i5 4440 vs i5 4670k

Comments

• Draemos Member UncommonPosts: 1,521

  January 2014

  If your playing MMOs or indy developer games (ie DayZ), a chip that can over-clock is a big bonus since most are poorly optimized for multiple cores and tend to be CPU limited. 

  Most non-MMO premium PC games are GPU limited and the CPU won't make a significant difference as long as it's been made in the last 1-3 years.

  Most of the time you're better of spending the extra money on a better GPU if you're budgeting.
• syntax42 Member UncommonPosts: 1,385

  January 2014

  The 'K' in the model number indicates it can be overclocked.  If it doesn't have the 'K', it can't be overclocked. 

  You can save some money now by not going for the unlocked CPU, but it will cost more in the long-run if you want to upgrade later to overclock.  In either case, I would get an aftermarket cooler due to the stock intel coolers not being very good.  The Hyper 212 Evo is a fairly good one for $30.

  Avoid buying the cheapest motherboard you can find.  Build quality is very important with motherboards.  If you buy something like a cheap ASRock motherboard, it might not last a year.  Pay a little extra for a better motherboard and you won't regret it in the long-run.

  "Using AMD for quite some time..." is not solid logic for switching to Intel.  If you want single-threaded performance, go with Intel.  If you need 8 cores for some (non-gaming) reason, AMD makes the only desktop CPU with 8 cores for now.
• Ridelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,383

  January 2014

  The 4670k is 3.4 (3.8) for ~$240 US, and unlocked for overclocking
  The 4670 is 3.4 (3.8) for ~$220 US, with locked clocks
  The 4440 is 3.1 (3.3) for ~$200 US, with locked clocks

  So you pay
  ~$20 to overclock
  ~$20 for 300 Mhz base clock

  Going in terms of $/Ghz,
  The 4670k is $70.59 (potentially lower due to overclockability)
  The 4670 is $64.71
  The 4440 is $64.51

  I was going to go off on a tirade about how lower bins of the i5 are overpriced and generally not worth it, but I would have been wrong. It looks like the 4670 and 4440 are pretty much on par with each other price/performance-wise.

  As far as overclocks go... my advice to people building everyday use rigs is to overclock it once, see what it gets to stable, and then take it back to stock clocks and run it there unless you absolutely need to overclock it for something.

  My day-to-day rig has finally aged to the point where I just leave it overclocked all the time, but that only has happened recently (about 9 months ago). This rig was built in late 2008, so it's definitely a bit long in the tooth, and thanks to the overclock option it's still useful today. Normally, I would have expected to upgrade the CPU/motherboard every 3-4 years, and that's what I tell most people to expect, and without the ability to overclock, that's about what I would have got out of this rig.

  So I guess, with regard to gaming, overclocking just buys you more time before you ~have~ to replace your rig. If you want to do it as a hobby, that's fine, or if you will realistically upgrade/rebuild/replace your computer before you need to overclock, that's fine. Personally, I think $20 in the price of a computer is worth paying just for the option to extend it's life, even if I don't chose to use it, and I would rather at least have the option than not if it's only about 2% of the price of the system. But if your on a strict budget, there's an easy $20-40 you can shave off.
• Quizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,491

  January 2014

  Originally posted by Ridelynn

  The 4670k is 3.4 (3.8) for ~$240 US, and unlocked for overclocking
  The 4670 is 3.4 (3.8) for ~$220 US, with locked clocks
  The 4440 is 3.1 (3.3) for ~$200 US, with locked clocks

  So you pay
  ~$20 to overclock
  ~$20 for 300 Mhz base clock

  Going in terms of $/Ghz,
  The 4670k is $70.59 (potentially lower due to overclockability)
  The 4670 is $64.71
  The 4440 is $64.51

  I was going to go off on a tirade about how lower bins of the i5 are overpriced and generally not worth it, but I would have been wrong. It looks like the 4670 and 4440 are pretty much on par with each other price/performance-wise.

  In a desktop chip, the relevant number is the turbo clock, not the base clock, and there, the 4670 has a 500 MHz advantage, not 300 MHz.  In single-threaded performance, the turbo clock is what you're going to see.  Even if you're pushing all four cores, you're still likely to see mainly the turbo clock, as you're not touching the integrated graphics.

  Furthermore, thinking of it in terms of performance per dollar is entirely wrong, as there are other chips on the market, too.  For example, half the speed and price of the 4670 would be a 1.7 GHz base clock and 1.9 GHz turbo for $110.  But that would be a terrible value because this is both much faster and much cheaper:

  http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113348

  Additionally, the processor isn't the only component that matters.  If you're paying $700 for other components and you cut your performance in half by saving $200 on the CPU and video card, you didn't save half of the total price tag.

  I wouldn't get a Core i5-4440.  Either spend more to get a higher bin or save a lot money by going AMD.  The argument for going Intel is that you pay more for a faster chip, but if you get the 4440, you pay more but don't get a much faster chip compared to, say, this:

  http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113331

  4.4 GHz at stock, and overclockable, too--on top of being much cheaper than the Core i5-4440.  Yes, it's slower per clock cycle than Haswell, but it makes up for it with a big clock speed difference.
• Ridelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,383

  January 2014

  When your comparing different architectures and various generations, yes, $/Clock is awful.

  But comparing two like chips, where the only difference is clock speed and price, it's a very valid comparison.

  Your right about the turbo speed - I prefer to go conservative and look at base clocks, since that's the only thing your guaranteed. Will they run at turbo often? Yes, but not always. So I wouldn't rely on that number when trying to compare them - you can if you want to though. Otherwise you could go make the case for the K chip, because one guy overclocked it to 7.1Ghz, that you should base the overclock part off what it potentially can do...

  I don't think a Richland, even at 4.4, will beat a Haswell at 3.1. If you have some benchmarks or documentation for that I'd be interested in being proved wrong though.
• Zadawn Member UncommonPosts: 670

  January 2014

  Thanks guys for your replies. It helped me decide on the 4670k. Thank you.