i5 2500k vs i3 for my needs (transcoding, no gaming)

[sprtfan]

I really do not game but do transcode videos quite a bit. I was just going to use the built in graphics since the only other thing I do is watch movies and web browse off of the computer. I probably do not need to upgrade from my am3 setup but picked up an Asrock Z68 EXTREME4 GEN3 cheap a few weeks ago.
Since I'm going to be using the built in graphics, would it be better to go with the Intel HD Graphics 3000 vs the 2000 that most i3 procs have? The 2500k has some other large advantages and by the time I picked up a cheap video card the price difference between the two would not be very much. Thanks

 

[skipsneeky2]

For the most part the difference between the i3 2100 and the i5 chips in everyday usage is is very little to nothing.

Unless your encoding with a powerful program or folding or playing the latest games,the i5 would almost be a waste and as someone who has owned both the i3 2100 and now the i5 2500k i can contest to this.

HD2000 depending on game title is about 3-4x faster then a 7200gs and the difference cost wise of the i3 to the i5 is enough to slap in a 6770 or gts450 and you would have a much more powerful gpu then either hd2000 or hd3000.

HD2000 gaming wise got me playing BF2 at 1920x1080 low,Battlefieldplayforfree at the same resolution but for everyday stuff it serves very well.

 

[Joseph F]

Did you even read the OP? He said that he's going to be transcoding video.
Definitely get the 2500k.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=288
With 61.7 vs 100.8 FPS in x264, the only question should be, "Do I need feel like spending the extra $60 to get the 2500k?"
(Assuming you have a Microcenter nearby)

 

[Kenmitch]

The 2500k has some other large advantages and by the time I picked up a cheap video card the price difference between the two would not be very much

Given your senario the 2500k to me looks like the wiser choice. Even running at stock speed the 2500k will be almost twice as fast as the i3-2100 for example. Throwing on a baby overclock of 4ghz will greatly increase the gap.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Did you even read the OP? He said that he's going to be transcoding video.
Definitely get the 2500k.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=288
With 61.7 vs 100.8 FPS in x264, the only question should be, "Do I need feel like spending the extra $60 to get the 2500k?"
(Assuming you have a Microcenter nearby)

The Op only mentioned transcoding and its obvious he isn't sure if spending the extra coin is worth it so i gave some other examples of usage as most peoples usage can generally change over time so in a way i was sorta suggesting the 2500k.

Everyone knows the i5 is just a ace of a transcoding chip but that single task he does might not be worth spending the extra coin for a nicer processor unlike most 2500k owners who game and do many other things putting it to work.

But i say go for the 2500k if he has the cash for it but i was also claiming for daily usage besides transcoding he won't notice the difference if it came down to a strict budget.

 

[Ferzerp]

It's not clear if he's batch transcoding, or transcoding while streaming. If he's doing it while steaming (e.g. using windows home server's transcode feature), there is no reason to have something that can transcode 100 fps if it is only 30fps video (unless it is a shared system that may be doing more than one at a time).

 

[Joseph F]

It's not clear if he's batch transcoding, or transcoding while streaming. If he's doing it while steaming (e.g. using windows home server's transcode feature), there is no reason to have something that can transcode 100 fps if it is only 30fps video (unless it is a shared system that may be doing more than one at a time).

Good point. I didn't even think of this.

 

[sprtfan]

Did you even read the OP? He said that he's going to be transcoding video.
Definitely get the 2500k.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=288
With 61.7 vs 100.8 FPS in x264, the only question should be, "Do I need feel like spending the extra $60 to get the 2500k?"
(Assuming you have a Microcenter nearby)

I don't have a Microcenter nearby so the difference will be about $100.

It's not clear if he's batch transcoding, or transcoding while streaming. If he's doing it while steaming (e.g. using windows home server's transcode feature), there is no reason to have something that can transcode 100 fps if it is only 30fps video (unless it is a shared system that may be doing more than one at a time).

I transcode recorded tv and other videos into something that I can use on mobile devices. I have a WHS2011 but have never used the transcode feature.

The difference in integrated video was a poor reason to try to justify the 2500k over a 2120. It looks like the 2500k would be much faster at what I need to do but I'm not really under any time limits either. Thanks for the info

 

[Maximilian]

I really do not game but do transcode videos quite a bit. I was just going to use the built in graphics since the only other thing I do is watch movies and web browse off of the computer. I probably do not need to upgrade from my am3 setup but picked up an Asrock Z68 EXTREME4 GEN3 cheap a few weeks ago.
Since I'm going to be using the built in graphics, would it be better to go with the Intel HD Graphics 3000 vs the 2000 that most i3 procs have? The 2500k has some other large advantages and by the time I picked up a cheap video card the price difference between the two would not be very much. Thanks

Go for the 2500k. I use an older i3 530 for transcoding and for 99% of the stuff i throw at it its fine but for some 1080p it does struggle a bit.

Dont quote me on this but an i7 2600 non K would likely be your best bet for transcoding, im pretty sure the extra 4 threads would come in handy. i7 2600 can be picked up cheap as well because most people want the K version.

 

[piasabird]

Some of the new i-3 CPU's ending like the

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115090

Intel Core i3-2105 Sandy Bridge 3.1GHz LGA 1155 65W Dual-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics 3000 BX80623I32105

Has the Intel HD Graphics 3000

I think there is also a 2405S with HD graphics 3000.

 

[Kenmitch]

I transcode recorded tv and other videos into something that I can use on mobile devices. I have a WHS2011 but have never used the transcode feature. The difference in integrated video was a poor reason to try to justify the 2500k over a 2120. It looks like the 2500k would be much faster at what I need to do but I'm not really under any time limits either. Thanks for the info

I guess then maybe a i3 would work out for you if your not time limited or need the xtra power....Of course your motherboard will be miss-matched and will be kinda like a race horse being used for pony rides

I guess if you do go for a i3 for now you could always upgrade the cpu to another one down the line if and when you feel you need more power anyways.

 

[sprtfan]

I guess then maybe a i3 would work out for you if your not time limited or need the xtra power....Of course your motherboard will be miss-matched and will be kinda like a race horse being used for pony rides

I guess if you do go for a i3 for now you could always upgrade the cpu to another one down the line if and when you feel you need more power anyways.

Yeah, I know the mobo was more than I needed but was able to get it for $122 which was not much more than most of the cheaper Z68 boards. I ended up getting a i5 2500k even though the i3 probably would have been enough for what I needed. Thought about getting the i3 and upgrading to IB later but that would have probably been even a bigger waste of money considering my needs.

 

[Kenmitch]

Yeah, I know the mobo was more than I needed but was able to get it for $122 which was not much more than most of the cheaper Z68 boards. I ended up getting a i5 2500k even though the i3 probably would have been enough for what I needed. Thought about getting the i3 and upgrading to IB later but that would have probably been even a bigger waste of money considering my needs.

That was a good price on the MB I see why you purchased it. Even tho you could have gotten by for now with the i3 the 2500k will give you some overhead to play around with and most likely increase the longevity of your build at the same time. No need to overclock it for now but it's nice to know you can later if needed.

 

[pauldun170]

How much transcoding are you doing?
If its just occasionally to rip a new movie your library a $99 i3-2100 is more than enough.
I use a i3-2100.

There isn't much difference between the hd2000 and hd3000 in real world stuff. Neither is worth much thought as a gaming gpu unless you are desperate to play on a laptop. Otherwise, hd2000 can handle everything else

 

[dma0991]

I would suggest getting the Core i3 2100 instead and do a drop in upgrade with IB if deemed necessary. By then you could probably get a K series IB processor to put the Extreme4 features to good use for overclocking.

 

[ElFenix]

don't both have quicksync?

 

[Hubb1e]

All this chatter and nobody asks what program he uses for transcoding?

Quicksync will be the fastest encoding performance and the choice between i3 and i5 becomes mostly irrelevant if that's the only demanding app he uses. But if he chooses to use handbrake or another transcoding software that doesn't support quicksync then the i5 is the best bet.

 

[Kenmitch]

I would suggest getting the Core i3 2100 instead and do a drop in upgrade with IB if deemed necessary. By then you could probably get a K series IB processor to put the Extreme4 features to good use for overclocking.

don't both have quicksync?

All this chatter and nobody asks what program he uses for transcoding?

Quicksync will be the fastest encoding performance and the choice between i3 and i5 becomes mostly irrelevant if that's the only demanding app he uses. But if he chooses to use handbrake or another transcoding software that doesn't support quicksync then the i5 is the best bet.

He already ordered the 2500k. Once you start to factor in other things like possilbe more demanding future uses, time to encode, the ability to encode and do other things at the same time it was the wisest choice anyways. Even running it at stock gives alot of headroom, factoring in a mild overclock later if needed will most likely increase the longevity even further.

 

[superccs]

i like the part where OP states that he probably didn't need to upgrade from his AM3.... lol pointless. If you had an AM3 board already why didn't you just drop in a 1055t? Transcoding is a PhenomII x6's bitch.

 

[sprtfan]

i like the part where OP states that he probably didn't need to upgrade from his AM3.... lol pointless. If you had an AM3 board already why didn't you just drop in a 1055t? Transcoding is a PhenomII x6's bitch.

lol, to be honest, the thought never even crossed my mind. The need to upgrade was some what driven from getting a good deal on the motherboard so I focused on looking for what cpu to use with it. It is funning how finding a good deal on something has the ability to make you spend a bunch of money sometimes.

I use handbrake at this point for transcoding since the software that can use quicksync is pretty limited. It is a nice feature that I hope to be able to use down the road maybe.

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

You could have saved some money and gone for the non unlocked i5 2500 but it kind of is pointless to say that now.