I need to know how much difference is there between the two processors. Is the i5 worth $300 more? I need to pull the trigger fast on this one fast. please help!
Right now i wouldn't bother with either the I3 or the I5, if your absolutely set on the Intel processors, then absolutely you should be looking more at the I7's anyway, if your trying to decide based on price then you might be better off getting an AMD processor
Don't listen to these yahoos. The I5 for gaming is all you will need since most games only utilize 4 cores tops an I7 is total overkill unless you using software that is heavily multithreaded. The I3 isn't a bad option either its performance for gaming is pretty close to the I5.
The i3 is a bad choice as most games now want 4 cores to run on properly and this is not going to go away. The i5 is a good allrounder depending on the games you want. Newer games, especially ones that also exist on next gen consoles, can make use of an i7 well, but older games do not.
If someone is trying to charge you $300 more for a Core i5 than for a Core i3, then he's probably gouging you in so many other places that you don't want to buy anything from him at all. Ever.
i5 is far greater then i3 for gaming. Combined with the fact most people bottleneck at their processor and you have a good case to upgrade. Spend another $30 for a better CPU fan so you can overclock more aggressively.
Some context could be useful though... is this a laptop? A lot of times laptops with the better processors also include more ram, etc. no idea what this situation is, but just saying :P could be something like that. We need more details. If it's straight up CPU only and they want 300 bucks, I'd say no way too.
a) you want a budget-friendly system that needs some peculiar feature only offered by Intel but not artificially disabled on Core i3 processors,
b) you want a budget-friendly system with a very high emphasis on low power consumption (probably but not automatically a laptop), but need more performance than an AMD Beema or Intel Bay Trail chip can offer,
c) you're getting a laptop and because laptop vendors do stupid things, a laptop with a Core i3 happens to be a much better value compared to the other laptops that you can actually buy than it "should" be based on what AMD and Intel charge for various processors in their lineups, or
d) you happen to have a friend who has a Core i3 chip that he wants to get rid of, so you can get it for far below market price even for a used processor.
None of those are common scenarios.
If you're looking to get a gaming desktop on a budget of $1000-$1500 excluding peripherals, a Core i5-4690K is usually the recommended CPU. It's also a reasonable choice outside that range a little in either direction. A Core i5 in a laptop can be a decent enough chip, but Intel usually prices them such that they're not a good value for the money. If you want more CPU performance in a laptop than you'd get from an AMD chip (as you probably do in a gaming laptop on a largish budget), you should probably look at a Core i7-47** quad core.
This isn't true. CPU intensive games certainly exist and can hold back even the highest end graphics cards. A CPU intensive game that is designed for 4 cores or more will perform dreadfully on an i3.
That could be probably due bad optimization rather than anything. Regardless, those are very specific titles than anything, vast majority of games will run absolutely fine.
I would personally go for i5-4460 which can be found for very attractive price these days(about 190 USD), but i3 is nothing to be feared of when you are on tighter budget, money spent on GPU will still provide you more FPS.
You don't need an I7 unless you want to use the hyperthreading features. Videogame-wise an I7 barely shows any noticible difference to an i5. So go with an i5. i3 is a waste of money.
I don't know that I've ever seen a i3 suggested over a AMD option for gaming on a budget. I gamed on an i3 for yearsfrustrating often enough. Stuttering. Are they all still 2 cores? I just looked briefly at ark and did not see any with four cores.
Probably to late. Whose building it? Look up the specific parts and price them out if someone local. If its from a big manufacturer link it so you get advice and thoughts on it. Last thing you should do is rush into a purchase like this poorly informed. Most people have been there and done at one point or another.
This isn't true. CPU intensive games certainly exist and can hold back even the highest end graphics cards. A CPU intensive game that is designed for 4 cores or more will perform dreadfully on an i3.
That could be probably due bad optimization rather than anything. Regardless, those are very specific titles than anything, vast majority of games will run absolutely fine.
I would personally go for i5-4460 which can be found for very attractive price these days(about 190 USD), but i3 is nothing to be feared of when you are on tighter budget, money spent on GPU will still provide you more FPS.
Two cores for the price of six, you say? What could possibly go wrong?
If you want to save money by not shelling out for a Core i5-4690K or something in that ballpark, the way to do it is to go with AMD, such as an FX-6300. That's substantially cheaper than a Core i3 (partially because the motherboard will be cheaper), not that much slower in single-threaded performance, and having six real cores rather than two means that you can get massively more performance in cases that scale well to many cores.
If a game does decide to lean heavily on the CPU and use a lot of cores, an FX-6300 is ready for that workload and a Core i3 isn't. And that's a very plausible future with options that eliminate the rendering thread single-threaded bottleneck available now in OpenGL and Mantle and coming soon in DirectX.
Originally posted by QuizzicalTwo cores for the price of six, you say? What could possibly go wrong?
As I already told you: Nothing.
You spread false info and empty speculations.
1) i3 isn't substantially more expensive - there is about 10% difference in price. 2) Intel board is definitely not more expensive. 3) Yes, FX-6300 is definitely slower in per thread/core performance. 4) There aren't really any games that would sensibly utilize more than 4 threads and won't be for a long time. 5) Even if so, the bottleneck will occur on GPU long before than CPU - you won't notice the 100 USD difference in CPU once you get above certain, fairly low CPU power but you will damn make notice a difference in 100 USD spent on GPU. 6) FX-6300 is completely ill advice, it is a dead end platform.
As always with your posts - less theory, more practical application.
Two cores for the price of six, you say? What could possibly go wrong?
As I already told you: Nothing.
You spread false info and empty speculations.
1) i3 isn't substantially more expensive - there is about 10% difference in price. 2) Intel board is definitely not more expensive. 3) Yes, FX-6300 is definitely slower in per thread/core performance. 4) There aren't really any games that would sensibly utilize more than 4 threads and won't be for a long time. 5) Even if so, the bottleneck will occur on GPU long before than CPU - you won't notice the 100 USD difference in CPU once you get above certain, fairly low CPU power but you will damn make notice a difference in 100 USD spent on GPU. 6) FX-6300 is completely ill advice, it is a dead end platform.
As always with your posts - less theory, more practical application.
1 & 2) Intel boards are a bit more expensive. Add that to good i3 models usually being more expensive. That adds up to i3 being more expensive, maybe only something like 25$ for the package but it's money that could be spent elsewhere.
4) It's true that only few games are able to properly use more than 4 threads, but we're talking about 2 cores vs. 6 cores. Your previous posts suggests that you think hyperthreading will somehow magically make the 2 cores to perform as fast as 4 cores would. That's not true, i3 still has only 2 cores and hyperthreading is just a way to utilize those 2 cores better.
It's unknown how many games will have more than 4 threads some years in the future, but it's guaranteed that games will become slowly better at utilizing multiple threads and FX-6300's advantage over i3 will grow.
5) If that's true, then the AMD suggested by Quizzical is better because it's cheaper.
6) It's true that i3 has the advantage of being able to upgrade to i5 while keeping the same motherboard.
The difference for it would depend on what you are doing, and what else your going to buy. If you bought a i3 and a 680gtx, vs a i7 and a 650, the i3 and the 680 gtx would work alot alot better. I am sure some ones gonna tell you some game some where is gonna use the faster processor, but i havent found it.
When me and my friend had the same graphics card, the 5870, and i have a i 5 3570k at the time oced to 4.8 and he has a amd 1090t amd, there was almost no difference in fps in battle field.
I would also say dont waste your money on the k processors, I have ran crazy water coolers, for my processor and graphics card, and its a waste of money. It doesnt give you much of a boost. If i spent the 150 i spend on water cooling, to upgrade to a better graphics card it would be better.
there u go its like 9 fps difference. between a i3 and a i5. If 9 fps is worth 100+ dollars to you than go for it. I can say this if you took the 100 bucks and went from a 660 to a 670 you could get more fps than going from a i3 to a i5
there u go its like 9 fps difference. between a i3 and a i5. If 9 fps is worth 100+ dollars to you than go for it. I can say this if you took the 100 bucks and went from a 660 to a 670 you could get more fps than going from a i3 to a i5
That review was from the beginning of 2013. Back then I would have probably said that i3 is just fine for gaming.
Technology evolves and for the past year we've had quite large number of games asking for more cores. If you're building a computer that should last a couple of years into the future, more cores than just 2 would be good investment.
Originally posted by Vrika 1 & 2) Intel boards are a bit more expensive. Add that to good i3 models usually being more expensive. That adds up to I3 being more expensive, maybe only something like 25$ for the package but it's money that could be spent elsewhere.4) It's true that only few games are able to properly use more than 4 threads, but we're talking about 2 cores vs. 6 cores. Your previous posts suggests that you think hyperthreading will somehow magically make the 2 cores to perform as fast as 4 cores would. That's not true, i3 still has only 2 cores and hyperthreading is just a way to utilize those 2 cores better. It's unknown how many games will have more than 4 threads some years in the future, but it's guaranteed that games will become slowly better at utilizing multiple threads and FX-6300's advantage over I3 will grow.5) If that's true, then the AMD suggested by Quizzical is better because it's cheaper. If that's not true, then the AMD suggested by Quizzical is better because it's faster.
1) Not true at all, in fact it is rather the other way round unless you want to run FX-6300 in AMD 760 board. i3 can run just fine on cheaper H81.
4) Maybe you should look up what Hyperthreading actually is because it does precisely that magic - provides 2 logical processors per core = 4 threads, just like any Quad core. While not as powerful, it can process multithreaded operations like any multicore cpu.
Comments
$300 more?
Where are you getting your pricing from?
Just to give you an idea, a high end 4 core I7 cpu retails for about $350
edit:
I3 retail about $150
I5 retail about $250
I7 retail about $350
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
How is the price difference so large? You can get a brand new i5 usually at less than 300$.
I would go directly to the I7 however a good I5 would do in a crunch.I3 is a waste of money.
I7 4770 or 4790 is a fine low end cpu that should not cost you very much.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Is the I5 worth/better then I3? YES!
Now is it the same for I5 to I7? NO!
If you just surf play games no video editing blah blah blah the you wont see any difference over I7.
If this is not about gaming then maybe the I3 would be the way to go for you.
Some context could be useful though... is this a laptop? A lot of times laptops with the better processors also include more ram, etc. no idea what this situation is, but just saying :P could be something like that. We need more details. If it's straight up CPU only and they want 300 bucks, I'd say no way too.
The only real point in getting a Core i3 is if:
a) you want a budget-friendly system that needs some peculiar feature only offered by Intel but not artificially disabled on Core i3 processors,
b) you want a budget-friendly system with a very high emphasis on low power consumption (probably but not automatically a laptop), but need more performance than an AMD Beema or Intel Bay Trail chip can offer,
c) you're getting a laptop and because laptop vendors do stupid things, a laptop with a Core i3 happens to be a much better value compared to the other laptops that you can actually buy than it "should" be based on what AMD and Intel charge for various processors in their lineups, or
d) you happen to have a friend who has a Core i3 chip that he wants to get rid of, so you can get it for far below market price even for a used processor.
None of those are common scenarios.
If you're looking to get a gaming desktop on a budget of $1000-$1500 excluding peripherals, a Core i5-4690K is usually the recommended CPU. It's also a reasonable choice outside that range a little in either direction. A Core i5 in a laptop can be a decent enough chip, but Intel usually prices them such that they're not a good value for the money. If you want more CPU performance in a laptop than you'd get from an AMD chip (as you probably do in a gaming laptop on a largish budget), you should probably look at a Core i7-47** quad core.
i3 is very fine for gaming. Modern CPUs are vastly more powerful than what computional demand is.
Having 4 cores/threads is all one needs, any other paramters are pretty much negligable.
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html
This isn't true. CPU intensive games certainly exist and can hold back even the highest end graphics cards. A CPU intensive game that is designed for 4 cores or more will perform dreadfully on an i3.
One example, http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/strategy/Company%20of%20Heroes%202-2/test/coh%20proz.png
Hyperthreading says "Hi!"
That could be probably due bad optimization rather than anything. Regardless, those are very specific titles than anything, vast majority of games will run absolutely fine.
I would personally go for i5-4460 which can be found for very attractive price these days(about 190 USD), but i3 is nothing to be feared of when you are on tighter budget, money spent on GPU will still provide you more FPS.
I don't know that I've ever seen a i3 suggested over a AMD option for gaming on a budget. I gamed on an i3 for yearsfrustrating often enough. Stuttering. Are they all still 2 cores? I just looked briefly at ark and did not see any with four cores.
Probably to late. Whose building it? Look up the specific parts and price them out if someone local. If its from a big manufacturer link it so you get advice and thoughts on it. Last thing you should do is rush into a purchase like this poorly informed. Most people have been there and done at one point or another.
Two cores for the price of six, you say? What could possibly go wrong?
If you want to save money by not shelling out for a Core i5-4690K or something in that ballpark, the way to do it is to go with AMD, such as an FX-6300. That's substantially cheaper than a Core i3 (partially because the motherboard will be cheaper), not that much slower in single-threaded performance, and having six real cores rather than two means that you can get massively more performance in cases that scale well to many cores.
If a game does decide to lean heavily on the CPU and use a lot of cores, an FX-6300 is ready for that workload and a Core i3 isn't. And that's a very plausible future with options that eliminate the rendering thread single-threaded bottleneck available now in OpenGL and Mantle and coming soon in DirectX.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-6.html
start reading.
As I already told you: Nothing.
You spread false info and empty speculations.
1) i3 isn't substantially more expensive - there is about 10% difference in price.
2) Intel board is definitely not more expensive.
3) Yes, FX-6300 is definitely slower in per thread/core performance.
4) There aren't really any games that would sensibly utilize more than 4 threads and won't be for a long time.
5) Even if so, the bottleneck will occur on GPU long before than CPU - you won't notice the 100 USD difference in CPU once you get above certain, fairly low CPU power but you will damn make notice a difference in 100 USD spent on GPU.
6) FX-6300 is completely ill advice, it is a dead end platform.
As always with your posts - less theory, more practical application.
1 & 2) Intel boards are a bit more expensive. Add that to good i3 models usually being more expensive. That adds up to i3 being more expensive, maybe only something like 25$ for the package but it's money that could be spent elsewhere.
4) It's true that only few games are able to properly use more than 4 threads, but we're talking about 2 cores vs. 6 cores. Your previous posts suggests that you think hyperthreading will somehow magically make the 2 cores to perform as fast as 4 cores would. That's not true, i3 still has only 2 cores and hyperthreading is just a way to utilize those 2 cores better.
It's unknown how many games will have more than 4 threads some years in the future, but it's guaranteed that games will become slowly better at utilizing multiple threads and FX-6300's advantage over i3 will grow.
5) If that's true, then the AMD suggested by Quizzical is better because it's cheaper.
6) It's true that i3 has the advantage of being able to upgrade to i5 while keeping the same motherboard.
The difference for it would depend on what you are doing, and what else your going to buy. If you bought a i3 and a 680gtx, vs a i7 and a 650, the i3 and the 680 gtx would work alot alot better. I am sure some ones gonna tell you some game some where is gonna use the faster processor, but i havent found it.
When me and my friend had the same graphics card, the 5870, and i have a i 5 3570k at the time oced to 4.8 and he has a amd 1090t amd, there was almost no difference in fps in battle field.
I would also say dont waste your money on the k processors, I have ran crazy water coolers, for my processor and graphics card, and its a waste of money. It doesnt give you much of a boost. If i spent the 150 i spend on water cooling, to upgrade to a better graphics card it would be better.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-frame-rate-performance,3427-5.html
there u go its like 9 fps difference. between a i3 and a i5. If 9 fps is worth 100+ dollars to you than go for it. I can say this if you took the 100 bucks and went from a 660 to a 670 you could get more fps than going from a i3 to a i5
As mmorpgtester suggested go to:
TomsHardware.
That review was from the beginning of 2013. Back then I would have probably said that i3 is just fine for gaming.
Technology evolves and for the past year we've had quite large number of games asking for more cores. If you're building a computer that should last a couple of years into the future, more cores than just 2 would be good investment.
1) Not true at all, in fact it is rather the other way round unless you want to run FX-6300 in AMD 760 board. i3 can run just fine on cheaper H81.
4) Maybe you should look up what Hyperthreading actually is because it does precisely that magic - provides 2 logical processors per core = 4 threads, just like any Quad core. While not as powerful, it can process multithreaded operations like any multicore cpu.
5) Random words...?