Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I5 750 or i3 540?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 10, 2012 9:43:24 AM

I want to buy a processor to assemble a computer system. The purpose is to run Oracle RAC where multiple oracle instances run. I have narrowed down Intel i3 540 (Dual core, clock speed 3.06 GHz) and i5 750 (Quad Core, clock speed 2.66 GHz).
Which should I go for? i5 750 is quad core, but clock speed is only 2.66 GHz. I am from India.

More about : 750 540

July 10, 2012 10:01:47 AM

i3 cant OC well whereas i5 can OC like a beast.
Mine runs from 2.66 to 3.8 (190x20) at a daily basis. Destroys any task (except heavy rendering).

i5 is better non-OCed too..
m
0
l
July 10, 2012 10:07:22 AM

1) Intel i5-750 Quad Core Processor - 2.66 GHz, 8MB Cache, Socket 1156, 45nm, Price around £220.

2) Intel i3-540 Dual-Core Processor - 3.06GHz, 4MB Cache, Socket 1156, 32nm, 73 watts, Price around £75.

They both seem rather ancient to me. The i5-750 part is 45nm, we are on 22nm now. You can get a much better i5-3570K for cheaper.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 109 à CPUs
July 10, 2012 10:45:09 AM

DW-UK said:
1) Intel i5-750 Quad Core Processor - 2.66 GHz, 8MB Cache, Socket 1156, 45nm, Price around £220.

2) Intel i3-540 Dual-Core Processor - 3.06GHz, 4MB Cache, Socket 1156, 32nm, 73 watts, Price around £75.

They both seem rather ancient to me. The i5-750 part is 45nm, we are on 22nm now. You can get a much better i5-3570K for cheaper.


+1

But putting what he just said aside, the i5 should perform better if the programs you're wanting to run are heavily threaded as it has four REAL cores. The i3 is clocked higher, but it's still a dual core with hyperthreading, it will never outperform a true quad core for heavily threaded tasks.
m
0
l
July 10, 2012 11:03:34 AM

The 32nm i3-540 could be over-clocked to 4.4GHz with possibly same power consumption as 45nm i5-750 @ 2.66GHz. It may out perform the i5-750 at a much lower cost under those conditions.

The new 22nm i5-3570K may out perform either by as much as double.
m
0
l
July 10, 2012 11:22:24 AM

I think also that the i3-540 has integrated GPU chip, while the i5-750 does not. An integrated GPU chip will help to keep the cost down when it comes to the motherboard price and power consumption.
m
0
l
July 10, 2012 12:01:20 PM

DW-UK said:
The 32nm i3-540 could be over-clocked to 4.4GHz with possibly same power consumption as 45nm i5-750 @ 2.66GHz. It may out perform the i5-750 at a much lower cost under those conditions.

The new 22nm i5-3570K may out perform either by as much as double.



What the crap are you talking about?

Ignore the above nonsense.
m
0
l
July 10, 2012 12:06:45 PM

cobot said:
What the crap are you talking about?

Ignore the above nonsense.


I suggest that you provide an alternative account, and explain how the use of ‘crap’ plays any part in the outcome, unless you are afraid to.
m
0
l
July 10, 2012 12:52:32 PM

DW-UK said:
I suggest that you provide an alternative account, and explain how the use of ‘crap’ plays any part in the outcome, unless you are afraid to.


Certainly:

The purpose is to run Oracle RAC where multiple oracle instances run.

A quad-core chip would be far superior when it comes to multi-threaded usage just as previous posters have pointed out.
Also, what you seem to forget is that the 750 is a great overclocker as well.

Furthermore, while the 3570 undoubtedly is quite a bit faster than the 750, it is certainly not twice as fast.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/


If the use of crap offended you, then i appologize, however - it seemed like a fitting description of the advice you gave.
What you write in this forum may ultimatly help someone to decide what hardware to get, so if you don't quite know what you are talking about - DONT'T POST!

Thank you,

On a side note, while it is true that the 540 has a higher base clock speed, the 750s turbo boost overclocks it to 3,2 ghz when only two cores are used.

At stock speeds, the 750 will always be faster - both in single threaded and multi threaded applications.

m
0
l
July 10, 2012 1:03:44 PM

Here are some numbers from PassMark CPU Mark which provide a rough estimate of CPU performance. With a server though, you need to consider how many computations or transaction you can perform per watt of power. The 22nm CPU is about one quarter the size of a 45nm and can be run faster and still use less power. On the newer processors also, some functions have been improved to run faster at the same clock rate.

Intel Core i5-750 @ 2.67GHz, 45nm, 95W, 4-cores 4-threads, CPU Mark = 4,298
Intel Core i3 540 @ 3.07GHz, 32nm, 73W, 2-cores 4-threads, CPU Mark = 2,849 (1.4GHz = 1329.53)
Intel Core i7-2600K @ 3.40GHz, 32nm, 95W, 4-cores 8-threads, CPU Mark = 9,085
Intel Core i5-3570K @ 3.40GHz, 22nm, 77W, 4-cores 4-threads, CPU Mark = 7,732
m
0
l
July 10, 2012 1:11:38 PM

cobot said:
Certainly:

The purpose is to run Oracle RAC where multiple oracle instances run.

A quad-core chip would be far superior when it comes to multi-threaded usage just as previous posters have pointed out.
Also, what you seem to forget is that the 750 is a great overclocker as well.

Furthermore, while the 3570 undoubtedly is quite a bit faster than the 750, it is certainly not twice as fast.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/


If the use of crap offended you, then i appologize, however - it seemed like a fitting description of the advice you gave.
What you write in this forum may ultimatly help someone to decide what hardware to get, so if you don't quite know what you are talking about - DONT'T POST!

Thank you,

On a side note, while it is true that the 540 has a higher base clock speed, the 750s turbo boost overclocks it to 3,2 ghz when only two cores are used.

At stock speeds, the 750 will always be faster - both in single threaded and multi threaded applications.


Quote: "Who we are is defined by those that surround us." Evidently, you are surrounded by "crap". Therefore you offend yourself.

Since I do know what I am talking about, I WILL POST.
(BTW: I wasn’t aware that you were the boss of Tom’s Hardware.)
m
0
l
July 10, 2012 2:07:29 PM

DW-UK said:
Quote: "Who we are is defined by those that surround us." Evidently, you are surrounded by "crap". Therefore you offend yourself.

Since I do know what I am talking about, I WILL POST.
(BTW: I wasn’t aware that you were the boss of Tom’s Hardware.)


Wow, your personal attacks really bring credibility to your posts.
Your way of judging and insulting a couple of hundred people that you've never met really shows that you are a man/woman of character!

The facts remain - you were wrong.

You even posted data that proved you were wrong. Good job.

Take care!

m
0
l
July 10, 2012 2:36:19 PM

cobot said:
Wow, your personal attacks really bring credibility to your posts.
Your way of judging and insulting a couple of hundred people that you've never met really shows that you are a man/woman of character!

The facts remain - you were wrong.

You even posted data that proved you were wrong. Good job.

Take care!


There are no personal attacks contained in any of my posts. Again, if you can find any, then you should account for them.

Your account, which avoided detail, proved that in fact that you were wrong, and were attempting to play a little game to avoid revealing your error. My figures prove that what I wrote was correct. Of course, what I wrote and what distorted version one may choose to make out of it are two very different things.

It seems evident that you came onto this message board with the intent to look for something to project your crap onto just so that you could say that it was crap, so that you could pick a fight. This is known as trolling.
m
0
l
July 10, 2012 2:47:32 PM

So, to bring the conversation back to the original point.

Because Oracle RAC will greatly benefit from more cores, of the options give, I would absolutely go with the i5-750.

One question I would like to ask though, why are you looking at First generation Intel iX CPUs? Is it a matter of price, or the current chipset that you are using? I mean you would absolutely get better performance out of the new Ivy Bridge chips, or even the Sandy Bridge chips. Just curious.
m
0
l
July 10, 2012 3:19:46 PM

DW-UK said:
There are no personal attacks contained in any of my posts. Again, if you can find any, then you should account for them.

Your account, which avoided detail, proved that in fact that you were wrong, and were attempting to play a little game to avoid revealing your error. My figures prove that what I wrote was correct. Of course, what I wrote and what distorted version one may choose to make out of it are two very different things.

It seems evident that you came onto this message board with the intent to look for something to project your crap onto just so that you could say that it was crap, so that you could pick a fight. This is known as trolling.



I don't get you.

1. You state that an overclocked i3 540 will be faster as an i5 750 in heavily threaded applications:

Quote:
The 32nm i3-540 could be over-clocked to 4.4GHz with possibly same power consumption as 45nm i5-750 @ 2.66GHz. It may out perform the i5-750 at a much lower cost under those conditions.



And then you try to somehow "prove" it by (am i getting this right?) dividing the passmark scores for the i3 540 with 3 (the stock clock speed, i assume, even though it's really 3,07ghz) and then multiplying the results with 1,4. And you still get a lower score with the i3 than with the i5!!

Have a look at this from an old toms article:




2. You state that the i5 3570k is twice as fast as the i5 750:

Quote:
The new 22nm i5-3570K may out perform either by as much as double.


And as proof you use passmark data that shows:

3750: 7,732

750: 4,298

However:

4,298x2=8,596


Or do you with the "may" and "possibly" you insert everywere imply that you are only guessing?

Don't guess.






m
0
l
!