Will an i3 be enough?

[Amazins6986]

I'm looking into getting a new desktop, and am on the fence between a system with an i3-4170 and one with an i5-4690. The difference in the systems is about $100 and almost all other specs are the same... the exception is the i3 uses Intel 4400 HD graphics and the i5 uses 4600 HD.

My primary uses would be browsing, streaming, and Office type work. I also do light audio/video editing (Audacity, VSDC Free Video Editor). I don't plan on using the system for gaming.

With that said, would you go for the i3 system or the i5 system? I'd hope to keep whatever I get for 3-5 years.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Blain]

My primary uses would be browsing, streaming, and Office type work. I also do light audio/video editing (Audacity, VSDC Free Video Editor). I don't plan on using the system for gaming.

With that said, would you go for the i3 system or the i5 system?

The i5

 

[TheELF]

The i5

would be better but that does not mean that the i3 is not enough,the workloads you describe are very light and you would be very comfortable doing them even with a pentium,it all comes down to how much you are prepared to pay.

 

[Charlie98]

would be better but that does not mean that the i3 is not enough,the workloads you describe are very light and you would be very comfortable doing them even with a pentium,it all comes down to how much you are prepared to pay.

...and how much you plan to multitask.

I ran Audacity and music editing on my old Pentium D and it did fine... a modern Pentium or i3 would work very well; I don't know about the video editing. If you plan to encode, that's i5 territory.

 

[DBissett]

Just this weekend I replaced one of our computers that was 6-7 years old and used the i3 instead of the i5 to save the hundred bucks and it's working fine. It sits next to an i5 system and there's no noticeable difference at all in doing the routine tasks your talking about. The rated speed of the two chips is nearly identical, as you pointed out, so this isn't surprising. Don't know how "light A/V editing" would affect things.

 

[sm625]

My G3258 can surf cpu heavy sites flawlessly while both cores are loaded with video conversion. It takes longer to do conversions with only 2 threads but the scheduler ensures that the system doesnt feel sluggish. An i3 would only be better in this regard. i5 is pretty much useless unless you absolutely need those encoding jobs to finish in 5 minutes instead of 10. But I dont see how that even matters.

 

[TheELF]

It takes longer to do conversions with only 2 threads but the scheduler ensures that the system doesnt feel sluggish.

It does but only if the converter plays nice and starts up with normal or below priority,a lot of the generic converters start with high priority so they can claim faster conversion speeds then the rest...
In fact 99% of the time people say a dual is not enough it's because they run something that starts with high priority and thus bogs down the system,if you don't know that you can(and have to as an active user) change priorities you end up thinking that you need more cores.

 

[Charlie98]

... you need more cores.

Moar coars! :awe::awe::awe::awe::awe:

 

[Ketchup]

$100 over 5 years isn't really that much, and if it lasts you the 5 years over the 3, the i5 might be worth it. Most video editors will like the extra cores and cache. Make sure there is an SSD in your budget too!

 

[TheELF]

$100 over 5 years isn't really that much, and if it lasts you the 5 years over the 3, the i5 might be worth it.

But it won't,it's not 2005 anymore where you would argue that multithreading is comming,it's 2015 and multithreading came a long time ago,every game nowadays is written for 6 cores minimum by default (consoles) and the pentiums are still rocking,in 5 years these $100 will get you much better bang for buck.

If you need the i5 now,for rendering or whatever, then get it now otherwise keep your money.

 

[Amazins6986]

When I mean "video editing," it's very basic stuff in that regard... things like trimming parts of a video and putting it together as a highlight package. Windows Movie Maker has been more than sufficient for those needs, but I'll probably transition to something like VSDC Free Video Editor with Movie Maker going by the wayside.

 

[piasabird]

I have a system with an i3 in it at home that I use for watching videos and web surfing and youtube and what not.
i3 4330. This is a Haswell Item it is a couple years old but the i-3 4370 is available but it runs about $149. Both have 4 Megs of Cache and the HD4600 graphics.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117446

When I purchased my i-3 I was at a toss up over i-3 vs i-5. Since I put it in a kind of small ITX case I decided to go with the i-3. It is rated at lower wattage and is pretty fast.

If you are gaming a sky lake i-5 or i-7 might be a better choice. You can never have enough RAM for Video stuff.

 

[Ketchup]

$100 over 5 years isn't really that much, and if it lasts you the 5 years over the 3, the i5 might be worth it. Most video editors will like the extra cores and cache. Make sure there is an SSD in your budget too!

I am going to quote myself, because I was just looking at Newegg, and the different between an i3 4370 (the one piasabird pointed out), and an i5 6400 Skylake (the least expensive Skylake i5 atm), is only $43. Considering you get better graphics, no extra power consumption, more cores, and more L3 cache, I definitely wouldn't turn down the i5.

 

[jaydee]

I am going to quote myself, because I was just looking at Newegg, and the different between an i3 4370 (the one piasabird pointed out), and an i5 6400 Skylake (the least expensive Skylake i5 atm), is only $43. Considering you get better graphics, no extra power consumption, more cores, and more L3 cache, I definitely wouldn't turn down the i5.

Why not the i3-6100 instead? $125 at Amazon. OP only mentions Haswell systems, but I don't see a reason for it.

 

[TheELF]

I am going to quote myself, because I was just looking at Newegg, and the different between an i3 4370 (the one piasabird pointed out), and an i5 6400 Skylake (the least expensive Skylake i5 atm), is only $43. Considering you get better graphics, no extra power consumption, more cores, and more L3 cache, I definitely wouldn't turn down the i5.

Why would anyone want to get the i3-4370? Even with it beeing the fastest one you overpay for the igpu and cache which won't be much different then the smaller model one.