i5 vs i3 for office work

[Rectifier]

Hi.
I want to buy a new CPU for office work, but I don't know which one is better for me.
Price differences between them are about 40%. Is it worth it?
I think it's better to go with an i5 if I will decide to make heavy use in the future.
What do you think?
thanks.

 

[Ironsounds]

Hello... Typical office, internet, streaming, e-mail the i3 will do it... you can put a i5 or i7 later into the same MB if your work requires it.

 

[smorizio]

in real life with word and browser both cpu are the same speed. if your going to do video rendering or photoshop buy the i5. with intel cpu there the 4590 haswell that if you have local micro center and there still in stock is 160.00.

 

[DustinV]

i3 will be more than enough for office work.
Especially if by office work you mean email, Microsoft office etc

 

[geofelt]

I3 will perform BETTER in typical office work because it will have faster single thread performance.

Use whatever savings to buy a SSD for windows. It is more important to office performance than the cpu.

 

[g-unit1111]

What applications are you planning to run? If it's just MS Office and web browsing, you don't even need an i3, a Pentium G4400 or AMD 860K will be perfectly sufficient enough for that. I also agree that an SSD would be a wise investment.

 

[DonkeyOatie]

As mentioned above, of the two the i3 is faster and better for 'office work'. Many CPUs cheaper than that would do fine. What system are you looking at?

 

[utgotye]

Office work in and of itself isn't overly demanding. However the multitasking can be. Granted the hyperthreading on an i3 can greatly minimize the difference but when in doubt, more cores always will.

Given that most office applications are single threaded, a higher clocked i3 maybe be the way to go (4160 or 6100 for example).

If you will be doing heavier multitaking or any sort of production work with photos or video, then go with the i5 for sure.

If you are concerned about a possible increased workload in the future, it might be better to get the i5 despite the fact that the idea of futureproofing is pretty much bunk. You either pay now or pay later.

If you are looking for a noticeable performance gain, get an SSD.

 

[synphul]

Why do people keep suggesting the i3 has faster single threaded performance than an i5? It varies depending on which i3 and which i5, there are more than one of each. I3's lack turbo boost and something like an i5 4590 is faster than an i3 4160. Even when the 4160 comes out 'faster' than the 4460, it's by 200-300mhz which in most tasks won't make much difference (around 9% or less).

An i3 would typically be suitable for most office tasks but depends on the actual tasks, workload, programs etc used. Just thought I'd mention a few things, it's not as though an i3 4160 is much faster than a 4460, definitely not faster than a 4590, 4690 or 4690k. Saying one cpu is 'better' than another without knowing the actual work being done is a bit of an overreach. If it happens to be more cpu intensive work for whatever reason a true quad core at nearly the same speed will easily outpace a hyperthreaded dual core cpu.

Similar applies to a skylake situation where comparing the i3 6100 to i5 6500. For lighter work/office tasks an i3 is a good choice, plenty of processing power with a lower tdp (heat) and power consumption and it's cheaper though to be fair it should be all those things as it's half the processor an i5/i7 is.

 

[DonkeyOatie]

Because an i3 4160 or 4170 will be faster than an i5 4460. The OP is unlikely to be considering the top end i5s in this budget, I think, nor will they be considering the lower end i3s. You are right, the difference won't be much and the i5 will be turbo a lot of the time.

However, an i3 will be no slower, and often faster.

 

[synphul]

Agreed, although as I also pointed out that difference is less than 10%. Couple that with real world intermittent use (aka 85-90% idling with short bursts of activity) and 'faster' is more of a paper theory. 60mph vs 65mph makes little difference for 1/8th of a mile.

The op never stated their budget unless I missed it somewhere and as I said it also depends on what the workload is. Walking up and randomly saying which processor they need without an idea of workload or budget is a bit like answering 'blue' when someone says 'I have a question'.

 

[geofelt]

A I3 will cost less than a I5. The OP indicated 40% difference.
Performance of virtually any I3 will be sufficient for office work.
If batch production does become a factor, then it is easier to tolerate elongated run times than it is to tolerate slower everyday response.

Regardless of the cpu, a SSD is THE key to a quick office pc.

 

[dudeman509]

i3 is just fine for office work.

I went from a 4-core mobile i7 (about the equivalent of a desktop i5) to a 2-core mobile i7 (equivalent of a desktop i3 more or less) and don't miss the old one whatsoever for my normal workflows. Yet.

Occasionally I will run tasks that heavily load the CPU, but the SSD should help make up the difference between the computers.