i7 really worth it?

[Demo24]

I'm currently planning out a build for early next year. The problem is I'm having trouble deciding between i5 750 and the i7 860. Now obviously the i7 model has a slight ghz increase but also the addition of HT. Is that really enough to justify the $80 price increase? I intend to overclock the chips up into the 3+gz range, so that takes out that i7 advantage.

I use my comp mostly for school work, browsing net, watching movies, and then gaming. It's rare for me to do anything more stressful than that.

However, I do tend to keep my comps for quite awhile. My current one is nearing 5 years.

Also I do like the i5's price.

So, basically in short. Is HT really worth me spending 80 bucks for?

 

[TuxDave]

I use my comp mostly for school work, browsing net, watching movies, and then gaming. It's rare for me to do anything more stressful than that.

Then no.

 

[cbn]

I use my comp mostly for school work, browsing net, watching movies, and then gaming. It's rare for me to do anything more stressful than that.

If I were you I would not even consider Core i7.

I would be comparing Core i3 vs. Core i5 instead. (Core i3 likely being the better choice for gaming when overclocking with stock size coolers).

 

[Demo24]

What I thought. i5 for me!

 

[Markfw]

If I were you I would not even consider Core i7.

I would be comparing Core i3 vs. Core i5 instead. (Core i3 likely being the better choice for gaming when overclocking with stock size coolers).

No.....I3 is good for internet, an word, office, etc... its gaming days are numbered. I would never suggest that for gaming.

 

[nyker96]

No.....I3 is good for internet, an word, office, etc... its gaming days are numbered. I would never suggest that for gaming.

I have to agree with Mark here, after I bought a recent game - Dragon Age (PC) I noticed that it played much better on my x4 620@3,25 vs an older E7200@3,5 I upgraded from recently. I mean a lot better. then searched a bit and found out they benched the dual core vs quads and this games actually uses all 4 cores giving quads a huge advantage. so I think the future of the quads are coming, duals are for people who really pinching money or like my relative who just browse web/ check email.

As for your choice on i5 vs i7, I personally just get i5 because it's more than enough and HT although useful makes the chip very hot. but if you doing something like video encoding a lot then i7's HT will give you a decent boost to save you time on the long run, if not i5 should be plenty.

 

[cbn]

I have to agree with Mark here, after I bought a recent game - Dragon Age (PC) I noticed that it played much better on my x4 620@3,25 vs an older E7200@3,5 I upgraded from recently.

You are talking about a quad core with L3 cache (Phenom II) vs a Core 2 duo that doesn't have L3 cache or hyperthreading.

Core i3 would scale better in that game. It would probably OC a lot better than 3.5 too.

 

[SRoode]

I think the future of the quads are coming, duals are for people who really pinching money or like my relative who just browse web/ check email.

I think it depends on the dual.

My E8600 @ 4.32GHz holds it's own against my Q6600 @ 3.2GHz for >2 core threaded apps, and blows it away at apps that are <=2 threads.

 

[cbn]

I think it depends on the dual.

My E8600 @ 4.32GHz holds it's own against my Q6600 @ 3.2GHz for >2 core threaded apps, and blows it away at apps that are <=2 threads.

Good point. Also factor in Intel doesn't make a Turbo mode that lets a quad core emulate your dual cores performance in Typical games.

 

[BababooeyHTJ]

I think it depends on the dual.

My E8600 @ 4.32GHz holds it's own against my Q6600 @ 3.2GHz for >2 core threaded apps, and blows it away at apps that are <=2 threads.

How would it compare to a Q9650 or even Q9550 at similar clock speeds? I think thats a better comparison.

I really want to see some dual core with HT gaming benchs. I have a feeling that the results will be surprising.

 

[cbn]

How would it compare to a Q9650 or even Q9550 at similar clock speeds? I think thats a better comparison.

I really want to see some dual core with HT gaming benchs. I have a feeling that the results will be surprising.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=28989698&postcount=155

Resident Evil 5 Benchmark and GTA IV benchmark.

Core i3 does 45&#37; better than E8400 in RE5 but this is probably because that game likes Nehalem architecture more than anything else. Of course since RE5 is a quad threaded game so the hyperthreading does help frame rates.

 

[evident]

i think it's not worth upgrading to i3/i5 if you have any recent wolfdale chip. if you have something from before a core2 duo though, i'd swing for the i5.

 

[BababooeyHTJ]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=28989698&postcount=155

Resident Evil 5 Benchmark and GTA IV benchmark.

Core i3 does 45% better than E8400 in RE5 but this is probably because that game likes Nehalem architecture more than anything else. Of course since RE5 is a quad threaded game so the hyperthreading does help frame rates.

You are the man. That is a nice little taste. I'm wondering how it will perform against a Q9650 or PH2 955. Judging by those benches and the wprime runs that I have seen I would say pretty similar in quad threaded apps and obviously considerably better in single or dual threaded apps.

Any word on i3 pricing?

 

[cbn]

No.....I3 is good for internet, an word, office, etc... its gaming days are numbered. I would never suggest that for gaming.

Bigger but fewer cores with hyperthreading vs. Higher core count and Turbo mode (AMDs possible Bulldozer strategy)?

I think whatever consistently makes it to the smaller nodes first will win. (That is just my newbie opinion)

 

[Markfw]

Bigger but fewer cores with hyperthreading vs. Higher core count and Turbo mode (AMDs possible Bulldozer strategy)?

I think whatever consistently makes it to the smaller nodes first will win. (That is just my newbie opinion)

Smaller nodes only save the mfg money, and allow for less heat (usually)

It has nothing to do with performance.

 

[SRoode]

How would it compare to a Q9650 or even Q9550 at similar clock speeds? I think thats a better comparison.

I really want to see some dual core with HT gaming benchs. I have a feeling that the results will be surprising.

I don't own a Q9650 or Q9550 so I cannot comment 1st hand. I can say from what I've read the those CPUs are about 10% faster per clock cycle than the Q6600, but they can overclock more (but it is still very hard to get those quads to 4.32 GHz). So, at the same clock speeds (9550/60 @ 3.2 or E8600 @ 4.32), they would still be in the ballpark of my statement (<=2 threads, E8600 is DRAMATICALLY better... >2 threads, E8600 is close but quad is better).

 

[lothar]

If I were you I would not even consider Core i7.

I would be comparing Core i3 vs. Core i5 instead. (Core i3 likely being the better choice for gaming when overclocking with stock size coolers).

Why are you recommending dual core to someone who plans to keep the computer for 5 years?

That's dumb.

 

[cbn]

Why are you recommending dual core to someone who plans to keep the computer for 5 years?

That's dumb.

I think it will run just fine based on his intended usage. See post #1.

Besides at least with Core i3 he can save money on his electric bills compared to Core i5 750 (which will obsolete just as quickly).

 

[Markfw]

I think it will run just fine based on his intended usage. See post #1.

Besides at least with Core i3 he can save money on his electric bills compared to Core i5 750 (which will obsolete just as quickly).

"and then gaming." That is why he needs an I7. I3 is just for surfing.. How many times do you keep saying this, its annoying.

And the difference in electric bill savings will be pennies a month. If you ran them both @ 100&#37; load (the CPU and GPU) THEN maybe $1 more a month.

Give it a break please !!!!

 

[cbn]

"and then gaming." That is why he needs an I7. I3 is just for surfing..

Here is a comparison of Core i5 750 @ 2Ghz with Core i5 750 @ 4 Ghz using a HD5870.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1473216

Based on what I see there I can't figure out a reason to run Core i5 750 over Core i3.

 

[Markfw]

Here is a comparison of Core i5 750 @ 2Ghz with Core i5 750 @ 4 Ghz using a HD5870.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1473216

Based on what I see there I can't figure out a reason to run Core i5 750 over Core i3.

Because a core I3 is a dual-core, not a quad. And its ONE game, and there is still a big difference, and its under 60 fps a lot for the 2 ghz one.

 

[edplayer]

Based on what I see there I can't figure out a reason to run Core i5 750 over Core i3.

I didn't even see an i3 in that thread, did I miss it?

 

[cbn]

Because a core I3 is a dual-core, not a quad. And its ONE game, and there is still a big difference, and its under 60 fps a lot for the 2 ghz one.

I'm talking about RE5 in that link. Most of these newer games supposedly needing quad cores are usually much harder on the video card.

So if a Tower cooled quad core benchmarks well at low resolutions doesn't mean the user will actually get to make full use of it playing games.

P.S. Core i3 would have been running much faster than 2 Ghz Core i5 750 in all the other titles.

 

[schneiderguy]

You are talking about a quad core with L3 cache (Phenom II) vs a Core 2 duo that doesn't have L3 cache or hyperthreading.

Athlon II 620 doesn't have any L3 cache.

 

[Ben90]

Here is a comparison of Core i5 750 @ 2Ghz with Core i5 750 @ 4 Ghz using a HD5870.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1473216

Based on what I see there I can't figure out a reason to run Core i5 750 over Core i3.

Honestly I am not really surprised by the Resident Evil 5 benchmark results. Using 4xSSAA is very hard on the graphics card especially at high resolutions. In Company of Heroes we saw a gain of 12&#37; in frame rate jumping from 2GHz to 4GHz. In Crysis we saw a massive 19% increase going from the 2GHz Core i5 to the 4GHz Core i5. The thing to note here is the minimum frame rate. We went from an unplayable 10.86 FPS to a very playable 18.63 FPS, a 41% improvement! Moving on to Far Cry 2. Theres not much to say here. Clearly the i5 clocked at 2GHz is enough to not bottleneck the video card. Again I must point out that I used 8xAA in this benchmark. And finally we have Borderlands. This game seems to love highly clocked processors. We went from a barely playable 21.46 minimum frame rate to a very fluid 36.46 minimum frame rate.

Did u even look at the graphs? Core i5 @ 2ghz was getting shit all over. HTT is no substitute for a real core. Ive done my own tests using highly parallel ray tracing with 1 core 2 threads vs 2 cores 2 threads and i dont have exact numbers but i do remember the outcome:

1/2 Cores/Threads @ 4ghz is roughly the same as 2/2 @ 2.4. Thats using a program where HTT works wonders, POV-Ray. HTT can actually hurt performance for games. It normally breaks even or helps ~5%, but its not rare for performance to be ~10% worse

i5 all the way