intel Core i5-6500 Processor vs i3 4710 3.7ghz

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Solution
K
Also look at synthetic benchmarks vs real use, my links showed around 15% increase in frames per second gaming, and about 33% reduction in time for encoding in favor of the I5. I would not call gaming performance nearly double though the rendering came close half the time would have been 2x the performance.

Although I did compare a 6100 instead of the 4170. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgC8w-GQyhE looks like there might be the same bump for the generational improvements. So it might be closer to 30% frames per second and then half the render time for the I5. Pull the results from both compares to get 4170 to 6500.

I like the I5 also, but trying to make the argument that if you are budget limited and don't expressly need the...
Sort by date Sort by votes
K

kraelic

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2006
940
1
19,360
Depends on if you are building a completely new pc or if you have the I3 and are looking to upgrade. Because the I5 6500 will need a different motherboard and ram than the I3 4170 does. Also depends on if you need the cores for workload or just the raw speed for gaming. 4 cores at up to 3.6 GHz is better than 2 cores 4 threads at 3.7 IMO

https://ark.intel.com/products/88184/Intel-Core-i5-6500-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz
Do these have 4 bins of turbo overclock in Intel Extreme Tuning Utility? Nevermind, it is regular turbo mode. Sandy and ivy had 4 extra turbo bins, haswell had 2 extra bins, does XTU work with skylake? to get 3.8 out of the 6500
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
D

Dronzer Dragneel

Reputable
May 13, 2016
405
0
4,960
Well I there's no i3 4710..hope you mean 4170
and its i5 6500 who will win performance race every time, when you compare it with i3 CPU, talking about margin of performance its almost double, its about 4 core vs 2 core. So i5 is the winner here
 
Upvote -1 Downvote
K

kraelic

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2006
940
1
19,360
Workload: encoding, rendering, productivity. Vs Gaming and general usage browsing, shopping, office.

Comparing the 6100 instead of the 4170, both two core four thread and 3.7 GHz. Build with the newest stuff, for m.2 support for those blazing fast nvme ssd. and if the i3 is chosen for budget you can move to an i5 or i7 easier later.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z19YBTbwFlg no way is it almost double. games see 15% increase encoding sees 33% reduction in time towards the i5 for a 70% price premium (newegg $120 i3 vs $205 i5)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRXphL_Q47s if budget is a concern an I3 with a 1060 3GB beats an I5 with a 1050TI 4GB
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
B

Bianca Marton

Honorable
Jul 28, 2013
81
0
10,630
So ivalredy got the i3 in my current computer
But a friend want to sell me a ausus motherboard with 16gb ram and the i5 processor for 280 australian dollars

And I just trying to think if it's worth it

I've also currently got gtx960
Current ram is 8gb so I thinking it's a good deal
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
T

TJ Hooker

Titan
Ambassador
Apr 15, 2014
11,473
1,620
72,390

No, this is incorrect. First off, doubling cores doesn't double performance; if a given application can effectively make use of all cores, you may get close to double performance. If the application can't make use of the extra threads, you may see no improvement. Secondly, the i3 has 4 threads due to hyperthreading, meaning it performs somewhere in between a dual core (pentium) and quad core (i5).

Is the i5 better? Yes. Is it (nearly) twice as good? Outside of maybe a handful of very specific situations, no.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
D

Dronzer Dragneel

Reputable
May 13, 2016
405
0
4,960


Well I don't know who told you that having hyperthreading means i3 have 4 'physical' core, if so why would we bother buying expensive i5 over 4 core i3 and i7 would have 8 cores with hyperthreading then. So no this is not how it works
and before I answer any question I do my research and this is what I found. link down below

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-6500-vs-Intel-Core-i3-4170

and yes i3 is better than i5 in single core performance
In my previous answer I was talking about performance only, because this is how we compare CPU

and I did't say twice or something, I said almost double/ that means close to double
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
madmatt30

madmatt30

Titan
Ambassador
Jan 1, 2013
24,574
650
91,240
The 4170 doesn't come that close to the 6500 even in single core performance , there's still a good 10-15% improvement with the 6500 due to the improved IPC, the 6500 boosts to 3.6ghz on a single core load giving it performance similar to a haswell chip running at 4ghz.

Bianca - I have no idea what the rest of your current system (GPU especially is) or what games you play.you may not see any immediate improvement moving to those new components depending on that.
A year or two down the line & paired with something on a 480/1060 class GPU you definitely will though.

Moving to the newer skylake platform from haswell could be considered worthwhile in itself by some people even if you were going i3 to i3 or i5 to i5 (not by me personally)

Haswell i3 to skylake i5 is definitely worthwhile though , especially when you've been offered a CPU, board & 16gb ram for what is essentially the price of the CPU alone where you live.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
T

TJ Hooker

Titan
Ambassador
Apr 15, 2014
11,473
1,620
72,390

I never said an i3 has 4 cores, physical or otherwise. I said it has 4 threads, which is a fact. Thread =/= core.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-6500-vs-Intel-Cor...
and yes i3 is better than i5 in single core performance
In my previous answer I was talking about performance only, because this is how we compare CPU
Click to expand...
Even if we accept that comparing CPUBoss scores is a good way to compare CPUs (I don't), the difference in "Performance" scores is only 5.6 vs 5.3. Also, single core performance is still important; you have to look at both, and how much weight you put on either will depend on what you're doing with your PC.

and I did't say twice or something, I said almost double/ that means close to double
Click to expand...
And I said "nearly twice". Saying 'performance is almost doubled' is equivalent to saying 'performance in nearly twice as good'. You're splitting hairs.

For the record, I do believe upgrading to the 6500 is a good idea for that price. I'm just trying to make it clear that the OP is unlikely to see his performance almost doubled in most scenarios. E.g. for gaming, performance improvements will probably be much less, especially with something like a GTX 960.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
K

kraelic

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2006
940
1
19,360
Also look at synthetic benchmarks vs real use, my links showed around 15% increase in frames per second gaming, and about 33% reduction in time for encoding in favor of the I5. I would not call gaming performance nearly double though the rendering came close half the time would have been 2x the performance.

Although I did compare a 6100 instead of the 4170. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgC8w-GQyhE looks like there might be the same bump for the generational improvements. So it might be closer to 30% frames per second and then half the render time for the I5. Pull the results from both compares to get 4170 to 6500.

I like the I5 also, but trying to make the argument that if you are budget limited and don't expressly need the cores for rendering and encoding an I3 can make a good gaming general use machine. Especially if the I3 lets you get a larger graphics card ie 6100 and 1060 3GB vs the 6500 and 1050TI 4GB for almost the same price.

Since the op now says they have the I3 and is looking at the deal offered, does the op need a 2nd pc since they were going to build all new? Or is now considering an upgrade? Because you can upgrade with the 6500, asus and 16gb ram and sell off the 4170 current motherboard and 8gb to make that upgrade more affordable.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom