• 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.

1st gen Intel Core processors or 3rd gen?

R2dbag

R2dbag

R2dbag

Associate
Joined
7 May 2013
Posts
37
Hey, some of you may have seen in my other thread that my friend thinks his i7 860 is gods gift and is by far the best processor available. He tells me that the 1st gen Intel Cores were the best and everything after them has been inferior.

I've done some digging and found that the Intel Core i5 3570k that I intend to get walks all over his precious i7 680 as far as I can see... (both of our machines are/will be used for gaming)

So which is better, the first, second or third generations?

(Apologies for these idiotic questions, I'm new to PC gaming so I'm trying to get my head round everything whilst been fed what appears to be piles of bs by my mate)
 
Last edited:
His i7 is inferior to the i7 from SB and the i7 from IB and will be inferior to the one from Haswell, as well as being inferior from the i7's from SB-E.

IPC has improved as has the overclocking ability.

That's not to say it's a bad CPU, but the new stuff isn't inferior.
 
Three thoughts.

Intel make better processors with each generation.
Desktop processors are usually faster than laptop processors.
More cores, higher clock frequency, more cache imply faster processors.

I'm not convinced your friend is a real person, but if he is, you're probably better off disregarding his ideas about computing.
 
the older i7's were good chips apart from running on the hot side,you didn't have built in graphics or true sata3 speeds with those platforms

sandybridge were a lot better as in running much cooler and gaining built in graphics should you need it and true sata3 speeds

ivybridge improved things further clock for clock it was faster yet intel seriously crippled its overclockability due to using paste instead of solder found on sandybridge die/heatsinks

if you can pick up a decent coolish running ivybridge then that's the best out of all,with a sandybridge 2500k/2600k/2700k coming close second
 
In sheer processor performance at stock his 860 is inferior to the 3570K. When you look at other top end chips from first gen i7s including i7 970+ (which were hex cores), they are around the same performance as a 3770K at stock clocks. The 970+ chips were obscenely expensive (still are!) and they also suffered from the disadvantages mentioned above.

Overclocked, the differences will vary depending on the overclock you are able to achieve on your Ivybridge.
 
a 2700k would stuff an i7 860. wouldnt upgrade to a 2700k though. just not worth it. see what haswell brings, or go sandy bridge E if your dying for an upgrade.
 
I guess the first gen i-series' chips were a decent sized step forward from their predecessors so were 'better' than more recent releases in that regard - not in head to head performance though.

Still on a 1st gen i5 here and its still great, but wouldn't turn away a newer chip if I were offered one. Just can't justify the cost of an upgrade.
 
Just thought I would point out that while 2nd/3rd gen i5/i7 CPUs are better than first gen. 1st gen Pentium/i3 CPUs walk all over the 2nd/3rd gen ones as they are not locked out from overclocking, so despite being slightly slower at stock they can take up to a 1.5GHz overclock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom