i3 6100 vs i5 2400 for gaming only

[leaf__00]

Hi, now, it comes these 2 cpus.
Both were used. i5 costs 55usd (Rm240) whereas i3 costs usd 71(Rm320).

Please don't take in future upgradeability as a factor, i x care abt that all, neglect that.
Now passmark benchmark show both scores the same,like exactly the same.

I3 is newer cpu, More IPC, 14nm , n thus if it can act as quad core by Hyperthreading only, it should be still faster than some true quad core like i5 760.
But would it be still be as good/fast as the true quad core i5 2400 when it comes to gaming(need 4 cores)?

The i3 is real good/flexible as it can act super fast dual core and normal quad core.
BUT, the BENCH score can be contributed by tests which run better on single highly clocked core, which games nowdays dont much.
Whereas the i5 could have it scores contributed by raw multiple cores but would it be that much better than the i3 6100?

Wheras the i5 is cheaper build, cpu +mobo(even fnew ones) +ram .

ONE MORE QUESTION, should Hyper 212 evo(currently using for e6850@3.7ghz) enough for 95watt i5 2400 without overclocking ?

I know it super cheap but im looking to spend more on gpu and hdd and monitor.

 

[MWP0004]

For games that strongly depend on single core performance, the 6100 is the clear winner.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-2400-vs-Intel-Core-i3-6100/803vs3511

Also, that is a fantastic deal, even for a used 6100.

 

[leaf__00]

For games that strongly depend on single core performance, the 6100 is the clear winner.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-2400-vs-Intel-Core-i3-6100/803vs3511

Also, that is a fantastic deal, even for a used 6100.

yeah, but nowdays there are no games that runs single core or even dual core.
Only low end games does so and a core 2 duo is enough for those, usually.
Now, high end games need 4 core.Thus the conflict.Especially the i5 is dirt cheap.
Whats ur opinion?

 

[Dunlop0078]

I would say definitely the i3 6100, the i5 2400 is using the much older sandy bridge architecture with much lower IPC. The 2400 was the low clocked version as well, if you had a i5 2500k and you planned to overclock I would say that would likely be a bit better in most games than the i3 6100 but not the 2400.

And you would likely have to buy a used sandy bridge mobo with not much of an upgrade path. If you go with a skylake i3 your on the modern skylake platform with plenty of upgrade paths be it another skylake cpu or kaby lake.

And the stock intel cooler would be plenty for a i5 2400 a hyper 212 evo is more than enough. Same for the i3 6100.

 

[Ecky]

The i3 6100 has as much or more multithreaded performance than the i5 too. It's hands-down the winner. Don't bother with an aftermarket cooler.

 

[spdragoo]

You won't need an aftermarket cooler for either one, as the stock coolers will be more than sufficient.

As to which one is better...it really depends on the games you're going to play. In many games, they're pretty much neck-and-neck (although testing was done with an i5-2500K, the performance is going to be pretty similar to the i5-2400): DOOM (http://www.techspot.com/review/1173-doom-benchmarks/page5.html), Titanfall 2 (http://www.techspot.com/review/1271-titanfall-2-pc-benchmarks/page3.html), Tom Clancy's The Division (http://www.techspot.com/review/1148-tom-clancys-the-division-benchmarks/page5.html), Fallout 4 (http://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page5.html), & Gears of War 4 (http://www.techspot.com/review/1263-gears-of-war-4-benchmarks/page4.html) all show them neck-and-neck. In some cases, though, even the i3-6100 is beaten by a Sandy Bridge i5, like in Overwatch (http://www.techspot.com/review/1180-overwatch-benchmarks/page5.html) or Star Wars Battlefront (http://www.techspot.com/review/1096-star-wars-battlefront-benchmarks/page3.html), where it beats the i3-6100 by ~21%. So far, the only one I found where the i3-6100 would beat the i5-2400 (only because it beat the i5-2500K) was Rise of the Tomb Raider (http://www.techspot.com/review/1128-rise-of-the-tomb-raider-benchmarks/page5.html), & that was by ~11% (or about the difference in their core clock speeds, 3.7GHz vs. 3.3GHz).

Those are all games that have been released in the last 12-13 months. Going back further is hard, because not many places will go back & re-benchmark with a newer CPU. But, given the increase in core clock speeds from the i3-4130 (3.4GHz) to the i3-6100 (3.7GHz), & based on the benchmarks they show for the i3-4130 vs. the i5-2500K for Project CARS (http://www.techspot.com/review/1000-project-cars-benchmarks/page5.html), The Witcher 3 (http://www.techspot.com/review/1006-the-witcher-3-benchmarks/page5.html), & GTA V (http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6.html), it's going to be another situation where the i5-2400 & i3-6100 are going to be running right alongside each other.

It really doesn't surprise me, though. Skylake only offered an incremental performance improvement (in terms of IPC) over Haswell, which itself only offered a slight performance over Ivy Bridge... &, from what I can tell in those benchmarks, Ivy Bridge was also only incrementally better than Sandy Bridge. And even with the higher clock speed & IPC improvements, the i3-6100 is still just a dual-core that can pretend to be a quad-core by cutting the resources in half...as shown by the multi-threading synthetic benchmarks (http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1682?vs=363), which show the i3-6100 losing every single multi-threaded benchmark to the slower i5-2400.

So...

Since you said you're not worried about future upgradeability, it comes down to 2 main questions:

1. What features do you want on your motherboard? If you want DDR4, M.2 SSD, & USB-C, you're pretty much forced to go with the i3-6100 (& even then, that last choice might be very limiting). If, however, you're more than happy with a plain SATA III SSD, DDR3 RAM, & USB 2.0/3.0, then you can still find LGA 1155 boards that will provide what you're looking for.

2. What budget do you have? Basically, which build is going to be cheaper while giving you the features you want. The i5-2400 looks like it's running about $50US more than the i3-6100...but if you can save $50US on the other components, then it comes out as a wash in the end.

 

[leaf__00]

You won't need an aftermarket cooler for either one, as the stock coolers will be more than sufficient.

As to which one is better...it really depends on the games you're going to play. In many games, they're pretty much neck-and-neck (although testing was done with an i5-2500K, the performance is going to be pretty similar to the i5-2400): DOOM (http://www.techspot.com/review/1173-doom-benchmarks/page5.html), Titanfall 2 (http://www.techspot.com/review/1271-titanfall-2-pc-benchmarks/page3.html), Tom Clancy's The Division (http://www.techspot.com/review/1148-tom-clancys-the-division-benchmarks/page5.html), Fallout 4 (http://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page5.html), & Gears of War 4 (http://www.techspot.com/review/1263-gears-of-war-4-benchmarks/page4.html) all show them neck-and-neck. In some cases, though, even the i3-6100 is beaten by a Sandy Bridge i5, like in Overwatch (http://www.techspot.com/review/1180-overwatch-benchmarks/page5.html) or Star Wars Battlefront (http://www.techspot.com/review/1096-star-wars-battlefront-benchmarks/page3.html), where it beats the i3-6100 by ~21%. So far, the only one I found where the i3-6100 would beat the i5-2400 (only because it beat the i5-2500K) was Rise of the Tomb Raider (http://www.techspot.com/review/1128-rise-of-the-tomb-raider-benchmarks/page5.html), & that was by ~11% (or about the difference in their core clock speeds, 3.7GHz vs. 3.3GHz).

Those are all games that have been released in the last 12-13 months. Going back further is hard, because not many places will go back & re-benchmark with a newer CPU. But, given the increase in core clock speeds from the i3-4130 (3.4GHz) to the i3-6100 (3.7GHz), & based on the benchmarks they show for the i3-4130 vs. the i5-2500K for Project CARS (http://www.techspot.com/review/1000-project-cars-benchmarks/page5.html), The Witcher 3 (http://www.techspot.com/review/1006-the-witcher-3-benchmarks/page5.html), & GTA V (http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6.html), it's going to be another situation where the i5-2400 & i3-6100 are going to be running right alongside each other.

It really doesn't surprise me, though. Skylake only offered an incremental performance improvement (in terms of IPC) over Haswell, which itself only offered a slight performance over Ivy Bridge... &, from what I can tell in those benchmarks, Ivy Bridge was also only incrementally better than Sandy Bridge. And even with the higher clock speed & IPC improvements, the i3-6100 is still just a dual-core that can pretend to be a quad-core by cutting the resources in half...as shown by the multi-threading synthetic benchmarks (http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1682?vs=363), which show the i3-6100 losing every single multi-threaded benchmark to the slower i5-2400.

So...

Since you said you're not worried about future upgradeability, it comes down to 2 main questions:

1. What features do you want on your motherboard? If you want DDR4, M.2 SSD, & USB-C, you're pretty much forced to go with the i3-6100 (& even then, that last choice might be very limiting). If, however, you're more than happy with a plain SATA III SSD, DDR3 RAM, & USB 2.0/3.0, then you can still find LGA 1155 boards that will provide what you're looking for.

2. What budget do you have? Basically, which build is going to be cheaper while giving you the features you want. The i5-2400 looks like it's running about $50US more than the i3-6100...but if you can save $50US on the other components, then it comes out as a wash in the end.

Thanks,i find ur reply to be most useful, and doing the homeworks, posting all the links.
Im worried abt the IPC stuff, only. IPC(or whatever other performance aspects that matters) increases from sandy to skylake ,lil by lil, could add up big, but it seems ,its still not there yet . Correct me if im wrong.

Other than that,
1)Abt the motherboard, both costs the same ,though very cheap. But should i be worried abt ddr4 vs ddr3 as much as "i5 vs i3" ?
2)Price wise both were damn cheap, i5 being cheaper.

So, just to make sure, for the games that im going to play like NFS 2015, Battlefield1, Hitman, Mafia 3 , i5 should be better choice than the i3, right ?

 

[Ecky]

IPC is not a fixed thing. In some cases, Skylake is much faster per clock than Sandy Bridge:

In others, the improvement is next to nothing:

A Skylake i3 has slightly less multithreaded performance than a Sandy Bridge i5, and a lot more single-threaded performance.

The reason I favor the i3 is not raw performance though, bur rather the platform its on. DDR3 production is dropping and DDR4 is coming up, so expect future RAM upgrades to be cheaper if you have the i3. The i3's TDP (basically power consumption) is around half that of an i5 2400, so it's a much cooler and quieter running CPU, and can be run with a smaller/cheaper power supply. The i3 is on Intel's latest socket, which will be receiving at least 2 more generations of CPUs that fit into it, giving an excellent upgrade path - though granted, you can still find an old i7 to replace the i5 with. Socket 1151 boards also have things 1155 boards will not, such as M.2, DDR4, USB 3.1, SATA Express, newer/better onboard audio codecs, and display port to name some of the more important ones. Probably most important of all though is that the i3 system will have a warranty on all of its parts, whereas the i5 will not.

 

[paul13]

It may become tricky (more expensive) in the future to maintain (repair, replace motherboard) for the i5 2400.

The way you put your question, definitely i3 6100.

In your case, I would also:
- do research on costs of intel 4xxx i3/i5 series system in your area / AMD Athlon X4 860K based build (may offer better price/performance)
- see if you can hold off on the purchase for AMD zen cpus to be released and quite possibly lower cpu pricing overall.

 

[leaf__00]

IPC is not a fixed thing. In some cases, Skylake is much faster per clock than Sandy Bridge:

In others, the improvement is next to nothing:

A Skylake i3 has slightly less multithreaded performance than a Sandy Bridge i5, and a lot more single-threaded performance.

The reason I favor the i3 is not raw performance though, bur rather the platform its on. DDR3 production is dropping and DDR4 is coming up, so expect future RAM upgrades to be cheaper if you have the i3. The i3's TDP (basically power consumption) is around half that of an i5 2400, so it's a much cooler and quieter running CPU, and can be run with a smaller/cheaper power supply. The i3 is on Intel's latest socket, which will be receiving at least 2 more generations of CPUs that fit into it, giving an excellent upgrade path - though granted, you can still find an old i7 to replace the i5 with. Socket 1151 boards also have things 1155 boards will not, such as M.2, DDR4, USB 3.1, SATA Express, newer/better onboard audio codecs, and display port to name some of the more important ones. Probably most important of all though is that the i3 system will have a warranty on all of its parts, whereas the i5 will not.

It may become tricky (more expensive) in the future to maintain (repair, replace motherboard) for the i5 2400.

The way you put your question, definitely i3 6100.

In your case, I would also:
- do research on costs of intel 4xxx i3/i5 series system in your area / AMD Athlon X4 860K based build (may offer better price/performance)
- see if you can hold off on the purchase for AMD zen cpus to be released and quite possibly lower cpu pricing overall.

you are right, i should look at i5 46xx series.Or just wait for zen, afterall just a few more months.

 

[leaf__00]

IPC is not a fixed thing. In some cases, Skylake is much faster per clock than Sandy Bridge:

In others, the improvement is next to nothing:

A Skylake i3 has slightly less multithreaded performance than a Sandy Bridge i5, and a lot more single-threaded performance.

The reason I favor the i3 is not raw performance though, bur rather the platform its on. DDR3 production is dropping and DDR4 is coming up, so expect future RAM upgrades to be cheaper if you have the i3. The i3's TDP (basically power consumption) is around half that of an i5 2400, so it's a much cooler and quieter running CPU, and can be run with a smaller/cheaper power supply. The i3 is on Intel's latest socket, which will be receiving at least 2 more generations of CPUs that fit into it, giving an excellent upgrade path - though granted, you can still find an old i7 to replace the i5 with. Socket 1151 boards also have things 1155 boards will not, such as M.2, DDR4, USB 3.1, SATA Express, newer/better onboard audio codecs, and display port to name some of the more important ones. Probably most important of all though is that the i3 system will have a warranty on all of its parts, whereas the i5 will not.

Cheaper power supply makes sense as i could have rx 460/gtx 1050 .