Intel processor generational differences

[nomdeplume]

There really is no reason to go with i5-4590 over an i5-6600, is there? I have a small doubt remaining whether they widely differ in ability for the type of cpu heavy tasks I would be doing regularly. Currently this is music file conversion and working in Lightroom.

Sold the i5-2400 system in my profile unexpectedly quick and am forced to find something before completing my normal amount of research. The 2400 is a great chip, but 2011 was a long time ago. Don't think I can swing a newer 7th or 8th gen system as much as I would like to use Optane boot drive. NVMe through M.2 and PCIe will be a nice upgrade.

 

[ZenZimZaliben]

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...Intel-Core-i7-7700K-i5-7600K-Performance-880/

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...ormance-Core-i7-8700K-i5-8600K-i3-8350K-1056/

This should help you make a choice. Looks like with the exception of exporting a higher clocked quad is pretty good.

 

[nomdeplume]

Actually those were only relevant for 7th and 8th gen i7 K models performance. Their article on workstations might be of great value to me though so thank you.

 

[newtekie1]

The i5-6600 has 200MHz higher boost clock, which might make a small difference. But other than that, I don't think there is that much of a difference.

Personally, I'd look for an 8th gen i3, like the i3-8300. It should give you performance very similar to both the 4950 and 6600, but give you a good upgrade path to higher core count faster processors.

 

[Arrakis9]

Try raising your bus speed 6mhz to 106 and see if it's stable. That will close your performance gap.

 

[thebluebumblebee]

Personally, I'd look for an 8th gen i3, like the i3-8300. It should give you performance very similar to both the 4950 and 6600, but give you a good upgrade path to higher core count faster processors.

Or the i5-8400 for $35 more.

NVMe through M.2

You really don't want to do that with 4th gen.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Personally, I'd look for an 8th gen i3, like the i3-8300.

I've been looking at this processor for a new build for my son. It seems the computer I put together for him 10 years ago is finally dying. I like that 8300 because it has a lot of horsepower in a small package. It is thrifty on power and does not produce a lot of heat. So I think it will do nicely in a small case.

The integrated graphics is not the greatest but this new system is not for gaming so not a problem.

Or the i5-8400 for $35 more.

That's the catch, isn't it? For just a little bit more, you can always get something a bit better.

 

[RejZoR]

You can use Optane on ANY system. Just slam PrimoCache software on your system and you're set to go. Even if you use AMD system.

 

[Mussels]

There really is no reason to go with i5-4590 over an i5-6600, is there? I have a small doubt remaining whether they widely differ in ability for the type of cpu heavy tasks I would be doing regularly. Currently this is music file conversion and working in Lightroom.

Sold the i5-2400 system in my profile unexpectedly quick and am forced to find something before completing my normal amount of research. The 2400 is a great chip, but 2011 was a long time ago. Don't think I can swing a newer 7th or 8th gen system as much as I would like to use Optane boot drive. NVMe through M.2 and PCIe will be a nice upgrade.

as someone with everything from sandy bridge through to ryzen in the house, the only flaw with the older intel platforms is (was?) the chipset/board features - USB 3.0, NVME, etc - actual CPU performance itself held up very well over the years.

Basically, dont just look at the CPU - look carefully at the board you're getting too, since you'll likely stick with it for a few years if you had a sandy bridge system for so long. Lots of boards have feature limits that arent readily apparent that might trip you up long term, as a basic example using two M.2 slots on some boards might disable a PCI-E slot, or SATA ports on the board/

 

[thebluebumblebee]

That's the catch, isn't it? For just a little bit more, you can always get something a bit better.

But I see a lot of benefit for that $35 that I don't see above the i5-8400. Adding Turbo Boost and 2 additional cores (50% more!) is well worth it. My apologies, but I think the i3 is penny wise and dollar foolish.

I would like to use Optane boot drive

Please don't spend money on Optane. Just find some reviews...

Sold the i5-2400

Doesn't another i5-x400 sound right? (okay, that's NOT a reason to buy the i5-8400!)

For gaming, things are different. Here, the i5-8400 breezes past all AMD Ryzens thanks to its high per-thread performance and the boost clock of 4.0 GHz. I find it surprising that there is very little difference between the i5-8400, i5-8600K, and i7-8700K in gaming, even at the highly CPU-limited scenario of 720p. This suggests that today's games see limited gains from more than four cores. It is good news for gamers on a budget because a Core i5-8400 will be completely sufficient to not bottleneck even the fastest graphics cards.

 

[Bill_Bright]

My apologies, but I think the i3 is penny wise and dollar foolish.

That may be. But not everyone has the budget to keep stepping up. The extra $35 for the 8400 could go towards an SSD over a HD. Or more RAM. Windows Pro instead of Home. Or an EVGA or Seasonic PSU instead of a generic.

Unless your pockets reach forever, there's always a trade-off.

 

[jboydgolfer]

That may be. But not everyone has the budget to keep stepping up. The extra $35 for the 8400 could go towards an SSD over a HD. Or more RAM. Windows Pro instead of Home. Or an EVGA or Seasonic PSU instead of a generic.

Unless your pockets reach forever, there's always a trade-off.

I agree. There's always that " for another (insert dollar amount ) you'll get another 15% performance " situation. The rational and reasonable manner to handle that ,is to purchase what you need and not what may be a deal, or you might be able to use sometimes. When I built one of my nephews computers I could've easily gotten an i5, but the 4170 i3 was the fitting cpu, so i bought it. When you have children, or multiple computers ,that $35 adds up with you multiply it by six instances of "for another $-"

The only reason I bought my 8600K was because it was the same price as the 7600K , but it if it had been anything more than $10 more expensive I wouldn't of bought it

 

[John Naylor]

Generation to generation, there's little difference between performance.... but i3, i5, i7 and worskstion CPUs (and associated chipsets) have wide variations. While I see no sense in not buying latest gen as opposed to last gen on a new build (usual $10-20 difference is far less than performance difference as small as it is, the chipset feature support insures longer viability. OTOH, I see no real reason to upgrade CPU in most instances (gaming / general use) as the cost of a system upgrade in T & E is substantial for what you get out of it.

 

[newtekie1]

Or the i5-8400 for $35 more.

Yep, I just picked the i3-8300 because it matched the 4590's clock speed, and due to the generational improvements basically matches the 6600. Personally, if I couldn't afford the i5-8400, the only i3 I would get would be the i3-8100. For $110 it is a hard value to beat.

 

[nomdeplume]

as someone with everything from sandy bridge through to ryzen in the house, the only flaw with the older intel platforms is (was?) the chipset/board features - USB 3.0, NVME, etc - actual CPU performance itself held up very well over the years.

Basically, dont just look at the CPU - look carefully at the board you're getting too, since you'll likely stick with it for a few years if you had a sandy bridge system for so long. Lots of boards have feature limits that arent readily apparent that might trip you up long term, as a basic example using two M.2 slots on some boards might disable a PCI-E slot, or SATA ports on the board/

The saying about never needing to upgrade if your priorities and programs don't change is true. A 4-6 generation jump in processor would as you noted be only a small factor. Currently developed programs were starting to lack full feature sets or run at considerably lower levels because they weren't designed for middle of the heap 2011 hardware. Not to mention USB3/C have major daily benefits I held off on enjoying long enough!

I hate to admit I'm cheap enough that given chance to snag a few years newer machine for same or slightly more money I'd jump on it. You zeroed in on that pretty quickly. Personal time has intrinsic cost too though. That Puget Systems article on server speeds made clear to me just how large an improvement can be realized in that department.

 

[Bill_Bright]

The saying about never needing to upgrade if your priorities and programs don't change is true.

Yeah but that can be a IF.

Never say never!

Events beyond our control affect us all the time. Most programs are updated frequently, if for no other reason than to fix bugs or patch vulnerabilities - but often to add features. Because of the bad guys, a lot of our system resources get dedicated to security - much more than in days past. There was a time when 64MB of RAM was "more than you will ever need" and 10GB HD was HUGE! More and more tasks today require more network bandwidth. There was a time when a 10Mbps network was considered speedy. More and more tasks are more graphics intensive requiring faster GPUs with gobs of dedicated graphics RAM.

If there were no badguys, for example, it would be perfectly fine for many users to still be using XP, which ran fine on less systems.

Then, of course, the hardware industry moves along at its own pace too. Industry standards change. Technologies fade away and are no longer supported. This is problem when your trusty old printer or AGP graphics card dies, for example. Or your motherboard dies and you cannot find a new one that supports that trusty old printer, or your old OS, or your EIDE hard drive.

So we certainly don't have to upgrade just because new technologies have hit the scene. But we will eventually have to upgrade because time does not sit still and all electronics will die - eventually.

 

[kennyreid95]

There really is no reason to go with i5-4590 over an i5-6600, is there? I have a small doubt remaining whether they widely differ in ability for the type of cpu heavy tasks I would be doing regularly. Currently this is music file conversion and working in Lightroom.

Sold the i5-2400 system in my profile unexpectedly quick and am forced to find something before completing my normal amount of research. The 2400 is a great chip, but 2011 was a long time ago. Don't think I can swing a newer 7th or 8th gen system as much as I would like to use Optane boot drive. NVMe through M.2 and PCIe will be a nice upgrade.

More futureproof Tech life