hi guys, I have come to the point where I need to make a decision about wether I want to head down the overclocking path or not ..
the problem is that if I do want to overclock, after the price of the k cpu and z97 chipset boards and so forth, its nearly an extra $100 AUD over my h97 build with a 4590 and I'm not sure if my results in gaming will be worth that much money or if I should put that money into a better gpu?.
the 4460 is $269, the 4590 is $285 and the 4690 is $319, the k version is $339 + the price of a decent z97 board here is nearly $250.
I'm looking to pair this with a 970 / 390 or a 980 for 1080p gaming but I'm just not sure I can justify spending ninety to a hundred dollars for what seems like little advantage over a h97 setup.
so is it worth it? or would I get pretty similar performance with the cheaper setup and a better gpu ?
let's get super mathematical children i5 4460 turbos to 3.4 i5 4690k can be overclocked to 4.4/4.5 if you have a shitty chip 4.6 is typical, 4.7 is pretty lucky, 4.8 is panty dropping worthy (at voltages of 1.35 or below of course)
so let's say the 4690k you theoretically get is the standard 4.6
now pay attention i'm gonna do some weird math let's take the turbo speed of the low end i5 and divide it by the theoretical overclock of the high end i5
3.4/4.6 = .74 ish
let's take the price of the overclocking setup and multiply it by that
589 * .74 = 435.86
435.86 is how cheap the low end setup would have to be to have the same price/performance of the high end setup, you say 100 dollars cheaper is how much you save going low end. 589 - 100 = 489.
simply speaking you get better price to performance on the overclocking setup as well as a longer amount of time you could go without upgrading. obviously you could find slightly different priced parts and the difference might shrink or grow but you get the idea, overclocking is worth it.
In Australia 100 dollars doesn't really go far anyways the difference between a 960 and 970 or between a 380 and 390 is 150 to 200 anyways.
If you are going to overclock, then you will need aftermarket cooling, and more expensive MOBO, aside from the cost difference in chips. Depending on the chip you get to not overclock and what case you have, the stock cooling solution might very well work. Then you can get by with a much less expensive MOBO, plus the difference in cost of the chips.
So how is the difference only $100?
I'm in no way trying to argue, just saying the point is flawed because I believe the "$100" difference to be incorrect.
In real world regular joe gaming, isn't the $$ invested in this particular situation better served in staying with the non K i5 and getting a better GPU?
Here is some real world numbers to make the point, we do not need to be going off what people "say".
i'm just viewing it from the point of where better hardware requires less upgrading. an aftermarket cooler good enough for overclocking is like 30 bucks?
anyways. Jay has a good videos and he knows his stuff. It takes a graphics card at the level of a 980ti for a stock i5 to have issues and this is only with the most recent cpu demanding games such as Star Citizen..
See now this is where the lines get blurred. You would 24/7 game with a CPU at the max over clock you can get it to with just a Hyper 212 evo or equivalent.
And again if you watch the video he starts with his X99 setup overclocked and then starts disabling threads and cores and does synthetic benchmarks as well as real world playing and there was very minimal difference between the X99 and an i5 so how much difference would there be between an overclocked i5 and a non overclocked one?
You did a ninja edit while I was typing lol.......
If you are questioning if it is worth it, I would say it isn't. But if your intention is to have fun and overclock, then it is. Overclocking just isn't what it used to be, it's now a money forking hobby, rather than a "get a shitty chip and make it better" kind of hobby. A chip worth OCing is the G3258 and many of the AMD chips. But K version chips aren't really worth it.
And if someone's reasoning behind getting a K version chip is because it costs more and makes them look smart, they are an idiot.
Skip the K chip and get better GPU, or more RAM, or a better SSD or more HDD space, or more ****.
fps wise? next to none. stuttering that will make you drive your head through the wall? plenty of difference, again this is in a high end gpu scenario (basically saying next gpu upgrade after the initial build will be an issue). a hyper 212 can handle 1.3 volts with adequate airflow.
I'm really not going to continue this as it's pointless. I will agree to disagree and leave it at that :) You keep editing while I type and have obviously not watched the video at all. I'm not trying to convince you to stop overclocking anyways, the OP asked a question and I gave my opinion which I am entitled to just the same as you are to yours.
"For me" the cost difference is not worth the real world difference I will see.
ok thanks everyone for your replies ! I think ill go with the non oc option and get a better gpu. it just seems like a better option for me personally. thanks again
thanks for the help guys and gals. i think im going to go for the 4590 and a 970 or 390, havent decided on the gpu yet. but the 4590 seems like the best bang for buck as its just a little above the 4460 for about $15 more.
the main problem in my situation is that here in australia we get screwed in terms of prices BIG time. so if i can save some cash and get close ball park performance then im more than happy. i think my first build will be a great first step into the door of the pc gaming world.
may your frame rates be high and temperatures low my friends