RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
I don't think you are looking at the same charts as everyone else here. 1st gen i5 and i7 overclocked to 3.9-4Ghz outperform any Core i3 in games. Another reason no one who follows CPUs closely takes i3s seriously is precisely because of this data -- the data shows that an overclocked i5/i7 lasts for 5+ years which means the $60-70 savings going with an i3 over the i5 K series isn't worth it over 5 years of CPU ownership. Going with an i5/i7 K series gives a gamer a peace of mind that he will not be bottlenecked for the next 5 years. Considering all of the above, most gamers realize that a modern Intel i5/i7 CPU will now last 2-3 GPU upgrades which means i3s continue to be irrelevant for those who do research. This pretty much has been true even during the i5 750/760 and i7 860/870 eras. i3 is a CPU that sits in no-man's land: If someone wants a budget system for the office, FX6000 series or even 3258 OC is a better bet and if one wants a solid gaming rig, i3 fails again. If someone plays a lot of Blizzard titles where 2 fast cores are necessary, i3 again fails since it can hardly be overclocked. An i3 is a much more suitable budget $500 laptop CPU but for the desktop it's a crappy product imho. If Intel created K series i3 CPUs, then it would have its niche for budget gaming indeed.
It would be interesting to see the same data with a 1.5Ghz 980Ti or even 980Ti SLI and including 1440P resolution. Based on the data I am seeing, there is still no viable CPU upgrade path from a 4.5 year old 4700mhz i5 2500K*.
* That's precisely the reason i3s don't make any sense. 4.5 years since SB i5 K series came out and one still cannot even buy any new i3 that's better.
Last edited:
Facebook
Twitter