i5 vs i7?

[BRIDGES BOMBER]

Trying to decide if I should get a i5 4690k or an i7 4790k. I know people talk about how i7s don't increase gaming fps by more than 3fps or so, but I'm also going to be editing videos and running background programs while gaming. My CPU will be paired up with a gtx 970 and 16gb ram. Basically, should I fork out another $100 for the i7 if I will be doing more than gaming?

 

[Suztera]

If you willing to fork out the extra cost for an i7, it will be ok for your situation. If you really on a tight budget, the i5 4690k is not a bad cpu for editing either.

 

[bob hays]

The i7 is only worth it if you do a lot of things video editing or threaded cpu intensive programs, but for the majority of people an i5 is good. Remember just because its not an i7 doesn't mean and i5 can't be used for editing. It is still a strong cpu. Also you should get 8gb not 16gb of ram. Upgrade later if you need to.

 

[legend001523]

I would go i7 if i could afford it

 

[gilbadon]

Overclock the i5

 

[dish_moose]

At home I went i5 & 8 BG RAM- work i7 & 16GB RAM. They are both good cpus - have them both going 4.6GHz. I'm just so happy with how they work. You would not be sorry for buying either.
-Bruce

 

[AshyCFC]

Is it still viable to get a Xeon as an alternative to an i7? They are cheaper and the Xeon 1230 V3 edited essentially as good as a 4770.

Just the xeon can't overclock.

I haven't seen xeon vs the newer haswells though.

 

[bob hays]

Yes the xeons are still viable and even if they are based on ivy bridge its not a huge performance difference.

 

[unreal9400]

Sounds like the i7 is the better alternative for you.

 

[Brunostako]

Xeons from the E3 1230 v3 are the best option for multi threaded tasks. The FX 8350/8320 are the cheapest, but Xeons are stronger and even cheaper than some i5s.

Get a Xeon, for sure.

 

[Ryanrenesis]

No. Do NOT fork out another $100 for an i7, EVEN if you're going to be video editing or running background programs while gaming. The difference in performance between i5 and i7 is minute.

See below for benchmarks:

Mind you, this is with new, heavily multi-threaded games where the i7 is suppose to shine (as well as the AMD CPUs which utterly fail at this point in time). Yet it doesn't run away from the i5, the difference in FPS being at max 5 and as low as 2. Worth it for $100 more? Totally not.

 

[legend001523]

^ That's only games, where's the comparison for applications?

 

[Ryanrenesis]

^ That's only games, where's the comparison for applications?

It depends on application to application, what applications do you want to see?

EDIT: NVM you're not the OP

 

[legend001523]

^ That's only games, where's the comparison for applications?

It depends on application to application, what applications do you want to see?

EDIT: NVM you're not the OP

nevertheless, we all know that a i7 won't boost fps, but Op wants to video edit too, and i7 will last a lot longer in gaming than a i5, even a 4690k in bf4 has over 95% cpu usage

 

[Ryanrenesis]

^ That's only games, where's the comparison for applications?

It depends on application to application, what applications do you want to see?

EDIT: NVM you're not the OP

nevertheless, we all know that a i7 won't boost fps, but Op wants to video edit too, and i7 will last a lot longer in gaming than a i5, even a 4690k in bf4 has over 95% cpu usage

Honestly, forking out $100 more on a $230 i5 (43.5% more cost) for at most 20% faster video encoding is not worth it imo.

 

[legend001523]

^ That's only games, where's the comparison for applications?

It depends on application to application, what applications do you want to see?

EDIT: NVM you're not the OP

nevertheless, we all know that a i7 won't boost fps, but Op wants to video edit too, and i7 will last a lot longer in gaming than a i5, even a 4690k in bf4 has over 95% cpu usage

Honestly, forking out $100 more on a $230 i5 (43.5% more cost) for at most 20% faster video encoding is not worth it imo.

That's your opinion, but to others the speeds might actually matter to them, and a i7 will last longer in gaming, so if he can afford it without compromising rest fo build, i don't see why not

 

[Suztera]

Honestly, forking out $100 more on a $230 i5 (43.5% more cost) for at most 20% faster video encoding is not worth it imo.

It's your opinion. For some people who need faster encoding because they editing for work/money then their investment in the i7 is worth it. For a causal editing then it might be not worth it but it will solely depends on the OP 's needs and wants and his budget.

 

[Ryanrenesis]

^ That's only games, where's the comparison for applications?

It depends on application to application, what applications do you want to see?

EDIT: NVM you're not the OP

nevertheless, we all know that a i7 won't boost fps, but Op wants to video edit too, and i7 will last a lot longer in gaming than a i5, even a 4690k in bf4 has over 95% cpu usage

Honestly, forking out $100 more on a $230 i5 (43.5% more cost) for at most 20% faster video encoding is not worth it imo.

That's your opinion, but to others the speeds might actually matter to them, and a i7 will last longer in gaming, so if he can afford it without compromising rest fo build, i don't see why not

True, if cost doesn't matter to you, by all means, get an i7.

However, OP wanted to know if it was wise to fork out another $100 for an i7, implying cost does matter to him, so if cost matters, i5 is the answer.

 

[BRIDGES BOMBER]

Jeese, so many answers. Thank you guys. It seems that most of you are saying mixed things. Some of them are more opinion than fact. I'm still unsure. Ryan, keep in mind those are gaming benchmarks, not photoshop, skype, fraps, google chrome, etc. And, the 4790k and 4690k weren't even in that chart. Also, what if I wanted to run a server sometimes (Garry's Mod, Seven Days to Die, etc.)? If I ran a server wouldn't I need 16Gb and an i7?

 

[Ryanrenesis]

Jeese, so many answers. Thank you guys. It seems that most of you are saying mixed things. Some of them are more opinion than fact. I'm still unsure. Ryan, keep in mind those are gaming benchmarks, not photoshop, skype, fraps, google chrome, etc. And, the 4790k and 4690k weren't even in that chart. Also, what if I wanted to run a server sometimes (Garry's Mod, Seven Days to Die, etc.)? If I ran a server wouldn't I need 16Gb and an i7?

I'm not too sure on the server part but if the server constantly does multi-threaded calculations an i7 is probably better. Again for $100 I don't think it's worth the "gain".

Additionally I just found out that in certain heavily multi-threaded games like Crysis 3 and BF4, an i7 @ 4.6+Ghz can maintain constant 60+ FPS while the i5 does dip below 60 FPS occasionally. So if you run Vsync and want 100% smooth gameplay experience then the i7 is the way to go. In 99% of other games, it's identical performance.

Again, is it worth $100? In my opinion, no.