Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel i5-4670 3.4 or 3.2GHz?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 30, 2013 4:03:08 PM

I'm doubting on choosing a 3.4 GHz or a 3.2 GHz Intel Core i5-4670 CPU.

I mean, what's the .2 GHz going to do better? It could save me €20,-
Is it a good VFM?

More about : intel 4670 2ghz

a c 188 à CPUs
August 30, 2013 4:09:30 PM

With intel CPU there stamp the part and speed that they passed Intel tests when they cut the wafer up, in real life your not going to see anything run showers on the 3.2 over the 3.4. You have to run benchmarking tests to see the diffrance.
m
0
l
a c 116 à CPUs
August 30, 2013 4:20:38 PM

Unless you want to try breaking benchmark records or run unusually CPU-intensive applications or games, a 4670 will likely serve you well for 3-5 years. That's the choice I made when I picked the i5-3470 for my new PC a year ago - by the time I might need more processor power than that, I will likely be due for a full-platform upgrade anyway so no point in splurging now on something I most likely won't need any time soon.
m
0
l
Related resources
August 30, 2013 4:34:55 PM

InvalidError said:
Unless you want to try breaking benchmark records or run unusually CPU-intensive applications or games, a 4670 will likely serve you well for 3-5 years. That's the choice I made when I picked the i5-3470 for my new PC a year ago - by the time I might need more processor power than that, I will likely be due for a full-platform upgrade anyway so no point in splurging now on something I most likely won't need any time soon.


But my question was if I would see / notice a difference on the 3.2 GHz.
I'm going to get an i5. I just want to know if there is a real difference between the 3.2 GHz and the 3.4 GHz version the Intel Core i5-4670 offers.
m
0
l
August 30, 2013 4:35:55 PM

A .2 difference.
m
0
l
August 30, 2013 4:48:27 PM

Bezzell said:
A .2 difference.


Don't get me wrong, but: Really?
I'm working on my first build. Would .2 GHz make a real difference? Would I actually notice it?
m
0
l
a c 116 à CPUs
August 30, 2013 4:58:25 PM

Venator44 said:
I'm working on my first build. Would .2 GHz make a real difference? Would I actually notice it?

Depending on what you do, even 1GHz might not make that much of a difference.

My i5-3470 is technically 2.5-3X as fast as the C2D-E8400 I had before but only feels ~50% faster for everyday stuff.

How much of a kick you get from upgrading depends entirely on what you want to do with it.
m
0
l
August 31, 2013 1:51:53 AM

Get a "K" tagged processor. Considering you''ll have it for the next 2-5 years, you may as well have the overclocking ability at your disposal. It may not seem important at the moment, but a couple years down the road, when you're looking for a smidge more performance, you'll have it.

Granted you'll probably see no difference in the real world from one chip to the next, even overclocked on any given platform. It's nice to have the option.

By the time any given CPU is due for an upgrade, it's time for a new mobo (chipset), RAM type (DDR2>3>4), anyhow.

Get a K and use it for the next couple years, then overclock for the couple after that, then new PC.
m
0
l
a c 116 à CPUs
August 31, 2013 5:15:37 AM

Bezzell said:
Get a K and use it for the next couple years, then overclock for the couple after that, then new PC.

By the time the PC starts feeling slow enough that you "need" to overclock it to tolerate it a little longer, even an optimistic 20% overclock is unlikely to save it.

IMO, it makes a lot more sense to give a K a mild overclock from day-1 and get some benefit from it for a couple of years before going for broke on OC than betting on OC to extend its useful life.
m
0
l
!