I3-540 @3.06 versus I5-650 @3.2

[techs]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115221
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115220

There is about a 60 dollar difference.
I am building a computer for basic web surfing, word processing, email.
I don't need gaming graphics so I will use the Intel on board graphics on either chip.

The computer will have an 80 Gb. SSD running Windows 7.

Normally 60 dollars wouldn't mean much to me, but right now its important.

So, what's the difference between the cpu's? The have the same 4mb cache and the clock speed is virtually the same. With the SSD will I see any difference between the cpu's?

The only difference I am aware of between the cpu's is the turbo boost is built into the I5. Does that really mean much? Do all H55 chipsets have the ability to utilize this or do I need a certain chipset or model/

Thanks in advance.

 

[betasub]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2972/...-s-pentium-g6950-core-i5-650-660-670-reviewed

 

[OBLAMA2009]

if you were going to get the 650, you might as well get the 760, or even the 950

oh, you want the intel graphics

 

[Concillian]

For what you describe you'll be doing, the extra speed means exactly nothing.

Sometimes I change the speed around on my wife's machine to see if she'll notice any difference. It's an e7200 and she just uses the PC for uploading pictures to Facebook, word processing, web browsing, email, etc...

I went from a 3.3 GHz overclock all the way down to ~1.8 GHz underclock before she started noticing some Facebook flash games going a little slow.

Unless you're doing something different then you mention, you won't notice the difference between 3.46 GHz (turbo on the i5) and 3.06 GHz.

 

[Arkaign]

The lower clocked clarkdale i5s make no sense to me, as they're priced nearly to the range of the lynnfield quad i5 7xx series, which is WORLDS better.

For the purposes you describe, i3 is absolutely fine. If you're going to spend more $, go ahead and get the i5-750 or 760, it will definitely be more future proof.

EG : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115215

Quad Core, 8MB instead of 4MB L2, $20 more. Wtf Intel?

 

[techs]

if you were going to get the 650, you might as well get the 760, or even the 950

oh, you want the intel graphics

The lower clocked clarkdale i5s make no sense to me, as they're priced nearly to the range of the lynnfield quad i5 7xx series, which is WORLDS better.

For the purposes you describe, i3 is absolutely fine. If you're going to spend more $, go ahead and get the i5-750 or 760, it will definitely be more future proof.

EG : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115215

Quad Core, 8MB instead of 4MB L2, $20 more. Wtf Intel?

I should have mentioned it's going into a Shuttle small form factor. Which is why I want to use the on board graphics and want the least power hungry/coolest cpu.
I figure an i5 would probably not turbo boost all that often with the generally higher heat in the SFF. And the onboard graphics would also keep the heat down over an add in video card. The mobo, in fact, only supports 95watt or less cpu's.

 

[Blastman]

The i5-650 turbo boost (from stock 3.2) is to 3.33 for 2-core and 3.46 for single-core loads. Not much and certainly not worth $60 more IMO. If both cores are being loaded then you will only see a 3.33/3.07 = 8.5 % increase in performance, hardly noticeable.

See … behardware for turbo boost clock increases.

Besides, i3's will overclock to 4.0 Ghz no problem. My i3-530 runs 3.8 (at 1.175v stock) and needs a slight bump to 1.20 - 1.22v to run 4.0.

You could even just mildly overclock to 3.3 - 3.5 at stock voltage the i3-540 and you would be as fast or faster than the i5.

I say go for the i3.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Go i3. The 650 just isn't worth the extra money over the i3, in my opinion.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

actually it is noticeably faster and probably worth the extra 60 over the time you would keep it. its just that then you might as well get the 760 or 950 which he doesnt want. so he should just get the 540

 

[BoomerD]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/143?vs=144

 

[khon]

The i5 is not at all worth the extra $60, no matter what your application is. Save yourself some money and get the i3.

 

[strep3241]

I agree. If you are go with the i5, you might as well get the quad core i5 being they are so close in price. Just get the i3.

 

[dbcooper1]

You'd NOTICE the $60; you'd have to MEASURE the performance difference. Keep the $60 and overclock and get the best of both?

 

[techs]

I think the i3 is the winnar.
thanks

 

[Blastman]

There is actually one difference between the i3 and i5 dual cores that perhaps should be noted. The i5 dual cores support new AES encryption instructions whereas the i3's do not.

See … AES instructions on i5

I don't see these AES instructions as mattering much (at least to me), an i3 will run encryption, it just won't be as fast as an i5 running programs that are optimized with these instructions. And the speedup varies depending on the encryption. Here's one bench with not a huge increase … AES TrueCrypt … but some of the THG benches show a large increase.

You'll have to decide if it is an important feature. Most of the current i7's desktop processors do not support these AES encryption instructions … Intel AES … only the i7-970 and i7-980.

 

[H2O2]

Thanks everyone for all the info in this thread. I decided to go i3 540 on my own (instead of quadcore) based on budget/price; and as I look up more info, am now seeing that anything more is definitely overkill for my needs.

I'll be keeping everything at stock volts and am glad to hear these chips have good headroom, so I'll probably OC just a tiny bit for a little boost.