Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I5 vs i7 processor

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Intel i7
  • Processors
  • Intel i5
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 13, 2009 4:55:21 PM

Is it worth paying $150 more for a CPU with an i7 processor over an i5?

More about : processor

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2009 5:08:42 PM

it really depends on what you are using it for. Also, with i7 you have to get more expensive ram, motherboard, and everything else for it to be worth it.
Related resources
December 13, 2009 5:47:36 PM

i got an i7 860. its amazing get it. hyper threading is going to be use a lot more in the future so get it.
December 13, 2009 5:52:55 PM

thepunshment said:
i got an i7 860. its amazing get it. hyper threading is going to be use a lot more in the future so get it.


Eh... that's what they said about quad core CPUs when they were first launched. Also, I doubt software is going to be optimised for Hyper-threaded CPUs simply because it doesn't make sense from a business standpoint, you'd be alienating all AMD users. Really, if you don't need the extra power, then an i5 is fine and will save you cash in the Motherboard and RAM department.
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2009 5:58:37 PM

Are considering the p55(LGA1156) or the x58 chipset (LGA 1366) or just an i5 or i7 on the p55?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2009 6:01:13 PM

go with the Intel Core i5-750 Lynnfield 2.66GHz (199.99) easily more than you need and will save you money with the mobo and ram.
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2009 8:24:49 PM

i7 920 any day - sure it is more expensive, but the performance due to triple channel memory is worth having.

HT doesnt do a great deal - not thats really noticable.
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2009 9:06:54 PM

If you're going with the P55 chipset and you plan on using multi-threaded apps then the i7 860 may be worth the investment. If not, stick with an i5.

And if you're seriously considering the i7 860 then it may be worth doing it "properly" and going i7 920 on X58 chipset - DDR3 prices are stabilising, triple channel kits aren't much more expensive than dual-channel kits and you can get some solid X58 motherboards for good money now.
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2009 10:46:58 PM

I believe AMD is adding their equivalent of hyperthreading on their next major new chip.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2009 10:49:29 PM

i hope they do, intel needs to be tought a lesson for charging 1000$ for a processor. That might drive prices down by making things a bit more competitive. Also, just a question not to hijack your thread, but didn't Intel basically copy hyper transports and call it QPI for their i7 processors.
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2009 10:53:04 PM

Not really, or at the very least it was legal (as they share info periodically as part of their license agreements). I don't remember the full story on that and the IMC, but I remember arguments about it in the past.
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2009 10:54:30 PM

No argument there PsychoSaysDie, I meant it more in response to Kraynor.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2009 10:56:52 PM

o ok, it just normally seems that AMD invents and innovates things, and intel just changes the name, like x86-64 technology, IMC, and integrating graphics on the video card.
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2009 11:37:38 PM

Ah thanks, that is the discussion I was referring to. Good read in my opinion.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2009 11:37:50 PM

o, ok thanks for showing me that, but i still like AMD more
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2009 11:48:04 PM

ulysses35 said:
i7 920 any day - sure it is more expensive, but the performance due to triple channel memory is worth having.

HT doesnt do a great deal - not thats really noticable.


Triple channel does nothing for the desktop user without them having insanely fast SSDs in their rig. Triple channel is a marketing ploy, it looks great in synthetics but is useless in most real world tasks. Going with i5 750 or the X3440 makes much more sense, the extra $140-$200 saved can do better things that will actually make a difference.
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 12:25:03 AM

AMW1011 said:
Triple channel does nothing for the desktop user without them having insanely fast SSDs in their rig. Triple channel is a marketing ploy, it looks great in synthetics but is useless in most real world tasks. Going with i5 750 or the X3440 makes much more sense, the extra $140-$200 saved can do better things that will actually make a difference.


Triple channel memory is not affected by a storage drive. What is affected by dual and triple channel memory is memory bandwidth sensitive programs like CAD.
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 12:33:39 AM

I was under the impression that the diminishing returns illustrated by any form of RAM beyond DDR2 800 MHz was a result of the hard drive bottleneck.
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 12:51:53 AM

Quote:
i hope they do, intel needs to be tought a lesson for charging 1000$ for a processor. That might drive prices down by making things a bit more competitive. Also, just a question not to hijack your thread, but didn't Intel basically copy hyper transports and call it QPI for their i7 processors.



AMD charged a 1000 dollars for a processor just a few years ago. Athlon 64 FX-60 , if you wanted to save a few hundred bucks they had a model clocked 200mhz less. Maybe this is Karma. lol
December 14, 2009 2:02:45 AM

z992 said:
Is it worth paying $150 more for a CPU with an i7 processor over an i5?

Today an HP rep told me the i7 was similar to the AMD Quad Core Phenom, Is he correct and if so which processor is better?
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 3:02:32 AM

In pure gaming, the Phenom II (not Phenom (I)) and i7 trade blows. However, in most other apps (not all, but a good number) the i7 handily beats the PII. It all depends on what you are trying to do. In design and concept however, yes, they are very similar. Much more similar than Intels and AMDs have been in recent years.
December 14, 2009 4:28:27 AM

1366 was out of budget for me for a long time since last year . but when 1156 came out , and especially i5 750 for 200$ , i bought a nice cooler , hyper 212+ for 30 , and i had it to 4.0ghz(20x200) with antec 300's good airflow . i am primarily a gamer and this system will last me at least 2-3 years before new uArch and process come out . i am fully satisfied with this setup .
December 14, 2009 4:30:28 AM

hyperthreading and triple channel are really useful in server apps , not that useful for desktop usage unless you are a professional video encoder or something , so that it matters . my 2 cents .
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 7:57:19 AM

+1 cyberkuberiah

I get a little tired of a lot of arguments for and against the i5/i7 vs Phenom being all about the gaming. Yes they trade blows in that environment but for what I really use my computer for the i7 on X58 blows everything else out of the water.

I actually USE triple channel memory because I do video, motion graphics and 3D, I actually USE Hyperthreading because Adobe CS4 is multi-thread (and multi-core) aware.

It really is a simple situation that I find amusing and frustrating that is still open for debate:

If you're a media professional or high-level amateur/enthusiast, you simply cannot beat i7 on X58 - you WILL use the extra capabilities, and you'll be thankful for it.

If you're a hardcore gamer then you're either looking at top-end Phenom II X4 or i7 on X58 because you'll need all the PCI-E lanes you can get for your multi-GPU set up.

If you're any other kind of gamer then Phenom II is your friend (or Athlon II if you're on a tight budget) with a single but stonking graphics card

And yes, i5/i7 on P55 is intentionally missing - when compared to the mid-to-high end Phenoms and their exceptional price I just don't see i5 being worth anything.
December 14, 2009 9:07:27 AM

for single gpus , the and phenom 965 are more than enough , both of them . i chose i5 over 1366/am3 for two reasons :-

1. dont need multigpu with single video cards like 5850 , or even if ur running 25x16 , 5970 or upcoming(god knows when) fermi based cards . the i7 would only be worthwhile at 5870 CF , but honestly , i dont have that need or budget . if the need arises , the 5970 would suffice .

2.i do a lot of mkv encoding for personal library , dvd->x264 , the i5 beats an overclocked phenom due to sse 4.2 , period .

3.the i5 is overclockable to 4.0 easily with a cheap hyper212+ . i am not sure whether one could do 4.0 with a phenom on the same cooler and have better temps with same airflow , because the phenom consumes more (the real price of oc'ed cpu includes cooling setup , too).
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 9:41:45 AM

I chose i5 / LGA 1156 because:

1. I want to have the option to SLI and crossfire and P55 performs better in that area than Phenom II, and no there is no bandwidth issue the x8/x8 speeds shaves off 2% of the performance maybe.

2. The i5 750 is faster in all non-gaming apps than Phenom II.

3. When games come out that need more from the processor or the system in general, i5 750 will do better than Phenom II.

4. I don't need the slight benefit of hyperthreading or triple channel for what I do so no need to waste my money on LGA 1366.
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 11:48:27 AM

I was going to get the X3440, but this was too good a deal to pass up:

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/ite...

With free shipping that was not bad and its $45 cheaper then the best price I can find on an X3440.

If you use hyperthreading then that X3440 truly is a great deal.
December 14, 2009 12:13:42 PM

ulysses35 said:
i7 920 any day - sure it is more expensive, but the performance due to triple channel memory is worth having.

HT doesnt do a great deal - not thats really noticable.

I'm not sure there is a big difference between the two in terms of memory performance... if you look it from an ultra-simple point of view, 3 > 2... so yes, that's 50% more! But the reality is much, much different... the P55 chipset's memory controller is much faster so that helps offset its missing channel (partially) ...

http://www.techspot.com/review/193-intel-core-i5-750/pa...

So in reality you're talking about 10%. And even with 10% faster memory, that doesn't add up to 10% overall system speed boost.
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 12:42:41 PM

That Xeon is a nice deal, but I got the i5 750 for $150 + Tax which also was just too good a deal to pass up.
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 1:37:57 PM

amdfangirl said:
You my friend are a genius.

Thanks a million.

*Adds Xeon to her wishlist.*

If you use HT like me, this is awesomo!


You are very welcome. I would think you would be able to undervolt a Xeon quite nicely.
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 10:14:39 PM

Nothing is better than a low-power Xeon server ;) 
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 10:45:14 PM

amdfangirl said:
Nothing is better than a low-power Xeon server ;) 


Of course there is...a low-power Xeon server that can tidy my house for me :D 
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 10:49:14 PM

Mine can pour me tea made from recycled garbage :D 
a c 83 à CPUs
December 14, 2009 11:00:09 PM

I would say grab and I5 unless you use one of few programs that will make use of the extra logical cores that hyperthreading creates.
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2009 2:45:24 AM

Well, from that store the i5 is $149.99, so actually it is quite a bit more. But I agree, for what you get, the 860 (or that Xeon) are excellent values. They were meat to be.
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2009 3:01:18 AM

AMW1011 said:
I was under the impression that the diminishing returns illustrated by any form of RAM beyond DDR2 800 MHz was a result of the hard drive bottleneck.

Nope - they're unrelated. The hard drive determines how quickly you can load data into memory, but the memory speed and bandwidth determine how fast data can get from the memory to the CPU to be processed. The reason that there isn't much gain on most applications that typical users are running is because for most ordinary desktop apps, there is a relatively large amount of processing to do on a relatively small amount of data. This means that the CPU is not limited by how fast it can get new data, it is limited by how quickly it can process the data it already has.

Many large scale scientific and professional apps operate on much larger data sets however, and as a result, the CPU can be bottlenecked by how quickly it can obtain the data. This is where the additional memory speed helps.
December 15, 2009 6:14:21 AM

I got an i7 920, it has 45 nanometer technology.

Link
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2009 3:24:05 PM

SysBuilder said:
I got an i7 920, it has 45 nanometer technology.

Link



Well give yourself a cookie. Oh and by the way, unless that is Canadian money you paid way too much.
February 7, 2011 10:47:14 PM

Hey im not very technologically inclined so im sorry about my lack of knowledge in this matter.

I need a laptop for uni, but i wont be using it for heavy games or graphics. Just movies, office files, internet and other simple applications. I was wondering which i would need and i5 or an i7 processor. basing it on the information given. i dont mind paying a bit extra though if it is a huge difference in speed, because i dont want a slow computer.
Thankyou in advance
!