Why is the i3 always overlooked and underestimated?

[Speedstang]

Whenever ANYONE is talking about building a gaming rig, everyone jumps straight to the i5's and i7's. Nobody every even considers i3's. And when people want a budget build, everyone directly jumps to the Pentium anniversary and AMD FX processors. Why are they so overlooked? My system has an i3, and I have NEVER been able to lag it, I can do anything you can imagine and it keeps going strong. The integrated graphics, of course, can lose a lot of framerate on more intensive games, but for integrated graphics they really pack a lot of power. So why are i3's so overlooked? They cost about the same as budget FX CPU's, they beat out the Pentium anniversary (NOTE: Any i3 with a U, T or any other letter at the end doesn't count, I'm talking about REAL i3's not laptop power saving ones) so why aren't they ever considered?

 

[synphul]

The lower l2 cache plays some role in the bottlenecking, the other is the fact you're using a dual core cpu with low ipc performance. Amd's 4 and 6 core, even their 8 core cpu's struggle sometimes because of lower instructions per clock and you're strangled with 2 weak cores. Like you said though it was on a deal for $50 with a mobo which is hard to pass up.

 

[RX7Wolf_]

Honestly, I'm one of that people who uses i3 on a gaming time and I play BO2 fine with this. Don't see why anyone has an issue with not using an i3. Like you said, its REALLY underestimated for its price and also saves a TON of power. The current core I'm using right now is an Intel Core i7-3740QM and it DRAINS all of my laptop battery in 2 hours!

 

[synphul]

There are a wide variety of cpu's and an entirely different set from which to choose from when dealing with mobile cpu's where battery life is an issue. Some are dependent on the batteries themselves as to how long they last and a cpu is only part of the equation. It also depends which power saving features are used and the tasks being done. Highly intensive tasks will likely drain the battery faster than more basic tasks. The age of the battery has to be taken into consideration as a 2yr old battery may not have the same capacity as it did when new.

 

[Speedstang]

Really, an i3 is just an i5 with 2 HT cores instead of 2 physical cores in order to reduce costs and save power. I've never had an issue with my 3220, the only limitation is the graphics I'm running, I've never actually been able to lag the CPU. Even with multiple programs/games running all at once.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

Physical cores are a lot better than virtual cores.

 

[Speedstang]

Physical cores are a lot better than virtual cores.

Yeah but virtual cores still make a large difference. A 2 core CPU hyper threaded to 4 cores is still FAR better than a dual core only CPU.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

Physical cores are a lot better than virtual cores.

Yeah but virtual cores still make a large difference. A 2 core CPU hyper threaded to 4 cores is still FAR better than a dual core only CPU.

It doesn't always make a large difference, only if a program is specifically programmed to utilize it. And even then, physical cores still are far superior.

 

[Speedstang]

(Post duplicated, ignore this)

 

[Speedstang]

Physical cores are a lot better than virtual cores.

Yeah but virtual cores still make a large difference. A 2 core CPU hyper threaded to 4 cores is still FAR better than a dual core only CPU.

It doesn't always make a large difference, only if a program is specifically programmed to utilize it. And even then, physical cores still are far superior.

Physical cores normally take 1 thing in at a time. If something gets held up the whole core gets held up. With HT, each core can do 2 things at once, meaning it can do things faster, and if something gets held up it can continue to function. A 2 core 2 Virtual Core CPU compared to a dual core only will perform MUCH better, and in comparison to a 4 physical core, it won't perform AS good, but it costs far less and uses less power. And HT has been here for years now, most modern programs can utilize it, and they usually don't have to be specifically coded for it.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

But if one core is executing two threads, it has to share the resources between those two threads, which is why physical is still a lot better.

 

[Speedstang]

But if one core is executing two threads, it has to share the resources between those two threads, which is why physical is still a lot better.

A physical quad is somewhat better than an HT quad, but for double the money. HT is just a better value.

 

[synphul]

In a particular instance, ht can help. In a low use environment, dual cores are enough. It's a false assumption to make though that dual core (ht or not) is 'just as good as' a quad core. It is not.

In povray, the low power i5 4570s is capable of literally almost double the performance of an i3 4360.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1062

In 7zip, the i5 4570s (low power) has just under 50% more performance than the i3 4360.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/55

An i5 3470 with a base speed of 3.2ghz and turbo of up to 3.6 (3.4ghz when all 4 cores are loaded) still manages to outperform the 3.5ghz i3 4330 in photoshop by 41.8%. That's with ht working, that's no advantage to turbo boost making it faster. Purely the difference between physical cores and ht.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2015/-29-Adobe-Photoshop-CC,3720.html

I could go on but no point in being repetitive. The i3 isn't the same as an i5. Ht is not a replacement for physical cores, it's a bandaid for fewer cores. A very expensive bandaid. On average people pay 50% more for ht or they could simply move up in cpu model for 50% or less cost and get real cores. There's no replacement for displacement unfortunately aside from a few light tasks. Put the cpu under an actual heavy workload and it shows. An i3 is a good budget chip for what it is, the ht does help it in some cases over a pentium anniversary edition but the i3 is also a member of the main lineup. The pentium ae was a special release in light of the anniversary of the old pentium, not a major player.

Depending on the model of cpu, you pay $100 more than the i3 (for instance a 4170) for an i5 and get twice the physical cores. Spend another $100 for an i7 to get ht. Spend another $60 and you get another 2 cores plus ht and a heck of a lot more cache. Ht is overrated and overpriced. When ht is helping a dual core like the i3, what it's telling you is you really need a quad core because a dual core isn't enough. The fact that it performs less for the price is to be expected, they're priced accordingly. If the i3 is all someone needs it's a good match for them with a good price but just because it fills someone's particular needs doesn't mean it performs as well as everything else.

Not everyone's needs are the same. If a user doesn't use photoshop or other intensive applications, the i3 is a good choice. For someone like myself who does use photoshop and other applications, by comparison the i3 is gimped compared to a quad core and ht doesn't cut it. We're not talking synthetic tests, they're actual programs and we're not talking a 5% performance difference someone may find trivial. 42% is significant. In a case like that, the physical cores are a whole lot better than ht and it represents poor value.

 

[Blueberries]

There are sports cars that go 0-60 50% faster than my car. That doesn't make them better for highway driving. The i3 makes sense. Most people that buy computers don't need time-critical multi-threading.

Are physical cores better? Of course. Does my mother need one? No.

 

[synphul]

So it's exactly as I said. If your needs aren't greater than an i3, get an i3. For others the i3 isn't enough. Unlike a highway where a speed limit is imposed, there are no speed limits in computing or a penalty for using that extra performance. Apples and oranges. If the software had a speed/performance restriction then it would be the same.

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

CPU intensive applications yes, remember that speed comes from your internet connection and drive primarily... You're not going to notice a difference in speed between an i5-xxxx and an 5960x, during normal use. I think Blueberries made a very good point.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

But if one core is executing two threads, it has to share the resources between those two threads, which is why physical is still a lot better.

A physical quad is somewhat better than an HT quad, but for double the money. HT is just a better value.

It's not double the money. An I3 is about $120, an I5 can be found under $200.

 

[synphul]

Speed in those programs comes from the cpu, disk drive (and configuration) etc. Not the internet. Web browsing speed comes from the speed of the internet in conjunction with things like ram, drive speed etc. It needs to be an apples to apples comparison though and the needs of the user are always the determining factor. I haven't seen anyone suggest an i7 for grandma who checks her email once a week. If all someone needs to do is browse, email etc a smart phone or tablet is plenty and an i3 is overkill in all reality. My old dual core non hyperthreaded core 2 duo e8400 was overkill for watching youtube vids and checking email.

People need to define 'normal' use. That's like saying a 'gaming' video card, are we talking a 750ti or a 980ti? Big difference. Is the user playing bf4 or are they playing solitaire? What's normal to one may not be normal to another and rather than over generalize and compare apples and oranges it's critical to determine the needs of the user when selecting hardware. That's always the first step.

If we don't know the needs, someone says they need a vehicle - which do they need? A scooter, a coupe, sedan, minivan, pickup truck? Small pickup or large pickup? Do they need a 15t dump truck? We could guess all day long and since needs vary there are multiple options. Just because a small car gets grandma to church and back and can handle her 1-2 grocery sacks doesn't mean in any way that's 'normal' or 'all anyone needs'. Your neighbor may very well need a 1/2 ton pickup truck to haul larger loads, bulkier loads, furniture, work tools, pull a boat. Those are all 'normal' things as well and you can't say what's best for them based on grandma. If grandma is the problem at hand, then it becomes a specific case of needs.

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

This is an enthusiast forum... But you should know that majority of people buying computers, are buying components/performance they won't take advantage of 99% of the time. To them it's just a black box which does the things they want.

 

[Blueberries]

Normal use to me is Microsoft Office, Web Browsing, E-Mail, etc. Streaming YouTube is probably the most CPU intensive thing your "normal" user does. An i3 has no trouble streaming 1080p, but might stutter at 4k. My 3570k stutters at 8k but not 4k.

Believe it or not, speed for most productivity applications is disk speed, not processor speed. Caching is disk speed. Boot up is disk speed and to a lesser extent single-thread speed. Searching your iTunes library for a song? Disk speed.

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

Normal use to me is Microsoft Office, Web Browsing, E-Mail, etc. Streaming YouTube is probably the most CPU intensive thing your "normal" user does. An i3 has no trouble streaming 1080p, but might stutter at 4k. My 3570k stutters at 8k but not 4k.

If you playback the video using a 4k monitor, it won't stutter with an i3, much less stress on it since it won't have to upscale then downscale in real time, instead it's keeping everything 1:1.

 

[LookItsRain]

i can play 4k on my 1080p monitor and it uses 8% of my i3.

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

Sounds like you just tested and confirmed then... Well, sign that modern CPU's are very ast for "normal" use.

 

[LookItsRain]

Thats using chrome, firefox uses 68%. IE uses 16.7%

 

[synphul]

Going back to the original question, I don't think the i3 is underestimated. For people looking to play lower end games, general use/secondary pc's or office needs I've seen and personally recommended the i3 a number of times. If it's within someone's budget, there's no reason not to get an i5 especially if they're looking to play AAA game titles, heavier multitasking, streaming via twitch or similar. There's a difference between downloading and playing existing content and encoding content locally for upload to a service. That's more along the lines of video encoding and an i5 will most certainly outperform an i3 there.

It still comes down to people recognizing what tasks they primarily use their pc for and determining their needs to select hardware that suits those needs. Once that step has been taken, a proper configuration can be put together not only regarding the particular cpu that's appropriate but disk drive, type, speed, arrangement, ram quantities etc. It all works together.

The i3 is a logical choice for some uses, just like the i5 and i7 are more appropriate for other tasks. Suggesting a more capable cpu for more intensive tasks isn't underestimating the i3, it's recognizing its limitations. Being limited doesn't make it a bad cpu, it just means it has its place. As do the i5, i7 and others. While it's a good cpu for the money, so are the i5 and i7 respectively given their performance variables. Intel's already recognized this and categorized their cpu's into tiers and labeled them i3, i5, i7 for this very reason.

 

[Blueberries]

I would rather have a less expensive i7 and no i5. The i3-7 is a gimmick. All of Intel's CPUs can be overclocked and all of them can be hyper-threaded.

I will NOT believe you if you tell me there's a greater production value in making an i7 than an i5.