I3 7100 vs i5 7400

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
W

WambuCombu21

Prominent
Feb 19, 2017
76
0
630
Hello guys. Just wanted to ask. Is the i5 7400 better over the i3 7100. I'm gonna pair it with a gtx 1060 6gb. When i watched the benchmarks. It was had the same performance. Or is the i5 better because it will last me longer because of the extra cores. Thaks guys.
 
Solution
EpIckFa1LJoN
Sort by date Sort by votes
EpIckFa1LJoN

EpIckFa1LJoN

Admirable
Jul 27, 2016
1,794
0
6,460
It depends on the benchmark and it depends on the game.
In WoW for example the 7100 might actually do BETTER than the 7400 because it has a higher per core clock speed and WoW is notorious for using 1 core mostly.
In other games properly optimized to use a 4-core processor, the 7400 may do slightly better because of more cores albeit a lower clock speed.

In this case it entirely comes down to the game. The 7700K is the best gaming processor out because it combines 4-cores and hyperthreading with the fastest per core clock speed out right now, in addition to being able to be overclocked significantly.

My suggestion is to ask yourself what games you play mostly and what games you want to play. And maybe do some research to figure out if it is optimized for multiple cores or not. And watch out because some games DO use 4 cores, but only uses one fully and the others somewhat. (WoW will use one of my cores/threads on my 6700K up to 90% and another 3 at 40% and the other 4 not at all)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
D

dontlistentome

Glorious
Sep 5, 2016
5,979
19
43,415
It will be better in anything that can use a quad core vs software and games which only need a dual core. So not all benchmarks will show much of a difference. I recommend getting the Pentium G4560 instead of the i3 if you decide you don't need a quad core. It's also dual core with hyperthreading. It costs less and is only a bit slower than the i3. Games like CSGO and Overwatch aren't going to need a quad core, games like Battlefield 1 do. If you're investing in a 6gb 1060, then I think you want the quad core because you don't need a card like that for CSGO or Overwatch.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
W

WambuCombu21

Prominent
Feb 19, 2017
76
0
630


Ya i think the i5 is better but i mean i won't upgrade for a long time. Except for my HDD. I think the i5 is better for futureproofing. But if you look at it's performance it's about the same. On BF1 around 0-5 FPS i think. So i can't decide. I'm new to gaming so i don't know which games. But i'm looking into BF1,Far Cry Primal,Rise of the tomb raider, and other AAA games.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
EpIckFa1LJoN

EpIckFa1LJoN

Admirable
Jul 27, 2016
1,794
0
6,460


In general yes, but with the 2-core you will see significantly higher drops in fps as the action increases. BF1 is a game that uses 4 cores properly, and as more CPU-rendered objects appear on screen the bigger the difference between a 2-core and 4-core is obvious.

If you think about it this way... During low activity they may be used the same, say 2 cores at 60% and the 4-core using each core at 30%. But as more objects come onto the screen the 2-core is pushed to the limits, while the 4-core still has somewhere to go. In this case, synthetic benchmarks tell a better tale, since they actually push the CPU to its limit to see what the limit is. Not all gaming benchmarks do this.

BF1 in particular I saw one benchmark using a campaign mission as the benchmark and not even one that pushes the system hard. Avanti Savioia! is one I have absolutely no trouble with at 3440 x 1440 Ultra at 100% render scale @100Hz, But in The Runner, Same settings gets me about 50-60fps. In Multiplayer it doesn't matter at all because its more CPU driven than GPU (what limits the runner even though I have a 1080)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
W

WambuCombu21

Prominent
Feb 19, 2017
76
0
630


I think i'll go with the i5. It's better for futureproofing. Here's my build. https://pcpartpicker.com/list/nkXdwV
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
D

dontlistentome

Glorious
Sep 5, 2016
5,979
19
43,415
When you look at benchmarks, don't just look at average framerate. Look at minimum framerate as well, you'll see a big difference between an i3 and an i5 in certain games.

I don't believe in 'future proofing', I do know from experience that you are far more likely to need a new videocard sooner than you'll need a new CPU when both those items are of the same class. A 6gb 1060 is not entry level, an i3 is entry level for a gaming CPU. This why you might need to replace the i3 sooner than the 1060. This is also partly why if you are getting the 1060 I'd pair it with an i5. For an i3 build I'd go with a 1050 or 1050 Ti or RX 470 as the videocard choice. Balance is important.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
EpIckFa1LJoN

EpIckFa1LJoN

Admirable
Jul 27, 2016
1,794
0
6,460
Yeah, "future proofing" is dumb. Next year something 15% better will be out for the same price, and by next year games will be out that will require better hardware. If you buy a system now like I have and spend $4,000 building it, now you may be able to run every game on Ultra, even WoW, but in 4 years as engines improve and as better technology becomes available, my same system will struggle to play on medium-low. And that's just the CPU, GPU technology moves even faster than that.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
T

TJ Hooker

Titan
Ambassador
Apr 15, 2014
11,477
1,626
72,390

Eh, it's not as bad as you make it out, definitely not for CPUs anyway. The i5-3570K came out 5 years ago for $225 and is still a pretty decent gaming CPU. Pretty much since Intel released the original Core architecture you've been able to get as much as 5 years of good performance out of a CPU as long as you invested in a good i5/i7. Although obviously no one knows for sure what the future holds, maybe that will change.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
EpIckFa1LJoN

EpIckFa1LJoN

Admirable
Jul 27, 2016
1,794
0
6,460


Not true at all. I had a 3770K up until about 6 months ago, I was getting horrible fps drops in Fallout 4 walking around and high CPU usage/low GPU usage, with my 1080. Replaced it with my 6700K and everything was completely normal and in WoW I now have over 30 more fps than I did when I had my 3770K, and that's after the Legion update too when everything got a huge update and after I upgraded to a 3440x1440 100Hz monitor from the 2560x1440 60Hz one I was running. And I know for a FACT it was bottlenecking my 1080. And that's with a CPU that's supposedly only 20% slower than the one I have now.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
T

TJ Hooker

Titan
Ambassador
Apr 15, 2014
11,477
1,626
72,390
I'm assuming when you upgraded you also re-installed Windows and graphics drivers. If your performance issue was software related, either of those could have solved it. Also, you would have upgraded RAM, which could have impacted performance as well.

No offense, but if I have to choose between trusting the host of CPU reviews and benchmarks showing only small generational performance gains, and your one off anecdote about improved performance in Fallout 4 (that has variables at play other than the CPU), it's an easy choice for me.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
EpIckFa1LJoN

EpIckFa1LJoN

Admirable
Jul 27, 2016
1,794
0
6,460


Fair points, but RAM doesn't increase performance nearly by that much and I had a brand new OS on it as well as the most up-to-date drivers.

I wish I could have had more games to test but FO4 was literally the only game I had to test to stress the system at that time besides WoW and I already said how that went.
So yes it's probably "decent" but compared to what modern CPU's do its literal garbage in my eyeballs.

Do whatever the fk you want, not like I care, I know what a 3770K can do, and I know what a 6700K can do I can tell you its a whole lot more than what you think it is. It's not minimal by any stretch of the word.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom