Question Which cpu is better i3, i5, i7

nickpra

Reputable
Feb 15, 2016
69
0
4,630
0
Hey guys,

I am currently using i3 7100 cpu and it's performance is bad in gaming,
So now I want to upgrade but in tight budget.
I want to go with i7 7700 (is there any issue if I am using a used one)
But in some research I found that i5 8400 even 9th gen are more faster than i7 7700.
So now I got confused which one should be best for gaming.
I7 processor or latest generation processor.
 

Third-Eye

Distinguished
Jun 26, 2011
278
36
18,720
3
Upgrading to a 6700 or 7700 or the low power T or overclocking K series costs as much or more than buying a Ryzen 5 2600 ($120), a motherboard ($80) and 16GB ram ($70) in the US at least. Most used 7700/T/K are $200-280 used and over $300 new. If you were to buy a Ryzen 5 2600 and a motherboard, you could reuse your DDR4 memory to save money if you have a low budget.
 

nickpra

Reputable
Feb 15, 2016
69
0
4,630
0

Karadjgne

Titan
Herald
Userbenchmark is a tool, and if used incorrectly, useless as a screwdriver to hammer a nail.

Speed doesn't mean a thing on those charts,and is quite misleading. The i3-7100 for instance, has no issues keeping up with an i5 6600k, in 1-2 thread applications. Both at 3.9GHz. And readily stomps the i5 6400 in anything but heavy 4thread production. So which do you choose for the 1 table?

Speed value, big jump in performance? No, sorry, disagree with that basis.

The real difference is in software usage. The i3 is 2cores/4 threads, so if the cpu can squeak 2 threads per core of software, it's the same as a 4 core. If it can't, you've got a dual core trying to do a quad core worth of work, and it's gonna be slow. The i7 is the same as the i5, quad core, but having hyperthreading it allows for the possible use of 2 threads per core. That's upto 4x stronger than the i3, plus the added core clock speeds. In 1-2 thread applications the only bonus is the clock speeds and L-cache, otherwise similar results.

Games are no longer really using 2 or less threads, but instead using 4-8 threads, putting the i3 at a serious disadvantage.

For the money, the Ryzen is better value, but an i7-7700k is no slouch and still relevant. New Starwars game recommends 32Gb of ram, so things are changing, can't say how long a 4c/8t cpu will last compared to a 6c/12t cpu regardless of clock speeds. 20 years ago, it was 350MHz cpus. 10 years ago 3.5GHz cpus, finally last year was 5.0GHz. Speeds are slowing down, threads are going up.

Either way, the day of the dual core cpu is over for gaming, quads are suffering, the hexa core/quad HT will be next.
 

febisfebi

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2009
83
3
18,535
0
I know but in both way the price is nearly same
Either i7 7700 cpu only or
I5 8400 with mobo
If you decide to go with a new mb at least get the newest 9th gen 9400, or 9400F if you have a video card. 9400F can be had new for as little as 130-140$ if you look around. The 8400 is actually more expensive than the 9400F currently, So if you are not dependent on onboard video, it is a great option.
When you look at actual gaming performance there is only an extremely small performance difference between the $130 9400F and the $500 9900K, even if you had a 2080TI, as you can see here:

https://www.gpucheck.com/en-usd/compare-game-cpu/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-2019/intel-core-i5-9400f-2-90ghz-vs-intel-core-i9-9900k-3-60ghz/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-ti


The reason newer i5 parts beat a 7th gen i7 is due to the fact that the 7700 is only a quad core/8 thread. The 8th and 9th gen i5's are all 6 core.

edit: with the exception of i5-8250u and possibly some other laptop sku's but I wouldn't worry about those as you are clearly working with desktop parts
 
Last edited:

Phaaze88

Admirable
Herald
If you decide to go with a new mb at least get the newest 9th gen 9400, or 9400F if you have a video card. 9400F can be had new for as little as 130-140$ if you look around. The 8400 is actually more expensive than the 9400F currently, So if you are not dependent on onboard video, it is a great option.
When you look at actual gaming performance there is only an extremely small performance difference between the $130 9400F and the $500 9900K, even if you had a 2080TI, as you can see here:

https://www.gpucheck.com/en-usd/compare-game-cpu/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-2019/intel-core-i5-9400f-2-90ghz-vs-intel-core-i9-9900k-3-60ghz/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-ti


The reason newer i5 parts beat a 7th gen i7 is due to the fact that the 7700 is only a quad core/8 thread. The 8th and 9th gen i5's are all 6 core.
You picked only a single game to reflect 'actual gaming performance'???
And the one title you did pick doesn't rely on many threads - it runs 2-4 threads, the rest determined by single thread performance. So of course the 9900K doesn't look as good here.
Pick an actual multi-threaded game, and the 9400 gets ROFL-stomped. As a bonus, should all the 9400s threads get fully used, it's performance actually falls.
 

febisfebi

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2009
83
3
18,535
0
You picked only a single game to reflect 'actual gaming performance'???
And the one title you did pick doesn't rely on many threads - it runs 2-4 threads, the rest determined by single thread performance. So of course the 9900K doesn't look as good here.
Pick an actual multi-threaded game, and the 9400 gets ROFL-stomped. As a bonus, should all the 9400s threads get fully used, it's performance actually falls.
True, not the greatest illustration of my point. Unfortunately that site wouldn't give me an average(between all games benchmarked) fps on cpu compare, as it will with gpu compare, which is the type of comparison I had intended on.

Here is a better representation across all games.
https://www.gpucheck.com/en-usd/gpu/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-ti/intel-core-i5-9400f-2-90ghz/ultra

https://www.gpucheck.com/en-usd/gpu/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-ti/intel-core-i9-9900k-3-60ghz/ultra

The differences are still very minimal. The 3-5fps or so difference is small enough it could be considered within the range of margin of error.

I'm curious which games you talking about that are particularly multi-threaded?
Most likely they are included in that average, as it includes most games, even ones that just came out. But still it would be interesting to see some particular cases where the 9400F might struggle. At least against a 9900k with a 2080ti, haha.
Still, while the 9400F may be just fine for today's games, it may not be particularly future proof, as times are changing in terms of minimum hardware requirements as @Karadjgne noted.
However it is still a great budget option.

The same goes for Ryzen for the most part. The real point here is that it doesn't take more than a $150 current gen cpu to make just about any game GPU bound. Hence the 2080ti for comparison, as that would be a very unlikely pair to a 9400F.
 

OllympianGamer

Commendable
Dec 22, 2016
109
15
1,615
8
I know but in both way the price is nearly same
Either i7 7700 cpu only or
I5 8400 with mobo
Prices can be weird especially on the used market. Take the 6700k for example, was a great cpu when it released, think I got one about 4-5 years ago brand new and paid £330. But people are still selling them for £200 used, £250ish boxed on ebay. It's not worth that at all, can be beaten by a 2600 now which retail for only £115 new.
 

Phaaze88

Admirable
Herald
...The differences are still very minimal. The 3-5fps or so difference is small enough it could be considered within the range of margin of error.
When games don't use more than 6 threads it's down to single core performance:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i7-7700-vs-Intel-i5-9400F-vs-Intel-i9-9900K/2905vs3397vs3334


I'm curious which games you talking about that are particularly multi-threaded?
Real-time strategy, MMOs, the micro-management style games, and of course, some of the AAA ones.


However it is still a great budget option.
No, no it is NOT. Ryzen dominates the budget cpu market. Intel offers no real value here.
If consumers can't afford a 9700K or 9900K, then they should be looking at Ryzen.
 

febisfebi

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2009
83
3
18,535
0
When games don't use more than 6 threads it's down to single core performance:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i7-7700-vs-Intel-i5-9400F-vs-Intel-i9-9900K/2905vs3397vs3334

Real-time strategy, MMOs, the micro-management style games, and of course, some of the AAA ones.
When considering gaming performance, synthetic benchmarks such as these are not particularly helpful.
Actual gaming benchmarks are much more relevant in cases like this.
Particular titles would be more helpful, and might help @nickpra decide based on his game type preference.

No, no it is NOT. Ryzen dominates the budget cpu market. Intel offers no real value here.
If consumers can't afford a 9700K or 9900K, then they should be looking at Ryzen.
If you can afford the $200 for at least a 3600 or higher, Ryzen would be the better option.

But if we are talking strictly budget cpu's in the $100-150 range mentioned here, Intel is still the better value option. Ryzen 2600 lags significantly behind the 9400F in average gaming performance.

https://www.gpucheck.com/en-usd/gpu/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-ti/amd-ryzen-5-2600/ultra

https://www.gpucheck.com/en-usd/gpu/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-ti/intel-core-i5-9400f-2-90ghz/ultra

This may change when the 3500/3500x are released, as they are supposed to directly compete against the like of 9400F. But I wouldn't count on it, as there again you lose the multi-threaded advantage Ryzen usually holds due to lack of SMT on those SKUs.

Plus there are other considerations with Ryzen in the budget sector such as the speed of your memory directly controlling core-core latency, which can affect your performance as much as 20% or more. This does not happen with Intel.
@nickpra Perhaps it would help if we knew the speed of the memory you are using?

Considering all this, is it worth the extra $60-80 for the current gen Ryzen 3600. Probably.

You would probably also want to spend some extra $ for higher speed memory as well, which adds to the price difference.
This does not bode particularly well in this case, as it sounds like @nickpra already has memory, and given the age, I would guess its probably not bleeding edge.

If $200 is too much to spend on just a cpu alone, and your memory budget is also low, or you already have lower speed memory, Intel may still hold better value. Especially in this particular case.

Personally I try not to take arbitrary sides to either AMD or Intel. Whoever gives the better performance for the money, period.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS