Thank you, I get that the speed is to be condiser but only in a few generations gap, my older pc was i3-550 than i got this i5-3470 years ago which is good but stutter a little here and there, I want this kind of jump next time, cuz I don't replace my pc every year not even every 3/4 years.
I see, so I should aim to upgrade at least 4 gen and retain clock speed while doing so? (please check the comment above I've added some details)It's a relatively pointless upgrade. It's not even three full generations; Broadwell was just a tick of an improvement over Haswell. The ipc gains are basically canceled out by the clock speed. Maybe if the upgrade to a new motherboard/DDR4 RAM with the CPU would be worth if it the whole upgrade's dirt cheap because you could upgrade to a 7700K at some point, but otherwise, I'm not seeing the value here of replacing a nine-year-old system with a similar performing six-year-old system unless the price is absolutely unreal.
Its not "4 generations".I see, so I should aim to upgrade at least 4 gen and retain clock speed while doing so? (please check the comment above I've added some details)
Sure, thank you, my main point was to understand what is the significance of the clock speed, and if any higher cpu gen is better than the old one, I know it's probably obvious to you.Its not "4 generations".
Rather...buy the best system your budget allows, that actually provides a good performance boost.
Clock speed is sort of irrelevant.Sure, thank you, my main point was to understand what is the significance of the clock speed, and if any higher cpu gen is better than the old one, I know it's probably obvious to you.
Thank you, I get that the speed is to be condiser but only in a few generations gap, my older pc was i3-550 than i got this i5-3470 years ago which is good but stutter a little here and there, I want this kind of jump next time, cuz I don't replace my pc every year not even every 3/4 years.Personally, I'd say that upgrading from a quad-core without SMT to another slightly newer quad-core without SMT isn't worth it. If you want something with a bit more "staying-power", you need to upgrade to at least hex-cores or quad with SMT, preferably both.
I just upgraded from an i5-3470 to i5-11400, that's a roughly 200% performance increase as in approximately 3X as fast on raw numbers. Not noticing it all that much in most everyday use but I have confirmed that it performs above-average for 11400s in UBM and Cinema 4D R23, so I know the performance I'm supposed to get is all there with some to spare. Firefox is a bit more responsive, Teamviewer sessions appear to have quit randomly freezing though they still lag every now and then, audio stutter in Dolphin appear to have gone away, Gemcraft isn't lagging as badly when launching super-sized waves and Wipeout XL won't launch anymore. Haven't done much else yet.
If you do the bare minimum upgrade to get rid of the stutter you are running into right now, you will likely find yourself wanting to upgrade again pretty soon from the stutter you will run into after your upgrade.Thank you, I get that the speed is to be condiser but only in a few generations gap, my older pc was i3-550 than i got this i5-3470 years ago which is good but stutter a little here and there, I want this kind of jump next time, cuz I don't replace my pc every year not even every 3/4 years.
Thank you, I get that the speed is to be condiser but only in a few generations gap, my older pc was i3-550 than i got this i5-3470 years ago which is good but stutter a little here and there, I want this kind of jump next time, cuz I don't replace my pc every year not even every 3/4 years.
Thanks to all for the replies, I really appreciate it, I think I understand what you're all saying, just out of curiosity, you're saying that i5-8600 will be somewhat a similar jump from i5-3470, like i5-3470 was from i3-550, I was wondering is it still the case for i5-8400 that also have 6 cores but lower speed from the i5-3470 4 cores, does 6 cores with lower speed is still much better than 4 cores with higher speed, or ever if I could simplify the qeustion theoretically, does an exact same cpu spec with 6 cores and 2.7GHz is better than one but with 4 cores and 3.2GHz? thank youThis would not be anywhere near the kind of jump. Intel was getting much bigger jumps in those generations. Going from an i3-550, you got two more real cores instead of threads and about 30%-40% jump in ipc. To match that jump, you'd need to go at least to something like an i5-8600, a similar jump in ipc with a couple more cores. Going to a cheap Skylake -- and one that was noted as a particularly poor value in the line when it came out six years ago -- is a much smaller upgrade than your previous one. Intel's upgrades became more incremental after Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge.
But it doesn't really make sense to buy a Coffee Lake i5 because the prices haven't dropped to a range that it would be a value. So it would only make real sense to do a platform/RAM/CPU upgrade if you're going to something for something like an i5-10400. If you want to get off the upgrading treadmill for a few years, you really gotta get something that isn't already six years old.
I like the 3770K. A lot. I've had PCs since the early 80s and the 3770K had the longest reign driving my main rig of any CPU ever (the Pentium 4 that manages my stereo longest overall and has been on continually for 18 years now). But at $130 or so to get a used one, it's really hard to recommend it over something that won't leave you back with the same problem in a few years when there are newish i5s under $200 brand new.
Thanks to all for the replies, I really appreciate it, I think I understand what you're all are saying, just out of curiosity, you're saying that i5-8600 will be somewhat a similar jump from i5-3470, like i5-3470 was from i3-550, I was wondering is it still the case for i5-8400 that also have 6 cores but lower speed from the 3 gen 4 cores, does 6 cores with lower speed is still much better than 4 cores with higher speed, or ever if I could simplify the qeustion theoretically, does an exact same cpu spec with 6 cores and 2.7GHz is better than one but with 4 cores and 3.2GHz? thank you
Thanks, didnt say anything about prices, just trying to understand the advantages of each model at this point.As you're likely using multi-core software more than single-core software, I'd choose the 8400 over the 7600. In a theoretical, of course; I don't see the value proposition in either given current prices.
The potential benefits of having 50% more cores far outweigh the benefit of having 2.5% higher maximum boost frequency. It is a no-contest unless you have a very lightly threaded environment.Ok, so let me give you a specific example, which one do you consider better: i5-7600 that has 4 cores with 3.5-4.1 GHz or i5-8400 that has 6 cores but 2.8-4.0 GHz, (I know it's becoming a different comparison, just trying to understand better), which one would you choose?
Thanks, I figured, just wanted knowlagable approval, more cores is better than bigger speed, bigger speed is better or equal than higher gen (as long as its not a big gen difference), and offcourse I understand there are more factors to calculateThe potential benefits of having 50% more cores far outweigh the benefit of having 2.5% higher maximum boost frequency. It is a no-contest unless you have a very lightly threaded environment.