Intel i7 4970k
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
What does /g/ have to say about i7 4970k?
Pic has nothing to do with anything.
>>51294538
Its a CPU. What exactly are you expecting?
Pretty nice, overclocks well (got mine to about 4.5 before I decided to stop) plus for some reason its performance is on par with whylake cpus
I prefer i5-4690k for price performance. Hyper threading isn't utilized yet
it's probably the only CPU that I actually approve from the i series.
i3 is a meme
i5 is not so good
i7 is quite ok.
>>51296342
and what is perfect
>>51294979
>housefire
>>51296416
a cheaper i7
>>51296416
ZEN
E
N
>>51296416
Dual 10 core Xeons with a Phi coprocessor.
>>51294979
I got it a year ago, for how long do you think it will perform good?
>>51296342
I don't think you fucking understand the the i-monikers are used only as pricing tiers, and therefore brackets for intended customers.
Pentium for cheapest, i3 is for medium-low budgets, i5 is for medium-high budgets, and i7 is for any large budget to beyond.
Saying "i5" is not so good means fucking nothing, because i5 as a moniker has been applied to first-gen (ex: i5-760), second-gen (ex: i5-2500k), third-gen (ex: i5-3570k), fourth-gen (ex: i5-4690k), and fifth-gen (ex: i5-6600k) processors. Many of these i5 are on completely different processing nodes and in different major Intel architectures.
That's akin to saying "Ford F-150 is not so good". Which one? They've been made for ~60 years or more many of which vary incredibly widely throughout the years.
It's a fucking empty blanket statement.
The highest rated i5 has always been in a favorable spot in terms of price/performance compared to the lowest rated i7 that people like to compare it to.
ex: i5-4690k vs i7-4790k. One costs ~$220 the other costs $320. They're otherwise the exact same chip, except one has HT unlocked and comes at a higher stock speed/boost speed, which is negligible since the i5 can just match the i7 clock-for-clock. The only reason to jump for the i7 is the enabled HT, which to this day has not contributed even 10% additional performance on average tasks compared to the ~50% price hike you pay to get that lowest i7 over the highest i5.
Hyperthreading is a fucking meme. When they price it appropriately (~$40 price increment over the highest rated i5) then I might bite, but it's not worth a ~$100 price premium when I get better gains by dumping an extra $100 on the video card or SSD space than on a fucking meme.
>>51294538
My experience with this chip is mixed. The thermals are much better than the 4770K. The single-thread performance is really good.
However, mine bricked about 10 months in, with no apparent cause and good cooling. Took it back to where I bought it and they swapped it out. Been going 4 months on the new one, we'll see what happens.
>>51297518
It chould just have been a bad ex? I hope your new one will be better.
It's nice and all, but hyperthreading does almost nothing, and can even cause worse performance in some scenarios. I wish I could afford 8 real cores.
