Solved

which processor is better value for both money and gaming???????????

intel Core i3-6098P ,Core i5-6402P ,Core i3-6100
13 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about processor money gaming
  1. budget?
  2. I think the the i3 6100 wins hands down based on the price and higher clocks. It should be the best of the 3 in most games, and has better onboard graphics.
  3. We need to know the prices in your market before we can compare, based on raw specs, the i5-6402P would be the best if you can get it. Also @BadActor higher clocks really don't mean much these days unless they are like 500MHz apart. It's not 2003.

    We need to know what OP will use it for, and whether they need Onboard graphics. Then again comparing IGP is like comparing potatoes.
  4. Roryiscool said:
    We need to know the prices in your market before we can compare, based on raw specs, the i5-6402P would be the best if you can get it. Also @BadActor higher clocks really don't mean much these days unless they are like 500MHz apart. It's not 2003.

    We need to know what OP will use it for, and whether they need Onboard graphics. Then again comparing IGP is like comparing potatoes.


    Perhaps you should try looking at some game benchmarks. The i3 is usually within 10 FPS of an i5 6500. Based on the price to performance ratio, it is no contest.

    http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/71760-intel-skylake-i5-6500-i5-6400-i3-6100-review-10.html
  5. BadActor said:
    Roryiscool said:
    We need to know the prices in your market before we can compare, based on raw specs, the i5-6402P would be the best if you can get it. Also @BadActor higher clocks really don't mean much these days unless they are like 500MHz apart. It's not 2003.

    We need to know what OP will use it for, and whether they need Onboard graphics. Then again comparing IGP is like comparing potatoes.


    Perhaps you should try looking at some game benchmarks. The i3 is usually within 10 FPS of an i5 6500. Based on the price to performance ratio, it is no contest.

    http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/71760-intel-skylake-i5-6500-i5-6400-i3-6100-review-10.html


    Gaming benchmarks aren't a good use for determining CPU performance. Use passmark. the i3 6100 is pretty hard to beat for value though, but the jump up to an I5, if it's in his price range will be huge.
  6. I disagree, the op specifically said they're looking for a cpu to game with. Gaming benchmarks are the best thing to consider when looking at cpu's, preferably for the games the op intends to play. Passmark is a blanket score and there's no such thing as a game called passmark.

    A perfect example is the fx 8350 and i5 4690k. Passmark gives the fx a rating of 8,943 and the i5 a rating of 7,696 so the fx 'should' be around 16% faster. Fail according to most benchmarks whether you look at gaming, video encoding, photo editing etc. About the only thing an fx 8350 surpasses a 4690k at is zip compression.

    Out of a number of benchmarks encompassing all different tasks TH found the total time to complete for the fx 8350 was 1681 seconds while the 4690k only took 1607 seconds. Those included plenty of heavily threaded tasks. If the passmark assessment were even remotely accurate then the fx 8350 should have outperformed the i5 by around 16%, not 5% slower. There are real programs and then there's passmark, no one has ever beaten a game of passmark or encoded their videos on passmark.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2015/-36-Total-Time,3728.html

    https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp%5B%5D=2284&cmp%5B%5D=1780

    This isn't to say the i3 isn't a good gaming cpu for the money in any way, just to help people understand that passmark scores are highly misleading when it comes to the real world and a poor way to measure performance.
  7. synphul said:
    I disagree, the op specifically said they're looking for a cpu to game with. Gaming benchmarks are the best thing to consider when looking at cpu's, preferably for the games the op intends to play. Passmark is a blanket score and there's no such thing as a game called passmark.

    A perfect example is the fx 8350 and i5 4690k. Passmark gives the fx a rating of 8,943 and the i5 a rating of 7,696 so the fx 'should' be around 16% faster. Fail according to most benchmarks whether you look at gaming, video encoding, photo editing etc. About the only thing an fx 8350 surpasses a 4690k at is zip compression.

    Out of a number of benchmarks encompassing all different tasks TH found the total time to complete for the fx 8350 was 1681 seconds while the 4690k only took 1607 seconds. Those included plenty of heavily threaded tasks. If the passmark assessment were even remotely accurate then the fx 8350 should have outperformed the i5 by around 16%, not 5% slower. There are real programs and then there's passmark, no one has ever beaten a game of passmark or encoded their videos on passmark.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2015/-36-Total-Time,3728.html

    https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp%5B%5D=2284&cmp%5B%5D=1780

    This isn't to say the i3 isn't a good gaming cpu for the money in any way, just to help people understand that passmark scores are highly misleading when it comes to the real world and a poor way to measure performance.


    If we were going by game benchmarks only then why would anyone buy an i7? The difference in games is nil when comparing an i5 to an i7. The FX is faster because PassMark has good multi-core scaling, and most games don't. With DirectX 12 coming along, the FX may actually be a strong contender in games. PassMark is more accurate in CPU performance than games, which is why people use it and other synthetic benchmarks. Games will be up to developers for scalability in performance. PassMark is a great way to measure performance.

    Of course, relating to the thread OP could go with the 6100, but I think we can agree that the i5 will be much better for future-proofing and performance. Value goes down when you need to upgrade from an i3 anyway, unless you play games such as CSGO or TF2 when you won't need that extra power for a long time.
  8. Roryiscool said:
    synphul said:
    I disagree, the op specifically said they're looking for a cpu to game with. Gaming benchmarks are the best thing to consider when looking at cpu's, preferably for the games the op intends to play. Passmark is a blanket score and there's no such thing as a game called passmark.

    A perfect example is the fx 8350 and i5 4690k. Passmark gives the fx a rating of 8,943 and the i5 a rating of 7,696 so the fx 'should' be around 16% faster. Fail according to most benchmarks whether you look at gaming, video encoding, photo editing etc. About the only thing an fx 8350 surpasses a 4690k at is zip compression.

    Out of a number of benchmarks encompassing all different tasks TH found the total time to complete for the fx 8350 was 1681 seconds while the 4690k only took 1607 seconds. Those included plenty of heavily threaded tasks. If the passmark assessment were even remotely accurate then the fx 8350 should have outperformed the i5 by around 16%, not 5% slower. There are real programs and then there's passmark, no one has ever beaten a game of passmark or encoded their videos on passmark.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2015/-36-Total-Time,3728.html

    https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp%5B%5D=2284&cmp%5B%5D=1780

    This isn't to say the i3 isn't a good gaming cpu for the money in any way, just to help people understand that passmark scores are highly misleading when it comes to the real world and a poor way to measure performance.


    If we were going by game benchmarks only then why would anyone buy an i7? The difference in games is nil when comparing an i5 to an i7. The FX is faster because PassMark has good multi-core scaling, and most games don't. With DirectX 12 coming along, the FX may actually be a strong contender in games. PassMark is more accurate in CPU performance than games, which is why people use it and other synthetic benchmarks. Games will be up to developers for scalability in performance. PassMark is a great way to measure performance.

    Of course, relating to the thread OP could go with the 6100, but I think we can agree that the i5 will be much better for future-proofing and performance. Value goes down when you need to upgrade from an i3 anyway, unless you play games such as CSGO or TF2 when you won't need that extra power for a long time.



    I fail to see how Passmark is a more accurate judge of game performance than actual game benchmarks. For judging relative single core performance, it shines. We all agree that an i5 or an i7 is better for gaming, but that's not the point. The OP asked which of the three CPU's above was the best value for gaming and the answer is obvious. If you want to debate the merits of an i3 vs i5 vs i7 or the value of benchmarks, please start another thread.
  9. BadActor said:
    Roryiscool said:
    synphul said:
    I disagree, the op specifically said they're looking for a cpu to game with. Gaming benchmarks are the best thing to consider when looking at cpu's, preferably for the games the op intends to play. Passmark is a blanket score and there's no such thing as a game called passmark.

    A perfect example is the fx 8350 and i5 4690k. Passmark gives the fx a rating of 8,943 and the i5 a rating of 7,696 so the fx 'should' be around 16% faster. Fail according to most benchmarks whether you look at gaming, video encoding, photo editing etc. About the only thing an fx 8350 surpasses a 4690k at is zip compression.

    Out of a number of benchmarks encompassing all different tasks TH found the total time to complete for the fx 8350 was 1681 seconds while the 4690k only took 1607 seconds. Those included plenty of heavily threaded tasks. If the passmark assessment were even remotely accurate then the fx 8350 should have outperformed the i5 by around 16%, not 5% slower. There are real programs and then there's passmark, no one has ever beaten a game of passmark or encoded their videos on passmark.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2015/-36-Total-Time,3728.html

    https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp%5B%5D=2284&cmp%5B%5D=1780

    This isn't to say the i3 isn't a good gaming cpu for the money in any way, just to help people understand that passmark scores are highly misleading when it comes to the real world and a poor way to measure performance.


    If we were going by game benchmarks only then why would anyone buy an i7? The difference in games is nil when comparing an i5 to an i7. The FX is faster because PassMark has good multi-core scaling, and most games don't. With DirectX 12 coming along, the FX may actually be a strong contender in games. PassMark is more accurate in CPU performance than games, which is why people use it and other synthetic benchmarks. Games will be up to developers for scalability in performance. PassMark is a great way to measure performance.

    Of course, relating to the thread OP could go with the 6100, but I think we can agree that the i5 will be much better for future-proofing and performance. Value goes down when you need to upgrade from an i3 anyway, unless you play games such as CSGO or TF2 when you won't need that extra power for a long time.



    I fail to see how Passmark is a more accurate judge of game performance than actual game benchmarks. For judging relative single core performance, it shines. We all agree that an i5 or an i7 is better for gaming, but that's not the point. The OP asked which of the three CPU's above was the best value for gaming and the answer is obvious. If you want to debate the merits of an i3 vs i5 vs i7 or the value of benchmarks, please start another thread.


    Benchmarks exist for a reason. We can debate all day, but we all know the i5 will be much better for games like BF4, or the i3 will be better for games like Minecraft. To get a fair comparison for all CPUs, we need a benchmark. I agree I am getting a bit sidetracked here.

    We need to know OP's budget first, and how much each of the CPUs cost for him. If they are all priced in the same bracket, the i5-6402P is the obvious choice.
  10. Best answer
    The i3 6100 obviously wins.
    If you can get i5 6500, that's a better choice.
    Don't go for i5 6400 !!!
  11. Roryiscool said:
    BadActor said:
    Roryiscool said:
    synphul said:
    I disagree, the op specifically said they're looking for a cpu to game with. Gaming benchmarks are the best thing to consider when looking at cpu's, preferably for the games the op intends to play. Passmark is a blanket score and there's no such thing as a game called passmark.

    A perfect example is the fx 8350 and i5 4690k. Passmark gives the fx a rating of 8,943 and the i5 a rating of 7,696 so the fx 'should' be around 16% faster. Fail according to most benchmarks whether you look at gaming, video encoding, photo editing etc. About the only thing an fx 8350 surpasses a 4690k at is zip compression.

    Out of a number of benchmarks encompassing all different tasks TH found the total time to complete for the fx 8350 was 1681 seconds while the 4690k only took 1607 seconds. Those included plenty of heavily threaded tasks. If the passmark assessment were even remotely accurate then the fx 8350 should have outperformed the i5 by around 16%, not 5% slower. There are real programs and then there's passmark, no one has ever beaten a game of passmark or encoded their videos on passmark.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2015/-36-Total-Time,3728.html

    https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp%5B%5D=2284&cmp%5B%5D=1780

    This isn't to say the i3 isn't a good gaming cpu for the money in any way, just to help people understand that passmark scores are highly misleading when it comes to the real world and a poor way to measure performance.


    If we were going by game benchmarks only then why would anyone buy an i7? The difference in games is nil when comparing an i5 to an i7. The FX is faster because PassMark has good multi-core scaling, and most games don't. With DirectX 12 coming along, the FX may actually be a strong contender in games. PassMark is more accurate in CPU performance than games, which is why people use it and other synthetic benchmarks. Games will be up to developers for scalability in performance. PassMark is a great way to measure performance.

    Of course, relating to the thread OP could go with the 6100, but I think we can agree that the i5 will be much better for future-proofing and performance. Value goes down when you need to upgrade from an i3 anyway, unless you play games such as CSGO or TF2 when you won't need that extra power for a long time.



    I fail to see how Passmark is a more accurate judge of game performance than actual game benchmarks. For judging relative single core performance, it shines. We all agree that an i5 or an i7 is better for gaming, but that's not the point. The OP asked which of the three CPU's above was the best value for gaming and the answer is obvious. If you want to debate the merits of an i3 vs i5 vs i7 or the value of benchmarks, please start another thread.


    Benchmarks exist for a reason. We can debate all day, but we all know the i5 will be much better for games like BF4, or the i3 will be better for games like Minecraft. To get a fair comparison for all CPUs, we need a benchmark. I agree I am getting a bit sidetracked here.

    We need to know OP's budget first, and how much each of the CPUs cost for him. If they are all priced in the same bracket, the i5-6402P is the obvious choice.


    Wrong. The i3 will be better due to i5's poor single-threaded performance. (I'm talking about i5 6402P or i5 6400)
    The i5 6402P is not the obvious choice.
  12. Technologify said:
    Roryiscool said:
    BadActor said:
    Roryiscool said:
    synphul said:
    I disagree, the op specifically said they're looking for a cpu to game with. Gaming benchmarks are the best thing to consider when looking at cpu's, preferably for the games the op intends to play. Passmark is a blanket score and there's no such thing as a game called passmark.

    A perfect example is the fx 8350 and i5 4690k. Passmark gives the fx a rating of 8,943 and the i5 a rating of 7,696 so the fx 'should' be around 16% faster. Fail according to most benchmarks whether you look at gaming, video encoding, photo editing etc. About the only thing an fx 8350 surpasses a 4690k at is zip compression.

    Out of a number of benchmarks encompassing all different tasks TH found the total time to complete for the fx 8350 was 1681 seconds while the 4690k only took 1607 seconds. Those included plenty of heavily threaded tasks. If the passmark assessment were even remotely accurate then the fx 8350 should have outperformed the i5 by around 16%, not 5% slower. There are real programs and then there's passmark, no one has ever beaten a game of passmark or encoded their videos on passmark.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2015/-36-Total-Time,3728.html

    https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp%5B%5D=2284&cmp%5B%5D=1780

    This isn't to say the i3 isn't a good gaming cpu for the money in any way, just to help people understand that passmark scores are highly misleading when it comes to the real world and a poor way to measure performance.


    If we were going by game benchmarks only then why would anyone buy an i7? The difference in games is nil when comparing an i5 to an i7. The FX is faster because PassMark has good multi-core scaling, and most games don't. With DirectX 12 coming along, the FX may actually be a strong contender in games. PassMark is more accurate in CPU performance than games, which is why people use it and other synthetic benchmarks. Games will be up to developers for scalability in performance. PassMark is a great way to measure performance.

    Of course, relating to the thread OP could go with the 6100, but I think we can agree that the i5 will be much better for future-proofing and performance. Value goes down when you need to upgrade from an i3 anyway, unless you play games such as CSGO or TF2 when you won't need that extra power for a long time.



    I fail to see how Passmark is a more accurate judge of game performance than actual game benchmarks. For judging relative single core performance, it shines. We all agree that an i5 or an i7 is better for gaming, but that's not the point. The OP asked which of the three CPU's above was the best value for gaming and the answer is obvious. If you want to debate the merits of an i3 vs i5 vs i7 or the value of benchmarks, please start another thread.


    Benchmarks exist for a reason. We can debate all day, but we all know the i5 will be much better for games like BF4, or the i3 will be better for games like Minecraft. To get a fair comparison for all CPUs, we need a benchmark. I agree I am getting a bit sidetracked here.

    We need to know OP's budget first, and how much each of the CPUs cost for him. If they are all priced in the same bracket, the i5-6402P is the obvious choice.


    Wrong. The i3 will be better due to i5's poor single-threaded performance. (I'm talking about i5 6402P or i5 6400)
    The i5 6402P is not the obvious choice.


    Theres not much difference in single-core performance. But i'm going to leave it here anyway. It depends on what OP plays for it to be a significant factor.
  13. dexxterlab97 said:
    budget?


    15k
Ask a new question

Read More

Gaming Intel i5 Processors Intel Core