• 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.

Can I get away with i3 rather than i5?

TheLastMan

TheLastMan

TheLastMan

Associate
Joined
14 Feb 2003
Posts
116
Location
UK
I use my computer mainly for audio encoding (LP -> WAV, WAV -> FLAC, CD -> FLAC, WAV -> MP3, and FLAC -> MP3 ). It also gets used for photo editing (Adobe Lightroom). Fast 3D graphics are not required.

I am getting rather impatient with its slowness and it is also starting to crash more often (once or twice a day the screen freezes) despite new memory, a new PSU, new CPU cooler and moderate temps (50c under full load after 15 minutes). I suspect either the north bridge or graphics card.

I have decided not to waste any more money on it and go for replacement CPU, memory, mobo and graphics solution.

I originally thought of buying the i5 750 with 4GB of memory and a new (basic) graphics card. However that lot would set me back well over £350.

Looking again at reviews of the i3 530 with its built in graphics core I would save myself about £90 as it appears to have pretty decent graphics performance.

Would I see a good enough improvement on my current setup (see sig) with the i3? What extra would the i5 bring to the party?
 
I'm on the verge of an upgrade so have been reading Lots lately, I'd say an i5 is the best bang for buck upgrade for gamers. i3 would just dissapoint,
 
CPU wise the i3 should be fine for what you're doing. Graphics wise I'm not entirely sure how the integrated graphics would do against your 6600 GT. I suppose you could try it and if it doesn't meet your needs you could spend another £40 for a low end or 2nd hand graphics card.
 
TheLastMan said:
Maybe, but I am not a gamer, and £90 is a lot of money for performance in an area I would not use.
Click to expand...

Sorry Dude I just take it for granted that Everybody is a gamer. I'll let others give more relevant advice. :)
 
Does the audio encoding and photo editing make use of multiple cores? If so, then the i5 750 would be faster(as it is a true quad core, compared to the hyperthreaded dual core of the i3).

As for integrated graphics, can you not just reuse your current 6600GT graphics card? If not, you could get hold of a graphics card of greater power than the IGP in the i3 for less than £30.
 
malc30 said:
Sorry Dude I just take it for granted that Everybody is a gamer. I'll let others give more relevant advice. :)
Click to expand...
No probs mate! I used to be a gamer which is why I know about this site (flight-sims mainly, Longbow 2 rocked!) but wife, kids and career progression has put an end to most "fun", probably until I retire! :(
 
to be honest go quad save a bit . no point in dualcore unless like a phenom it unlocks to a quad.

youll just end up grading again earlier.

no matter what people say every day use theres no comparison and in games even if they say they get same fps it still aint the same :D . some wont have it but with how cheap quads have become its silly not to get one. only thing is recently things have gone up :( memory and cpus and other bits and bobs which sucks .
 
cmndr_andi said:
Does the audio encoding and photo editing make use of multiple cores? If so, then the i5 750 would be faster(as it is a true quad core, compared to the hyperthreaded dual core of the i3).
Click to expand...

Yes, they do. I was just wondering how much difference the two extra cores would make? On my current machine it takes about 7 minutes to transcode a CD's worth of FLAC files to MP3. Now if the i3 can bring that down to, say, 4 minutes and the i5 to 2 minutes I would go for the i5. But if the i5 can only reduce it further to, say, 3.5 minutes then I would go with the i3.

As for integrated graphics, can you not just reuse your current 6600GT graphics card?
Click to expand...
Nope, it is an AGP card and (AFAIK) modern motherboards do not have an AGP slot.
If not, you could get hold of a graphics card of greater power than the IGP in the i3 for less than £30.
Click to expand...
Really? What card would you suggest?
 
How about considering AMD (am3) especially as you will need new memory too, You can get a phenom II quad for £20/£30 more then an I3, which will trounce the I3 in encoding, also a lot AM3 mobo's have very decent onboard graphics.

If you went I5 750 quad (the true quad one) you would need to get a gfx card so would cost a lot more.

For your needs, i personally think AMD would be the best route to go, especially if you don't want to be spending a fortune.
 
^^^^ yeah good one my mobo has decent onboard and a 955 would give you quad goodness and no need for graphics card . well thought out batman
 
bifday2k said:
How about considering AMD (am3) especially as you will need new memory too, You can get a phenom II quad for £20/£30 more then an I3, which will trounce the I3 in encoding, also a lot AM3 mobo's have very decent onboard graphics.

If you went I5 750 quad (the true quad one) you would need to get a gfx card so would cost a lot more.

For your needs, i personally think AMD would be the best route to go, especially if you don't want to be spending a fortune.
Click to expand...

+1 Considering the price of i5 750s now (I mean come on - you can buy an i7 920 for the same price) a Phenom II X4 system would be great idea. You can get a decent chipset with integrated graphics (785G) for about the same cost as an H55/57 board. Add some dual channel DDR3 and you will be sorted.
 
Just specced up your suggested system using this board
Asus M4A88TD-M EVO/USB3 AMD 880G (Socket AM3)
and the price is £309 compared to £260 for the equivalent i3 setup. That is still nearly £50 more.

Still makes going with the i3 and adding a graphics board later if necessary sound a goer. Again it depends whether or not the extra two cores are worth £50.

Pity I cannot test them for myself. Anybody seen a comparison test between an i3 / i5 / AMD 955 for encoding? That might give me a clue at least.
 
Have a look at this comparison.
Click to expand...

Never spotted that comparison tool at Anand before. Thanks for the link, think I will dig around there for a while.

Thanks for all the suggestions guys! I will let you know how I get on.

I have to say this is the most responsive IT forum on the web. Great stuff!
 
Right! It is clear the AMD 955 is about 15%-25% faster encoding than the i3 - and faster at just about everything else as well. The i5 is faster still but not by as much as the AMD is faster than the i3 (if you get my drift!).

I realise I was pricing using the i3 OEM when I should have been using the retail box. So the AMD package is now just short of £300 (using the cheaper 785G mobo suggestion from cmndr andi) whereas the i3 package is £271. Just £29 cheaper.

Hmm... decisions, decisions...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom