• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

i5 vs Core2quad

I'm not so sure on the processors because I'm not that 'with it' but you would assume the i5 is better because it's new hat.

Things I do know however is that it will be on a much better future proof motherboard and run off DDR3 RAM.
 
The i5 is a good deal faster in everything, have a look at this comparison.

The i5 is a quad core clocked at the same speed at the Q8400 - however, it uses a newer architechture - so it is much faster clock-for-clock. It can also overclock better than the Core 2 Quad - you will be lucky to hit 3.6GHz with a Q8400, but with the i5 4GHz should not be a problem and many have got it to 4.2GHz or more.

As mentioned, the i5 also uses DDR3 RAM- which means that memory bandwidth is also better (also aided by the on-die memory controller used by the i5). However, this means you need a newer P55, H55 or H57 board to run an i5 as well as DDR3 RAM.
 
Last edited:
*edit* cmdr_andi said it better :)

Bear in mind that they run on totally different motherboards and memory though, so if you're system building, don't consider them drop in replacements for each other :D
 
Something confuses me since ever since looking at the Anandtech cpu comparision even the i5-750 vs Q8400, I dont see why theres a major need to upgrade ?

Sure in windows apps and graphic design theres a fair bit of performance difference but still not that much, but in gaming your looking at 10-20fps more faster with the Core-i5 setup.

Same can be said with the Core i7-950 vs Q6600 comparision here:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/53?vs=100

Sure in games were seeing a good 10-20fps more, and in apps a nice boost but really worth spending the extra £400-600 when you can pick up a Q6600+mobo+ram for like £150 off members market ?
 
There isn't a major need for an upgrade between a Core 2 Quad and a nahalem quad core CPU. My friend has a Q6600 @3GHz, he plays loads of games and he doesn't plan on upgrading for at least a year as his system is more than fast enough for his needs (in most games, performance is limited by the GPU not the CPU if you have a Q6600).

However, the OP was just asking what the difference was and which was better. It is up to him whether the extra performance is worth the extra cost.
 
Big.Wayne said:
Hey Roflwaffle,

How come your asking this question exactly? . . . what's the bigger "equation" your working on?
Click to expand...

I've got an E5200 Dual core processor just now and I was just thinking about possible upgrades. I think the E5200 is bottlenecking my system as I didnt notice much performance increase from upgrading my 9600GT to a GTX260.
 
Roflwaffle said:
I've got an E5200 Dual core processor just now and I was just thinking about possible upgrades. I think the E5200 is bottlenecking my system as I didnt notice much performance increase from upgrading my 9600GT to a GTX260.
Click to expand...

Whats it clocked at, and what res do you run?
 
Roflwaffle said:
I had it clocked at 3Ghz, and then 3.27Ghz which didn't work at all and I had to flash the BIOS, so I've just got it at stock clock speed now just to be safe. My monitors native res is 1360x768
Click to expand...

Thats a very low res to be honest, so it puts a fair bit more work on the CPU rather than the GPU (as a GTX 260 could do that all day blindfolded) - therefore it's quite a hefty bottleneck I'd imagine. You'd get a boost with going for a larger resolution also, if that's an option ;)

I don't think a Q8400 would give you the massive gains you'd expect however.
 
Out of interest, what motherboard and CPU cooler do you currently have?

Depending on what you have a £80 second-hand Q6600 overclocked to ~3.2GHz would do you nicely.
 
Hey Roflwaffle,

few questions . . .

  1. What speed/size DDR2 do you have?
  2. What LGA775 Motherboard do you have?
  3. What Cooler do you have?
  4. Which game titles do you enjoy playing?
 
MooMoo444 said:
You'd get a boost with going for a larger resolution also, if that's an option ;)
Click to expand...

Could you explain this please ?

As much as I'm aware that lower res puts more stress on the CPU than the GPU I'm quite sure that you will not see any boost by increasing the resolution.

Just because the GPU gets more use in higher res and therefore takes bigger play on high res than CPU it does not mean that the CPU is used less.

Playing a game at 800x600 doesn't take more CPU power than playing at 1680x1050.

-----------
Either way, E5200 at around 3.3-3.4ghz mark should be completely fine for gaming at this res.

But then depending on your current mobo/ram/cooling, a cheap upgrade to Q6600 or Q8400 wouldn't be a bad idea either considering that it might cost nearly nothing.
 
Very little real world difference in my q9400 at 3.6 and my i5 750 at 3.8. Of course benchmarks will tell you that i5 is waaay better.

My usage is fps, rts, hd media encode and playback, office and web browsing.

Just my 2 cents.
 
PhoenixUK said:
Could you explain this please ?

As much as I'm aware that lower res puts more stress on the CPU than the GPU I'm quite sure that you will not see any boost by increasing the resolution.

Just because the GPU gets more use in higher res and therefore takes bigger play on high res than CPU it does not mean that the CPU is used less.

Playing a game at 800x600 doesn't take more CPU power than playing at 1680x1050.

-----------
Either way, E5200 at around 3.3-3.4ghz mark should be completely fine for gaming at this res.

But then depending on your current mobo/ram/cooling, a cheap upgrade to Q6600 or Q8400 wouldn't be a bad idea either considering that it might cost nearly nothing.
Click to expand...

generally with games, the speed which the game can run is determined by the speed of your GPU, ie how fast it can compute each frame.

when running at low res, then a good GPU will be able to compute the frame without using its full power, so its not being used to its full potential and has to wait for the CPU to finish each cycle.

so a better CPU means it can complete cycles quicker and get the GPU to render more often.

the less the GPU has to do, the more the CPU becomes the bottleneck.

Each frame as to be computed by the CPU, then rendered by the GPU, the faster of the 2 will be waiting for the other to finish before moving on.

this of course depends on the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom