[SOLVED] intel i5 10400f/ 10400 or intel i3 10100

[Mxares]

Recently I lost my PC due to fire. So now im looking forward to building a new PC from scratch. Im looking at processors right now. Im thinking about getting intel i5 10400f or just i5 10400 not sure yet. But i read on benchmark that i3 10100 gives the same performance for less money. Is this true?

Im looking to pair it with GTX 1050 TI and 8gb of ram.

Is the GPU strong enough, will it bottleneck the CPU?

 

[Dj0gany]

"But i read on benchmark that i3 10100 gives the same performance for less money. Is this true? "
Yes, gaming performance is similar.
BUT, for better future proofing and overall better multitasking, a 6 core 12 thread processor would be better, especially since they are not priced that far away from each other.

 

[Dj0gany]

Dont worry about bottlenecks, especially now that the GPU situation is how it is.
Your GPU limitations will vary from game to game, but its not a significant bottleneck you should be worried about.

 

[logainofhades]

If by benchmark, you mean userbenchmark, ignore them. Their so called performance comparisons are trash. Definitely go with the i5 10400. The 10400f lacks integrated graphics, making the system useless without a graphics card. With the way the graphics card market is, right now, I wouldn't risk it. Also, you really want at least 16gb, for ram.

 

[Mxares]

If by benchmark, you mean userbenchmark, ignore them. Their so called performance comparisons are trash. Definitely go with the i5 10400. The 10400f lacks integrated graphics, making the system useless without a graphics card. With the way the graphics card market is, right now, I wouldn't risk it. Also, you really want at least 16gb, for ram.

I will defenetly buy a GPU, i will not use the integrated gpu. Is is still worth it paying more for integrated?
ps i will upgrade the ram in the future, right now im just looking to have something that will play the newer games at least on low.

 

[Mxares]

"But i read on benchmark that i3 10100 gives the same performance for less money. Is this true? "
Yes, gaming performance is similar.
BUT, for better future proofing and overall better multitasking, a 6 core 12 thread processor would be better, especially since they are not priced that far away from each other.

Yeah that is the thing. here in my country the i3 is 60 bucks cheaper, and rn im on a budget so i could use the 50 bucks on other parts. But if the i5 is going to work better in the future might as well stick with the i5.

 

[Dj0gany]

I will defenetly buy a GPU, i will not use the integrated gpu. Is is still worth it paying more for integrated?
ps i will upgrade the ram in the future, right now im just looking to have something that will play the newer games at least on low.

I'd actually give a serious though to the 10400 (with iGPU) mainly because of the troubleshooting (and that will happen somewhere down the line).
You dont want to regret not paying 20$ 3-4 years later after you need to do some troubleshooting.
Many of the modern games require more than 8 gb of ram, so ram upgrade is the first thing i would do actually.

 

[animekenji]

"But i read on benchmark that i3 10100 gives the same performance for less money. Is this true? "
Yes, gaming performance is similar.
BUT, for better future proofing and overall better multitasking, a 6 core 12 thread processor would be better, especially since they are not priced that far away from each other.

It's similar only because a lot of games still aren't making full use of all the cores and threads available thanks to Intel getting stuck in 4C/8T land for so many years. Now that 4C/8T is considered entry level, we should see more and more games making use of more threads going forward.