It's clearly faster and in my opinion, wears out slower.
There are identical SSD's fitted in both laptop and desktop.
-
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.
i3 6100 not good enough for BF1
- Thread starter Drake5
- Start date
- Status
It's clearly faster and in my opinion, wears out slower.
There are identical SSD's fitted in both laptop and desktop.
Yes, but that doesn't answer my question. An i7 certainly is faster, but realistically you're only going to notice when performing demanding tasks whereas you're suggesting an i7 is noticeably faster than an i5 at everything.
Not really sure what that means. I've never worn-out a CPU.
Ultimately you're comparing a desktop CPU to a mobile one so the comparison is a bit pointless anyway.
speaking from the real world,i went from an i3 6100 stock to a 6400,i noticed little to nothing difference fps wise playing bf4 on ultra settings with a 1060 card on 64 player servers..this was also including an upgrade to a z170 board from a h110 board at the same time.
I was still getting 100fps same as the i3,i think if I had a 1070/80 card then yes there would have been but the 1060 seems nicely paired with the i3,very underated cpu,especially if you can oc it
I was still getting 100fps same as the i3,i think if I had a 1070/80 card then yes there would have been but the 1060 seems nicely paired with the i3,very underated cpu,especially if you can oc it
That's the thing fastboy, you can overclock the i3 and save yourself the expense of a I5k, or overclock the non K I5's which totally cater for a 1060/1070/1080 and still provides an upgrade to an I7 if the time comes you can afford/need one.
The only problem for me is that the skylake itx z boards are around 130 which is too dear.
For now i've just bought a 3570k and a h61n-usb3 for my htpc using a 1060,
Amd apu's can't touch it in performance per pound or power consumption, and with the money saved i bought a better gpu which the intel allows to work at it's full potential, unlike the amd apus.
The only problem for me is that the skylake itx z boards are around 130 which is too dear.
For now i've just bought a 3570k and a h61n-usb3 for my htpc using a 1060,
Amd apu's can't touch it in performance per pound or power consumption, and with the money saved i bought a better gpu which the intel allows to work at it's full potential, unlike the amd apus.
Last edited:
For what it's worth folks, I have a G3258 which performs great in BF1.... Singleplayer.
When it comes to multiplayer it's a no go despite playing at medium / 1080p with next to no stutter in SP.
This was me playing SP on medium 1080p, while recording at 720p all on the humble G3258.
Average is about 45fps. In multiplayer it's less than half that hence me buying an i5 yesterday
It looks like this is one game that quad core is really the baseline
When it comes to multiplayer it's a no go despite playing at medium / 1080p with next to no stutter in SP.
This was me playing SP on medium 1080p, while recording at 720p all on the humble G3258.
Average is about 45fps. In multiplayer it's less than half that hence me buying an i5 yesterday
It looks like this is one game that quad core is really the baseline
Last edited:
I've noticed a significant improvement in most things I do. The again I run a lot of CPU intensive tasks such as Video / Photo Editing, plus I usually multi task even when surfing.
I personally, think there's even a difference with desktop tasks. However, that's my view.
If people with i5's are satisfied that's great. They just should try i7's before commenting because there's a significant step up in my opinion.
CPU's can slow as they get older. In my opinion, the i7 has been the best processor I've had in that regard.
I've just looked back in my invoices and I built my PC in early 2012, so it's coming up to 5 years old. It's still lightening fast. Never had that with any previous PC which have started to slow by now. As I said, I'm a very intensive user, spending most days / nights on the pc. So my pc's tend to slow quicker than perhaps others might.
To be honest, ive not had any issues with dual core on any game until BF1. Sure you need to take more care about what background apps are running but all in all its a great performer. Thankfully an i5 will be here by Thursday though so I can get my conquest on
But like i said in that video, gaming in Full HD while recording at 720p (no external capture) shows that the little Dual Core does still have some grunt to it.
That is partially because the Core i7 were fantastic since the start but also because software generally doesn't need the hardware as much any more. Software is more optimised for netbooks and other low power devices, and things like hard drive read speed and graphics rendering time are more important than CPU time for a lot of general tasks these days.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,212
- Location
- Solihull
That is a dual core.
2 core 4 thread big difference.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,212
- Location
- Solihull
It Does Make A Difference, but It's still a dual core.
But you seemingly can't quantify or explain it.
But we've already established that you appear to be comparing a desktop i7 with a dual-core mobile i5 so yes, the performance difference will be more pronounced, not helped by the fact that you're comparing two entirely different systems.
This all reminds me of the days when people who had paid significantly more for a P4 rather than the cheaper AthlonXP were adamant they could "feel the difference" even within Windows Explorer etc.
Can you link me to hard fact please?
Yep. Transistors age. So who's laughing now: - Obviously Intel were wrong when they started to build in protection:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/11/resilient_and_adaptive_processor/
http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/processors/transistor-aging
Last edited:
Interesting in the context of overclocking to remember that the primary cause of microprocessor damage is excess voltage (followed by heat):
Have you just linked the register?
Hahahahaha?..
Also did you actually read the second article ? Lol
Modern chips perform within their designed tolerances...
Now stop posting guff ...you're doing my head in...
Last edited:
Have you just linked the register?
Hahahahaha?..
Also did you actually read the second article ? Lol
Modern chips perform within their designed tolerances...
Now stop posting guff ...you're doing my head in...
Wow you really are a troll.
I also linked you to IEEE Spectrum who I believe stated in the article that they were working with Intel on the problem.
There are may sources that say transistors wear out with usage and a microprocessor is simply millions of transistors on a silicon die. As transistors die, error correction means calculations take longer.
There are even books on it co-written by IBM researchers:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...AEImQEwFQ#v=onepage&q=transistor wear&f=false
Last edited:
- Status