Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I5-650 vs i5-750 ?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 23, 2010 8:44:02 PM

Hey guys, I can't decide on which CPU would be a better deal.

I'm not building an htpc, so I want something more powerful than an i3. But I also won't be using it for gaming at all, so I don't need too much power. I just want something that will run very fast and not slow down when I'm multitasking with a lot of apps.

I'm trying to decide between:

Dual core i5-650 + Integrated graphics (cheaper, uses less power)
or
Quad core i5-750 + Cheap video card (more powerful, faster?)

Is it a better trade off to get the i5-750, but spend more for a video card and use more power? Or would it be better to get the i5-650 and save money with the integrated graphics and use less power?

Is there a big difference in speed/performance?
I do NOT game/overclock/encode video.

Thanks for any advice!

==========================
Specs:
Case: LIAN LI PC-Q07
MoBo: GIGABYTE GA-H55N-USB3
PSU: CORSAIR 400W

More about : 650 750

a b à CPUs
July 23, 2010 8:54:38 PM

What apps?
1055T+890GX would work great also.
m
0
l
a c 131 à CPUs
July 23, 2010 8:57:13 PM

MrMariner said:


Is there a big difference in speed/performance?
I do NOT game/overclock/encode video.

Great. What do you do? That's important in this decision. After I know what you do do, I will be able to say if I think the i5 750 is worth the extra cost for you or not.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 131 à CPUs
July 23, 2010 8:57:54 PM

Timop said:
What apps?
1055T+890GX would work great also.

+1 to that for a general PC.
m
0
l
July 23, 2010 9:15:54 PM

enzo matrix said:
Great. What do you do? That's important in this decision.


On a regular basis... just normal applications like email, internet, music, MS Office, uTorrent, watching HD video, Photoshop (once in awhile).

I know that probably doesn't sound like much, I guess I'm just paranoid about the computer slowing down.

I think a 6-core CPU might be overkill for me, but then again a quad-core might be also. That's why I'm asking for help, because I don't know a whole lot about processors.

Thanks again for the help!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2010 9:27:42 PM

If you're worried about the computer "slowing down" I think you should invest in a SSD and plenty of RAM.

The reason the most computer hangs is not the CPU being overloaded, but instead the hard disk not being fast enough to handle many concurrent read/writes.

Whats your full budget? I would at least go for a quad regardless as sometimes dual cores do get overwhelmed when you have 90 tabs open on Firefox, applying a filter on Photoshop, while doing a virus scan. Besides it will definitely last you longer.
m
0
l
July 23, 2010 9:54:14 PM

Hey thanks a lot, that makes sense. I don't have a tight budget, I just want to save some cash if it won't make a big difference. So I'm starting to lean towards the quad-core.

The only real gripe I have with the i5-750 is that I would have to buy a video card to go with it, which I really don't need. I know there are cheap cards, but it's just annoying to have to add something that uses power/causes heat/etc. when there's already video onboard.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2010 9:56:00 PM

So 1055T would make more sense.

Ironically you can really push all 6-cores with windows, and since it costs the same as the 750, if not cheaper with the board+GPU, you get to save a few bucks.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2010 10:53:23 PM

That set of applications certainly doesn't demand a 1055T or even a quad. I'd say you should be fine with the dual, and if you want a fast/responsive system, invest in lots of RAM and a fast hard drive.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2010 11:05:16 PM

cjl said:
That set of applications certainly doesn't demand a 1055T or even a quad. I'd say you should be fine with the dual, and if you want a fast/responsive system, invest in lots of RAM and a fast hard drive.

Unless hes like me with bazillions of programs open and too lazy to do something about them. lol

I'm peaking at 60% CPU usage on a Athlon X2 2.7Ghz at seemingly just "surfing the web" (except I have like both firefox and opera running with 30 tabs, Word running, u torrent, bunch of software I don't use, music, a movie paused, etc.
m
0
l
a c 131 à CPUs
July 24, 2010 12:09:23 AM

cjl said:
That set of applications certainly doesn't demand a 1055T or even a quad. I'd say you should be fine with the dual, and if you want a fast/responsive system, invest in lots of RAM and a fast hard drive.

I agree with this. Your money is better spent on other components. Each core runs at 3.2GHz on that i5, with turbo up to, I believe, 3.4GHz. That's like a 3.8GHz phenom II core.
To be honest, I sometimes wonder if I would have been better off with an overclocked phenom II at 3.8GHz rather than my 3.2GHz Athlon IIx4.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 25, 2010 3:37:08 AM

Timop said:
Unless hes like me with bazillions of programs open and too lazy to do something about them. lol

I'm peaking at 60% CPU usage on a Athlon X2 2.7Ghz at seemingly just "surfing the web" (except I have like both firefox and opera running with 30 tabs, Word running, u torrent, bunch of software I don't use, music, a movie paused, etc.

That kind of proves my point. Even with a million things running at once, you're barely using more than half of an old dual. The 3.2GHz i5 has significantly more power than your x2 and 4 threads rather than 2, so it should be more than capable of handling that kind of workload.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 25, 2010 3:41:03 AM

cjl said:
That kind of proves my point. Even with a million things running at once, you're barely using more than half of an old dual. The 3.2GHz i5 has significantly more power than your x2 and 4 threads rather than 2, so it should be more than capable of handling that kind of workload.

But he mentioned Photoshop. With that open things get bad quick.

Well, maybe I was wrong, as six-cores would be a little redundant. But I like overkilling lol.
m
0
l
!