Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Core i5 750 or Core i5 660

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Core
  • Processors
  • Intel i5
Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 12, 2010 7:56:22 PM

My budget is 200$ max. I am not a heavy gammer. I do not do 3d or graphic designing work but need a fast processor for single threaded applications. I am in confusion between the above stated two because one has higher clock and other has higher cores. Kindly help me in choosing the right processor.
Thanks in Advance

More about : core 750 core 660

a b à CPUs
April 12, 2010 8:18:48 PM

The i5 660 would be the best performer for single threaded applications. However, it is vastly overpriced for a dual core.

If two cores is all you need then look at i3. It is extremely overclockable and a decent value (awesome value if you overclock).
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 12, 2010 8:22:29 PM

Well for single threaded apps, all they can use is 1 thead. so the 2 extra cores on the slower core i5 750 will go to waste.

Meaning the faster dual core, core i5 660 @ 3.33GHz will be better than the slow quad core, core i5 750 @ 2.66 for your needs.

Hope this helps.
m
0
l
Related resources
April 12, 2010 8:28:27 PM

to help you better with this, what kind of application do you usually run? and do you do just 1 thing at a time or you like to do everything at the same time and wait for it to finsh?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 12, 2010 10:48:06 PM

i3 - dual-core chip, very overclockable and cheaper than the i5.

And if you get a H55 or H57 chipset motherboard you can use the i3's onboard graphics chip so you don't need a dedicated graphics card (if you're really on a tight budget).
m
0
l

Best solution

April 13, 2010 12:27:49 AM

I know it specifically states that the user is only interested in single-threaded apps, but I would still recommend the i5-750.

In single threaded apps, the i5-750 is going to Turbo Boost itself up to 3.2 GHz, so it's not like it's slow. It is also very overclockable and has great efficiency with moderately high overclocks.

I just think the industry as a whole is moving towards more and more cores. If you have the budget for it, why not buy the four cores. Six-core processors are here, and soon to be eight-core for the consumer. I just don't see much sense in getting a dual core UNLESS you are trying to save money. But if you are trying to save money, I would just get the Phenom II X4 955. You still get the four cores, and save fifty bucks.

Maybe the op should consider what exactly he needs a "fast processor" for. I mean if you aren't doing gaming or 3d work or multithreaded applications, then why DO you need a fast processor? What single-threaded applications are you running that require a really fast processor?

If all you are doing is email/internet/office apps, you could easily get away with spending $100 on a really fast dual core.

I guess I'm a little confused here on what the op needs but those are my thoughts anyways.
Share
April 15, 2010 10:23:13 AM

Best answer selected by Asad Naqvi.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 15, 2010 10:40:54 PM

Sure the extra power usage/heat/less OC headroom/$80 premium is worth the extra 300mhz from turbo!

Remember guys quad core is overkill for most, and probably will be for the next 3+ years. (If not 5+)

*shrug, my 2 cents.

Ps: I do agree quad is becoming the norm, but not for people who will NEVER use it.
m
0
l
!