Nvm.

So the 4820K is $30 cheaper than a 4770K yet it only performs around 2-3% slower. It will be overclockable once we get a better BIOS, the quad channel memory reads are just insane, it can drive SLI/Crossfire better thanks to 40 Pcie lanes....? People here seem pretty blind, to me the better choice is without a doubt the 4820K, I was going to get a 4770K near the end of the year but now I am starting to think the 4820K would be a much better option in the long run. I mean are we really going to argue about the difference between 250fps and 248fps???

There is also the fact that down the road if you feel the need you can always look for a deal on a 4930k giving 4820k users an extension path (rather than upgrade) for the future. I agree, while Haswell's IPC might be slightly better, the limitations of PCIe lanes, memory bandwidth, and heat due to the IHS far outweigh the little advantage it has with IPC. There is also the fact that it isn't jerry rigged with a PLX chip like the z77/87 chipsets have been. So the latency upon addition of another one-two GPUs encountered with the PLX chip wont be so on the x79 platform. Kind of like the 3930k, sure it's single threaded performance isn't as good as Ivy or haswell but it's by no means bad and i'd gladly trade some single threaded performance (we're talking 5-10%) for two more cores. Currently i don't do anything but game, but we're looking to a multi-threaded future the new consoles are evident of that. Since i'm going multi-GPU either way thinking of selling my 3570k and G1.Sniper3 to go X79. Might just go the yard and get the 4930k and be done with it.

I think it's time to retire FarCry2 and Crysis2 from the benchmark suite. (review says "New in the CPU benchmark suite is Crysis 2.") Crysis3 is about the only title that would've shown the potential of a 6core so really needs to be there instead of Crysis2.

Agreed as well, for gaming CPU test i think Crysis 3 should become somewhat of the standard until something else comes along.

No you are dead right mate, this is the problem now, they ground tech to a halt because they realize why release something which is 20-30% better, when they can release something 10% better, get all the sales from that, then move to the next minimal increment, (as small as they can realistically get away with) it's a total utter scam, utter rip off, they are playing us for fools, and it works because the majority are. Technology is showing this pattern more and more in so many different areas but PC hardware is one of the very worse.

On what planet do you guys live? With Haswell, Intel was able to decrease power usage by an insane amount while keep the speed either the same or faster even. Increasing battery life in notebooks by over 40% is not something that to be sneered at. It's insane to think that a dual core Haswell is more power efficient than the A6X (ARM based) CPU in the iPad4; if that is not "groundbreaking" to you then you have ridiculous expectations. Guess what, the enthusiast market doesn't drive decisions at a $111 Billion dollar company, sorry. http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7180/56650.png http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7180/56657.png

I knew the performance was going to be similar to the core I7 3960X so no problems there but i was expecting a better overclocking potencial. Can´t wait to see the OC results of the 4820K that seems to me to be a very interesting chip and cheaper than the 4770K! Also i think i´ve noticed two small mistakes on the 4820K article: In page 2 says that the 4820K is a quad core chip with 15mb of L3 cache but the chip should have 10mb of L3 cache. And in page 5 says that the 4820K is a six core chip capable of handling 12 12 threads... A great article as always!

While I don't exactly like Intel, I think this CPU is a lot better than this article gives it credit for. The problem, as weird as it sounds, is it's pointlessly good. The tests aren't that impressive because nothing can push it hard enough. The quadruple memory channel made more of a performance difference than the extra 2 physical cores, which might mean that memory is actually the bottleneck for a CPU like this. I would have to say I'm not impressed with the power consumption. For intel, I thought it should have done much better.

There is also the fact that down the road if you feel the need you can always look for a deal on a 4930k giving 4820k users an extension path (rather than upgrade) for the future. I agree, while Haswell's IPC might be slightly better, the limitations of PCIe lanes, memory bandwidth, and heat due to the IHS far outweigh the little advantage it has with IPC. There is also the fact that it isn't jerry rigged with a PLX chip like the z77/87 chipsets have been. So the latency upon addition of another one-two GPUs encountered with the PLX chip wont be so on the x79 platform. Kind of like the 3930k, sure it's single threaded performance isn't as good as Ivy or haswell but it's by no means bad and i'd gladly trade some single threaded performance (we're talking 5-10%) for two more cores. Currently i don't do anything but game, but we're looking to a multi-threaded future the new consoles are evident of that. Since i'm going multi-GPU either way thinking of selling my 3570k and G1.Sniper3 to go X79. Might just go the yard and get the 4930k and be done with it. Agreed as well, for gaming CPU test i think Crysis 3 should become somewhat of the standard until something else comes along.

Thank you, at least there are still people here with some common sense. The 4820K is a no brainer for me when compared with the 4770K, I shall be going with a second 7970 soon once the 9970 is announced, priced, and dated and we get performance results in. So the 4820K is the better option anyway.

While I don't exactly like Intel, I think this CPU is a lot better than this article gives it credit for. The problem, as weird as it sounds, is it's pointlessly good. The tests aren't that impressive because nothing can push it hard enough. The quadruple memory channel made more of a performance difference than the extra 2 physical cores, which might mean that memory is actually the bottleneck for a CPU like this. I would have to say I'm not impressed with the power consumption. For intel, I thought it should have done much better.

This is still an IV-B part, not Haswell. Even saying that, you are talking about 50% more performance and only 9% more power usage than an AMD FX-8350; just to put stuff into perspective. http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7255/57925.png http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7255/57937.png

On what planet do you guys live? With Haswell, Intel was able to decrease power usage by an insane amount while keep the speed either the same or faster even. Increasing battery life in notebooks by over 40% is not something that to be sneered at. It's insane to think that a dual core Haswell is more power efficient than the A6X (ARM based) CPU in the iPad4; if that is not "groundbreaking" to you then you have ridiculous expectations. Guess what, the enthusiast market doesn't drive decisions at a $111 Billion dollar company, sorry. [spoiler] http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7180/56650.png [IMG]http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7180/56657.png[/IMG[/spoiler]

Hey Chillin, chill buddy. Your comment seemed a bit, intense. :P I was personally being specific about the Desktop CPU's and even more specifically to the i7 K line, which interests me. That's where my interests lie so I comment/complain on that. I could care less about the Laptop/Notebook variants at this point. Good for them tho. And although relevant to your comment, since its where they make their money(private sector and majority of users/public e.g Laptos/Notebooks etc), I don't see any reason for them to be mentioned in a Desktop CPU thread, but I understand that it was just to prove a point. And indeed, according to AT an Intel i7-4500U boasts 40-50% better battery life when compared to an Intel i5-3337U while providing better performance. That a marvelous and a welcome improvement but I don't see how those types of CPU has to do with the Desktop Haswell. Directly that is. My point is you are talking about "groundbreaking" improvements for the mobile section while we are talking about the Desktop section. I know you know and its obvious but it seemed a bit off. Just saying here. 🙂 Even if they improved the Notebook/Laptop battery life tenfold, I don't how that matters when talking about 4960X, 4930K, 4820K, 4770K etc.

This is still an IV-B part, not Haswell. Even saying that, you are talking about 100% more performance and only 9% more power usage than an AMD FX-8350; just to put stuff into perspective. [spoiler]http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7255/57925.png http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7255/57937.png[/spoiler]

And just to put stuff into perspective once more, x6-7 times the price. :P In Hilbert's review we can see a few things are a bit off about the CPU(I hope 4930k fares better). A few are the OC potential, the Power Consumption and a little bit the Temps. Edit: And on a side note, most of us that know even a little about marketing and how the market works, the customers/buyers like/prefer to buy a new thing entirely than refreshes/revisions/improved products. Almost all of us like to buy new when we can.. So we won't say "FFS I just bought 2 weeks ago" when told "Did you see the new and improved 3770k?". Because we will justify it, with: "Well, its a new platform/CPU, so of course it will be faster/better". So no dissapointed customers. Just customers that want the new faster platform/CPU. 😉 So although I complained earlier I gave it some thougth and I personally understand their "need/reasons" to provide an updated/improved product every year. Even if its just a 10% increase. People who are buying in the 2013 Holidays would prefer to buy the all new mighty 4770k, than a 3770k with 10% faster IPC/iGPU right? :P

Great articles, Hilbert. As you've said there's little incentive to upgrade, so I am good to go for a while. The industry has some catching up to do to live up to Moore's Law.

That is some crazy fast memory read/write speeds that is more then double the read/write speeds I get on my triple channel 1600mhz on my i7 920 @ stock. These new cpu are seriously tempting me to make new build.... But I Still not about to do that, only game I have that I play that plays bad on my build is swtor, damn never everything else I play is 60 fps solid.

That is some crazy fast memory read/write speeds that is more then double the read/write speeds I get on my triple channel 1600mhz on my i7 920 @ stock. These new cpu are seriously tempting me to make new build.... But I Still not about to do that, only game I have that I play that plays bad on my build is swtor, damn never everything else I play is 60 fps solid.

Yeah, those read/copy memory numbers are off the chart. Here's a comparison to a 3770k@4.9Ghz and memory 2400mhz@11-12-11-24-CR1 timings. http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=6294&admin=0a8fcaad6b03da6a6895d1ada2e171002a287bc1http://s7.postimg.org/cw71zviln/Best.png

Yeah, those read/copy memory numbers are off the chart. Here's a comparison to a 3770k@4.9Ghz and memory 2400mhz@11-12-11-24-CR1 timings. http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=6294&admin=0a8fcaad6b03da6a6895d1ada2e171002a287bc1http://s7.postimg.org/cw71zviln/Best.png

yah i need to stop reading all that is makes me want to upgrade when I have no reason. those numbers are just crazy. And the day developers actual give correct multi core support for everything I expect the even crazier numbers Haswell might of not been the huge jump the "minority" the enthusiasts crowded expects from next gen but the power usage is amazing. great for laptops people user and the people that think gaming is good idea on laptops seeing heat just cant dissipate fast enough them, but useless for desktop seeing most dont care about power consuption on desktops ,but frankly intel has nothing to lose but lowering power consumption on the cpu, they are already running circles around amd in raw power

yah i need to stop reading all that is makes me want to upgrade when I have no reason. those numbers are just crazy. And the day developers actual give correct multi core support for everything I expect the even crazier numbers Haswell might of not been the huge jump the "minority" the enthusiasts crowded expects from next gen but the power usage is amazing. great for laptops people user and the people that think gaming is good idea on laptops seeing heat just cant dissipate fast enough them, but useless for desktop seeing most dont care about power consuption on desktops ,but frankly intel has nothing to lose but lowering power consumption on the cpu, they are already running circles around amd in raw power

Although I'm not and I shouldn't complain since I'm on a 4.6 3770K, I know what you are saying since I went straight from a C2D E4500 to a 2600 and shortly after that to my 3770k. That was an improvement. But if I had gotten a 2600K I wouldn't had upgraded to a 3770k/4770k. Neither the 2011 CPU's. I just got the 3770k because I didn't really "want" the non k 2600 I had. And tbh I loved that CPU because I showed me the biggest different when I went straight to that from the C2D. I'm of those users that upgrade if possible every 2-3 years. But I will make an exception and my next upgrade will be a 8c/16t CPU(best bang cpu like 3930k/4930k) hopefully next year with H-E/X99. Well, all we can do is wait.. :P

Although I'm not and I shouldn't complain since I'm on a 4.6 3770K, I know what you are saying since I went straight from a C2D E4500 to a 2600 and shortly after that to my 3770k. That was an improvement. But if I had gotten a 2600K I wouldn't had upgraded to a 3770k/4770k. Neither the 2011 CPU's. I just got the 3770k because I didn't really "want" the non k 2600 I had. And tbh I loved that CPU because I showed me the biggest different when I went straight to that from the C2D. I'm of those users that upgrade if possible every 2-3 years. But I will make an exception and my next upgrade will be a 8c/16t CPU(best bang cpu like 3930k/4930k) hopefully next year with H-E/X99. Well, all we can do is wait.. :P

Having a hard time waiting though :3eyes: i really want to scrap my z77 build and go X79 because in the long run those 2 extra cores will be more than beneficial, as will the bandwidth capabilities.

Great review. im surpised I thought it would do a lot better than my current 3930k was really looking forward to an upgrade but I might give it a miss after reading the reviews. And my 3930k clocked at 4.6ghz 2133mhz 9-12-12-28-c1 http://s22.postimg.org/nkctestup/cachemem.png there not much in it... I was hoping this new chip would be a great overclocker. but I guess only time will tell!

cant say I am all that impressed tbh, the memory bandwidth is out of site though

Meh. If I can get 4.6GHz out of my 4930K, I'll be happy. I wasn't expecting overclocking miracles with IB-E anyways. Time to play the silicone lottery. 🤓

You 3930k owners you.... :P

It's a bit disappointing but not unexpected, it was the same thing with 2600k - 3770k. I'm really looking forward towards haswell-e and beyond, it's about time that the industry pushes for raw performance again,

I'm kind of suspicious of the RAM throughput readings in AIDA. I will do some testing tonight with my 3820. It really looks to me like the 3820 on that chart was running in dual channel mode and not quad channel mode. If the RAM controller is really that much better, then anything that uses a lot of RAM should see a huge jump in performance.