Intel i5 vs i7 CPU

[GeneralWhale]

If you are just going for gaming go with an i3 they are pretty much the old i5’s but for $100 cheaper but if you do any multitasking go for at least and i5


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AOD_Centaur6]

OP, how long are you planning to use this new CPU with GPU you currently have ? If you are thinking about GPU upgrade in the next year or two, don't go for cheapest CPU now.
i5-8600k sounds like a nice middleground and will not bottleneck next gen of graphics cards for sure.

[AOD_WeDGE]

im working on a 2018 build, its this- https://pcpartpicker.com/list/TQzvPs

since im using a cpu from 2009 (first gen i7 920) and a mobo that doesnt allow me to upgrade without replacing it, i think its for me at least a good time to invest in the i5 and the future

[ZED]

im working on a 2018 build, its this- https://pcpartpicker.com/list/TQzvPs

since im using a cpu from 2009 (first gen i7 920) and a mobo that doesnt allow me to upgrade without replacing it, i think its for me at least a good time to invest in the i5 and the future

Good choice! i5 8600k is almost on par with i7 7700k. The advantage of extra 2 cores over i7 7700k will benefit in the future once games begin to utilize more multi-core processing power.

[AOD_Heller222]

My dad has the 8th gen i5 and I have a i7700 k and by no means is it up to par he runs 97per usage while playing battlefield 1 and while streaming battlefield 1 I'm only at 50-75 usage the i7 7700k has much more power than the i5 8gens
Just remember it's a i5 vs an i7
More multi treds and much more

Sent from my LG-K210 using Tapatalk

[ZED]

My dad has the 8th gen i5 and I have a i7700 k and by no means is it up to par he runs 97per usage while playing battlefield 1 and while streaming battlefield 1 I'm only at 50-75 usage the i7 7700k has much more power than the i5 8gens
Just remember it's a i5 vs an i7
More multi treds and much more

Sent from my LG-K210 using Tapatalk

8th gen i5... Is it i5 8600k or some other i5? Also, did he OC and what OC he is running at? Because OC really matters for BF1. I've resolved an issue for one of fellow BF AOD members who had an i7 and he would get stuttering and terrible frame drops. It turned out that he was running stock i7 and his CPU was stuck at 100% with all the HT turned on. Overclocking his i7 resolved the issue and CPU usage dropped to 70% - 80%.

Here is a video benchmark i5 8600k running at 5 Ghz and CPU usage is ~80%

[ZED]

My dad has the 8th gen i5 and I have a i7700 k and by no means is it up to par he runs 97per usage while playing battlefield 1 and while streaming battlefield 1 I'm only at 50-75 usage the i7 7700k has much more power than the i5 8gens
Just remember it's a i5 vs an i7
More multi treds and much more

Sent from my LG-K210 using Tapatalk

Here is another i5 8600k running at 5.3 Ghz and hitting 50% - 70% utilization. Although, this one is 1440p resolution unlike the previous 1080p. Resolution also matters because 1080p will leave a larger impact on CPU than 1440p or 4k.

[AOD_Heller222]

Without an over clock my i7 7700k runs 4.7-5ghz when playing battlefield 1

I have both and the i7 7700k runs better and gets more frams and can run more programs at once I've tested

[ZED]

Without an over clock my i7 7700k runs 4.7-5ghz when playing battlefield 1

I have both and the i7 7700k runs better and gets more frams and can run more programs at once I've tested

Without an overclock the i5 8600k or i7 7700k?

Stock i7 7700k runs at 4.5 Ghz, while stock i5 8600k runs at 4.3 Ghz.

So if you are running your i7 7700k at 4.7 Ghz then it must be overclocked. There is a huge difference in performance for BF1 if you run i7 7700k stock vs OC. I've tested myself and as I said I've seen some AOD members at BF1 Division were struggling to run the game on stock i7 and overclocking resolved the issue of CPU usage.

i5 8600k has extra two PHYSICAL cores, which is better than Hyper Threading (in fact, some games don't like Hyper Threading and lose 2% - 5% performance when HT is ON). Thus, i5 8600k is better for gaming than i7 7700k. A lot of benchmarks show that i5 8600k is even on par with i7 8700k in many games. For example, here you can clearly see that i5 8600k is on par with i7 8700k in Battlefield 1: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/intel-...w-34060-4.html

Here is also DigitalFoundry comparing i5 8600k vs i7 8700k and i7 7700k. You can see that i5 8600k performas slightly better than i7 7700k in some games, while it costs $100 less.




P.S. I personally have i7 7700k and I've benchmarked, Overclocked and tested it myself as well and know well its capabilities.
P.S.S. Also, I posted other 2 video's with i5 8600k running Battlefield 1 and results are astonishing. If I had to build a PC now I'd go with i5 8600k and save those $100 for a better GPU.

[AOD_Heller222]

Ya it runs 4.7ghz on 2 cores without an overclock and I prefer a hyper CPU for faster processing I'm a streamer and it was also recommend for faster processing

Also keep in mind it's a i5 vs an i7 one is going to have a little more power/hyper tr

[AOD_Heller222]

It turbos to 4.7-5ghz* and it's the i7 7700k

Sent from my LG-K210 using Tapatalk

[AOD_Heller222]

Wait lol I forgot I'm over clocked to 5ghz lol sorry for the confusion
Wait which will overclock higher?

Sent from my LG-K210 using Tapatalk

[TheDarkFlame]

both are fine if its gamingh only i5 is better bang for the buck if you can pony up one better gpu if you alredy plan on getting a 1080ti go for the 7700k

[ZED]

both are fine if its gamingh only i5 is better bang for the buck if you can pony up one better gpu if you alredy plan on getting a 1080ti go for the 7700k

I'd go for i5 8600k over i7 7700k if I had to build another rig right now.
I have i7 7700k and all benchmarks show that i5 8600k beats i7 7700k in most games. Also, i5 8600k is $100 cheaper.

The difference between i5 8600k and i7 7700k is that i7 7700k has 2 more threads, while i5 8600k has 2 more physical cores, which is far better than having those extra 2 threads. Moreover, there are many games that actually perform by 2% - 5% slower when HT is on and again, benchmarks prove that and explains why i5 8600k beats i7 7700k in most games.

[ZED]

just wanted to add to my previous post above...
Also, most games still don't utilize more than 4 cores anyways. So, could optimize game performance even more by dedicating 4 cores towards the game and leaving 2 cores for OS and other background software, thus, you are boosting game performance by having 4 cores purely dedicated for the game and no other background tasks.

[Lilith]

I would personally spend the few extra hundred and go with the I7 and DDR4-16GB or 32GB + 3600 MHZ memory its awesome.

[effectiv]

I would personally spend the few extra hundred and go with the I7 and DDR4-16GB or 32GB + 3600 MHZ memory its awesome.

The only platform that benefits from high speed memory is Ryzen (to a certain extent), aside from very very few programs.

The extra cost for 3600mhz memory vs getting like 2600mhz or something isn't worth it. There's no discernible performance gain between 2133 and 3600+. More in this informational vid from LTT (I copied the timestamp so the video should start playing at the benchmark results): https://youtu.be/D_Yt4vSZKVk?t=272

Also, 16gb is overkill for most consumers. Unless you're creating content, there's no reason to go 32gb. When I create content, I see about 10gb being used at max. And that's while I'm in a game or two, teamspeak, etc.

RAM is at like an all time high right now as far as price point (Nearly $200 for a 8x2gb kit of DDR4), so I'd go against this and recommend not to get ridiculously high speed memory and more than what's needed. The price to performance ratio is just garbage right now.

If the OP is just looking for something for games, an i5 + decent gpu (varies based on games he plays) + 16gb of ram should be more than enough to have a decent build for a handful of years.

[ZED]

The extra cost for 3600mhz memory vs getting like 2600mhz or something isn't worth it. There's no discernible performance gain between 2133 and 3600+. More in this informational vid from LTT (I copied the timestamp so the video should start playing at the benchmark results): https://youtu.be/D_Yt4vSZKVk?t=272

I was gonna say the same. There is no performance increase in gaming past 3000 Mhz for RAM. In fact, you are not gaining much of a performance increase in most games. There are only a few games that benefit from faster RAM but again, after 3000 Mhz the performance begins to go down. Also, Mhz is not what gives the most performance there are other factors that are more important than Mhz, such as CL (CAS Latency). So, a 3000 Mhz RAM may be faster than 4000 Mhz RAM if the CL is much lower on 3000 Mhz RAM. So, when choosing RAM it is very important to look at CL values as well.

[Lilith]

The only platform that benefits from high speed memory is Ryzen (to a certain extent), aside from very very few programs.

The extra cost for 3600mhz memory vs getting like 2600mhz or something isn't worth it. There's no discernible performance gain between 2133 and 3600+. More in this informational vid from LTT (I copied the timestamp so the video should start playing at the benchmark results): https://youtu.be/D_Yt4vSZKVk?t=272

Also, 16gb is overkill for most consumers. Unless you're creating content, there's no reason to go 32gb. When I create content, I see about 10gb being used at max. And that's while I'm in a game or two, teamspeak, etc.

RAM is at like an all time high right now as far as price point (Nearly $200 for a 8x2gb kit of DDR4), so I'd go against this and recommend not to get ridiculously high speed memory and more than what's needed. The price to performance ratio is just garbage right now.

If the OP is just looking for something for games, an i5 + decent gpu (varies based on games he plays) + 16gb of ram should be more than enough to have a decent build for a handful of years.

Well I've noticed a huge FPS gain in certain Open GL Games of at least 30-40 FPS having higher MHZ memory I guess it depends how one choose to use it, and im running 32GB at the moment myself I use around 17-18GB at times.

I suppose it doesn't matter if ur an average gamer that just does a single game at once, but heck with just Battlefield 4 open in max graphics im using 5 gigs of memory for it.

[ZED]

Well I've noticed a huge FPS gain in certain Open GL Games of at least 30-40 FPS having higher MHZ memory I guess it depends how one choose to use it, and im running 32GB at the moment myself I use around 17-18GB at times.

I suppose it doesn't matter if ur an average gamer that just does a single game at once, but heck with just Battlefield 4 open in max graphics im using 5 gigs of memory for it.

30 - 40 FPS is a bit exaggerated. Mhz isn't everything. More Mhz doesn't mean more performance. CL (CAS Latency) is as important as Mhz. For example, a 2400 Mhz DDR 4 with CL 14 can be as fast as 3000 Mhz DDR 4 with CL 16.