I5 or i7?
-
Am planning to build up a new PC since my old one just bought the farm.
Basically the most power hungry software I’m running is BMS.Would a higher end i5 or i7 1xxx series be better? For slightly more $$$ I can get a “lower spec i7” compared to a higher end i5.
Cheers!
-
Do the research, then buy the most powerful (read as most future-proof) you can afford. There are plenty good hardware review sites out there - make use of them.
-
What counts is single core performance.
So as you say it the i5.
If you intent to overclock the i7 then even with air you can get the stock performance of the i5 and even higher if those two are close on stock clocks. Make sure the i7 is able to overclock.
But you can also overclock the i5 and maybe go even higher if needed.
But i7 will give more headroom for other stuff you might want to run simultaneously that an i5 might suffer.
Yeap confusing.
I would go for the i7.Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T818A using Tapatalk
-
What counts is single core performance.
So as you say it the i5.
If you intent to overclock the i7 then even with air you can get the stock performance of the i5 and even higher if those two are close on stock clocks. Make sure the i7 is able to overclock.
But you can also overclock the i5 and maybe go even higher if needed.
But i7 will give more headroom for other stuff you might want to run simultaneously that an i5 might suffer.
Yeap confusing.
I would go for the i7.Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T818A using Tapatalk
Thanks for the info.
My most demanding software is BMS, so like you said go for high speed single core. -
multi core snake oil is snake oil. between 4 and 8 is the ticket. I won’t elaborate here as It would undoubtedly ruffle some wallets and feathers in hindsight, but you can research software controllers and hardware controllers, hardware limitations due to software, and the failure of progress in software to stay on the bleeding edge with hardware.
here are some basic tenets;
base clock and turbo on the front end is most important
your biggest point of research should be your motherboards chipset family and the potentiality of future proofing.
DDR5 is in the pipe, and may not be a new form factor, in fact the 3 different demos shown to the public that were not defense related were 288 pin just like the ddr4.
you always want to under volt your Power supply. you want at least 100W headroom at all times, so you never go max load. I build systems for average joes around a max of 475 and slap an 800w PSU in the thing. My machines never come back. Understand circuitry and yield load over time.If you are going to buy a dedicated graphics card, you do not need a CPU chip with onboard graphics, in fact, more pins devoted to something else is much more favorable. I like the intel F family for this reason specifically.
anything from the mid to top tier range of the 5 7 or 9, and even most of the 3, will run BMS like a delight.
Unlike the pillars of shittalk i just built about software engineers being lazy rats for the most part, BMS is well optimized right up to about four cores. It’s well optimized in general. When you have well built software your hardware always performs, and BMS will perform well under most of the modern cpus, 3,5,7, and 9. you could probably even slap a dual core 3.9ghz intel chip in that and not only be fine, but it might eclipse some of the numbers higher up because windows performs very well with dual core cpus.
-
Id stick to 8 or more real cores for a new purchase as it’s been shown the i5 9600K with only 6 threads is not expected to age very well as thread count dependencies increase (has no HT). i7 9700K or similar would be a better investment Imo.
As far as BMS is concerned, less cores - higher clock speed is superior than a lower clocked 6+ core CPU. Even a high clocked i3 would be ideal in this scenario as mentioned.
-
Yes the age of 4 threads is now gone.
6 is scraping buy, but I would not pass on a well clocked i-5 if I had to build a new system in today’s environment on a budget.
Go AMD ……Intel sucks :argue:
-
Nothing personal against all the good friends’ respectable opinions expressed so far, but please let me justifiably disagree here, from my personal experience of a professional user (my system is running eight hours at least a day and on a daily basis).
I have been a very satisfied Intel user since, let’s see… ten years ago at least, after having left AMD because their progressive lack of competivity in overall performance. All tested and reported on the most reliable technical sites.
According to independent technicians, Intel’s i7 introduced a revolution in CPU architecture at its time… but Intel didn’t stopped and went even further, releasing a brand new CPU generation and continuing the research and development process.
What am I using now since six months ago (I think)? A i9-9900, running at 3.60 Ghz.
No overclocking, I don’t believe in such kind of ‘tricks’ nor can’t, I have to trust on a reliable system in any conditions and anytime.
Could any AMD CPU match mine? I’m sure of it: positively not, also today and for quite some time yet… and this is tested truth once again.
You don’t have to believe me on the word. Go for that mine, instead, and you can tell yourself (not to me, who already knew it) what the difference really is.
Provided that the PC has been assembled with components and peripherals of equal value, of course - but I’m telling this to myself only, all of you already knew it.With best regards.
-
This post is deleted! -
I went intel way few months ago - i5 9600K with 3333MHz RAM…I guess board with RAM and processor is fundamental base…you can allways upgrade your GPU etc.
I went i5 due to Falcon and Arma (had i7 in my notebook for seven or eight years…still work on it, but its worse than similar i5 mine friend have). -
Intel weak, AMD strong.
Intel Jane, AMD called Tarzan.
Amd that’s all I have to say about that, :yo:
Even my relatively cheap 3600x is biting at the heals of the i9-3900k
R5 3600x = $389
i9 9900k = $769
For non gaming workloads the
R 7 3700x ($518.oo) is all over the i9 9900k like a rash.
Jackel do you have Cinebench R15 & R 20, Give me your Results.
Or how ever you want to measure our dongles.
Jackal you :tjacked: this peacfull assembly of Simmers and are trying to turn it into a AMD vs Intel debate. Mate your tactics wont work.
Its a i5 vs i7 thread my friend.
i7 sucks, i5 great. Oorah !
PS: I’m going back to my Ryzen thread now, my work here is done.
-
I would kind of like to see your Cinebench scores… Everything I have seen puts the 3600x within 5% of the 3600 at 25% more cost. And the 3600 is roughly on par with Intel’s 8700, or the I5-9600 in single-core performance. Nowhere even remotely close to the I9 series (Except maybe the 39xx series). The only Ryzen I have seen that outperforms the I9’s in a comparable chip competition is the R9 3900x. Which costs more than the 9900k - there goes the “Intel is overpriced” argument.
If you plan to use it for anything other than gaming, the i7 will likely be of benefit. Otherwise, the i5 is the much better deal.
-
Read and weep…well look anyway.
-
And
That is My 3600x @ 85% to i9-9900s 100%
And for good measure R20 Multi Core
-
I’d get a 3600x + some ram at 3200 speed at least + cheap ssd + perhaps a super nvidia card (though im content with my 5700xt, but the drivers are still not ironed out).
Hear me out:
- price is lower
- age is younger and it will last you 5 years prolly
- performance is equal at worst, better for actual applications on day to day basis
- runs all the old-core sims, including the Beloved Massive Simulator 4.34 really well
So with the price things are simple. Mb + cpu cost less, although not sooo much cheaper. But Amd bundles an ok cooler for your Ryzen and considering that overclocking on this cpu is a bit useless at the moment, you’re good to go.
Problem with Intel CPUs is their power consumption and heat. You’re not seriously going to buy an Intel cpu without overclocking it, right ? Even stock, the temperatures are unacceptable. So count at the very least 50 bucks for that, on top of the cpu price.
B450 motherboards run just fine, no need to invest into all this x570 stuff.The age of the platform is an obvious thing. Buying into any Intel product at the moment means buying into a finely aged, but aged platform. The whole current lineup of Intel in terms of consumer cpus is basically on the way out.
This doesnt mean you must swap all things out in a year or two, but newer things like faster ram you to. And when the day comes, you’ll pay dearly because Intel policy is basically to switch sockets between their lineups. Considering that new AMD chipsets already have active cooling on motherboard and
ram had heatsinks for a while, expect the new motherboard to cost significant money in a year or two. In any case, this could happen at some point with AMD as well, say post Ryzen 3, but for now you’re good.Performance - there’s plenty online about this. It basically catches up with Intel when we are talking about games and consumer market applications. For a comparable price it can even top it.
But first thing to understand is that benchmarks are basically synthetic tests and realistically it doesnt matter whether your game runs at 200 or 240 fps. If you were to consider swapping a platform for professional use - say CAD software or editing cinematic footage at 8k raw,
well you shouldn’t be asking this here then or making your decision based on youtube reviews. The short answer is : it depends. Different heavy-weight software has differently optimized code bases.
But this may change in the very near future, although Ryzen cpus play more of a image-making role here. It’s important to AMD to have this as a flagship or showcase for whats possible, but it won’t be the main source of income in any sense. This is a whole different conversation about workstations and data processing.
Things look pretty good on this front for AMD as well, with Epyc platform representing a great product with its low power and heat advantages + the price. But anyhow, this is all a different topic.
Again, for consumer use 6 core processors are more than enough. And don’t look at frequency only - count in cache, infinity fabric speed, ram speed etc.
Another thing to consider is that more cores does not mean they can hit max boost frequence on all cores. But this isn’t something easily solved by neither corporation, not until we are all sitting on ARM cpus.And finally, the most important part is performance in something like BMS.
Well, so i just bought into this platform for home use mainly for : BMS, Wings Over Flanders Fields and Wings Over the Reich, Il-2: Sturmovik BoM, BoS, BoK, BoB etc.
My concern was single-core speed mainly and i was looking real close at 8700k since it can be oc’ed up to 5.1 easily.
Long story short - on 3600x + 5700xt + cheap 1tb ssd : BMS - 45 fps at the start of campaign really close to FLOT with a mav and flir, 180 fps in a TE, 100 fps all around. WOFF runs at 267 fps, same with WOTR, Il-2 is above 110 fps.
Obviuosly i don’t run it at this fps, i just lock at 60, cause my monitor is just 60mhz (ultra-wide 1080p).
I ran a quick test on a Valve Index in DCS, it kinda varies but in an average mission it sustains 90.I have a bunch of more demanding games like Monster Hunter World or Metro Exodus, no problem there on everything Ultra.
The main gripe i have right now, again are the buggy drivers for GPU - some artifacts in Graviteam Tactics and Steel Fury, but this seems to be a question of time now.
But BMS for example finally runs without any Z-fighting on basically everything, which was an issue on my previous intel-nvidia setup. Go figure.Anyway, I don’t want to advertise amd too much here. I’m fairly certain that if they will end up on top, they may behave like intel did for a decade as well. It just currently makes sense in terms of budget and performance.
There’s only one fight i’m willing to fight here - air cooling vs water cooling. The latter is basically a scam at this point. And the most expensive part will be the leak.Have fun doing your build
-
I am sorry to ask here, but what is your opinion about to mix i5-9600K with AMD GPU?
There are plenty cheap second hand 8GB AMD cards….
-
580 / 590 can be had new for little money as well
If it’s a temporary solution - say till the end of next year, i’d get it.
These are cheap, have ok cooling, the amd drivers don’t seem to bother them so much as they do the two new models.Thing is, i’m not sure if the second-hand market is still full of nvidia cards used for mining, but those tend to be nvidia anyway.
The prices for nvidia cards are absolutely atrocious for years and amd decided to do the same.If you want a card for 4-5 years though, wait till summer next year.
Ps5 and Xbox next-scarlett-whatever will come out and these are entirely amd.
I’m not divulging any secret here by saying that amd solution to ray-tracing is a lot better in the long term, as it is much more scalable than nvidia.
Current gen nvidia cards are a bloody robbery, the prices are absurd, ray tracing is basically a gimmick at this level (except 2080ti) and even second hand they are expensive.
If you’re not earning money by 3d modelling (cuda cores), basically there is no reason to go team green.Next year gpus will be a very long term investment, since we should all prepare for an even more serious stagnation on the market.
There are multiple reasons for this: 1) both players are actually putting their efforts into data processing, where currently nvidia positions look shaky 2) we are reaching a limit for accellerators (ray-tracing core for instance) on the die. This means that stuff like ray-tracing is again limited to 2 more generations of very slight improvement only or the prices will rise significantly for gpus or we will (again) have specific cards for specific features (like nvidia physics stuff in the past). But amd has a good chance with their scalable 7nm architecture. Who knows though. 3) Intel wants in, so maybe they’ll have something ? 4) cpu+gpu packages are incoming.
And finally 6) ARM is the future anyway. -
Well said depapier, you saved me from inflaming my AMD Tunnel Syndrome. A painful condition.
So hows the XT do tell, I’m waiting for the partners to release some decent cooling solutions.
I love saying XT it reminds me of the 00s ( what do we say as a moniker for that decade, nothing rolls off the tong like the 60s & 70s, open air rock, sex, drugs & Coca-Cola )
In my Nvida phase, Riva TNT2 16MB , The very first Geforce 256 TnL Card, GF2 MX 200 & MX400, GF FX 5600 XT , GeForce 6800 XT, and then batting for the red side my beloved Radeon 9600 XT , Radeon X1950 XT, Radeon HD 4850, Radeon HD 5850 x2, HD 7950 x2 and todays RX 480 with 8GB.So hows the XT 5700
-
As an AMD user myself, and an AMD fan, Shadow just remember synthetic benchmarks do not equate to gaming performance. That said Jackals i9 9000 would still wipe the floor in gaming against AMD in single threaded game BMS included. Although the price to performance vs AMD right now is not worth it, it still the best gaming CPU out there and it turbos all the way to 5Ghz which amd nee to be at atleast 4.8Ghz to match the gaming or single threaded performance. AMDs IPC clock for clock is actually better but gaming performance does show otherwise.
-
…actually I am earning money by 3D modeling a bit, but rather marginally and I do it more and more simple useing simple software 3D mode and handmade postprocess lol. I started to be tired of photoreal rendering about 15 years ago (spent 95-2005 with nerdy raytrace/gi renderings…)
But of course, this cuda remark has its value. I am also finding 1060 series much more el. saving. Perhaps I will stay green team despite my long term disappointment with their GE GF 555M (used it perhaps 10 hours in total in my notebook during last 8 years - when needed better antialias in my RLtime window).
On the other hand I have red about AMD less Z-fight (?), better DX 12 performance, more VRAM for same price…I dont know…I am still happy with UHD630 and 1sec windoze start on my new rig
edit: 9600K has UHD630, not HD4000…