Is i5-750 as capable as the lastest i7 in gaming perfomance? Should I upgrade my CPU? Lets find out!

lyssword

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2005
5,761
25
91
Most definitely, with that cpu even a garbage video card will score same as your 1070. Latest i7 will be probably 3x as fast in some situations (1080p) with that graphics card.
 

sdflash

Member
Aug 10, 2016
31
0
1
Most definitely, with that cpu even a garbage video card will score same as your 1070. Latest i7 will be probably 3x as fast in some situations (1080p) with that graphics card.
I knew the old I5-750 does not support some instruction set of latest cpu like Vpro and the cache on the 750 is less too. But when oc it to 3.6Ghz with latest graphic card, what performance can it achieve is still a question for me and several other friends in this forum and how does it compare to the new i7? I will run AoS and Firestrike test, and compare it with the Anandtech official test result with same graphic card:)
 

lyssword

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2005
5,761
25
91
Hard to find exact numbers, but take a look at http://www.anandtech.com/show/7003/the-haswell-review-intel-core-i74770k-i54560k-tested/7 and keep in mind skylake is about 20% faster than 4770k (specially with decent ddr4 set), another example of raw numbers http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1543?vs=109. For example this is i5 760 oc'd to 4ghz and tested on a card similar to 1070 http://pclab.pl/art66856-16.html
and another http://pclab.pl/art63116-48.html
(with weaker vid card).
Your GPU may be sitting idle for as much as 50% of the time waiting for cpu to catch up.
 
Last edited:

2is

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2012
4,281
131
106
It'll still give you reasonable performance in most games, but you WILL be leaving quite a bit of performance on the table when parried with a 1070, especially so for more CPU intensive games. Even at 3.6GHz it's no match for a stock clocked Haswell or Skylake i7

You're lower on clock speed, you're lower on IPC and you're lower on thread count. In terms of Skylake, you're also lower on memory bandwidth.
 

imported_bman

Senior member
Jul 29, 2007
262
54
101
You could try buying a used i7-875k and 16GB of DDR3 2133 or 2400. Though I don't think the upgrade would worth the ~$250, unless you lucked out with overclocking the 875k. Hopefully we will get an update on Intel's road map next week at IDF 2016, that should make your future decision easier.
 

laamanaator

Member
Jul 15, 2015
66
10
41
Your FPS will be limited by your CPU, but you can crank up settings which affect only your GPU. Meaning resolution, AAs, DoF, and many others. You'll get the same FPS with better settings. But keep in mind that in some case, your CPU could limit your FPS to un-playable rates. If I were you, I'd either upgrade the whole platform to a new one, or OC it to the max to give it a few more years.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,000
3,357
136
A i5-6500 + Rx480 would be faster.

Core i5 6600 + R9 285 (38.23fps) is slower than puny Athlon 845 + GTX 980 (43.43fps).

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10543/the-skylake-core-i3-51w-cpu-review-i3-6320-6300-6100-tested/10
83086.png


83112.png
 

2is

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2012
4,281
131
106
This is the final result. My computer 3dmark capability(i5 750+1070) just like (Core i7 5960X + GTX980), a great upgrade for 3dmark so far. will test AoS later tomorrow:)
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14056040
48885882b2b7d0a2f920bfd9c3ef760949369ac2.jpg

index.php

That doesn't actually mean anything in terms of gaming performance. The CPU side is weighted very lightly in your 3dmark scores it's really only a good tool to use to see how much more powerful a new video card is or how well a GPU overclock is working.
 
  • Like
Reactions: monkeydelmagico

lyssword

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2005
5,761
25
91
in general, if a game is very scripted/not interactive then cpu won't matter as much, if ther's chaos on screen due to player or AI input, cpu will matter much more. For example: mmo's,real time strategy games. Also, Anandtech reviews are bad when it comes to measuring "real world" game performance, I think they use "scripted" benches where it's just a movie of a game, I mean most of their games show like 1fps difference between a celeron and a 20 core monster. I am however talking about dx11 (current) games, it seems dx12 may remove a lot of cpu bottleneck.
 
Last edited:

Jman13

Senior member
Apr 9, 2001
811
0
76
This is the final result. My computer 3dmark capability(i5 750+1070) just like (Core i7 5960X + GTX980), a great upgrade for 3dmark so far. will test AoS later tomorrow:)
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14056040

That score will certainly indicate that you can game well on that setup. However, you are definitely bottlenecking that card quite a bit. My FireStrike score is almost identical, and I have an RX480...a card half the price of your 1070. (Also, this run was with the GPU at stock speeds)

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9866490

Your graphics score is notably higher, as it should be, but the combined test is nearly identical, and that'll be more indicative of many real-world games (though not all). So as several others have said: it's a fine solution, especially if you are cash strapped at the moment and won't be upgrading your CPU for a little while longer, but you should upgrade it soon, or you're leaving so much power on the table from that 1070.

Now, if you only use your computer for gaming, and you are fine with this level of performance, then leave it: it'll still play most games pretty well for the next few years, though for heavily processor dependent ones, it may perform notably worse than a mid-range card on a fast CPU.

I do a lot with my machine outside of gaming (I'm a photographer who regularly deals with very large images), so the processor speed is a bit more important than pure gaming performance in my case, but everyone's use case is different.
 

Deders

Platinum Member
Oct 14, 2012
2,401
1
91
Having gone from an i5-750@3800 (I think I mentioned this in another thread) with a 780@1212, to a 6700K@4.6 with the same GPU, and then finally upgrading my GPU to a 1080, I wouldn't go as far as to say that the Firestrike Combined test is typical of gameplay as it has proven far more demanding than any game I've played. It's only now with my current rig that I get "playable" framerates in that test. Whereas I was able to play pretty much any game maxed out using that CPU.

Of course the upgrade has improved things, there were noticeable bottlenecks in some scenes that have been alleviated with the extra CPU power and access to more advanced SIMD instruction pathways.

3Dmark isn't really the best test for gaming, but I was surprised at how often my overclocked i5-750 system would seemingly give better performance figures in games than the ones published in game review articles when compared to haswell i5's with a 780 GPU, albeit with both running at stock speeds.
 

lyssword

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2005
5,761
25
91
Keep in mind tho that 780 can only pump half the fps of 1070, so oc'd 750 is a sensible match for 780, which is fine I guess if you don't mind playing 40-60 fps on 60hz monitor vs 80-120hz monitors. Looking at newer games, some games may drop even below 40fps no matter how good ur gfx is because of cpu bottleneck.
 
Last edited:

Deders

Platinum Member
Oct 14, 2012
2,401
1
91
Keep in mind tho that 780 can only pump half the fps of 1070, so oc'd 750 is a sensible match for 780, which is fine I guess if you don't mind playing 40-60 fps on 60hz monitor vs 80-120hz monitors. Looking at newer games, some games may drop even below 40fps no matter how good ur gfx is because of cpu bottleneck.

That's pretty much how it was for newer games, although dips didn't last very long. The GPU was the bottleneck in most situations, but I expect even with a 1080 you'd still get occasional dips below 40.

I just found this video which compares a 1060 and 480 on an i7-750 and a Phenom II 955 (Both at stock), as well as a 6700K (Overclocked)

http://www.hardwareunboxed.com/gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-in-6-year-old-amd-and-intel-computers/