Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Core I5 or Core I3

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 5, 2010 12:17:48 AM

I'm looking at building a new computer, but I can't decide between two processors. I don't do any gaming or heavy application use, but I want something that'll last long.

I'm looking at:

1) I5-750 Quad core- $185

2) I3-540 Dual Core- $120

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks

More about : core core

Anonymous
November 5, 2010 12:27:06 AM

If you're looking at something that'll last long, get the i5. More and more applications nowadays use more than 2 cores, even if you're just doing basic stuff.

Also, once you feel that you need more power, you'll be able to overclock the i5 further than the i3, most likely. The 750 is a good overclocker.
November 5, 2010 12:40:03 AM

Core i3:
Pros: Cheaper, faster base cloak and high multiplier = higher overall overclock possible and base cooler can actually be used with OC, runs much cooler (not only half the cores, but its 32nm), hyper threaded (its not extra cores, but its to have HT than not), will put less wattage on your system.
Cons: Not a true quad core, pricey for a dual core.

Core i5 - 750 :
Pros: True Quad core
Cons: Low base clock/multiplier, 45nm (will run hotter), base cooler only good for stock speeds, no HT.

IMO go for core i3. One of the biggest selling points for me for the whole Core i CPUs is the 32nm tech and HT, and Corei5 don't have it.

Related resources
a b à CPUs
November 5, 2010 12:48:10 AM

Another thing to keep in mind is that Intel will be releasing its Sandy Bridge CPU's next year in Q1 (I think), which will all be based upon the 32nm process. If you want to wait that long, you can see what comes out.

Out of the two though, unless you overclock, just go for the i5. It'll last you awhile and it's not a bad deal.
a b à CPUs
November 5, 2010 1:14:53 AM

I would also vote for the i5 but I wouldn’t buy the 750 I would buy the 760 it is almost the same price but a little bit faster. The difference in performance is about 60% per core and of course the i5 has four cores as opposed to the i3’s two.
November 5, 2010 4:18:35 AM

buwish said:
Another thing to keep in mind is that Intel will be releasing its Sandy Bridge CPU's next year in Q1 (I think), which will all be based upon the 32nm process. If you want to wait that long, you can see what comes out.

Out of the two though, unless you overclock, just go for the i5. It'll last you awhile and it's not a bad deal.



I've found the Core I5 760 for around $180, and based on the advice here, I think I'm leaning towards the I5.

I'm assuming when the Sandy Bridge is released, itll be quite expensive? If so, will the I series become cheaper?
a c 81 à CPUs
November 5, 2010 4:22:09 AM

This query keeps appearing often.. Don't understand the mindset behind it.. How do you compare a quad core to a dual core (talking same gen tech).! Its the quad core which is the logical choice and will always get recommended.. So if you can afford it, just go for it..
November 5, 2010 6:33:44 AM

He wants something that last - buy this: I3-540 Dual Core- $120

If you buy the i5 and tempted to overclock that will spoil the fun.
November 5, 2010 6:34:04 AM

Go for Option 1 ( its just great ) , if i were u i would go for i5 760 , as Dipankar2007ind Says .
November 5, 2010 12:24:54 PM

goBIGgoHOME said:
I'm looking at building a new computer, but I can't decide between two processors. I don't do any gaming or heavy application use, but I want something that'll last long.

I'm looking at:

1) I5-750 Quad core- $185

2) I3-540 Dual Core- $120

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks

according to statement in bold, I would suggest to go with i3 since it has enough juice for everyday tasks, it is 32nm (so easy on the power consumption) and the difference between 185 and 120$ you better put in something else...
that is my 2c...
a c 131 à CPUs
November 5, 2010 1:42:22 PM

I'm going to say go for the i3.

You don't need the quad and even in the future, it will make little difference for you uses, unless you change your uses. In which case, by that time you will probably want a new computer anyway.

Think on this for a moment for comparison:
Today, for office application, which would you rather have? Athlon 7750 (2.7GHz dual core) or a phenom 9550 (2.2GHz quad core)? What can office applications make more use of? Currently, it's still the dual core. And the dual core was much cheaper back then.

What I'm saying is that even if more and more applications become multi-core optimized (which is happening), a dual core processor will still be enough. And if you get a high clocked on like that i3, you'll be set for quite a while. Still, I would not recommend keeping it for more than 5 years for the sake of keeping up with technology. But even then it will be up to you if you find it is too old or not.

In addition, no one really knows what the future holds. Futureproofing is a bad idea. Buy what you need now and replace if you find it insufficient in the future.

Another note, in 1999, I believe the processor options were around 600MHz to 800MHz. Major price differences between them. Today, the relative performance difference between them is virtually nothing.

I recently built and office system for someone who intended to keep it for 5 years. They are upgrading from an AMD duron system at 800MHz and they are finally fed up. The buy? A 3GHz Athlon II x2 dual core with 4GB of DDR3 memory and two slots open for a ram upgrade in the future.

Also, in terms of reliability in the long run, the cooler processor will last longer. But that's really only if you are keeping it past like 10 years or so. Which isn't really plausible anyway.
a c 81 à CPUs
November 5, 2010 1:48:00 PM

Stupido said:
according to statement in bold, I would suggest to go with i3 since it has enough juice for everyday tasks, it is 32nm (so easy on the power consumption) and the difference between 185 and 120$ you better put in something else...
that is my 2c...


You missed the ' something that will last long ' part of the statement.. And as far as i know, a quad core has a longer future compared to a dual core.. So IMO, if OP can afford the i5 now, then he should just go for it.. We don't know if down the line those i5 quad cores will be available (for a decent price again) if and when OP needs one..
November 5, 2010 2:23:37 PM

Emperus said:
You missed the ' something that will last long ' part of the statement.. And as far as i know, a quad core has a longer future compared to a dual core.. So IMO, if OP can afford the i5 now, then he should just go for it.. We don't know if down the line those i5 quad cores will be available (for a decent price again) if and when OP needs one..

I actually didn't missed it because my thoughts on this are the same as Enzo Matrix already stated...

it all depends on the usage of the machine...
my very old computer P4@3GHz is still running pretty fast enough for my mother - email, web and skype... :D 
my wife has a very old (and stupid) laptop that is more than 5years old and that one is still OK to her - again used for web, skype, email and office stuff...
my sister has similar laptop with the same usage... again - happy enough with the processor performance...

it is more of what components are in the system. so maybe better idea would be if gobiggohome is more precise on the requirements and the rest of the machine...
November 5, 2010 2:37:57 PM

I appreciate all the opinions. I'm looking for something that'll last long because I built my current computer around 7-8 years ago, and its running a Pentium 4 3GHZ with HT. So I'm hoping my next one can last just as long
November 5, 2010 3:30:13 PM

if your current computer runs OK, maybe you should keep it until something breaks?
in the mean time (short enough) there are some new architectures coming from both Intel & AMD...

as of your original question, both i3 & i5 will last you long enough :)  probably even your old P4 will last few more years...
November 5, 2010 7:50:55 PM

I don't mind keeping it, but things are starting to slow down, make noise, etc... Plus, my OS is getting old and I can't update to new ones as my hardware won't support it
a c 131 à CPUs
November 5, 2010 8:34:10 PM

goBIGgoHOME said:
I don't mind keeping it, but things are starting to slow down, make noise, etc... Plus, my OS is getting old and I can't update to new ones as my hardware won't support it

Really? I beg to differ:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/sy...

I've had no issues running 7 on my athlon 3200+ with 2GB of memory (64-bit version) and I didn't notice any significant encumberment.
November 5, 2010 8:49:24 PM

I'm a bit confused about my video card requirements...

My system is:
Pentium 4 3GHZ
1 GB DDR memory
2 Sata HD's
ATI Radeon 9000 64MB (Supports up to DirectX 8.1, never tried installing 9.0)

Could I run 7?
November 5, 2010 11:05:21 PM

goBIGgoHOME said:
I'm a bit confused about my video card requirements...

My system is:
Pentium 4 3GHZ
1 GB DDR memory
2 Sata HD's
ATI Radeon 9000 64MB (Supports up to DirectX 8.1, never tried installing 9.0)

Could I run 7?

interesting question... I assume not?
but any modern card of ~50$ will do perfect job...
as of noise, change your fans (case & heatsink)
a c 81 à CPUs
November 6, 2010 12:32:05 AM

I might have missed it in between so let me ask it now.. What do you actually use the system for.? IMO, you running a P4 for almost 8years now is downright impressive.. As such, any upgrade you make now will surely run for a similar period of time (doesn't matter i3 or i5 or anything from AMD).. As for your current system running win7, you would need another 1GB ram atleast and a decent entry level video card to have a somewhat smooth experience..
a c 131 à CPUs
November 6, 2010 7:35:24 PM

Emperus said:
I might have missed it in between so let me ask it now.. What do you actually use the system for.? IMO, you running a P4 for almost 8years now is downright impressive.. As such, any upgrade you make now will surely run for a similar period of time (doesn't matter i3 or i5 or anything from AMD).. As for your current system running win7, you would need another 1GB ram atleast and a decent entry level video card to have a somewhat smooth experience..

6 years at the most. That CPU came out in 2004:
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Pentium_4/Intel-Pentium%2...(BX80546PG3000E).html

Sorry I missed out on the video card. But DX9 cards can be had for cheap and if your system doesn't have a PCI-e slot, you could still get DX9 cards for AGP and possibly PCI.
This is pretty decent, if you don't plan to game:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

a b à CPUs
November 7, 2010 8:20:56 AM

I5 because it should last you at least four years max with our current technology pace.
!