Can someone explain me why the new skylake i3 is better in gaming than i5 4460? I've been told that every quad core cpu after haswell is better thsn a dual core even with hyperthreading . Though in every gaming benchmark the i3 is able to pull of more frames than the i5 even in games that can utilize 4 cores. The question is why?
Why i3-6100 is better than i5-4460
- Thread starter BulLove
- Start date
Solution
Karsten75
Judicious
- Oct 15, 2009
- 6,909
- 0
- 36,960
Newer, faster, probably a little less power draw and improved architecture so some things will run much faster than on older chips esp. things like video, etc. Or of not faster, with less processor utilization.
Might not apply to you and it may be marginal, so it's a decision that's entirely up to you.
Might not apply to you and it may be marginal, so it's a decision that's entirely up to you.
- Jun 19, 2011
- 33,490
- 1,620
- 159,590
- Oct 17, 2011
- 3,166
- 8
- 27,115
Not sure what source they're using to claim that a Skylake i3 will beat a Haswell i5, unless as @bignastyid mentioned they're only looking at performance with the iGPU...
http://www.techspot.com/review/1096-star-wars-battlefront-benchmarks/page3.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page5.html
In both cases, the i3-6100 handily beat by a Sandy Bridge i5, not to mention the Ivy Bridge & Haswell models. And the i5s do with lower core clocks (which just shows to me how much more efficient hardware cores are vs. "virtual"/HyperThreading cores).
http://www.techspot.com/review/1162-dark-souls-3-benchmarks/page5.html
Not as noticeable, due to the 60FPS frame cap. However, while apparently you'll get more mileage in that one the better your GPU is, the Sandy Bridge & newer i5s still managed to meet or exceed the i3's minimum framerate, again with lower core clocks.
If I had to make a judgement call, I'd say that a Skylake i3 would be a good budget buy over an i5 build...but only if a) you don't have the budget for a Skylake i5 build, b) you absolutely have to replace your hardware now, & c) you plan on replacing the i3 with an i5 in the near future.
http://www.techspot.com/review/1096-star-wars-battlefront-benchmarks/page3.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page5.html
In both cases, the i3-6100 handily beat by a Sandy Bridge i5, not to mention the Ivy Bridge & Haswell models. And the i5s do with lower core clocks (which just shows to me how much more efficient hardware cores are vs. "virtual"/HyperThreading cores).
http://www.techspot.com/review/1162-dark-souls-3-benchmarks/page5.html
Not as noticeable, due to the 60FPS frame cap. However, while apparently you'll get more mileage in that one the better your GPU is, the Sandy Bridge & newer i5s still managed to meet or exceed the i3's minimum framerate, again with lower core clocks.
If I had to make a judgement call, I'd say that a Skylake i3 would be a good budget buy over an i5 build...but only if a) you don't have the budget for a Skylake i5 build, b) you absolutely have to replace your hardware now, & c) you plan on replacing the i3 with an i5 in the near future.
teknobug
Distinguished
- Feb 10, 2011
- 407
- 1
- 18,815
The i3 has a faster IPC and would work well with single threaded games and applications but the i5 would hold out better on multi threaded stuff, for the most part the i5 would get more FPS out of GTA V or Witcher 3 thant he i3.
However my i3 6100 is very identical to my i5 3550 OC'd to 3.9GHz in performance with just about everything, even similar times in encoding but that might be due to the DDR4 vs DDR3 playing a part.
However my i3 6100 is very identical to my i5 3550 OC'd to 3.9GHz in performance with just about everything, even similar times in encoding but that might be due to the DDR4 vs DDR3 playing a part.
synphul
Champion
- Mar 11, 2011
- 9,477
- 7
- 54,965
If a game only primarily used 1-2 cores then the i3 would edge out the i5. It's also a good 500-600mhz faster depending how high the 4460 actually tops out in the game. If the cores do become loaded it won't likely reach all the way to 3.4ghz, but more like 3.2-3.3 ghz vs the newer i3's 3.8ghz. Factor around 5-10% ipc improvement on top of that. The faster cpu ran slightly better?
The i3 doesn't perform better aside from a few instances, not when compared to an equal i5. It's a bit drastic but let's compare a new dual core pentium anniversary overclocked to 4.8ghz and put it up against an old core 2 quad cpu and then be amazed that it's faster. Not even a faster core 2 quad, let's find the slowest version possible like the q6400 at 2.13ghz rather than a q9650 at 3ghz. A bit of an unfair comparison.
The i3 doesn't perform better aside from a few instances, not when compared to an equal i5. It's a bit drastic but let's compare a new dual core pentium anniversary overclocked to 4.8ghz and put it up against an old core 2 quad cpu and then be amazed that it's faster. Not even a faster core 2 quad, let's find the slowest version possible like the q6400 at 2.13ghz rather than a q9650 at 3ghz. A bit of an unfair comparison.
synphul
Champion
- Mar 11, 2011
- 9,477
- 7
- 54,965
I said it was a drastic emphasis but comparing the i3 6300 to the i5 4460 is unfair. Technically 2 gens apart, 4th and 6th (even though broadwell didn't really happen to any extent).
i3 6300 - 3.8ghz (+5-10% ipc)
i5 4460 - up to 3.4ghz (when one core is fully loaded, which is why intel states up to) with a base clock of 3.2ghz.
Pretty much the fastest i3 (the i3 6320 is only 100mhz faster) vs the 4460 which is only 200mhz from being the slowest i5.
I suppose we could oc the 6600k to 4.7ghz and compare it to a 2.9ghz i3 4130t and go oh look, the i3 sucks cause it's older/slower. Not much of a statement made there was my point.
A car with a top end of 120mph and one with a top end of 190mph, which might be a bit faster?
i3 6300 - 3.8ghz (+5-10% ipc)
i5 4460 - up to 3.4ghz (when one core is fully loaded, which is why intel states up to) with a base clock of 3.2ghz.
Pretty much the fastest i3 (the i3 6320 is only 100mhz faster) vs the 4460 which is only 200mhz from being the slowest i5.
I suppose we could oc the 6600k to 4.7ghz and compare it to a 2.9ghz i3 4130t and go oh look, the i3 sucks cause it's older/slower. Not much of a statement made there was my point.
A car with a top end of 120mph and one with a top end of 190mph, which might be a bit faster?
synphul
Champion
- Mar 11, 2011
- 9,477
- 7
- 54,965
It depends on the tasks. If it's a task that makes full use of 4 cores, the i5 may do a little better but again you have a 500-600mhz speed difference in favor of the chip that has a 5-10% ipc improvement and is at least 2yrs newer. It's not really a fair comparison for that reason. A faster i3 with mainly 2 cores loaded will be faster than an i5 with four slower cores because the extra 2 cores aren't being used. A faster i3 with 2c/4t vs a slower i5 with 4c/4t may come close to the i5's performance where all 4 cores are fully loaded.
Real cores beat out ht, so 4 real cores vs 2 cores with ht is more powerful - at the same speed. Start gimping one or speeding up the other and it alters the equation. A 4c/8t i7 like the 6700k can outperform a 4c/4t i5 if it's fully utilized. Then again a 5960x with 8 true cores can outperform a 6700k, even with ht turned off - 8 true cores vs 4c/8t hyper threading. Provided it's fully used and provided the speeds are similar. Turn the 5960x down to 2ghz and bump the 6700k to 4.8ghz and sure the 'weaker' cpu may actually be faster.
Between the 4460 and 6300 I'd rather have the i3 also - for those games. For other tasks I might want the 4460. There's a roughly $30-40 difference. There's also roughly a $30-40 difference between the 4460 and 4690k so overall I'd rather have the 4690k and oc it. The i3 6300 won't outperform it, either multithreaded or single threaded.
Everything has to be considered, there are no simple rules. Clock speed isn't always the deciding factor, core count isn't always the deciding factor, generation isn't always the deciding factor. Programs change from one to the next even from game to game. There's no simple 'ht good' or 'ht bad' or 'gaming'.
People need to consider what games or programs they plan to run then consider which cpu will run them the best within a given budget. There's no need for an i7 or fx 8350 for a game that uses mainly 1-2 cores. If the game scaled to 4 cores or beyond then an fx 8350, i5 or i7 should be a consideration provided the gpu isn't the weakest link.
A similar effect happens in video encoding, many people consider the xeon 1231v3 to be the obvious better choice. Most video encoding programs can make use of multiple threads so hyper threading offers an advantage. Clock speed also plays a role though and a 4c/4t from the same generation of cpu's (no ipc advantage) can encode just as fast as a 4c/8t xeon when the i5 is overclocked a good deal. If it were strictly stock to stock, yes the xeon would be better thanks to ht but ht isn't the whole picture. One has ht, the other has clock speed and in the end they tend to balance out. Much like we see with the i3 vs i5 here.
Real cores beat out ht, so 4 real cores vs 2 cores with ht is more powerful - at the same speed. Start gimping one or speeding up the other and it alters the equation. A 4c/8t i7 like the 6700k can outperform a 4c/4t i5 if it's fully utilized. Then again a 5960x with 8 true cores can outperform a 6700k, even with ht turned off - 8 true cores vs 4c/8t hyper threading. Provided it's fully used and provided the speeds are similar. Turn the 5960x down to 2ghz and bump the 6700k to 4.8ghz and sure the 'weaker' cpu may actually be faster.
Between the 4460 and 6300 I'd rather have the i3 also - for those games. For other tasks I might want the 4460. There's a roughly $30-40 difference. There's also roughly a $30-40 difference between the 4460 and 4690k so overall I'd rather have the 4690k and oc it. The i3 6300 won't outperform it, either multithreaded or single threaded.
Everything has to be considered, there are no simple rules. Clock speed isn't always the deciding factor, core count isn't always the deciding factor, generation isn't always the deciding factor. Programs change from one to the next even from game to game. There's no simple 'ht good' or 'ht bad' or 'gaming'.
People need to consider what games or programs they plan to run then consider which cpu will run them the best within a given budget. There's no need for an i7 or fx 8350 for a game that uses mainly 1-2 cores. If the game scaled to 4 cores or beyond then an fx 8350, i5 or i7 should be a consideration provided the gpu isn't the weakest link.
A similar effect happens in video encoding, many people consider the xeon 1231v3 to be the obvious better choice. Most video encoding programs can make use of multiple threads so hyper threading offers an advantage. Clock speed also plays a role though and a 4c/4t from the same generation of cpu's (no ipc advantage) can encode just as fast as a 4c/8t xeon when the i5 is overclocked a good deal. If it were strictly stock to stock, yes the xeon would be better thanks to ht but ht isn't the whole picture. One has ht, the other has clock speed and in the end they tend to balance out. Much like we see with the i3 vs i5 here.
- Oct 17, 2011
- 3,166
- 8
- 27,115
Which is why it's also important to look at what you want your PC to do, especially if you're planning on gaming with it.
As I pointed out in my prior post, in some of the more recent games (or at least ones that show Skylake benchmarks), that Skylake i3's higher core frequencies aren't actually helping it, as the "slower" i5s from four generations back (Sandy Bridge ==> Ivy Bridge ==> Haswell ==> Broadwell ==> Skylake) have measurably better game performance. This makes sense, however, as the dual-core/HyperThreaded i3s (even the mighty Skylakes) are cutting their individual core's performance in order to function in HyperThreaded modes. Again, if it comes down to an application only utilizing 1 or even 2 cores, then yes, core clock speeds as well as the actual performance per clock cycle does become more important...but that advantage goes away once you get beyond the 2nd core.
As I pointed out in my prior post, in some of the more recent games (or at least ones that show Skylake benchmarks), that Skylake i3's higher core frequencies aren't actually helping it, as the "slower" i5s from four generations back (Sandy Bridge ==> Ivy Bridge ==> Haswell ==> Broadwell ==> Skylake) have measurably better game performance. This makes sense, however, as the dual-core/HyperThreaded i3s (even the mighty Skylakes) are cutting their individual core's performance in order to function in HyperThreaded modes. Again, if it comes down to an application only utilizing 1 or even 2 cores, then yes, core clock speeds as well as the actual performance per clock cycle does become more important...but that advantage goes away once you get beyond the 2nd core.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question Download speed is slow on only my PC - please help!- Started by Ograsmium
- Replies: 16
-
-
Question New installed W11 on sdd, D drive (HDD) goes to the 100% in seconds
- Started by Emily_Vin
- Replies: 7
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram