from the last year

pages 1 2

Post New Comment

Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.