i5 750 vs i7 930

[cmndr_andi]

So from a gaming perspective what would your answer to Eulixe (or anyone else reading) be now?

And the answer to that question is most likely "no" - though it does depend on whether Eulixe plans to add a load of graphics cards in crossfire/SLI (which can also be served well by a x16x16 PCIe AMD system). But if he is just gaming with a single card then an i5 or AMD AM3 Phenom II X4 would make much more sense.

However, he also mentions photoshop and audio work. The i7 is marginally faster, imho not worth the extra money, but obviously its up to the OP.

For Adobe Audition the program can make use of many threads and hyperthreading, so it conceivable that the i7 will be a bit faster. However, I can't find any benchmarks which compare i7 to i5 and from the sound of how the OP will be using the software (work on a podcast) I'm certain the i5 will be fast enough.

Hopefully with this info and the info posted by everyone above, the OP can come to an informed decision about his new PC that best suits his needs and budget.

 

[easyrider]

and some audio editing. How much of a boost

What software are you using?


The 760 would be fine.

If you have the funds then the i7 will come in handy if running multi tracks with realtime effects running etc...

 

[Big.Wayne]

Is the extra £70-80 (plus the extra ££ for 6Gbs on memory) justifiable?

[gaming] "no"

Hey cmndr_andi

though it does depend on whether Eulixe plans to add a load of graphics cards in crossfire/SLI (which can also be served well by a x16x16 PCIe system)

When you say "served well" what do you mean exactly? . . . what is the difference between PCI-E 2.0 8x/8x and PCI-E 2.0 16x/16x

But if he is just gaming with a single card then an i5 or AMD AM3 Phenom II X4 would make much more sense.

Perhaps? . . . maybe he just wants an Intel system?

However, he also mentions photoshop and audio work. The i7 is marginally faster

"marginally faster" = 1 second faster in Photoshop CS4 and Windows Media Encoder . . . 3.4 seconds faster in Sonar . . that's a tough sell if ever I've seen one!

Is the extra £70-80 (plus the extra ££ for 6Gbs on memory) justifiable?

imho not worth the extra money, but obviously its up to the OP

 

[thingemajib]

methinks the I5 would be the better bet for now.

If at some point you decide you want some more grunt, perhaps you could flog it and get an I7 8xx chip (which does hyperthreading) as a drop in replacement. At the moment its about £60 over the I5, which makes it completely pointless (you might as well just go for the X58 and 6 gigs of ram), but hopefully in the comping months, prices should have dropped a bit.

 

[cmndr_andi]

When you say "served well" what do you mean exactly? . . . what is the difference between PCI-E 2.0 8x/8x and PCI-E 2.0 16x/16x

By "served well" I mean a few things tbh. First, in a simple dual SLI/CF graphics arrangement with current top-end graphics cards, the performance increase is a few %. Not a lot, but it is measurable.

If he wants to run three cards, then one of these boards (either AMD or Intel) with many PCIe lanes is basically a requirement.

Also, modern graphics cards use a certain bandwidth, in most situations a PCIe v2 8x link seems to be enough (this review shows the GTX 480 works very well on a 8x). However, it stands to reason that this bandwidth requirement will increase with time and new technologies, making x8 PCIe v2 slots much more limiting on performance. It must be pointed out that this may not happen soon or even in the useful lifetime of the system, but is still worth bearing in mind.

Perhaps? . . . maybe he just wants an Intel system?

Perhaps, and if he is then it is a shame as he is limiting his options. I would certainly suggest the OP has a look at the AMD options, such as Phenom II.

"marginally faster" = 1 second faster in Photoshop CS4 and Windows Media Encoder . . . 3.4 seconds faster in Sonar . . that's a tough sell if ever I've seen one!

I don't think I was trying to sell him anything, by my use of "marginally" I think I accurately conveyed the difference in performance - it is by definition marginal or slight.

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hi cmndr_andi

served well by a x16x16 PCIe system

By "served well" I mean the performance increase is a few %. Not a lot, but it is measurable.

So would it be fair to say that the difference between 8x/8x and 16x/16x is not something that could be observed by a human being in actual real-world usage? . . i.e gaming? . . . and if so what would the honest answer to the following question be if focusing on the difference between Multi-GPU 8x/8x and 16x/16x

Is the extra £70-80 (plus the extra ££ for 6Gbs on memory) justifiable?

And assuming that Eulixe is intending to use *only* a single PCI-E 2.0 16x GPU and most likely will never use anything other than a single PCI-E 2.0 16x GPU . . . what would the honest answer to the following question be

going to be used for general gaming (WoW/CSS)

Is the extra £70-80 (plus the extra ££ for 6Gbs on memory) justifiable?

I have a i5 750 and i7 920 and I would say its worth the difference.

I went from an i5 750 to an i7 930 and the difference was amazing.

 

[cmndr_andi]

That first one isn't a quote - you can't just combine different parts of a paragraph into a sentence and say that's what I said.

If you want my "honest answer" then kindly read my post in #25 again, here it is:

By "served well" I mean a few things tbh. First, in a simple dual SLI/CF graphics arrangement with current top-end graphics cards, the performance increase is a few %. Not a lot, but it is measurable.

If he wants to run three cards, then one of these boards (either AMD or Intel) with many PCIe lanes is basically a requirement.

Also, modern graphics cards use a certain bandwidth, in most situations a PCIe v2 8x link seems to be enough (this review shows the GTX 480 works very well on a 8x). However, it stands to reason that this bandwidth requirement will increase with time and new technologies, making x8 PCIe v2 slots much more limiting on performance. It must be pointed out that this may not happen soon or even in the useful lifetime of the system, but is still worth bearing in mind.

And assuming that Eulixe is intending to use *only* a single PCI-E 2.0 16x GPU and most likely will never use anything other than a single PCI-E 2.0 16x GPU . . . what would the honest answer to the following question be

If that is the case - then an i5 would be ideal. An AMD Phenom II X4 (and a good value AM3 board) would also be a good buy. However, he didn't say this and I didn't assume it - so I laid out the options and the benefits of the more expensive option. If he does go with a single card and does not plan to get a second (as most people tend to upgrade single graphics cards, not add an older card to the existing one down the road), then these features are irrelevant and the more expensive option can be happily discounted.

All I want to do is help identify the performance and feature benefits of the different options and allow the people paying the bill to determine whether this is worth their money. I can give them my opinion - but at the end of the day if they go for the expensive or cheaper option is entirely up to them.

Finally, you ask me for my "honest answer" twice in the last post. I can do little but take this an insult as it implies that you consider that I have been lying up until now.

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hey cmndr_andi

you ask me for my "honest answer" twice in the last post. I can do little but take this an insult as it implies that you consider that I have been lying up until now?

No that's not quite true . . . I said:

"what would the honest answer to the following question be"

not

"what would your honest answer to the following question be

Don't get defensive or feel that anything is being "implied" . . . if you look at the last post you will see that one or two people have "suggested" to Eulixe that the Intel® Core™ i7 is basically money well spent for his "needs"

He then goes on to "Thank" everyone for helping him spend extra money for system that "in Theory" appears to be slower in gaming and almost the same speed for everything else?

Are we on OcUK forums really looking after Eulixe as well as we could? . . . do we have his best interests at heart and really trying to save him some money or we just pumping out another overspecced Intel® Core™ i7 machine?

Bang-for-buck and all that?

Honestly speaking, if a system is going to be used for general gaming (WoW/CSS), some PS and some audio editing. How much of a boost would an i7 make over the i5

Its nothing heavy duty, I help on a podcast so most of the work is cleaning up the audio, adding in silly sound effects, all that good stuff.

PS is just for some design work at college

Is the extra £70-80 (plus the extra ££ for 6Gbs on memory) justifiable?

OcUK forum advice . . . .

Hmm. I suppose in the long run it makes sense to go with the i7 with the LGA1366 chipset

Thanks for all the great feedback everyone.

 

[wannabedamned]

£70 extra for an I7 system that is for "general gaming (WoW/CSS), some PS and some audio editing" is a bad move.

If you were using the system in a dedicated audio editing way, I would say I7. But its not, it's light use from the way the opening post was written. World of Warcraft and CS:source, Photoshop and some audio editing all done using an I5 760, That's a good system with good results!! The I7 performs better in the areas that are of light use. The I5 760 will perform better in the games which appear to be the main reason for the rig... I honestly think you're over paying for your needs. That £70 could go elsewhere, or stay in your pocket.

 

[easyrider]

I have to be honest, I'm with Big.Wayne on this one. £70 extra for an I7 system that is for "general gaming (WoW/CSS), some PS and some audio editing" is a bad move.

If you were using the system in a dedicated audio editing way, I would say I7. But its not, it's light use from the way the opening post was written. World of Warcraft and CS, Photoshop and some audio editing all done using an I5 760, That's a good system with good results!! Obviously an I7 will perform better... But I honestly think you're over paying for your needs. That £70 could go elsewhere, or stay in your pocket.

You could argue that for the i5 then.

All depends on Budget.

Intel Core i3 530 2.93GHz (Clarkdale) (Socket LGA1156) - Retail £82.24

G.Skill RipJaw 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3 PC3-12800C9 1600MHz Dual Channel Kit
£76.36

Gigabyte GA-H55M-S2 Intel H55 (Socket 1156) DDR3 Motherboard £60.99

Sub Total : £186.89
Total : £219.60

This system is just £70.39 more than the 760 chip on its own...Now the 760 doesn't look so good imo.


I think £70 is worth it for i7 over i5 in the grand scheme of things. And its to close to i5 for it not to be worth it.

 

[wannabedamned]

I do like the I3 530's to be honest. I saw proof a few weeks ago that a 4ghz I3 530 matches a stock speed I7 750 with regards to FPS in World of warcraft.

I5 750 @ 2.66 = 92 fps
I3 530 @ 2.93 = 77 fps
I3 530 @ 4ghz(OC) = 92fps

Yes, its somewhat a coincidence it matches the stock speed I5 750 exactly, but hey. it does

So if the op wanted to buy a I3 530 and overclock it, it would indeed do what he wants, Obviously though the i5 750 overclocks too

 

[Big.Wayne]

 

[HangTime]

I went from an i5 750 to an i7 930 and the difference was amazing. This for me was the biggest CPU jump I have ever seen in the past 15 years of building pcs. I've had Lots of CPUs over the years lol

Well you certainly must have had a helluva lot of cpus - the vast majority of which must have been absolutely shocking buys! - over those 15 years if you've never seen anything like i5-750 > i7-930 I mean seriously, when you went from Pentium to Pentium 2 you must have done what, P233MMX / PPro200 > P2-233 or something? Or why have your previous upgrades been so poor?

Unless you have a huge amount of cash to spend on hardware (which seems unlikely given that you bothered with an i5) I'd strongly recommend you revisit your upgrade strategy.

 

[IAmATeaf]

So what was the epilogue on this thread I've been thinking of either getting an i7 875k or an i7 930 based system and I too can't make up my mind as to what to go for.

 

[cmndr_andi]

So what was the epilogue on this thread I've been thinking of either getting an i7 875k or an i7 930 based system and I too can't make up my mind as to what to go for.

I generally wouldn't suggest going for a i7 875K based system TBH. They are clock-for-clock as fast as the i7 930 or 950, and overclock just as well. However, they are more expensive for the CPU, is limited to the s1156 boards and the unlocked multiplier isn't much help - because it seems to overclock just as well as the much cheaper i7 860 or i7 930.

There is a case for getting a s1156 i7 if you just want a very powerful CPU, will often be running many heavily threaded apps (that will make use of the i7's hyperthreading) and don't plan on more than one graphics card (so you can save money and get one of the cheaper boards). However, in such situations I would suggest going for the i7 860 and clocking it in the standard way (increase BCLK).

However, for all other uses you would be much better either going all the way and getting an i7 on the X58 platform (900 series) or going for a cheaper option such as the i5 760 or AMD Phenom II X4.

 

[IAmATeaf]

So if I was to clock an i7 875k and an i7 950 to say the same clock speeds, ignoring Turbo Boost for the time being and taking into account some mild game playing but more of the video processing/encoding, so things like Adobe Premiere to author DVDs would they perform pretty much the same? or would the 950 be in it's element and start taking off

 

[cmndr_andi]

Aye, at the same clockspeed the two chips perform nigh-on identically.

 

[IAmATeaf]

Hmmm, that makes making my mind up even more difficult

Last question then, how easy or hard is to overclock both systems, would 1 platform be easier then the other and how would an x58 system perform if say I was to put 8gb of RAM in, so 3 slots plus an extra slot filled?

 

[cmndr_andi]

The X58 is the more overclocking friendly platform and the i7 900 series chips need less voltage to overclock them. However, the i7 875K has an unlocked multiplier, which can make the process very easy indeed (though you wouldn't get the performance benefits of a higher BCLK).

This and this review cover the i7 875K. It overclocks OK, but it is certainly no better than the i7 950 - do you plan to water cool or air cool?

 

[IAmATeaf]

Air cool, was thinking of getting the Venomous X. Any thoughts on installing 8gb in an x58?