Intel Core i7-4771 vs Intel Core i5-4670K: Which one should I pick?

I'm torn between these two processor setups. The total cost—including boards and coolers—is landing in pretty much the same ballpark for both. I’m planning to pull the trigger early this summer, so right now I'm just doing my homework. The goal is gaming and some light video editing at home using Handbrake.

Option 1 (i5):
Intel Core i5-4670K box – 3.4 GHz ($532 - Micro Center)
Gigabyte Z87-HD3 ($259 - Micro Center)
Cooler Master - Hyper 212 EVO ($25 - Best Buy)
Total: $871

Option 2 (i7):
Intel Core i7-4771 box - 3.5 GHz (around $200)
ASUS P8H77-M PRO ($204 - Best Buy)
Total: $2612 (give or take a few bucks depending on the final CPU price)

There might be an Intel Core i7-4790 hitting the shelves this summer too, pushing up to 4GHz. It should basically replace the 4770 at a similar price point.

Which combo is the better long-term bet?
An overclocked 4670K hitting maybe 4.2GHz, or the 4790 with Intel Hyper-Threading running at 4 GHz?

Right now, games seem to favor higher clock speeds. That said, I have a feeling future titles will lean more heavily into multi-threading—where that 8 vs 4 thread ratio might actually start to matter.

For gaming, an Intel Core i5-4670k will be more than enough—but you should keep in mind that the Haswell refresh processors are arriving soon. They aren't going to be revolutionary, but they'll have about 300 MHz more clock speed out of the box compared to the current Haswell chips. One nice little perk? They're supposed to run a bit cooler than the ones we're seeing now. Since you aren't planning on pulling the trigger on parts until this summer, why not just grab something like an Intel Core i5-4690 and wait for the Z97 chipset to drop in a month or two?

My question was about the long-term play: an overclocked i5 (the K variant) versus an i7 (non-K). I’m not planning on swapping parts or upgrading this rig for at least five years.
Since that upcoming Intel Core i5-4690 won't be a K-series chip, it feels like the inferior move to me.

It’s almost certainly going to be the K version—I mean, it’s not like Intel is that foolish, right? Plus, it’s a safe bet they’ll be releasing unlocked processors since the new Z97 chipset is launching alongside them. What’s the point of having an overclocking-friendly chipset if you can't actually use an unlocked processor? It just doesn't make any sense... But hey, if you don't trust Intel or you're feeling skeptical, then just go grab the Intel Core i5-4670k instead.

The updated versions will be released a little later down the road.

If you're just gaming, it honestly doesn't matter much (and won't for a while) since performance relies mostly on your GPU, but if you're doing video editing, the i7 is definitely the better way to go.

Adam Thompson said:I'm torn between these two processor setups. The total cost—including boards and coolers—is landing in pretty much the same ballpark for both. I’m planning to pull the trigger early this summer, so right now I'm just doing my homework. The goal is gaming and some light video editing at home using Handbrake.

Option 1 (i5):
Intel Core i5-4670K box – 3.4 GHz ($532 - Micro Center)
Gigabyte Z87-HD3 ($259 - Micro Center)
Cooler Master - Hyper 212 EVO ($25 - Best Buy)
Total: $871

Option 2 (i7):
Intel Core i7-4771 box - 3.5 GHz (around $200)
ASUS P8H77-M PRO ($204 - Best Buy)
Total: $2612 (give or take a few bucks depending on the final CPU price)

There might be an Intel Core i7-4790 hitting the shelves this summer too, pushing up to 4GHz. It should basically replace the 4770 at a similar price point.

Which combo is the better long-term bet?
An overclocked 4670K hitting maybe 4.2GHz, or the 4790 with Intel Hyper-Threading running at 4 GHz?

Right now, games seem to favor higher clock speeds. That said, I have a feeling future titles will lean more heavily into multi-threading—where that 8 vs 4 thread ratio might actually start to matter.

Well, it really depends on how far you're trying to peer into the crystal ball. 😁 When it comes to multi-threading, Intel Hyper-Threading is pretty much inferior to AMD architecture—like, significantly so. Intel’s whole thing—their real strength—is single-thread applications. There's also this other factor: software is designed based on what hardware is actually out there, so you get this lag—usually a 3-4 year gap—before software finally catches up enough to actually utilize that hardware properly.

That's why making any kind of solid prediction for the future is a headache; hardware is always going to be one step ahead of the software, and by the time those highly optimized games actually drop, a ton of new hardware will already be sitting on store shelves. Long story short: if you grab an i7 today, don't go thinking it's some magical guarantee that it'll be more future-proof than an i5 processor.

Benjamin King2 said:Well, it really depends on how far you're trying to peer into the crystal ball. 😁 When it comes to multi-threading, Intel Hyper-Threading is pretty much inferior to AMD architecture—like, significantly so. Intel’s whole thing—their real strength—is single-thread applications. There's also this other factor: software is designed based on what hardware is actually out there, so you get this lag—usually a 3-4 year gap—before software finally catches up enough to actually utilize that hardware properly.

That's why making any kind of solid prediction for the future is a headache; hardware is always going to be one step ahead of the software, and by the time those highly optimized games actually drop, a ton of new hardware will already be sitting on store shelves. Long story short: if you grab an i7 today, don't go thinking it's some magical guarantee that it'll be more future-proof than an i5 processor.

I’m not so sure about that—at least not as a general rule. In my experience, an Intel core is inherently more powerful than an AMD core. AMD can only really compete by throwing more cores at the problem or through aggressive overclocking. Take the i7 4771 vs fx 8350, for instance. Without any overclocking, the i7 wins on performance. And if you want to overclock, you need a high-end motherboard and a serious cooler, which quickly pushes the total cost close to what an i7 configuration costs out of the box. Plus, those AMD chips pull way more power. Essentially, one Intel core with Hyper-Threading is roughly on par with two AMD cores.
Looking at the server side, I have to wonder: which AMD chip can actually go toe-to-toe with a single Xeon E7-2890 v2?
Personally, I’d take my chances with Intel every time.

You ask us for advice and we're happy to help—but then you turn around and try to tell us how it's done 😛

Adam Thompson said:I’m not so sure about that—at least not as a general rule. In my experience, an Intel core is inherently more powerful than an AMD core. AMD can only really compete by throwing more cores at the problem or through aggressive overclocking. Take the i7 4771 vs fx 8350, for instance. Without any overclocking, the i7 wins on performance. And if you want to overclock, you need a high-end motherboard and a serious cooler, which quickly pushes the total cost close to what an i7 configuration costs out of the box. Plus, those AMD chips pull way more power. Essentially, one Intel core with Hyper-Threading is roughly on par with two AMD cores.
Looking at the server side, I have to wonder: which AMD chip can actually go toe-to-toe with a single Xeon E7-2890 v2?
Personally, I’d take my chances with Intel every time.

Read carefully here: Fosna already pointed out that Intel is superior when it comes to single-thread performance.
Look, Hyper-Threading isn't a magic fix for lacking physical cores. Because of how it's designed and how those shared resources work, Hyper-Threading threads are essentially fighting over the same lane. You don't get double the performance from one core just because it has Hyper-Threading. So, saying 8 cores equals 4 cores plus Hyper-Threading just doesn't hold water.
Even if we're talking about synthetic benchmarks, they all show a massive leap when you compare 8 physical AMD cores against 4 cores plus Hyper-Threading.
The real trick is what Fosna mentioned: software is always playing catch-up to hardware. For years now, most apps haven't been tapping into the full potential of multi-core processors; they mostly just use them for system tasks. Why? Simply because software developers are often too lazy to optimize for everything available, so their apps act like they're running on one super-fast single processor.

The price gap with AMD is closing, but once you factor in extra RAM, a high-end cooler, and the power bill, it's not even an i7 Zippo anymore.
The Xeon is a completely different beast; it's not even meant for the consumer desktop market. It's like comparing apples to oranges. By that same logic, ARM clusters could eat any Intel solution for breakfast, even though individual ARM cores are tiny. Let's not compare things that aren't comparable. Hey, you can prefer AMD or Intel—that's your call and your money. But look at where the industry is heading: Intel is moving toward packing more cores across all their lines while clock speeds have been flatlining for years. They have efficient cores for today's software, and the move is clearly toward parallelism.

One thing stays constant: people buy stuff backwards. The right way to do it is to define exactly what your future PC needs to do—what programs you'll run and how heavily you'll use them—set your budget, and *then* pick the hardware. If an app scales massively with core count, that becomes your deciding factor, regardless of which brand you like.
Choosing Intel or AMD based on brand loyalty or gut feeling isn't the point. It's not about who is "better" in a vacuum; it's about which XY provides better performance per person, per core, or via a solid cost-benefit analysis...

Anyway, back to being a critic...

Larry Ortiz5 said:You ask us for advice and we're happy to help—but then you turn around and try to tell us how it's done 😛

I was simply commenting where my opinion differed from yours.

Michael Jackson10 said:Read carefully here: Fosna already pointed out that Intel is superior when it comes to single-thread performance.
Look, Hyper-Threading isn't a magic fix for lacking physical cores. Because of how it's designed and how those shared resources work, Hyper-Threading threads are essentially fighting over the same lane. You don't get double the performance from one core just because it has Hyper-Threading. So, saying 8 cores equals 4 cores plus Hyper-Threading just doesn't hold water.
Even if we're talking about synthetic benchmarks, they all show a massive leap when you compare 8 physical AMD cores against 4 cores plus Hyper-Threading.
The real trick is what Fosna mentioned: software is always playing catch-up to hardware. For years now, most apps haven't been tapping into the full potential of multi-core processors; they mostly just use them for system tasks. Why? Simply because software developers are often too lazy to optimize for everything available, so their apps act like they're running on one super-fast single processor.

The price gap with AMD is closing, but once you factor in extra RAM, a high-end cooler, and the power bill, it's not even an i7 Zippo anymore.
The Xeon is a completely different beast; it's not even meant for the consumer desktop market. It's like comparing apples to oranges. By that same logic, ARM clusters could eat any Intel solution for breakfast, even though individual ARM cores are tiny. Let's not compare things that aren't comparable. Hey, you can prefer AMD or Intel—that's your call and your money. But look at where the industry is heading: Intel is moving toward packing more cores across all their lines while clock speeds have been flatlining for years. They have efficient cores for today's software, and the move is clearly toward parallelism.

One thing stays constant: people buy stuff backwards. The right way to do it is to define exactly what your future PC needs to do—what programs you'll run and how heavily you'll use them—set your budget, and *then* pick the hardware. If an app scales massively with core count, that becomes your deciding factor, regardless of which brand you like.
Choosing Intel or AMD based on brand loyalty or gut feeling isn't the point. It's not about who is "better" in a vacuum; it's about which XY provides better performance per person, per core, or via a solid cost-benefit analysis...

Anyway, back to being a critic...

My theory was that an Intel core performs significantly better even without Hyper-Threading. When you factor in Hyper-Threading technology, we get close to that 2:1 ratio. Basically, Hyper-Threading alone doesn't provide a 100% boost, but it offers a 20-30% gain for multithreaded applications.

That 20-30% margin is exactly why I started this thread.
My takeaway: Intel Core i7 vs i5K
Right now: roughly comparable gaming performance.
Long term: the Intel Core i7 might hold the edge.
If the price point is similar, just go with the Intel Core i7.

If the software can actually tap into 8 or more cores, the FX might be roughly equal to—or maybe even slightly better than—the Intel Core i7. And that’s assuming you aren't overclocking, plus the processor costs twice as much. 😉

If you're looking to play modern games on high or ultra settings, I guess you don't really need an Intel Core i7; an i5 or an FX 8320 would probably be a more cost-effective move.

I honestly don't think an FX chip will ever truly beat an Intel Core i7, regardless of whether the software is actually capable of utilizing all eight cores or not

The i7 is generally the superior CPU, though there are specific scenarios where the FX series pulls up close or even matches it. For instance, according to AnandTech, when running at stock settings (comparing the 8350 to the 3770K), the FX holds its own or is even slightly better in certain tasks.

Windows 8 - x264 HD 5.0.1 - 2nd Pass
Windows 8 - POV-Ray 3.7RC6 - Multi Threaded
x264 HD Encode Test - 2nd pass - x264 0.59.819
x264 HD Benchmark - 2nd pass - v3.03
7-zip Benchmark

By the way, the 4770K managed to edge out the FX just a tiny bit in those first two tests.

When you consider that something like the 8320 is more than half the price (and can actually be overclocked past the 8350's clock speed), it's an incredible bang-for-your-buck option. Ultimately, it all comes down to how well your software can actually utilize those 8 cores.