Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Core i3 530 vs core i5 760

Last response: in CPUs
December 16, 2010 12:38:59 PM

Hi everyone,

I just wish to get everyone's ( who has time to spare ) opinion on this matter :

a setup that uses
core i3 - 530 - (2.93 Ghz) 2 cores / hyper-threading => 4 threads / 32 nm => cheap setup


as setup that uses
core i5 - 760 - ( 2.8 Ghz ) 4 cores / no hyper-threading / 45 nm => mid range price

OS : XP SP3... maybe W7 later on

application :

perenially running Apache with php / MySQL
almost always run Eclipse PDT ( runs on Java ) , as well as MySQL gui tools
with all 5 browsers perenially on ( IE / Opera / Safari / Chrome / FF ) with multiple tabs at any given time
some CS3 - test flash development
some VirtualBox - [ test some 3 os simultaneously Debian server, Ubuntu Client, Windows XP Client ]

maybe play some tomb raider underworld

the i5 setup costs close to twice that of the i3, ( but will it have that 2X performance edge over the i3 ? )
also, what does the 32 nm vs 45 nm imply ( given the applications i'll be running )

More about : core 530 core 760

Best solution

a c 81 à CPUs
December 16, 2010 12:58:21 PM

The i7 980X costs 5 times that of the i5 750 but surely wont bring 5 times the performance to the table.. Now for the recommendation, its i5 760 all the way.. If you are budget restricted though, you can start with the i3 for now and upgrade to the i5 760 or better sometime down the line (provided it is available then)..
December 16, 2010 1:14:36 PM

i do agree that i5 is better than i3, but is it really much better?
i mean, from what i see, the i3 has 2.93 ghz vs i5 2.8 ghz, the 32 nm seems better than the 45 nm ( although i'm not really sure what that means other than less heat ), and with the i3's hyper threading...
it does not appear like the i5 has a sizeable advantage ( of course, i may not have a good idea of what this all mean )
Related resources
a c 81 à CPUs
December 16, 2010 1:30:03 PM

0.13 GHz difference is too less a number.. Especially considering that those chips can easily be overclocked to much higher numbers.. The 760 is a true quad core and this is where its main advantage is.. Hyper-threading is mostly useless.. As for the nm difference, its just based on newer manufacturing tech.. Architecture wise, they are basically the same.. And yes, 32nm by the virtue of a narrower gate leads to lesser leakage which leads to lesser heat.. However, the i5 too is not that hot a chip..
December 16, 2010 2:31:21 PM

^ yes.. i5-760 without a doubt
December 16, 2010 3:10:15 PM

ok, i5 - 760 is unanimously better,

but what justifies buying a rig that costs 2x as much?
a c 81 à CPUs
December 16, 2010 5:44:11 PM

underclockerx said:
but what justifies buying a rig that costs 2x as much?

The fact that it'll survive for minimum twice the time compared to the i3..
December 20, 2010 8:49:30 AM

still can't get the
point for point advantage
( i guess because i'm not really playing games )

i've seen some complaints about the i3's gpu incompatibility with ubuntu
so that is a cause for concern

but thanks for taking time to answer everyone

December 20, 2010 8:50:27 AM

Best answer selected by underclockerx.