• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Core i3 and DualCore

A

Asif123

Junior Member
I want to know the Difference between a core i3 an the dual core. though the core i3 is also physically a dual core so due to its two virtual cores is there any Increase in gaming performance??I have E5500 will it be worth my money if i upgrade to a core i3 3rd gen???
 
Asif123 said:
I want to know the Difference between a core i3 an the dual core. though the core i3 is also physically a dual core so due to its two virtual cores is there any Increase in gaming performance??I have E5500 will it be worth my money if i upgrade to a core i3 3rd gen???
Click to expand...

You will definitely see a big performance improvement. These benchmarks compare an i3-3220 with the E6750, which is similar to your E5500: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/677?vs=60

The new i3 is consistently at least twice as fast.
 
Often it is the size of cache for the individual core and the shared cache. When It comes to gaming, graphics, and Photoshop the cache size can make all the difference. Some early dual core processor only had like 1 or 2 MB of Cache. Compare that to an E7200 which has 3MB of cache. Another comparison is an i3 is capable of 3D graphics and some pentium or dual core processors do not have that capability.
 
Also relevant is what is your graphics card, your resolution, and what games are you playing.

But yes, if you have a decent GPU, the hyperthreaded i3 will be a lot faster. If you have an older system with a weak gpu, you might not see much improvement because you will be gpu limited.
 
I have and had a good amount of Pentiums like yours (wolfdale with 2MB of l2), even at 4GHz, and the lowest model of i3 from the second gen (sandy bridge, i3 2100) was clearly an improvement, even in terms of single thread performance (when HT is irrelevant),

in softwares loading 4 cores the i3 can keep up with the core 2 quads at around 2.6-3.0GHz, but it can be better in many cases, where perhaps FSB and all of that were more of a limitation, so coming from a e5500 you would notice a nice improvement for gaming.
 
SPBHM said:
I have and had a good amount of Pentiums like yours (wolfdale with 2MB of l2), even at 4GHz, and the lowest model of i3 from the second gen (sandy bridge, i3 2100) was clearly an improvement, even in terms of single thread performance (when HT is irrelevant),

in softwares loading 4 cores the i3 can keep up with the core 2 quads at around 2.6-3.0GHz, but it can be better in many cases, where perhaps FSB and all of that were more of a limitation, so coming from a e5500 you would notice a nice improvement for gaming.
Click to expand...

I agree, Core i3 is way better than the Q6600 in single threaded and has the same throughput as the Q6600 when all cores are used.
 
The main issue with the Pentiums is that they are only marginally faster than a fast Core 2 Duo. OK if you need a whole new computer on a budget, but not worth it as a partial upgrade. Between HT and the higher clocks, the i3s range from being substantially faster than a fast Core 2 Duo, to blowing them away.
 
Cerb said:
The main issue with the Pentiums is that they are only marginally faster than a fast Core 2 Duo. OK if you need a whole new computer on a budget, but not worth it as a partial upgrade. Between HT and the higher clocks, the i3s range from being substantially faster than a fast Core 2 Duo, to blowing them away.
Click to expand...

Well... yes. But the valid comparisons are made at a certain price point. A big-cached, high-clocked C2D that would still compete well with a G620 or G850 would have been $200-$300 back in the day.

A $80 CPU in '08 would have been, say an E5200. Or even an E4300. A G850 is going to average 50% more powerful in CPU limited tasks.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/63?vs=404

The few extra bucks for an i3 will make it a worthwhile upgrade.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/63?vs=677

A $250 CPU in '08 would have been, say, a Q6600. Today, $250 will get you a 3570K - about twice as powerful, or more, depending on what you're doing. (And way easier to overclock.)

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/53?vs=701

$200-$250 has been the "sweet spot" for performance CPUs for a while, imo. Athlon XP 2400+ debuted at $200, for instance. The very popular Pentium D 820 - dual core Netburst - was $250 at launch.
 
Last edited:
I just built a budget machine for my son and decided to go with an SB i3. I was able to get one on eBay for just a few bucks more than a Pentium would have been. Divide the extra bucks over the number of days you'll be using the machine...
 
Charles Kozierok said:
Divide the extra bucks over the number of days you'll be using the machine...
Click to expand...

Well, yeah - that's why my machines always end up costing a few hundred bucks more than I planned.

"Dammit, this one is just way better... and it's only $___ more! I can't NOT do that!"

And then once you justify that bump, you start justifying the NEXT bump. Sometimes two.

(Wait... if I can justify a 2GB 7850 instead of a 1GB... maybe spending an extra few bucks on a 660 would be even better - it's slightly faster, and it runs F@H way better... and if a 660 would be a good idea, I could spring for a 660Ti...)

Repeat for each component of the machine.
 
Last edited:
dave_the_nerd said:
Well... yes. But the valid comparisons are made at a certain price point.
Click to expand...
On that I agree.

A $80 CPU in '08 would have been, say an E5200.
Click to expand...
There, I disagree, to a point. The comparison is to $0, because the OP has the option to not spend anything, at the moment. A Pentium would barely be worth the trouble of replacing the parts, if the OP got it for free. For $100-175 (depending on RAM), it certainly wouldn't be worth it. For $150-220, OTOH, an i3 would be worth it. The improvements in performance would be quickly noticed, without the aid of benchmarking utilities.

And then once you justify that bump, you start justifying the NEXT bump. Sometimes two.
Click to expand...
Hence why budgeting is important 🙂. A budget for a new PC or upgrade is like the speed limit. You're usually going to over, but you can't afford to over by too much.
 
dave_the_nerd said:
Well, yeah - that's why my machines always end up costing a few hundred bucks more than I planned.

"Dammit, this one is just way better... and it's only $___ more! I can't NOT do that!"

And then once you justify that bump, you start justifying the NEXT bump. Sometimes two.
...
Repeat for each component of the machine.
Click to expand...

Part of the art of building your own is dealing with this issue, which can be summarized as "finding the knee of the cost/performance curve". The wife and I jokingly refer to this as the "popcorn rule" in reference to the completely silly way that tubs of popcorn are priced in movie theaters.

Most PC technologies do have a knee that can be located; there are few linear cost/performance curves. The difference between 1 GB and 2 GB on a video card is almost inconsequential; the difference between an i3 and a Pentium or Celeron can be significant. On the other end of the scale, typically you pay through the nose to get the fastest CPU of any generation, for little actual gain.

The only time it doesn't make sense to do this is if you really are on a super-tight budget.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top