Steam telepítése
belépés
|
nyelv
简体中文 (egyszerűsített kínai)
繁體中文 (hagyományos kínai)
日本語 (japán)
한국어 (koreai)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bolgár)
Čeština (cseh)
Dansk (dán)
Deutsch (német)
English (angol)
Español - España (spanyolországi spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (latin-amerikai spanyol)
Ελληνικά (görög)
Français (francia)
Italiano (olasz)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonéz)
Nederlands (holland)
Norsk (norvég)
Polski (lengyel)
Português (portugáliai portugál)
Português - Brasil (brazíliai portugál)
Română (román)
Русский (orosz)
Suomi (finn)
Svenska (svéd)
Türkçe (török)
Tiếng Việt (vietnámi)
Українська (ukrán)
Fordítási probléma jelentése
Hozzászólási szabályok és irányelvek
Hozzászólás jelentése
Yes, it was the HT that made all the difference. This chip, despite being old, has great standing even today. Runs at a solid 4Ghz, without overclocking.
I hear that Intel took HT away from their newest chips -- is this true, and if so, why?
They took it away with 9th gen to save money and power usage, I guess. They're bringing it back with 10th gen as they realised the mistake, because it devalued the 9600K enough that it became pointless compared to the Ryzen 5 3600.
Really, I think Intel did it just because they wanted people to upgrade sooner. Compounding that with the fact that 10th gen is on the LGA1200 socket with the Z490 motherboards, it means users are literally forced to upgrade not only their CPU, but their board as well, and on top of that, 10th gen is expected to use massively more power than 9th because 14nm has reached its peak and now can't move forward in performance without destroying the power efficiency. The i9-10900F, a 65W rated TDP CPU, can use over 200W under load, and that is a LOCKED CPU with 10 cores and 20 threads. The 10700K/KF wasn't much better, and that's only 8 cores and 16 threads.
So 10th gen costs more for the socket change, the motherboard quality, the power requirement, and the cooling requirement.
That's pretty cynical, and you're probably right.
So what's the latest Intel CPU that my i7-4790K (not OCed) compares to today?
Because when I was looking to upgrade, I was finding chips two generations newer than my i5-4460 that still weren't better than the 4790K. This is why I seldom follow the upgrade path that the companies want me to. Sometimes its best to just wait a few generations.
Best you're going to get right now is a 9900K, but that obviously requires a good Z390 motherboard, like the AORUS Pro or AORUS Master, and fast DDR4 RAM (at least 3000 MHz) to make the most out of it. You're running on a chipset and socket that isn't compatible with anything above Intel 4th gen. 9th gen only works on a select few chipsets on a newer revision of the LGA1151 socket. AMD Ryzen usually sticks to one socket and is compatible with many more chipsets; B450 has been out for around 2 years now and it's still going to be compatible with Ryzen 4000 coming out later this year, probably in Q4 2020 or Q1 2021 at worst. AMD allows chipsets to work for at least 2 generations, while Intel only does that for 1 generation.
I wouldn't recommend it anyway, because it's a small advantage over a Ryzen 7 3700X in games at 1080p, not at all actually worth the price when the 3700X offers similar performance and the same amount of cores and threads for much less. Intel is ultimately pointless because AMD Ryzen just whittles down Intel's market share and value over time, and the only people disputing that either work for Intel or are one of Intel's biggest fanboys that refuse to see that their god isn't what it once was. There's always going to be fanboys and fools that'll decide to pay 500$ for an 8C/16T CPU just because it's slightly better than a 300$ 8C/16T CPU from their competitor with "less market share and reputation in gaming systems."
So whats the current 9th or 8th gen chips that are the *equivalent* to mine?
Just out of curiosity. I'm not looking to upgrade, or for better, or anything. Just to know for s&&ts and giggles.
Intel hasn't made massive differences since Sandy Bridge (2nd gen), so an overclocked i7-4790K can compare relatively closely to Intel's last 4C/8T i7, the 7700K, and AMD's Ryzen 5 3600 and 7 2700X, all of which at stock speed however. At stock, it's a bit below them.
Most people recommend sticking with the 4790K for that reason. There's not much point in upgrading unless you're pretty much rich or won't really lose anything by blowing at least 1000$ on just a CPU, motherboard, and RAM. (The highest end is pretty expensive given that the 9900K is quite power hungry, but 9th gen is like a puddle compared to 10th gen in power consumption, it seems.)
You're fine even in new AAA games for the next few years. It'll take a bit for 8-core 8-thread or 6-core 12-thread to be the effective minimum for heavier multi-threaded games. So far that only applies to Assassin's Creed Odyssey.
yeah? the i7 4790k is 4 core 8 thread cpu.
its not just a quad core lol/
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/80807/intel-core-i7-4790k-processor-8m-cache-up-to-4-40-ghz.html
Thank you. I appreciate the input from everyone.
I didn't say it wasn't. Not sure why you're picking apart what I said when I never said the 4790K was bad or anything, I told him it's good and that there's no point in worrying about upgrading any time soon.
It's 4C/8T, I know. I wouldn't recommend less than that core/thread count config.
Input latency with a USB MIDI keyboard is, for the first time in my life, near zero. I can finally play the keyboard like a real instrument, instead of just as an input tool on a step sequencer.
It makes me wonder how anybody could possibly have used a USB MIDI keyboard before the i7. Because I've had DAWs and virtual pianos since I had a Pentium, and through Core 2 Duos and i5s, and always had serious latency. They did it somehow, or otherwise DAWs wouldn't have been possible, at least not on USB, without dedicated MIDI cards, but I have no idea how they did it before the i7. Yet they did. I think FL Studio was around in the era of first-gen Pentiums.