Is Intel i7-6700T worth $50 more than i5-7400?

[jrichrds]

I'm deciding between two similarly configured systems except for the CPU difference. I'll be using dedicated graphics, so the iGPU doesn't matter. This is a business use machine, so no gaming. It seems like the i7-6700T, although being a generation older and slower Ghz as the "power optimized" T version, still outperforms the i5-7400 according to the CPUbenchmark site. Any thoughts?

 

[Burpo]

Correct. Skylake is the efficient CPU of those 2.

 

[waltchan]

The difference is you have 8-threads with 4-cores instead of 4-threads with 4-cores. i7 benchmark scores always beat i5 too easily, even with low-power "T" models.

 

[FanlessTech]

Too often, the 35W T-series gets no love, when it's silicon at its finest! Perfect for passive cooling too.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Yeah, I would say go with the i7 too.

 

[Bouowmx]

I never understood the benefits of Intel T processors. How are T processors beneficial when one can use standard-power processors and adjust power limit?

A creative plan may be short power limit (PL2) of 65 W for 30 seconds, and then long power limit (PL1) of 35 W.

 

[Ratman6161]

I'm deciding between two similarly configured systems except for the CPU difference. I'll be using dedicated graphics, so the iGPU doesn't matter. This is a business use machine, so no gaming. It seems like the i7-6700T, although being a generation older and slower Ghz as the "power optimized" T version, still outperforms the i5-7400 according to the CPUbenchmark site. Any thoughts?

"Worth" is, by definition a matter of opinion. And as with so many things it depends on what the purpose of the system is. If you are doing something where more threads help, then the i7 will perform better on multi threaded tasks even at its lower clock speed. Is lower power usage important to you? There again the i7 wins because its a "T". On the other hand, in single threaded operations the i5 could win due to its higher clock speed.

You say its a "business machine" but more information is needed. In my workplace, most people have Email, Internet Explorer, MS Word and MS Excel (nothing big or fancy, just run of the mill spreadsheets) as their primary applications that they use all day. The vast majority of them would never do anything that remotely taxed the i5 and would never use the 8 threads of the i7. So for those folks, the extra $50 would definitely not be worth it as they would never notice the difference. In fact, for their usage the higher clock speed of the i5 would probably be more beneficial. So the ultimate answer is...it all depends.

 

[edcoolio]

Business machine with MS Office and Windows? Don't worry, save your $50 and take your gal out to dinner.

Business machine with AutoCad, extensive compiling, rendering, SolidWorks, or any other heavy development work? Spend the extra $50 so that you will actually have time to take your gal out to dinner.

 

[waltchan]

Business machine with MS Office and Windows? Don't worry, save your $50 and take your gal out to dinner.

Business machine with AutoCad, extensive compiling, rendering, SolidWorks, or any other heavy development work? Spend the extra $50 so that you will actually have time to take your gal out to dinner.

I need a gal. LOL...

 

[edcoolio]

Haha - classic.

 

[ZGR]

I would avoid the T processors. Any K, or just a normal 6700/7700, series can function exactly the same as the T series configured in BIOS; yet has the option to be unlocked and overclocked. The T series is locked to 35W at all times.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

The T is an i7 though. The question to ask yourself here is "do I need 8 threads or is 4 enough?"

Unless, like me, you specifically build ultra-small form-factor machines and are heavily thermally constrained, I wouldn't worry too much about the heat otherwise. It seems Intel's CPUs rarely ever dissipate their TDP under stock settings.