sandralambert wrote:The way to rationalize more expensive CPUs to yourself is to count the cost of the motherboard and RAM. This may push the optimum to the middle of the processor series, but the bleeding edge top-end is never a good value.
Wow, somebody is actually thinking rationally for a moment?
This is what some others and I have been saying on Anandtech for a while now since Devil's Canyon hit: You can spend $200 on a mobo, $100 on cooling to overclock a $240 4690K to a realistic 4.5-4.6GHz at the end of the day, you would still barely beat a stock 4790K @ 4.4GHz on a MCE enabled $70 budget mobo in real-world gaming where the clocks of both are so high to be irrelevant either way, but while loses badly when it comes to HT optimized games and apps while the 4790K combo is $100 cheaper, no hassles and guaranteed clocks unlike OCing.
Beside, the 4690K is already stock 3.9GHz. Let's say a 4.4GHz OC is guaranteed with $100 extra on a HSF and OCing mobo. A mere +12% CPU OC would be close to unnoticeable in a real-world gaming situation...Might as well simply buy the 4790K, right?
So why is everyone still so obsessed with OCing? Because you "saved" $100 for not buying a superior chip in the first place? I simply don't get it. The days with pushing a $183 E6300 to the performance of a $1000 X6800, 2.66GHz i7-920 to 4GHz or 4.5+GHz 2500Ks with big boosts from stock clocks in long over.
99% of users are simply way better off with stock i5s or 4790K, budget mobos, cheapo standard RAM and put the saved money into far more important things that actually solve real bottlenecks like GPUs or SSDs. The ultimate irony of all this is how the top of the line chip for a mainstream socket arguably offers the best value in its lineup.