Pentium vs i3 vs i5 vs i7

[Estaric]

So i got curious and decided to see what would happen if i matched all these against each other.(pentium= 2 core 2 thread btw)



First up is the Pentium

Next up is i3

Next up i5

Next up the most expensive and should be most powerful

All of these test were ran with a stock i7 2600 and a slightly overclocked R9 Fury

 

[Frick]

Try some modern games instead. BF1 couldn't move more than 35FPS on my system, I'm pretty sure it was because the dual core.

 

[_JP_]

I'm going to be a party-pooper, even though I like it when there are benchmarks like this for relative performance and scalability, but the results are skewed beginning with the clock speed.
The fastest sandy pentium clocks at 3.1GHz...aaaaand all processor "tiers" have different cache sizes, which have a real impact on benchmark results for processor-focused analysis
Still, interesting nonetheless

 

[Estaric]

I'm going to be a party-pooper, even though I like it when there are benchmarks like this for relative performance and scalability, but the results are skewed beginning with the clock speed.
The fastest sandy pentium clocks at 3.1GHz...aaaaand all processor "tiers" have different cache sizes, which have a real impact on benchmark results for processor-focused analysis
Still, interesting nonetheless

its a good test none the less. it shows that i7 and i5 are not the only choice for minor gaming

 

[Erazem]

its a good test none the less. it shows that i7 and i5 are not the only choice for minor gaming

Aren't the new skylake i3s with very high clocks especially good for most games?

 

[Caring1]

Aren't the new skylake i3s with very high clocks especially good for most games?

Skylake i3 => Sandy Bridge i5 IMO.

 

[_JP_]

its a good test none the less. it shows that i7 and i5 are not the only choice for minor gaming

They never were to begin with, maybe now we'll start to see more 4-core optimized games, but for the most part, very fast dual-cores (w/HT) will do the job nicely given that the GPU used is balanced to do heavy work

Skylake i3 => Sandy Bridge i5 IMO.

By now, probably

 

[SnakeDoctor]

Heaven Benchmarks are all using the same Cpu "i7 2600" ?? confused wheres the comparison ?

 

[Nosada]

Heaven Benchmarks are all using the same Cpu "i7 2600" ?? confused wheres the comparison ?

He disabled cores and HT to simulate lower tier CPU's. It's not 100% accurate as he still has higher cache available, but for 99% of applications (and gaming especially) this can be taken as solid proof.

The newest i3's are very impressive when gaming. And as shown by the release of the Playstation 4 Pro, the CPU is of very low importance for that purpose.

 

[FYFI13]

He disabled cores and HT to simulate lower tier CPU's. It's not 100% accurate as he still has higher cache available, but for 99% of applications (and gaming especially) this can be taken as solid proof.

I used to think things work that way and i proved myself to be wrong. I have performed many tests G3258 @4.6GHz/4GHz uncore vs 4790K (@4.6GHz/4GHz uncore, 2 cores active, HT off. In CPU intensive games Pentium showed 100% CPU usage, while simulated Pentium (4790K) still had 10-15% of headroom. Frame latency also was considerably higher on actual Pentium. Plus, in some tittles 100% load on Pentium resulted serious lag spikes and choppy audio, while simulated Pentium ran just fine.
All tests were performed on the same machine + same Windows installation.

 

[Kanan]

He disabled cores and HT to simulate lower tier CPU's. It's not 100% accurate as he still has higher cache available, but for 99% of applications (and gaming especially) this can be taken as solid proof.

The newest i3's are very impressive when gaming. And as shown by the release of the Playstation 4 Pro, the CPU is of very low importance for that purpose.

So a overclocked 8 core cpu for a rx 470 gpu is now regarded as "low importance". Funny. No cpus were and always will be important.

And whether a i3 is as fast as a i5 Sandy depends on which game is used and if the i5 is overclocked. That said the i5 destroys the i3 in bf1 and if overclocked it laughs it's ass off on top of that. Most games now are 4 thread games (95%+) so a i5 or quad core is still the way to go with i7 being the best gaming cpu you can have atm. Again bf1 where a i5 is easily shown his limits against a i7. i3 is just a entry level cpu for gamers that never own more than a medium range gpu. And even then it isnt great and I'd rather buy a 4460 or 6500. Way better.

 

[Nosada]

A 2.1Ghz 8-core Jaguar is nothing to brag about. Not only was it comparatively slow when it was released, it was never meant to be a high performance part. There is plenty of technical data on the web showing that most games don't even bother using those 8 cores anyway. It is, by and far, the lowest performing part in a PS4. And still those Sony engineers decided that the GPU was the bottleneck. The Playstation 4 Pro pretty much proves that to get a major increase in graphics, all your eggs have to go in the GPU basket.

Most games now are 4 thread games (95%+) so a i5 or quad core is still the way to go with i7 being the best gaming cpu you can have atm.

An i7 can actually decrease our gaming performance, which is why some people disable HT entirely. 95% of games use 4 cores ... This is so blatantly wrong I don't even know what to answer. If you see 100% load on 4 cores while gaming, I'd invest in a decent anti-virus, if I were you.

I would also never take a slow quadcore over a fast dualcore, like already said, most engines depend more on the speed of that single core their process runs on, than how many extra you have laying around.

All of this will probably change several years after DX12/Vulcan have become the mainstream as they are natively multi-threaded, but as it stands, more cores add very little. If that were true, the path AMD took several years ago would have paid off ... It didn't.

Spoiler: And before anyone doubts my experience with multicore systems ...

 

[Kanan]

A 2.1Ghz 8-core Jaguar is nothing to brag about. Not only was it comparatively slow when it was released, it was never meant to be a high performance part. There is plenty of technical data on the web showing that most games don't even bother using those 8 cores anyway. It is, by and far, the lowest performing part in a PS4. And still those Sony engineers decided that the GPU was the bottleneck. The Playstation 4 Pro pretty much proves that to get a major increase in graphics, all your eggs have to go in the GPU basket.

I'd call that bullshit. Ps4 and xbone are using all cores reserved for gaming that are not reserved for the os. That's 5-7 cores each. Otherwise give me any proof. Thanks.

An i7 can actually decrease our gaming performance, which is why some people disable HT entirely. 95% of games use 4 cores ... This is so blatantly wrong I don't even know what to answer. If you see 100% load on 4 cores while gaming, I'd invest in a decent anti-virus, if I were you.

I said 4 threads and it isn't wrong because I talked about today's games smart ass. Next time you quote me actually understand what I'm saying first.
Also HTT on a 4 core is pretty good now at times. You're just making bold and pretty general and by that pretty much wrong statements.

I would also never take a slow quadcore over a fast dualcore, like already said, most engines depend more on the speed of that single core their process runs on, than how many extra you have laying around.

Wrong again. A dual core without htt is garbage now because many games won't even start on it.

All of this will probably change several years after DX12/Vulcan have become the mainstream as they are natively multi-threaded, but as it stands, more cores add very little. If that were true, the path AMD took several years ago would have paid off ... It didn't.

Didn't read so much unqualified bullshit in a long time. Quad core or at least 2 core htt are staple now everything less is shit. You have no clue about cpu usage in games I'd say. Even 6 cores and 6700k (4core htt) are getting used now that's why they are the best gaming cpus not i5s and i3s as you boldly and boldly wrong stated. Dx11 does pretty much use it now and the nvidia drivers are multi cpu programmed anyway. And actually amd cpus are getting better now because dx11 and dx12 focus (the games) on more cores now.

Proof:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/CPU-Hardware-154106/Tests/Rangliste-Bestenliste-1143392/
Select games on the table.

And before anyone doubts my experience with multicore systems ..."

Rofl that doesn't proof shit, sorry bro. Next time do your homework and provide real proof before being cocky again I'd say.

 

[TRUELOVE95]

A 2.1Ghz 8-core Jaguar is nothing to brag about. Not only was it comparatively slow when it was released, it was never meant to be a high performance part. There is plenty of technical data on the web showing that most games don't even bother using those 8 cores anyway. It is, by and far, the lowest performing part in a PS4. And still those Sony engineers decided that the GPU was the bottleneck. The Playstation 4 Pro pretty much proves that to get a major increase in graphics, all your eggs have to go in the GPU basket.


An i7 can actually decrease our gaming performance, which is why some people disable HT entirely. 95% of games use 4 cores ... This is so blatantly wrong I don't even know what to answer. If you see 100% load on 4 cores while gaming, I'd invest in a decent anti-virus, if I were you.

I would also never take a slow quadcore over a fast dualcore, like already said, most engines depend more on the speed of that single core their process runs on, than how many extra you have laying around.

All of this will probably change several years after DX12/Vulcan have become the mainstream as they are natively multi-threaded, but as it stands, more cores add very little. If that were true, the path AMD took several years ago would have paid off ... It didn't.

Spoiler: And before anyone doubts my experience with multicore systems ...

View attachment 80052

Hi there, I am i am interested in what you wrote about i7 decreasing gaming performance, I actually recall benches where a 6 core gaming vs 4 core gaming intel some benches the 4 core benched slightly higher fps.

this might go against the popular accepted perception or accepted logic of more cores = better, from my experience with phenom and AMD before the new bulldozer, a dual core with same architecture and non disable cache, meaning same GHz, cache, as a 4 core, the dual core is always higher than the 4 core in single core floating performance and other benches.

And old games before DX10 always ran on single cores, because coding a game to run on multiple cores is VERY very difficult.

I think both parties are right, as new OS systems now require multi core for gaming as they can be very task intensive, but I am not as sure. I have not gamed much on a dual core on W7 and above, but logically you would need a core to keep the os floating and other cores for gaming.

I think both parties are right at different scenarios, as games are moving from single core to multi and you can be on either side of the transition.

 

[TRUELOVE95]

This is a bench from polled users, and overclocks count, but you can look at the single integer values.
oc already skews the data towards X4 cores, but single integer 97.9 vs 93.6 Pts shows the dual core higher at single core applications.

single core float
amd X4
56.2 Pts

Amd X2
62.6 Pts

both cpu is identical in clock and cache

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Phenom-II-X4-965-vs-AMD-Phenom-II-X2-565/606vsm2173

 

[_JP_]

I'd call that bullshit. Ps4 and xbone are using all cores reserved for gaming that are not reserved for the os. That's 5-7 cores each. Otherwise give me any proof. Thanks.

Asking for proof while failing to submit your own renders your arguments as void.

I said 4 threads and it isn't wrong because I talked about today's games smart ass. Next time you quote me actually understand what I'm saying first.
Also HTT on a 4 core is pretty good now at times. You're just making bold and pretty general and by that pretty much wrong statements.

Well, just going by what OP posted, HT made zero difference, in both benchmarks...and this isn't new, since the days of Pentium 4, HT made little to no difference in games and non-specialized software.

Wrong again. A dual core without htt is garbage now because many games won't even start on it.

Uhm...no. If anything I've seen games refuse to start because there was an excess of multi-thread capability, instead of the lack of it. Fallout comes to mind. Your "many" will result in just a few, because you cannot count just the games that came out last week and even so, counting indies, I really doubt it reaches "many" that refuse to start, if any.

Didn't read so much unqualified bullshit in a long time. Quad core or at least 2 core htt are staple now everything less is shit. You have no clue about cpu usage in games I'd say. Even 6 cores and 6700k (4core htt) are getting used now that's why they are the best gaming cpus not i5s and i3s as you boldly and boldly wrong stated. Dx11 does pretty much use it now and the nvidia drivers are multi cpu programmed anyway. And actually amd cpus are getting better now because dx11 and dx12 focus (the games) on more cores now.

Pot meet kettle. I actually see overhead and unoptimized games having to use more resources for no reason, hardly making anything mandatory.

Rofl that doesn't proof shit, sorry bro. Next time do your homework and provide real proof before being cocky again I'd say.

Congratulations, you ended-up looking cocky.

 

[trog100]

all this shows is that it dosnt take much cpu horse power to feed a graphics card.. a game will be different.. some need more cpu horse power than others.. most dont need as much as some folks think.. not at normal game playing resolutions..

trog

 

[eidairaman1]

Try full screen and not windowed, anyone notice his screens all say core i7 2600 to match

 

[Kanan]

Asking for proof while failing to submit your own renders your arguments as void.

Too bad I actually did exactly that. Read my post again. Or to quote myself:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/CPU-Hardware-154106/Tests/Rangliste-Bestenliste-1143392/

Well, just going by what OP posted, HT made zero difference, in both benchmarks...and this isn't new, since the days of Pentium 4, HT made little to no difference in games and non-specialized software.

"Just by going by what OP posted" - is your universe so small? Pitiful. My point is made and is as valid as ever. The content of this thread doesn't change a bit about that fact.

Uhm...no. If anything I've seen games refuse to start because there was an excess of multi-thread capability, instead of the lack of it.

Wrong. Then you're simply not well informed. There are many games that don't start with under 3 or 4 threads, what essentially makes an i3 or FX CPU (or older 4 thread CPU like Phenom or Core 2 Quad etc.) required. My link up there, which you so conveniently ignored provides this proof too. Too bad you're absolutely nonsense up to this point.

Your "many" will result in just a few, because you cannot count just the games that came out last week and even so, counting indies, I really doubt it reaches "many" that refuse to start, if any.

Too bad my proof says otherwise and I never stated I'm talking about old games - the opposite is true I stated I'm talking about new games of 2015+.

Pot meet kettle. I actually see overhead and unoptimized games having to use more resources for no reason, hardly making anything mandatory.

Your whole post is irrelevant and full of nonsense, sorry.

Congratulations, you ended-up looking cocky.

Congratulations you totally wasted your time by overlooking or conveniently ignoring my link which proofs everything I said as right. You fail, Sir.

Thanks for the good laugh anyway. Uh, and before I forget it: I don't care if strange people like you see me as cocky. I couldn't care less actually. This thread is pointless anyway - sorry to say it. But there was a thread like this just a few months ago and 10 times more useful + a way better discussion in it going on.

 

[slozomby]

Hi there, I am i am interested in what you wrote about i7 decreasing gaming performance, I actually recall benches where a 6 core gaming vs 4 core gaming intel some benches the 4 core benched slightly higher fps.

at the same clock speed more cores are better. however most chips in the same family have lower clocks the more cores you add. example. the i7-6850k, 6900k, and 6950X.

for some games its all about raw clock speed. others thread better and can use more cores efficiently.

 

[Melvis]

FYI Unigine is 99% GPU related

Just look at all the benchmark results in the other thread.

 

[TRUELOVE95]

at the same clock speed more cores are better. however most chips in the same family have lower clocks the more cores you add. example. the i7-6850k, 6900k, and 6950X.

for some games its all about raw clock speed. others thread better and can use more cores efficiently.

Which is really interesting!!! I wonder if that scales up the higher the clock speed. Well it would percentage wise, logically, 10% of 2.0 ghz and @ 10%3.0ghz would be 200hz to 300hz. Interesting!!!!