F5F Stay Refreshed Hardware Desktop is the 4790k still worth it?

is the 4790k still worth it?

is the 4790k still worth it?

Pages (2): Previous 1 2
R
RoboGnome
Junior Member
2
06-29-2016, 04:42 AM
#11
I had the mobile and RAM, before that I was running a Lenovo D40 server with two E5 2506 chips and an Intel 1070, which didn’t work well.
R
RoboGnome
06-29-2016, 04:42 AM #11

I had the mobile and RAM, before that I was running a Lenovo D40 server with two E5 2506 chips and an Intel 1070, which didn’t work well.

Z
ZeusTrucker
Member
221
06-29-2016, 05:29 PM
#12
Could try to save some money, just keeping an eye out for a response
Z
ZeusTrucker
06-29-2016, 05:29 PM #12

Could try to save some money, just keeping an eye out for a response

M
matei91
Member
86
06-30-2016, 12:33 AM
#13
I’ll move to a real improvement. 4790k isn’t enough, but it all comes down to what you need. For gamers needing 60 fps, it’s usually still fine.
M
matei91
06-30-2016, 12:33 AM #13

I’ll move to a real improvement. 4790k isn’t enough, but it all comes down to what you need. For gamers needing 60 fps, it’s usually still fine.

B
Butterfly1416
Senior Member
701
06-30-2016, 06:15 AM
#14
It seems you're pointing out a misunderstanding about the performance gap between your 4790k and 8700k. From what you said, it looks like you think the 8700k only reaches around 70fps. That's not quite accurate.
B
Butterfly1416
06-30-2016, 06:15 AM #14

It seems you're pointing out a misunderstanding about the performance gap between your 4790k and 8700k. From what you said, it looks like you think the 8700k only reaches around 70fps. That's not quite accurate.

G
GauthierJ
Junior Member
21
07-05-2016, 04:47 PM
#15
Sure thing. So when the 4790k is locked at 100% and struggles with the frames, my stock 1080 keeps performing well despite that. The 8700k at 90% manages almost everything the card can handle. It’s pretty spot-on. Isn’t it just a lag issue from a slow CPU that can’t keep up? I’d stick to 70 fps all day back then.
G
GauthierJ
07-05-2016, 04:47 PM #15

Sure thing. So when the 4790k is locked at 100% and struggles with the frames, my stock 1080 keeps performing well despite that. The 8700k at 90% manages almost everything the card can handle. It’s pretty spot-on. Isn’t it just a lag issue from a slow CPU that can’t keep up? I’d stick to 70 fps all day back then.

G
GamesMajor
Member
62
07-05-2016, 05:17 PM
#16
Your 8700k running at 90% indicates a CPU limitation, so upgrading might be necessary. The 4790k offers similar performance to my 2700x, and I consistently achieve over 100fps at 1440p with a 2080ti. I don’t let low resolution slow me down; a 4790 and 9900 will behave the same in ultra and 4k due to GPU constraints. Clearly stating this helps avoid misunderstandings.
G
GamesMajor
07-05-2016, 05:17 PM #16

Your 8700k running at 90% indicates a CPU limitation, so upgrading might be necessary. The 4790k offers similar performance to my 2700x, and I consistently achieve over 100fps at 1440p with a 2080ti. I don’t let low resolution slow me down; a 4790 and 9900 will behave the same in ultra and 4k due to GPU constraints. Clearly stating this helps avoid misunderstandings.

R
raven_sing
Junior Member
48
07-06-2016, 08:38 PM
#17
You're concerned about losing frames on your other monitor and how it affects performance. It seems the issue isn't with the monitor itself but rather with the game's handling of CPU-intensive tasks at higher resolutions. The feedback suggests it's manageable for a 60 FPS gamer, which should clarify things.
R
raven_sing
07-06-2016, 08:38 PM #17

You're concerned about losing frames on your other monitor and how it affects performance. It seems the issue isn't with the monitor itself but rather with the game's handling of CPU-intensive tasks at higher resolutions. The feedback suggests it's manageable for a 60 FPS gamer, which should clarify things.

Pages (2): Previous 1 2