I7 3770K or I7 4770K

[flightsim777 0]

Hello I was just wondering which CPU would be the better one for FSX. The price difference is currently no concern at the moment. I want the best CPU for FSX and I plan to overclock the CPU to as fast as possible and still keep it stable, the cooler is a Corsair H110. I am just wondering which CPU can I overclock higher, and which one will, overall, perform the best on FSX. I have built computers before, I am just not certain on which of these CPU's will give me the best performance in FSX.

 

Thank You.

[westman 257]

4770k , no reason to stay with Sandy or Ivy bridge when build a new system

[maurice253 0]

Hello,

 

I have the i7-3770 (non K version) and I am totally satisfied. But when you have the chance to get a newer processor, I would of course go for it!

[flightsim777 0]

Agh thank you, I have heard from some that Haswell does not OC as much as previous Intel CPU's.

[idahosurge 2]

Either one you get you will have to pop the top and replace the tim if you plan on overclocking the CPU very high.  Reports at this time state that the 4770K has worse temps at a high OC than the 3770K does.  Also early reports state that the 4770K samples sent out to reviewers were hand picked and that retail CPU's in stores are not as good, they will not OC as high and OC at higher temps.

 

If I were you I would wait a couple of months to see how this all plays out before you purchase you hardware.

 

I have seen threads at OCN where people have popped the top on 4770K's and replacing the tim will lower the OC core temps around 20C.  On one 20 video I watched the person lowered his max core temp from 93C down to 71C, but this was only at a 4.3GHz OC and it was only a 10 minute test in Prime95.  If he jumps his OC to 4.5GHz his temps I bet his temps will go over 80C.

[martin-w 3,234]

For my 3770K, not de-lidded, I can get to 4.6 GHz, at low temperature actually. The voltage required at 4.7, results in a big increase in temps though, right up to 90 in Aida 64. In Prime 95 it would be even higher and shutting down.

 

So 4.6 is the max for me, before hitting the Ivy Bridge thermal brick wall.

 

With the top off, I guess I would get to 4.9-5 GHz, but to be honest, I don't see the point for what amounts to 3 frames per second.

 

I would say the same, wait and see how things pan out with the 4700K.

[vgbaron 3,483]

I guess I am lucky then - my 3770K is at 4.74ghz and max temp during stress test is 80C on highest core.

 

 

Vic

[martin-w 3,234]

That's nice Vic. I need fairly high voltage to get to 4.6.

 

What sort of voltage is that?

 

Temps for me are lower than yours by a fair margin, at 4.5, I recall they are about the same as yours at 4.6 As soon as I hit the voltage required for 4.7, the rise in temperature is extreme.

 

Having said that, the difference between my max at 4.6, and your 4.7, is virtually nothing in terms of performance.

[Great Ozzie 101]

I guess I am lucky then - my 3770K is at 4.74ghz and max temp during stress test is 80C on highest core.

 

Techmaxguy said same thing regarding mine.

 

I am posting the pic (again) fwiw.

 

"Full Disclosure" here: Cooling is an H100 w/ with a small air conditioner window unit pumped into the case (however) I can't remember above mid-50s °C w/o the a/c while running FSX.

 

Also... CPU volts normally (now) = 1.375 (despite cpu-z reporting something different... dunno why... could be I was using a lower voltage at the time)

[TheFamilyMan 279]

Given that I don't want to spend $100 or more for cooling, I think I'm better off upgrading to a 3770k rather than a 4770k, when it comes to FSX performance realized by OCs using a cooler such as a Hyper 212 Evo.  BTW I'm not after the last 3% to 5% boost that would be possible with better and much pricier cooling (or delidding).  Other than being cheap (err..frugal) is this thinking flawed?  My goal is better 'bang for the buck' FSX performance over my 860, though I want to have hypertheading available for other stuff.  If it weren't for FSX, I don't think I'd ever want to upgrade unless that 860 system failed.

[jjcruz78 0]

Rod , IMO you absolutely right Their is no need to Keep up with jone's the yields or perf. boost are not great.

[martin-w 3,234]

 

 

 

Techmaxguy said same thing regarding mine.

 

I am posting the pic (again) fwiw.

 

"Full Disclosure" here: Cooling is an H100 w/ with a small air conditioner window unit pumped into the case (however) I can't remember above mid-50s °C w/o the a/c while running FSX.

 

Also... CPU volts normally (now) = 1.375 (despite cpu-z reporting something different... dunno why... could be I was using a lower voltage at the time)

 

 

By the way...

 

Both Intel and Asus frown upon the use of the Intel Burn Test for Ivy Bridge. I guess Intel should know, considering it's based on their software.

 

It doesn't test all of the CPU's parameters, and some it over stresses.

 

I use Prime 95, the latest version seems to work well.

 

At the end of the day, the best test is to use the CPU for what it was intended for, everyday use. If it's stable after an extended period, then your system is sable enough.

[Great Ozzie 101]

 

 

Both Intel and Asus frown upon the use of the Intel Burn Test for Ivy Bridge.

 

Yeah... there a youtube of J.J. Guerrero from ASUS talking about tests.  I watched it thru a couple times last fall, but didn't get (at first... until after using linpack) that the LinX test not recommended.  Fwiw I think he mentions Prime95 too (around 3:55).  Maybe that latest one is OK?

 

 

 

At the end of the day, the best test is to use the CPU for what it was intended for, everyday use. If it's stable after an extended period, then your system is sable enough.

 

 

I wholeheartedly agree here Martin.

 

You can bench all day (and night) long... be "prime stable" for forever and a day... 

 

But until you use it for the application (FSX, CAD... whatever) and determine stability there... well that is what really matters.  From what I read... I think most think that if you are *insert your favorite stress test here*  stable... then that is all that matters... not realizing the app you are oc'ing for may not be stable.

 

Thanks for the info about the latest Prime95.

 

J.J. Guerrero vid:

 

[martin-w 3,234]

 Yes, that's the video I was talking about Rob.

 

 

 

Fwiw I think he mentions Prime95 too (around 3:55).  Maybe that latest one is OK?

 

Yes he does mention Prime, OCCT as well. However, I used Prime anyway, as I figured it wasn't as vicious as IBT. Aida64 I found to be somewhat puny in it's attempts to stress thermally.

 

Prime does correctly identify the CPU, and as I say, it is the latest version, so I'm assuming it functions adequately for Ivy Bridge.

 

Worked fine anyway for my overclock. Got it stable in Prime, and it's been very stable since in everyday use.

[IanHenry 10]

Hi,

  before you decide, it may be worth reading this article from Scan UK one of the UK's best computer parts retailers:

 

4th generation Intel Core processors unveiled                   After months of rumours and speculation Intel has finally unveiled the first models of its fourth generation of Core processors. Based on the Haswell architecture the first models to hit the market are a variety of Core i5 and i7 for desktop PCs plus a handful of Core i7s for high-end laptops.

On the desktop side of things the Core i5 4670K and Core i7 4770K are the most notable chips, being the direct replacements for the Ivy Bridge architecture Core i5 3570K and Core i7 3770K respectively. In terms of key specs both generations of CPU have the same number of cores (4 and 4+4 respectively), run at the same frequency (3.4 and 3.5GHz respectively) and have the same amount of cache (6 and 8MB respectively). So, given that both new chips will require you to buy a new LG1150 motherboard based around one of the new 8-series chipsets, is there anything worth getting excited about?

Well, Haswell CPUs do have a new on-board GPU, but to be honest if you’re buying a Core i5 or i7 you’re almost certainly also going to have a discrete graphics card in your PC. Therefore you’re probably more interested to hear that Intel has increased the size of the Translation Lookaside Buffer in Haswell, along with improving the branch predictor and doubling the bandwidth of the L1 and L2 caches.

These architectural improvements don’t yield any massive performance gains, but according to our own testing and reviews in the media you should expect to see a 2 – 8% improvement between Ivy Bridge and Haswell CPUs. While this isn’t much of a gain, Haswell CPUs do consume a lot less power than Ivy Bridge processors, both when idle and under load – something that anybody interested in their electricity bill should take note of.

In terms of overclocking, about the most you should expect to see from a Haswell CPU is something in the region of 4.4GHz, a good couple of hundred MHz lower than Ivy Bridge CPUs. This frankly is really quite disappointing and something we hope to see improved in later steppings as Intel refines the manufacturing process.

While we can't help but feel disappointed that Haswell doesn’t mark a big improvement in performance and overclocking, if you have an old system that needs upgrading it’s clearly a better choice than Ivy Bridge, especially as you get a free copy of the excellent racing game GRID 2 if you order from Scan. To this end the 3XS team has designed a whole range of new PCs based around Haswell CPUs, from entry-level to overclocked gaming PCs, overclocked bundles, gaming laptops, graphics workstations and everything in between. However, owners of i5 3570Ks or i7 3770Ks would be better off spending their money on a new graphics card such as one of the NVIDIA GeForce 700-series.

 

Regards,

          Ian.