# i5 vs i7 dilemma



## Octopuss (Jun 21, 2012)

Is there ANY other difference between those two other than HT and slightly more cache?
I will be upgrading in the upcoming months, but man CPUs are costy. I was thinking 3570K could suit my needs the most since I don't see any benefit in HT in my case.


----------



## sneekypeet (Jun 21, 2012)

HT is really about usage of the CPU. What are your plans with this rig, just gaming and surfing?


----------



## theeldest (Jun 22, 2012)

Yes, HT and cache is only difference.

If budget is a concern the i5 with a mid-range cooler is always faster than an i7 with a stock cooler (assuming you overclock) and cheaper.


----------



## lyndonguitar (Jun 23, 2012)

Octopuss said:


> Is there ANY other difference between those two other than HT and slightly more cache?
> I will be upgrading in the upcoming months, but man CPUs are costy. I was thinking 3570K could suit my needs the most since I don't see any benefit in HT in my case.



If you're just gaming get the i5, almost the same performance, if you're planning on doing some encoding, crunching or doing many things at a time then get the i7.


----------



## Widjaja (Jun 23, 2012)

Depending on what you are upgrading from, even an i5 can be vastly superior in performance with gaming and encoding.

If you have skipped the first gen i series chips, you will see a massive performance gain in encoding times.
Plus Intel 2nd gen and later also have quick sync which certain payware supports for even faster encoding times.


----------



## Octopuss (Jun 24, 2012)

Well, the idea is that I don't do ANY heavy multitasking, so 8 "cores" is useless to me, and 2MB extra cache is not going to do miracles, unless I missed on something.

I have, um, overclocked Core2Duo E8400 atm


----------



## Widjaja (Jun 24, 2012)

You should see a noticeable performance gain in performance over the spectrum.
Going from a Core 2 Q6600 to a i5 2500K, there was some noticeable difference in gaming, but a very noticeable performance gain in encoding times.

The difference in encoding with AutoGK was roughly 45 minutes less with the 2500K.


----------



## mstenholm (Jun 24, 2012)

Octopuss said:


> Well, the idea is that I don't do ANY heavy multitasking, so 8 "cores" is useless to me, and 2MB extra cache is not going to do miracles, unless I missed on something.
> 
> I have, um, overclocked Core2Duo E8400 atm



So do I. It's my work PC (got all the software). I also have a i7 laptop (2720QM) and it is so much faster in most tasks. My e8400 is running at 3,9 GHz and the laptop at 3,3 max (one core). I'm sure that 4 real cores (3570K) will feel like a real upgrade.


----------



## BraveSoul (Jul 4, 2012)

i5


----------



## Octopuss (Jul 5, 2012)

mstenholm said:


> So do I. It's my work PC (got all the software). I also have a i7 laptop (2720QM) and it is so much faster in most tasks. My e8400 is running at 3,9 GHz and the laptop at 3,3 max (one core). I'm sure that 4 real cores (3570K) will feel like a real upgrade.


Those mobile CPUs seem slow as hell to me no matter how powerful they theoretically are. I bought HP Pavilion - high end model - laptop for my father in law recently, and despite having the fastest i7 (SB), Windows often simply kind of freezes doing stuff. Like when I click on something, sometimes nothing happens for one, two three or more seconds (not always). My C2D doesn't at all, ever. Weird.


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 5, 2012)

Octopuss said:


> Those mobile CPUs seem slow as hell to me no matter how powerful they theoretically are. I bought HP Pavilion - high end model - laptop for my father in law recently, and despite having the fastest i7 (SB), Windows often simply kind of freezes doing stuff. Like when I click on something, sometimes nothing happens for one, two three or more seconds (not always). My C2D doesn't at all, ever. Weird.



Sounds like a driver or hard drive speed issue. The processor isn't the only thing that determines performance. Not to sound like a broken record, but if you're just gaming and surfing, go with the i5. The i7 is better if you're going to be doing stuff while you game, encoding video, running virtual machines, and other multi-threaded tasks aside from benchmarks. All in all, the i5 suits the needs for most people and people who get the i7 either need it, have money to waste, or simply want bragging rights. Hyper Threading just utilizes parts of the CPU that are otherwise left unused under normal operation without it. I will admit, the extra cache can help a lot depending on the workload. I have the i7 3820 and on certain workloads it loves the 10Mb of L3, but for gaming, it is unnecessary.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jul 5, 2012)

Octopuss said:


> Those mobile CPUs seem slow as hell to me no matter how powerful they theoretically are. I bought HP Pavilion - high end model - laptop for my father in law recently, and despite having the fastest i7 (SB), Windows often simply kind of freezes doing stuff. Like when I click on something, sometimes nothing happens for one, two three or more seconds (not always). My C2D doesn't at all, ever. Weird.



Maybe it's set to some power saving features. Very useful nevertheless when you're on batteries.


----------



## Nordic (Jul 5, 2012)

Octopuss said:


> Those mobile CPUs seem slow as hell to me no matter how powerful they theoretically are. I bought HP Pavilion - high end model - laptop for my father in law recently, and despite having the fastest i7 (SB), Windows often simply kind of freezes doing stuff. Like when I click on something, sometimes nothing happens for one, two three or more seconds (not always). My C2D doesn't at all, ever. Weird.



I have a sandy i3 mobile in my laptop and I don't get any of that. Thing sure is slow when zipping a file or something but no freezes.

So... I agree about a driver issue or something other than the processor.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jul 5, 2012)

Honestly I say, if you got the money get the i7. My deciding factor for getting the 2600k vs the 2500k was simply, I had the money, that way later on I wouldn't regret my decision.


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 6, 2012)

Octopuss said:


> Those mobile CPUs seem slow as hell to me no matter how powerful they theoretically are. I bought HP Pavilion - high end model - laptop for my father in law recently, and despite having the fastest i7 (SB), Windows often simply kind of freezes doing stuff. Like when I click on something, sometimes nothing happens for one, two three or more seconds (not always). My C2D doesn't at all, ever. Weird.



It has nothing to do with the processor because the C2D wouldn't be anywhere near as fast as the slowest i-family CPU. 

Your fathers laptop probably has issues relating to another bottleneck like a slow hard disk drive or a corrupt driver or a piece of software which isnt being eco friendly with the resources. More than likely if its store bought there will be a bunch of preloaded extra which are not part of a traditional Windows installation which will do havoc to the resources.

But yes, its not normal, but it isnt a CPU issue.


----------



## Octopuss (Jul 8, 2012)

I don't know. The laptop is completely fresh and clean installation of W7 I did myself, so I have pretty good idea about the whole brick  The disk is slow as hell for sure, but it's not always doing things. I will experiment with it a little when I get down there again. It's not a priority of any kind, just interesting situation.


Back on topic:

I am probably gonna end up upgrading within a month or so. Last time I did was when I bought this C2D back in 2009 or even (probably) 2007. I deserve refreshment!

Questions:
1) I am die-hard fan of Gigabyte. Shall I go with their UD line of boards just like I ever have? I got my eyes on GA-Z77X-UD3H which seems cheap enough with all the features I want. In fact I don't need much  I don't need any extra LAN chips, no HDMI, no wifi, no eSATA (really) etc.

2) WIll probably get i5-3570K. Good enough - unless SB of similar speed can be bought for significantly less. What do you think?

3) RAM. I am a bit lost here. I briefly checked prices of DDR3 and man they are cheap! I will get 8GB just for the hell of it (maybe even 16 if I find the right chips because I itend to do a bit of virtualization for testing and learning purposes, and server 2008 is probably a bit hungry). Any recommendations? I've used Corsair Dominator in past, but was pretty interested in Mushkin at some point. Ideas?


----------



## cheesy999 (Jul 8, 2012)

Octopuss said:


> I don't know. The laptop is completely fresh and clean installation of W7 I did myself, so I have pretty good idea about the whole brick  The disk is slow as hell for sure, but it's not always doing things. I will experiment with it a little when I get down there again. It's not a priority of any kind, just interesting situation.
> 
> 
> Back on topic:
> ...



I own a core I5 laptop, and although it's only a dual core model it performs almost as good as my phenom II X4 desktop, so there would appear to be something wrong with the laptop if you think it's slow.

1)At the moment most brands are similar in terms of features and performance, so realistically go for whatever has the best mix of price and features for you.

2)The 3570K is mainly an improvement in power consumption and inbuilt graphics compared to the 2500K, and both overclock well, so unless you care significantly about power consumption just go for whatever is cheaper

3)The RAM will have little noticeable impact on the PC's performance outside of benchmarking, just make sure it's a matching pair in the capacity you want and you'll be ok


----------



## INSTG8R (Jul 8, 2012)

1Kurgan1 said:


> Honestly I say, if you got the money get the i7. My deciding factor for getting the 2600k vs the 2500k was simply, I had the money, that way later on I wouldn't regret my decision.



Same logic.


----------



## Octopuss (Jul 8, 2012)

cheesy999 said:


> I own a core I5 laptop, and although it's only a dual core model it performs almost as good as my phenom II X4 desktop, so there would appear to be something wrong with the laptop if you think it's slow.
> 
> 1)At the moment most brands are similar in terms of features and performance, so realistically go for whatever has the best mix of price and features for you.
> 
> ...


Well, the RAM doesn't play very important role but you can still get something tiny bit faster for more or less same money. I will gladly get something with CL7 instead of 9 if it won't cost anything  Was just checking whether someone has any great experience with something specific.
As for the CPU, I will probably just buy the i5 because of warranty. You never know what you get going 2nd hand. And the price difference can't be huge anyway.


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 9, 2012)

Octopuss said:


> Well, the RAM doesn't play very important role but you can still get something tiny bit faster for more or less same money.



I've had games bottleneck on memory speed in the past. I disagree with your assessment. IVB has a fantastic memory controller, it's worth taking advantage of it unless you need a ton of memory, in that case it gets expensive really faster, but even for 8gb of 1866 is relatively cheap. I built a 2600k rig for my parents about a year ago and this is the memory I put in there. I don't know what vendors you have in your area or how their prices are, but it worked really well on that rig, which also has a gigabyte board.


----------



## Octopuss (Jul 9, 2012)

How can you tell they bottleneck on memory speed, out of curiosity? I like to have faster chips, no disagreement here


----------



## TheHunter (Jul 9, 2012)

get something like this and it will own 







forget mainstream lol and you can upgrade to IB-e 8core in the future.


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 9, 2012)

Octopuss said:


> How can you tell they bottleneck on memory speed, out of curiosity? I like to have faster chips, no disagreement here



When you overclock your cores and you get no speed boost, you change you memory latencies or memory speed and it impacts it. Also what else could it be if your GPU and CPU aren't being taxed 100% but the game continues to slowdown? I had that issue on my Phenom II 940 where DDR2-800 was my bottleneck. I squeezed a bit more out of it by boosting the NB clock and running the 800 @ 5-5-5-15 at 900 @ 4-5-5-14. I have DDR3-2133 on my 3820 and it's amazing. It's even more amazing when you start multitasking or encoding video.


----------



## Octopuss (Jul 9, 2012)

Seems I found the memory I wanted too: http://www.corsair.com/en/memory-by...channel-ddr3-memory-kit-cmd8gx3m2a2133c9.html
I can get the same model in 16GB version, but it would be 1866 instead of 2133 (or more than 1.5V). Naturally I wanna get the fastest thing out there.


----------



## Octopuss (Jul 11, 2012)

Anyone can confirm the difference between 1866 and 2133 is not something I should worry about?


----------



## Nordic (Jul 11, 2012)

Octopuss said:


> Anyone can confirm the difference between 1866 and 2133 is not something I should worry about?


What I have read before is that 1600 to 1866 doesn't do much more for you. So I imagine the difference between 1866 and 2133 is the same


----------



## wickerman (Jul 11, 2012)

I upgraded from DDR3 1600 to 2133 and overall noticed a decent increase in performance, but I generally do a lot of multitasking. I may have my 2560x1600 games up on my middle monitor, chats and music up on the left monitor, and keep an eye on my system performance/temps and the progress of my bluray ripping/encoding on the right. I typically don't have less than 8-12gb of ram used at any given time. But having said that, in terms of raw performance figures I really only saw maybe 3-5fps gain at the most overall. I don't think most people are starved for memory bandwidth these days, but what really does benefit from it is integrated graphics. If you have one of AMD's Llano processors then you absolutely benefit from having faster memory when you are using the IGP. In such a case you really are going to be starved for bandwidth.

But in terms of general system performance, Xbit Labs did a solid write up on the effect of memory timing and speed on the performance of IVB and it would seem generally DDR3 1866 or 2133 would be the sweet spot as they balance price and performance. Anything higher would be quite expensive in a 16gb kit for example. But if you only need 4gb or 8gb you might be able to find a more reasonable price.

The impact of any upgrade is always going to be subjective. How you use it is important, and that is especially true for memory. If most of your ram sits idle and you do very little in the way of bandwidth intensive applications then there is no reason to spend a lot of money on your memory subsystem. But I would recommend at least DDR3 1600 or 1866 given today's prices.


----------



## Octopuss (Jul 11, 2012)

Ok problem solved


----------



## Octopuss (Jul 16, 2012)

The world hates me!
CMD16GX3M2A1866C9 seems to be out of stock everywhere, apparently because it's new or something. I wouldn't mind to order it abroad if it was available somewhere! Any tips?


----------



## Bo$$ (Jul 16, 2012)

Octopuss said:


> The world hates me!
> CMD16GX3M2A1866C9 seems to be out of stock everywhere, apparently because it's new or something. I wouldn't mind to order it abroad if it was available somewhere! Any tips?



we have loads in the UK:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MY-351-CS&campaign=pcm/googleshopping


----------



## Nordic (Jul 16, 2012)

Wow that seems expensive to me. The difference is I can barely use my 8gb currently. It is 1866 compared to my 1600 ram but I don't need that. More power to you though


----------



## Octopuss (Jul 16, 2012)

omg that's expensive as hell, and we typically have higher prices than further to the west!


----------



## Bo$$ (Jul 16, 2012)

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MY-302-CS&groupid=701&catid=8&subcat=1387
try this


----------



## Nordic (Jul 16, 2012)

Octopuss said:


> omg that's expensive as hell, and we typically have higher prices than further to the west!


Glad its not just me



Bo$$ said:


> http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MY-302-CS&groupid=701&catid=8&subcat=1387
> try this


Thats just a little more than I paid, and its 1866


----------



## Octopuss (Jul 18, 2012)

I found something that could be considered alternative, and it's available right now: CMZ16GX3M2A1866C9 - Vengeance series. Unfortunately it doesn't show up on Corsair site (wtf?), so I assume it's not being produced anymore. Timings and voltage seem to be the same - 9-10-9-27/1.5V. Are the chips used the same though? At least this is about $20 cheaper as a bonus.
I don't have many choices it seems.
It's a shame, what I originally chose has those sexy useless blue LEDs  I never felt for this PC tuning nonsense, but for just once I wanted a bit of that 

P.S. I assume it's safe to ignore all the corsair marketing bullshit about the former kit I chose, saying _Designed to provide optimum performance for Intel-based PCs, our Intel DDR3 memory upgrades are rigorously tested on multiple Intel platforms and are.._ blabla


----------



## Bo$$ (Jul 18, 2012)

grab the vengance, they are pretty sweet. tight timing and fast.

I have those but in the 1600 format too 

edit: these are the same price  http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MY-122-GL&groupid=701&catid=8&subcat=1387


----------



## Octopuss (Jul 18, 2012)

Ok. I'll get it.
But the Dominators look SO cool!  boo


----------



## Octopuss (Jul 28, 2012)

There we go. I finally bought 3770K thinking fuckit, I will be good for another five years 

Also bought Hyper 212 EVO, and am thinking hard whether I should replace the fan with one of my good Noctuas...


----------



## Laurijan (Jul 28, 2012)

Here is one of my threads about if HT is worth it http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165766


----------



## Octopuss (Jul 28, 2012)

Up and running and I'm lovin' it more than McD!
8 cores will be cool when I get to install Win2008 server and a client or two in a VM.


----------

