Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel core i7 and i5

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 8, 2010 6:16:48 PM

I was looking at intel core i5 and i7 processors on wikipedia and I'm not sure how you can tell the difference in performance. Is it the number? For example the 9 series being better than the 8 as each new lot that come out seem to have a lower number. Are the charts at 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_i7#Specificatio...' and 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_i5#Cores' showing the processors in order of performance from best to worst?

Thanks,

Jack

More about : intel core

January 8, 2010 6:18:16 PM

Is the i7 860 just a p55 version of the i7 920 with lower power?
January 8, 2010 6:20:15 PM

The core i5s do not feature hyper-threading, and have a slightly slower clock. They use socket 1156.

The core i7s feature hyper-threading, and have a slightly faster clock. They are available on both socket 1156, and 1366.

The i7s on socket 1156 only have slightly higher clocks than the i5, and feature hyper-threading, that's the only big difference.

For what it's worth, the Core i5 is the best buy imo, unless you're crossfiring or doing VERY cpu intensive tasks.
Related resources
January 8, 2010 6:22:50 PM

I know all of that, but I mean the difference in performance within core i5 and within core i7 because there are so many different models. In my last post by power I meant using less energy
January 8, 2010 6:28:57 PM

Just a few days ago, there were more core i5 models released(but those are dual-core, with high-clocks on on-die graphics) and core i3 dual-core models.


The quad-core core i5 model runs at 2.6, and I don't really think there's much difference in the core i5, and i7 8xx models for power.


The quad-core core i7 9xx models generally have higher clocks, and I would presume they use more power(although I don't know for sure). But energy for a processor shouldn't be that big of a factor anyways : P

I upgraded to a Core i5-750 recently, and it's nothing short of stunning. More than enough for any computer-savvy person who wants a high-end worthy computer for a good price.
January 8, 2010 7:00:00 PM

lolzololz said:
The core i5s do not feature hyper-threading,

The Dual Core i5's have hyper-threading but the Quad i5-750 does not.
January 8, 2010 7:10:13 PM

As confusing as it may be, Intels numeric naming scheme is pretty accurate when it comes to non-overclocked processing power. (perhaps bar i7 870 and i7 920).

Generally speaking, the higher the number the higher the performance, regardless of the feature set. Intel seem to have left it to the tech-savvy to decipher wether or not they need hyperthreading or turbo boost technologies.

The i5 750 and i7 920 are both very solid choices if you're looking to buy.
January 8, 2010 8:27:33 PM

Thanks for your help. I'm not sure if I should get the i5 750 or i7 860. Or because I can wait for a while so I can save up, I could get the bits I need next year, when usb 3.0 will be integrated into the southbridge and the new ati graphics cards will be out (6800 series). Will processor prices have come down much by then as well?
January 8, 2010 9:20:03 PM

To answer your question jack, in terms of the computing power of the different types of processors, there's little difference. They all work off the same Hafnium-K gate technology, all do the same amount of micro-ops per clock cycle, the only difference between the models are the clock speeds, inclusion of hyperthreading and triple/dual channel DDR3 memory. For gaming the best buy is as lolzololz said before, the I5, as it is very attractively priced for today's gamers. If you're after serious (and i mean SERIOUS) performance, then an I7 920 with 6GB of triple channel DDR3 will handle anything you ever need to throw at a computer due to the theoretically limitless amount of bandwidth available to the system. By the way, unless USB devices make SERIOUS advances in their speeds, then i doubt they will ever be able to fulfil the theoretical maximum speeds that USB 3 is slated to give so i wouldnt go basing any decisions of when-to-buy on USB 3. Also i wouldn't worry about the ATI 6xxx series, by the end of this year Nvidia will be top dog again with their Fermi series GPU's so i'd go with them. Hope this helps.
January 9, 2010 2:31:40 AM

Griffolion said:
Also i wouldn't worry about the ATI 6xxx series, by the end of this year Nvidia will be top dog again with their Fermi series GPU's so i'd go with them. Hope this helps.


looool fermi will be hot and will consume a big amount of juice for a mere competition against the 5870. I say good luck nvidia !
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2010 5:18:22 AM

Uhm...gamers dont really care about a big amount of juice or heat. Serious gamers usually have the money for good cooling and good power, they care about performance and only that. If nvidia's fermi will be more powerful then what ati has to offer, the enthusiasts are going to jump onto that platform. And i bet nvidia will have something more powerful then the 5890...just an opinion.
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2010 11:57:03 AM

jack1993 said:
I was looking at intel core i5 and i7 processors on wikipedia and I'm not sure how you can tell the difference in performance. Is it the number? For example the 9 series being better than the 8 as each new lot that come out seem to have a lower number. Are the charts at 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_i7#Specificatio...' and 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_i5#Cores' showing the processors in order of performance from best to worst?

Thanks,

Jack


jack1993 said:
I know all of that, but I mean the difference in performance within core i5 and within core i7 because there are so many different models. In my last post by power I meant using less energy





Well, where to being.


Quote:
I was looking at intel core i5 and i7 processors on wikipedia and I'm not sure how you can tell the difference in performance. Is it the number? For example the 9 series being better than the 8 as each new lot that come out seem to have a lower number.


Your assumption is correct. The Higher the number (in theory) the better the cpu is. Although it really depends on what your doing.

If you just gaming, you wouldn't notice a difference between, core i5 and i7.
If you were you rendering or video editing programs that can use all 8 threads the i7 has to offer then core i7 will be the best choice.


Athough the difference between the core i7 9xx and the core i7 8xx is minor.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=108&p2=47

just to state the main difference between the 2 i7 series are:

8xx's, p55 chipset:
Aggressive turbo boost.
can run DDR3 1333mhz ram at full speed. (compaired to 9xx can only run 1066mhz max without overclocking)

9xx's, x58 chipset:
Triple channel memory (vs 8xx dual channel)
Full dual pcie 2.0 x16 bandwidth

Quote:
Are the charts at 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_i7#Specificatio...' and 'http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Intel_Core_i5#Cores' showing the processors in order of performance from best to worst?


Well yes and no but mainly no. what wiki has going there is keeping the different models of cpus separated.


Quote:

I know all of that, but I mean the difference in performance within core i5 and within core i7 because there are so many different models. In my last post by power I meant using less energy




Well it may not be the 860 but there the 870 vs 920 in total computer power consumtion.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i5,2410-...
January 9, 2010 1:41:30 PM

Thanks again. I'm not going to build a pc yet anyway because I'm saving up for a while.
!