Core i5 or Core i7?

[64K]

My opinion is for gaming that it would be better to get an i5 and put the extra $100 to getting a better GPU. You gain a little with i7 but it's very small. The chart below is from a year and a half ago so it's old hardware but I think it's still relevant. Some of the difference may be simply due to the 100 MHz increase on the 4770.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7189/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-september-2013/10

The i7 will be better if DX12 works as it's rumored to but we don't know yet.

 

[BiggieShady]

The i7 will be better if DX12 works as it's rumored to but we don't know yet.

I wouldn't call it a rumor since DX12 tests are already part of 3dmark for preview build of windows 10.
And yes, I agree, i7 processors will be much more beneficial for gaming once DX12 games start coming out. For example, it directly translates to bigger draw distance in open world games compared to i5.

 

[Hawkstream]

I wouldn't call it a rumor since DX12 tests are already part of 3dmark for preview build of windows 10.
And yes, I agree, i7 processors will be much more beneficial for gaming once DX12 games start coming out. For example, it directly translates to bigger draw distance in open world games compared to i5.

The Win10 Preview does not have DX12 yet.

 

[newtekie1]

But it is very clear that to manya very small few, an extra $100 or more is well worth it to them. And you don't speak for them.

FTFY

I speak and give advice in terms of the majority and common situations and opinions. If you want to babble on about how we should instead give advice based on a few rare people's views and opinons, by all means keep posting, but I won't be wasting my time replying.

The Win10 Preview does not have DX12 yet.

I is available through Microsoft's SDK program. There have been test from 3DMark that show the differences. Though I'm one that wants to see actual gameplay in actual games, synthetic test don't mean much to me. And I don't think we'll see any worthwhile games based on DX12 for a good year or more.

 

[Raw]

To you!

With the same (or more) number of cores, higher clock speeds plus bigger caches equal better performance. Can't be clearer than that.

No! It is not clear at all! It may not be worth $100 to YOU. But it is very clear that to many, an extra $100 or more is well worth it to them. And you don't speak for them.

It is clear that you guys think what is important to you is how the rest of the world should believe! Not so! And very sad.

I showed professional sites showing how the i7 outperforms the i5. Whether the extra cost is worth the gains is important IS NOT THE ISSUE here, until the OP returns with a budget.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/i5_vs_i7 (note the as fast as possible video)

You guys can have your i5s and if you are happy that's great! But stop trying to tell every one else what $100 is worth them when YOU HAVE NO CLUE what $100 is worth to them, or the OP, or any one else.

There are many people willing to spend several $100s extra just to get 2 - 3 more fps. For them it is worth it.

IF this topic was about "for the money", then no doubt, I would be saying go with a decent i5 too! But it is not about money. The op asked, The answer is no, the i5 will not soon become extinct.

When the hell did Toms Hardware become a "professional" site? Rofl...
There is more junk information on there by 13 year olds than I care to mention.
Buddy, I have BOTH the I7 and the I5, and it makes no difference in any games I have played. BF3 included.
Sorry to tell ya!!!

 

[Frag_Maniac]

I wouldn't call it a rumor since DX12 tests are already part of 3dmark for preview build of windows 10.
And yes, I agree, i7 processors will be much more beneficial for gaming once DX12 games start coming out. For example, it directly translates to bigger draw distance in open world games compared to i5.

Then again, with Dx12 bringing much higher draw call efficiency, games will be less CPU dependent. Also, AMD is working on making their drivers less taxing on the CPU.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Then again, with Dx12 bringing much higher draw call efficiency, games will be less CPU dependent. AMD is working on making their drivers less taxing on the CPU

Good points! AMD will always be a force to reckon with and keep an eye on. It was AMD who spanked Intel years ago and it took Intel many years to leap frog back into the lead with the Core 2 Duo. Even though Intel promised (themselves and consumers) never to be embarrassed like that again, and have the resources to make it happen, AMD can put themselves into a nice little niche position here. I note in several CPU round-ups, the FX 4300 takes the Best Performance for the Price award.

That said, games will still have a significant dependency on CPU performance, but because so much depends on graphics horsepower, RAM, drive access and more (besides the CPU) the CPU will continue to be less a factor. This is why the i7 offers only a little more bang for the money. But more bang, just the same.

Plus, it must be noted that many RTS and MMO games remain very CPU intensive.

*******

I have BOTH the I7 and the I5, and it makes no difference in any games I have played.

Wow! So your vast experience with one or two i7s and i5s and a few games makes you the voice of authority allowing you to hold yourself in such high esteem? Amazing.

I speak and give advice in terms of the majority and common situations and opinions.

You too? Wow. I am humbled that you two have self-anointed yourselves as the spokespersons for everyone else.

You guys claim (with NO supporting evidence) the i5 is better and offer only your word as proof, then simply expect everyone to believe because you speak, or because you have used one or two i5s or i7s with a few games. Therefore you are experts with all of them, and speak for all.

No less than 6 references were cited to 6 different sources (including TechPowerUP.com, Toms Hardware, PCMag, PCMech, in2gpu.com, diffen.com) by 4 different members of this site. All these references show where the i7 offers better performance, including for most games.

All your references show - oh wait! You don't have any. Your argument is to attack Toms, ignore the other sites. You cite yourselves as self-proclaimed authorities and declare because the i5 is not worth the extra money to you, it is not worth the extra money to anyone! I cannot argue with such omnipotence.

Others, including Frag Maniac report they HAVE seen better performance with the i7s (specifically the 4970K). So, is Frag lying then? Is Jetster lying when he says "the i7 has advantages even for gaming"? Are the others, including rooivalk lying when say for them, it is worth it? Or are they "stupid" too as you imply all i7 supporters are, newtekie1?

YOU GUYS DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING ABOUT!!!!

I NEVER EVER said the i7 was worth the extra money - for me! I said, and I showed supporting evidence, and others showed supporting evidence where the i7 offers better performance - which has been my point since I entered this thread.

I am done discussing this with people who's heads are stuck in the sand, who refuse to look at the facts, who are convinced their own personal opinions based solely on their own very limited personal experiences apply to all.

@ mroofie, no, the i5 will not soon become extinct. And for the most efficient bang for your money, definitely go with a good i5 (like the 4670K or 3570K) or AMD (FX-8350 or 8320). But for the ultimate in gaming performance, get a good i7, mount it on a good gaming motherboard populated with at least 8Gb of RAM, a great graphics card and SSD. Then buy a top quality Gold or Platinum 80-PLUS PSU (don't try to skimp on the budget with a cheap PSU) and put them in a great case that supports lots of cooling options.

 

[GhostRyder]

Well, from my experience and what I have seen the i5 and i7 sit on the same levels in more situations than naught with the most notable differences mostly being the clock speeds at stock. Personally on the ZXX platform if it was a choice between the i5 and i7 for a mostly gaming machine I would invest in the i5 and spend the extra on a better cooler to overclock it. Hyper Threading (Which is the main difference between the two, I am not including clocks or some of the instruction sets in this) is not generally beneficial for gaming even when factoring in some of the more heavily threaded games. Heck for awhile HT actually hurt the BF4 experience until a patch fixed it (Though that's a horrible example since BF4 was so buggy at launch).

There are a good number of sites (Including this one) that compare CPU performance (In this case GTA 5 for this site but this site has plenty more) and it comes down more clocks than anything. If you clock them to the same speeds then you probably will end up with maybe a 5% difference depending on the game but that is up to you if it is worth it.

My advice, no its not worth spending the extra unless you are investing in the X99 platform i7 (5820K+) for the extra full cores which could be beneficial in the long run. But on the ZXX platform, I would say stick with the i5 and use the extra money to other parts on your rig (Even if you have a high budget, just means more GPU performance or a better SSD )

 

[GreiverBlade]

Well, from my experience and what I have seen the i5 and i7 sit on the same levels in more situations than naught with the most notable differences mostly being the clock speeds at stock. Personally on the ZXX platform if it was a choice between the i5 and i7 for a mostly gaming machine I would invest in the i5 and spend the extra on a better cooler to overclock it. Hyper Threading (Which is the main difference between the two, I am not including clocks or some of the instruction sets in this) is not generally beneficial for gaming even when factoring in some of the more heavily threaded games. Heck for awhile HT actually hurt the BF4 experience until a patch fixed it (Though that's a horrible example since BF4 was so buggy at launch).

There are a good number of sites (Including this one) that compare CPU performance (In this case GTA 5 for this site but this site has plenty more) and it comes down more clocks than anything. If you clock them to the same speeds then you probably will end up with maybe a 5% difference depending on the game but that is up to you if it is worth it.

My advice, no its not worth spending the extra unless you are investing in the X99 platform i7 (5820K+) for the extra full cores which could be beneficial in the long run. But on the ZXX platform, I would say stick with the i5 and use the extra money to other parts on your rig (Even if you have a high budget, just means more GPU performance or a better SSD )

totally agree, and also my opinion and recommendation!

 

[yogurt_21]

Have an I7, would recommend an i5 in this discussion, 100$ can easily be spent elsewhere. For me I built at a time where 100$ wasn't a ssd of decent size, 100$ extra in gpu wouldn't have gotten me anything (pre Nvidia 9 series) and there wasn't 100$ worth of games I was interested in. So i put it into cpu.

But right now 100$ gets you a 250GB ssd or can easily up you from a 250GB to a 500GB which would be worth while. It can also mean the difference between a 960 and a 970 or the difference between a 970 and 960 SLI.

the extra in those areas will likely do more for the gaming rig than the i7 vs i5. As a Media Engineer I do video editing and encoding as well as many other cpu intensive code compiling activities. So an i7 makes sense. For the standard gamer, they aren't likely at all to notice 100$ worth of difference. Even in the Battlefield comparison 10 more frames for 100$ or 10$ a frame... ouch.

 

[Bill_Bright]

There are a good number of sites (Including this one) that compare CPU performance (In this case GTA 5 for this site but this site has plenty more) and it comes down more clocks than anything.

Thanks for that TechSpot link GhostRyder.

But I have to wonder about your comment that it "comes down to more clocks than anything". I note the slowest i7 beat the faster i7s and both i5s. And the AMD FX-9590 is a full 1.1GHz faster than the fastest i7, 1.7GHz faster than the top performing i7 and 1.5GHz faster than the top performing i5 - yet in terms of performance, came in well below all of them using the same graphics card and similar mobos . So I don't see where clocks is the primary factor.

Also noted in the commentary of your link, "GTA V is quite CPU bound".

So I say, and so does your TechSpot link say, "it comes down to FPS, and money."

If the goal is the "most bang for your money", then clearly the i5 is the way to go.

But if the goal is the "most bang", then clearly the i7s top the list.

 

[peche]

Endless discussion about what all we already know....

 

[GhostRyder]

Thanks for that TechSpot link GhostRyder.

But I have to wonder about your comment that it "comes down to more clocks than anything". I note the slowest i7 beat the faster i7s and both i5s. And the AMD FX-9590 is a full 1.1GHz faster than the fastest i7, 1.7GHz faster than the top performing i7 and 1.5GHz faster than the top performing i5 - yet in terms of performance, came in well below all of them using the same graphics card and similar mobos . So I don't see where clocks is the primary factor.

Also noted in the commentary of your link, "GTA V is quite CPU bound".

So I say, and so does your TechSpot link say, "it comes down to FPS, and money."

If the goal is the "most bang for your money", then clearly the i5 is the way to go.

But if the goal is the "most bang", then clearly the i7s top the list.

Architecture to architecture was what my comparison meant when I referred to clocks. We cannot compare the FX to the i5/i7 on a clock to clock basis because if it was just all clock speed AMD would have been wining for awhile now. My comment meant comparing the i5 to i7 (As in the same generation 4690K to 4790K or similar) the clocks at stock are likely to make the difference in FPS we see including the turbo and how well the turbo does on the CPU. Some game do use 4 threads and beyond which could show some benefit from hyper threading, however hyper threading does not really add much in terms of performance in more cases than naught as it would some real cores (Real powerful cores I might add). GTA V is very CPU intensive and does utilize more cores than normal as that is why the 5960X in the link I provided starting at a low 3.0ghz was able to beat out all the other processors strictly because of how many threads it provides (And actual cores). Generally speaking even in the long run, an i5 will be near as good an investment as an i7 would be as you can see many people still maxing out games on an old Sandy Bridge i5.

Still, it matter on budget in the end but if we are speaking about last ability and what is best for a gaming rig. Even if you have $1500 to spend, I would still recommend the i5 and putting the money elsewhere as for $100 more you could easily put that towards something like an H100i or something else and get the same experience or better than just putting it towards the i7 (on the ZXX platform).

Same site I linked before (Its only one site and its definitely not the definitive site as there are so many out there, but its just the one I picked for straight CPU comparisons):
BF Hardline
Evolve
Far Cry 4

 

[GreiverBlade]

Have an I7, would recommend an i5 in this discussion, 100$ can easily be spent elsewhere. For me I built at a time where 100$ wasn't a ssd of decent size, 100$ extra in gpu wouldn't have gotten me anything (pre Nvidia 9 series) and there wasn't 100$ worth of games I was interested in. So i put it into cpu.

But right now 100$ gets you a 250GB ssd or can easily up you from a 250GB to a 500GB which would be worth while. It can also mean the difference between a 960 and a 970 or the difference between a 970 and 960 SLI.

the extra in those areas will likely do more for the gaming rig than the i7 vs i5. As a Media Engineer I do video editing and encoding as well as many other cpu intensive code compiling activities. So an i7 makes sense. For the standard gamer, they aren't likely at all to notice 100$ worth of difference. Even in the Battlefield comparison 10 more frames for 100$ or 10$ a frame... ouch.

another good example that anyone will agree i guess is to spend the extra 100$ in a good quality PSU

 

[Hawkstream]

Ugh... Posts like the ones from this Bill guy really make me hate forums...

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Good points! AMD will always be a force to reckon with and keep an eye on.

While I applaud their paying more attention to drivers lately, CPU optimization and frame pacing were both things they were behind on. It wasn't until some rather revealing bench tests on the internet that they were even aware of it. At least they've finally acknowledged it though.

As far as CPU competition goes, I'm really hoping Zen will bring them back to their golden hay days. The market needs that kind of competition for pricing stability and innovation.

 

[Iceni]

At this point in time I would wait.

Windows 10 is due sometime towards the end of July. AMD have just announced AM4.

I would at least wait for a DX12 preview at the very least.

If you are absolutely desperate to upgrade then the i7 is the only choice ATM. The i5 may end up gaining nothing in a DX12 environment, Whereas the i7 stands to gain a slight boost if the rumors are true. You may find that your choice now is not the same choice you would make in 60 days time.

I've upgraded in the past without waiting and it's caused me no end of frustrations. I was using a 939 x2 3800+ with an nforce 3 chipset for a long time. And the chipset didn't support 64 bit memory addresses correctly. Had I waited AM2 was release 2 weeks later with a PCIe based GPU path. I was stuck on AGP and with random memory crashes due to the 64 bit bug.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Same site I linked before (Its only one site and its definitely not the definitive site as there are so many out there, but its just the one I picked for straight CPU comparisons):

It may be one site, but it consistently shows the advantages of the two classes of Intels. What I find a bit surprising is how consistently poor all the AMDs performed with even the i3 3220 beating all or most AMDs with each game tested.

The market needs that kind of competition for pricing stability and innovation.

AMD announced last year (maybe in 2013) that they will no longer compete head to head with Intel, but they have every intention to keep nipping at their heels and Intel knows it. This will keep Intel looking over their shoulder and all that will be good for consumers. But still, after looking at GhostRyder's links, AMD needs to step up their game.

Ugh... Posts like the ones from this Bill guy really make me hate forums...

It's the person who submits posts, not to contribute or participate in a mature discussion, but for the sole purpose of criticizing others with puerile comments that does it for me.

Endless discussion about what all we already know....

Feel free to unsubscribe and stop wasting your time reading, or ours with posts that don't add any value to the discussion.

For me, I thank GhostRyder's and Frag Maniac and others for their contributions to this "endless discussion" and to yogurt21 and Iceni for joining the thread today to add theirs.

 

[micropage7]

simple answer : i may take i5 but the highest level of i5
today multicores processor is too powerful and until now except you do extra hard multi tasking it wont take all the power of your processor
so take i5 and save some for the other, buying ice cream, salad, pizza

 

[GhostRyder]

It may be one site, but it consistently shows the advantages of the two classes of Intels. What I find a bit surprising is how consistently poor all the AMDs performed with even the i3 3220 beating all or most AMDs with each game tested.

Well the differences are mostly very small in these test and on those test the graphs are showing their stock configurations which include having different turbo speeds which effect the performance. A lot of times, that is where the difference in performance lies is in the clock speeds or the different turbo speeds. You can also tell in tests immedialty how multithreaded a game is a lot of times by these tests. Some games claim to use 8+ threads but the reality is that they utilize the 1st and second core for most of the work and push off smaller processes to other cores. You can tell this when an i3 is right up there with the high end i5's and i7's especially if the game does cite that it is using more than 2 cores.

simple answer : i may take i5 but the highest level of i5
today multicores processor is too powerful and until now except you do extra hard multi tasking it wont take all the power of your processor
so take i5 and save some for the other, buying ice cream, salad, pizza

^, I agree, save the money and put it towards something else on the machine or buy yourself a nice dinner

 

[Tatty_Two]

Can I ask that this petty squabbling, now slowly turning into flaming and name calling stops, it is detracting from some good advice already given and quite frankly is becoming tiresome...... even I have patience levels that can be tested at times!

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

The original question

My question is will the i5 soon become extinct (as with the i3) in terms of gaming support?



the answer, i think, from what i have read here is no.
personally i would buy a fast i5 and a superior gpu or 2.

@Tom-Helge immaculate build. Very impressive.

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

I'm a person who use my new computer for both gaming and some video rendering / encoding. I know that the video rendering / encoding will take advantage of all of the CPU-cores you have and the more CPU-cores you have, the better it is that way.

But i was thinking, instead of spending 100+ extra dollars on the CPU just to get some better times in my renderings / encodings, then i figured out that it would actually be MUCH MUCH better to invest in the best GPU i could get inside my Mini-ITX computer case and then take advantage of the CUDA-cores in the GPU for the renderings and encodings of videos in Adobe After Effects and Adobe Premiere Pro instead and at the same time get better fps in games. Because the CUDA-cores that are in my GPU will render and encode my videos WAAAAAAAAAAY WAY faster than what an Intel Core i7-4790k would be able to do anyways.

By doing that, you gain advantages both in games and video renderings / encodings. With the Intel Core i7-4790k you only gains better results on things that takes advantages of the more cores.

So the best way is to invest the 100+ dollar from the i5 to the i7 on the GPU instead if you are just using your computer for gaming and some video rendering / encoding. That's the best combo for your bucks you can get that way.

 

[Bill_Bright]

A lot of times, that is where the difference in performance lies is in the clock speeds or the different turbo speeds.

I agree. But then if the game is pushing the CPU, turbo modes should be enabled automatically, no?

Some games claim to use 8+ threads but the reality is that they utilize the 1st and second core for most of the work and push off smaller processes to other cores.

True again, but at least some of the load is being delegated. I suspect much of this (keeping the 1s couple cores loaded) is because coding would be more difficult to accommodate all the various platforms the game may encounter and so to keep development costs and complexity manageable, they have to, in part, code to the lowest common denominator. That said, I'm an electronics technician, not a programmer so I may not know what I am guessing about - though I was a hardware in a software company for many years with a second hat as alpha and beta tester.

@Tom-Helge - I totally agree. If on a limited budget, or if just getting the most bang for your money is a priority, then for sure, invest in the best graphics your money can buy. That (and gobs of RAM - and a nice SSD) will get your further than a more powerful CPU.

That said, if splitting your times between games and heavy video rendering / encoding, you already are compromising with one side or the other. The best graphics cards for gaming are not necessarily the best for professional graphics "workstations". For that, you really need a "workstation" graphics card, and the best, by far, are not cheap.

I do note, however, that mini-ITX computer cases are typically intended for small POS or HTPC environments where monster graphics cards, and the cooling they require, are not needed. Mini-ITX cases typically don't have a lot of cooling capacity. I have to say though, yours is a nice looking case (better than my Lian Li) and setup. For sure having a double wide graphics card to exhaust the heat directly out the back has got to help.

Can I ask that this petty squabbling, now slowly turning into flaming and name calling stops, it is detracting from some good advice already given and quite frankly is becoming tiresome...... even I have patience levels that can be tested at times!

I would love to keep it technical and professional. Thanks.

 

[xorbe]

If you can't decide i5 or i7, then get the i7 and turn off HyperThreading ... (laugh)