Core i5 or Core i7?

[mroofie]

Im going to upgrade very soon (finally the time is right) but im unsure about the processor!

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

Thanks

 

[bubbleawsome]

No, any modern i5 will be as good as a processor as an i7 for gaming for the foreseeable future.

 

[Bill_Bright]

No, any modern i5 will be as good as a processor as an i7 for gaming for the foreseeable future.

Ummm, not hardly. The i7s, as a class of CPUs, are better CPUs than the i5s - always have been and will be way into the future.

The i7s are better for multitasking, multimedia tasks, high-end gaming, and scientific work. The top i7s have 6 and 8 cores, faster processors, and larger caches.

All i7s have hyper-threading and no i5s support hyper-threading.

PC Mech, Dec 18, 2012, Deciding Between an i5 vs i7 Processor: Is The i7 Worth The Extra Money?

So, in short, if you’re planning to use your computer for things that most users use it for – browsing the web, email, word processing, watching movies, organizing photos – then the i5 will be perfectly fine for you.

If you put a little more demand on your computer than the average user – video editing, crunching data, processing raw images off your DSLR, doing some intense gaming – then you’re a prime candidate for hyper-threading and the extra juice of the i7.

As noted by this PCMag.com, March 2, 2015 article, Which CPU Should You Buy? Comparing Intel Core i5 vs. i7

Long story short: Intel Core i5 is made for mainstream users who care about performance, and Intel Core i7 is made for enthusiasts and high-end users. If you follow this mantra, you're likely going to find the system you need.

HOWEVER, will you see the performance advantage of the i7? Maybe not. If buy a decent i5 and give it lots of RAM and invest in a quality graphics card and SSD, no doubt you will be happy with the i5 (as long as it is not sitting next to high-end i7!). So for most people the i7 may not be worth the extra costs - unless top performance is a priority.

And BTW, the i3 is still alive and well.

And yes, some i5s are better than some i7s. But then some i3 are better than some i5s. But as classes of CPUs, the i7s are better than the i5s which are better than the i3s - when it comes to top performance.

 

[Jetster]

We are coming up on the 5th and 6th generation of Intel "i" processors and as of today none are considered "obsolete" even the i3. But as far as i5 vs i7 goes the issues is "is the extra $100 worth the jump to from an i5 to an i7" and for gaming the answer is still no. However the i7 has advantages even for gaming.

 

[newtekie1]

I notice no real difference between my i7-4790K and my i5-4690K in anything, especially gaming.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

The thread question specifically asks about gaming, so I'll address that.

HT rarely, if ever, helps for gaming. You CAN however get higher stock clock speeds with i7's, but that in a way only makes it all the more obvious HT is a hard sell for gaming. Otherwise they wouldn't have to up the speed to justify the price.

That said, if you can afford it, the 4970k is still one of the best CPUs for gaming if you don't mind no DDR4 support. It's clocked very high, and when buying late in a model cycle, there's more risk of not getting a decent OC out of your chip.

I'm sure as newtekie said for the most part you won't see a difference, but I HAVE noticed more often than not, in games that most are struggling to get good performance in, those without problems are quite often running a 4970k.

A 4970k is a great compliment to a high end GPU, esp if you're not wanting to OC. However a 4690k is a very popular chip that can be had at a good price, is easy to OC, and usually has no problem clocking at least as high if not higher than a stock 4790k, and will run cooler as well.

 

[Valeriant]

Simply put, for gaming today, i5 (of the same CPU generation) is enough.

I said today because there will be a performance leap in GPU soon, so CPU might be bottlenecked in next gen games. Hijacking the thread a bit, I hope someone testing Win10+DX12 would do a CPU usage comparisons against Win8.1+DX11.

 

[Mussels]

an i5 will be fine for now and some time to come, an i7 will just be good for longer.


With DX12 almost upon us and its superior multi threading, an i7 should (no one knows for sure yet) gain a greater lead over an i5.

 

[rooivalk]

Have money -> i7 - It helps a little in some cases. I'd welcome that.
Doesn't have money -> i5 - in many cases it's simply the same as i7 of same class (example: 3570 vs 3770 or 4690 vs 4790)

 

[Mussels]

Have money -> i7 - It helps a little in some cases. I'd welcome that.
Doesn't have money -> i5 - in many cases it's simply the same as i7 of same class (example: 3570 vs 3770 or 4690 vs 4790)

worth noting that this is the best case scenario, as BF3 and BF4 are some of the best games for multithreading on the market right now.

 

[GreiverBlade]

well: a i5 (4690K)is only a i7(4790K) without hyperthreading and 2mb less L3 ... so nope as many said, unless heavy threaded games, for gaming a i5 will always be a good option. (saying a i7 is the best ... i prefer saying a i7 is the more
expensive of the 2 ... they are both quad core and the only "tangible" bonus they have is 2mb L3, hyperthreading is virtual )

a friend has the exact same setup as i have except that he has a 4790K and i have a 4690K he clock at 4.4 permanent (1.23) i clock at 4.6 permanent (1.25) we have the same graphic card

Have money -> i7 - It helps a little in some cases. I'd welcome that.
Doesn't have money -> i5 - in many cases it's simply the same as i7 of same class (example: 3570 vs 3770 or 4690 vs 4790)

totaly not the result we got that was more like in any other games we compared : 1-5fps variance , yet his rig cost him a bit more than 1000chf and mine more around 900chf, was it worth it for him? yes and no, he use the extra power sometime when he do encoding but unlike me he never got into WCG computing (i did a lot when i had a i7 920 or a a Xeon E3-1275v2)

most budget gaming rig configuration recommend a G3258 (funny but i agree ) i3 are still viable but as intel is an ass on the pricing, they're too expensive for a budget rig and not enough powerfull for the price they ask ... they fit a bit better in a NUC (Nearly Useless Computer) or a HTPC (tho AMD do better in that sector and with a better price) the i5 is on the sweet spot for any gaming configuration from mid to high range, does a i5 bottleneck a GPU (upcoming and present) likely not a multi GPU? nope .... ( i5-2400 + 2xGTX580 same result than a i7-2600, just the 1366 had better result than his i5 counterpart but it was a 1155 )

DX12 will help multithreading? a i5 will still be the main option for a gaming only rig ... and if you have the money for a i7 go for it (or do as i did ... keep the extra and buy a full water loop for the CPU or GPU with the money spared ... )

slight offtopic but still a bit related.
now the more i see about Broadwell the more i tell to myself : pointless, and not worthy of any noticing, oh the other hand Skylake ... well ... if it goes by the rumor 4690K/4790K owner are good to skip 2 gen before having a real upgrade xD (BW/SL) since the only real improvement is a better IGP? (ok the manufacturing node also ... ) but 22nm to 14nm and the tdp goes from 88w to 95w ... all that for a better IGP??? and DDR4 support... well that is a upgrade (or not ... the 2400 DDR3 is still plenty)
at least Skylake will bring something good: price lowering on the previous gen (altho on 2nd hand the seller are still in high mood ... 2xxx and 3xxx line are almost at the level of a 4690 price, just the 1155/1366 serie got a slight reduction, but that a case to case scenario and worth nothing.)

 

[rooivalk]

That's why I said it just for some cases. If you're rather tight on money, i5 all the way.
In those rare case, i7 edge may translate fps hiccup into no hiccup at all.

Worth it? for me, yes if you have extra money laying around. Absolutely worth it? No, i3 is probably much more worth it than those two.

 

[Bill_Bright]

But as far as i5 vs i7 goes the issues is "is the extra $100 worth the jump to from an i5 to an i7" and for gaming the answer is still no. However the i7 has advantages even for gaming.

Only the OP gets to decide what the issue is! And only the OP can put a dollar value on it. There are many willing to put $2000, $3000, or even more down on a gaming rig. For them, an extra $100 is probably well worth it - especially when you spread that $100 over the life of the computer.

And $100? That's chump-change to many. Note the most expensive i7 is $800 more than most expensive i5. $800 is more than some budget for their whole computer!

And sorry, but your contradiction really makes no sense. You contradict yourself when you say $100 is not worth it then immediately state the i7 has advantages, "even for gaming".

an i5 will be fine for now and some time to come

Fine for you, maybe. But unacceptable for many!

Simply put, for gaming today, i5 (of the same CPU generation) is enough

Same thing. The i5 may be "enough" for you! But not for everyone!

HT rarely, if ever, helps for gaming.

Very true in the past, but there are a few games today that do take advantage of i7's hyper-threading capability and as noted by Tom's Hardware (see link below) and elsewhere, that trend is expected to continue. So getting an i7 today will clearly carry you further into the future. See this for the advantages of HT in games, with specific example of games that do better - at least in terms of CPU utilization.

As easy as it is to do, we cannot interject our own personal opinions and expect them to apply when the technical facts clearly indicate otherwise. This is especially true when our opinions don't apply to everyone.

I don't need a big V8 engine in my pickup truck. But that's what I wanted so I was willing to pay extra for it, and I have no regrets even though I still pay extra for it every time need to refuel.

It is critical WE all remember that game developers know and understand many, if not most gamers cannot afford to spend a lot of money on gaming rigs. So they program their games to provide "good game play" on lessor systems. Even with near-entry level Pentiums, i3s and equivalent AMD processors.

See Tom's Hardware, Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: May 2015 and note they start with the $70 Pentium G3258 for "Entry-Level Gaming".

While certainly, that "level" of gaming may not be "fine" or "enough" for most of us, it surely is plenty for many others. Note the Core i3-4170 scores very well in the $125 category.

For sure, the i5-4690 (not 4690K) provides the best performance for your money. But money is not always the issue. When performance is the issue, then go with the Core i7-5820K.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

this

was very informative, it explained it, and demonstrated in terms i could understand, thanks for linking it.

 

[Jetster]

Only the OP gets to decide what the issue is! And only the OP can put a dollar value on it. There are many willing to put $2000, $3000, or even more down on a gaming rig. For them, an extra $100 is probably well worth it - especially when you spread that $100 over the life of the computer.

And $100? That's chump-change to many. Note the most expensive i7 is $800 more than most expensive i5. $800 is more than some budget for their whole computer!

And sorry, but your contradiction really makes no sense. You contradict yourself when you say $100 is not worth it then immediately state the i7 has advantages, "even for gaming".

I couldn't have said it any clearer. The i7 has higher clocks but its not worth the $100

 

[ChevyOwner]

Only the OP gets to decide what the issue is! And only the OP can put a dollar value on it. There are many willing to put $2000, $3000, or even more down on a gaming rig. For them, an extra $100 is probably well worth it - especially when you spread that $100 over the life of the computer.

And $100? That's chump-change to many. Note the most expensive i7 is $800 more than most expensive i5. $800 is more than some budget for their whole computer!

Exactly.

 

[peche]

even when I have a locked i7, I agree with most people here, i7 is not necessary for gaming, also sometimes the extra $ you paid for it are worthless, that chip was on a pretty hot deal, brand new so I took advantage of that situation on perfect timing, processor still as brave and powerful as the first day ..

for working i7's are like working beasts, the can handle tons of work, tasks and all you need to accomplish day by day without problems, I have another 2 i7's on the office, my old 870, the new 3770 that I got like 3 weeks ago, both are fully working day by day , so I may say that a i7 will make your rig more future proof, more working and multitasking capable but its obvious to say, it will cost more,

the question here shall be: do you really have the money for a beast like intel's i7?

if you have the money, go for it, but with a limited budget you should save as much a you can for getting the best that small budget can afford, unlocked i5's are pretty brave, they can handle gaming pretty easy, some work too and also last for many years servicing your cybernetic needs,

 

[newtekie1]

Only the OP gets to decide what the issue is! And only the OP can put a dollar value on it. There are many willing to put $2000, $3000, or even more down on a gaming rig. For them, an extra $100 is probably well worth it - especially when you spread that $100 over the life of the computer.

And $100? That's chump-change to many. Note the most expensive i7 is $800 more than most expensive i5. $800 is more than some budget for their whole computer!

Generally, when someone is asking the question about i5 vs. i7 for their build the $100 is important to them. They are also likely looking at the same platform not different platforms. The $800 more expensive i7 you talk about, as well as the 6 and 8 cores i7s, are a completely different platform. Yes, they exist, but the OP isn't likely considering them so your comments talking about them are likely just wasted keystrokes.

And sorry, but your contradiction really makes no sense. You contradict yourself when you say $100 is not worth it then immediately state the i7 has advantages, "even for gaming".

How is that contradiction? Yes it has advantages, but it isn't worth $100. That is pretty clear. Those minor advantages are not worth spending $100.

The fact really comes down to where that $100 is better spent. And that $100 is likely better spent elsewhere. A better GPU will likely net a much better gain than going with an i7 over an i5. For example, spending the $100 to go with a GTX970 instead of a GTX960 will give way better results in gaming.

Fine for you, maybe. But unacceptable for many!

Unacceptable for many? No. I've never sat at my i5 rig and said "You know, this i5 sucks to much, it is just unacceptable". In fact, I'd be willing to bet in a blind test, even you couldn't tell the difference.

Sure, there are probably a few people that say they absolutely must have an i7, for whatever stupid reason they can come up with, but not "many".

Same thing. The i5 may be "enough" for you! But not for everyone!

In gaming terms, the i5 is enough. Sure, in the few examples we can find there is a FPS difference, but it is so minor it doesn't make a noticeable difference. But in reality, unless you have a beastly graphics setup(again not likely for someone even considering an i5 to save money) these games will be limited by the GPU long before the hyperthreading on the CPU.

Very true in the past, but there are a few games today that do take advantage of i7's hyper-threading capability and as noted by Tom's Hardware (see link below) and elsewhere, that trend is expected to continue. So getting an i7 today will clearly carry you further into the future. See this for the advantages of HT in games, with specific example of games that do better - at least in terms of CPU utilization.

As easy as it is to do, we cannot interject our own personal opinions and expect them to apply when the technical facts clearly indicate otherwise. This is especially true when our opinions don't apply to everyone.

I don't need a big V8 engine in my pickup truck. But that's what I wanted so I was willing to pay extra for it, and I have no regrets even though I still pay extra for it every time need to refuel.

It is critical WE all remember that game developers know and understand many, if not most gamers cannot afford to spend a lot of money on gaming rigs. So they program their games to provide "good game play" on lessor systems. Even with near-entry level Pentiums, i3s and equivalent AMD processors.

See Tom's Hardware, Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: May 2015 and note they start with the $70 Pentium G3258 for "Entry-Level Gaming".

While certainly, that "level" of gaming may not be "fine" or "enough" for most of us, it surely is plenty for many others. Note the Core i3-4170 scores very well in the $125 category.

For sure, the i5-4690 (not 4690K) provides the best performance for your money. But money is not always the issue. When performance is the issue, then go with the Core i7-5820K.

If you actually read the Tom's article, and look at their data you'll see the i5 on average only fell 3%, yes a whole 3%, behind the i7! In the worst case game the i5 was only 5% worse.

These facts hardly back up the idea that hyperthreading makes a difference, it just plain doesn't. Even in the in2gpu article, they could only find two games that actually benefit from hyperthreading, and in those two games the FPS was well over 100(over 200 in one even) so the difference would never even be noticed.

You can make all the long rambling posts you want, but the fact is the i7 offers no real noticeable benefit to gaming(specifically what the OP is interested in) and there is nothing that points to this changing anywhere in the future.

 

[Frick]

As easy as it is to do, we cannot interject our own personal opinions and expect them to apply when the technical facts clearly indicate otherwise. This is especially true when our opinions don't apply to everyone.

I don't need a big V8 engine in my pickup truck. But that's what I wanted so I was willing to pay extra for it, and I have no regrets even though I still pay extra for it every time need to refuel.

The technical fact is that for gaming only the i7 is currently not worth it (for a given value of worth obviously). And don't drag cars into arguments about computers, it never works.

@TheMailMan78 I see you!

 

[Hawkstream]

I think the i5 - 4690k is close to the best bang for the buck. As mentioned above I am trying to keep opinion out of it. I think if you were to take the Tom's benchmark scores and divide them by cost this CPU would be pretty close for the best performance for the money from Intel. At some point you start paying more and more for smaller and smaller performance gains.

 

[kikicoco1334]

there is a guy did a OC G3258 vs like i5/i7 on Battlefield 4, in a way you don't really need SUPER nice CPU to game nicely, correct me if i am wrong, most of the games today are heavy GPU based if you have a strong enough GPU, CPU is not AS big of a deal anymore. i5 will do very nicely.
while back when ivy bridge first released i had a 3570k and 3770k and in battlefield and such they ran very close (not sure why or if its just me but from time to time i5 had a hairline higher FPS than the 3770k, could just be the state of my system at that time)

this is just my 2 cent..

 

[NTM2003]

I can even play the elder scrolls online on my i5 without a gpu

 

[kikicoco1334]

haha ^ this guy!

nice dude! what chip are you on? the new intel 4600hd built in GPU is VERY solid on those new chips

 

[NTM2003]

I am running the Intel Core i5-4690K Processor 3.5 GHz I don't have a gpu yet but I can play elder scrolls online with just using the intel graphics so its a powerful cpu without spending $100 more on the i7

 

[Bill_Bright]

I couldn't have said it any clearer. The i7 has higher clocks but its not worth the $100

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.

but it isn't worth $100. That is pretty clear.

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)

Performance
Intel Core i7 is a high-end processor and is more appropriate than the i5 processors for certain intensive tasks, such as data crunching, graphics and video editing, and PC gaming.

Gaming Performance
According to a study by APC, the difference between the Core i5-3450 and the top-end Core i7-3770k is about 10%.

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,

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

The answer is no, the i5 will not soon become extinct.