So the rationale of the i3 being better is simply because you have no need for more cpu processing horsepower? Hmm. Considering it sounds like the only things you do are light weight processing it stands to reason an i3 seems perfectly suitable for you, and it is. No argument there, but your situation isn't everyone's. Don't come at a professional mechanic talking about how their wide variety of comparatively expensive tools seems pointless just because all you do is swap a wheel on your bicycle once in awhile and therefor the $14.99 gift set you found by some no name brand import is all anyone really needs. You'll be seriously laughed at.
You assume an i7 is for professional use, yet I use an i5 for professional work and it suits my needs just fine. Assumptions will get people into trouble every time. The 5820k isn't irrelevant, it's a perfectly viable choice and part of intel's current lineup. You'll dismiss the 5820k that actually exists, but argue about a fictional fairytale ht enabled i3? I'm sort of confused.
As the benchmarks I listed pointed out, the i5 is much much closer to performing like an i7. You're right, an i5 costs twice what an i3 does. It's also twice the processor. Why pay 3 times the price of an i3 to get barely 15-20% more performance than a processor just twice the cost? At the end of the day, what's $100 in a system build price? A system easily lasts people years and I can't say I've ever regretted a purchase 2-3yrs down the line. Never once have I said wow, remember back in 2013 when I spent an extra $20 on that dvd player - that just ruined my life. What someone will notice is the lack of performance during those 2-3yrs.
It's not bashing on people who have bought i7's, they still ended up with a great cpu. Hyperthreading is hit and miss and when it works is a moderate improvement and not worth a 50% price hike in my opinion. Not when it puts me only $50 away from real improvements like 2 additional physical cores and 15mb cache along with quad channel memory. At least then there's something for the money.
I'd agree that there are an overwhelming amount of choices, but so long as intel is willing to go to the trouble, they offer something for everyone. The same could be said about amd. Do they really need an 8300, 8310, 8320, 8350, 8370, 9570, 9590? I'd rather have too many choices than too few and it's no skin off my back.
Low tdp is low heat, they're the same thing. When it comes to 'low power', it would depend on the cpu model to get an accurate comparison. For instance the i3 4130 is a 54w tdp chip while the 4690k is an 88w tdp chip. Yet power consumption between the two differ by only 11w under stock load. The i3 consumes 98w and the 4690k (stock) consumes 109w. Funny you mention the 3570k, since at stock it consumes 125w of power. So much for being a low power chip. At idle the i5 4690k consumes 48w vs the i3 4130 at 63w. Again i3 loses. The 3570k by the way consumes 90w at idle.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2014/07/03/intel-core-i5-4690k-review/6
Of course tdp (heat) will be a bit different, the i3 is literally half the processor yet the i5/i7's don't have twice the tdp as the i3. Instead roughly 50% more despite having twice the cores (heat sources). It's an insignificant amount really and will have little impact on cooling or ambient room temps.
You're right, you do get more with an i7. A smidge more for 50% more cost. It's a relatively poor value but that's the beauty of choice, people can select whichever they want. Ht on a quad core cpu isn't near the same benefit it is on a dual core cpu because they're just not struggling that hard in the first place. You have x amount of programs which run on 1-2 cores, y amount that run on up to 4 cores and z amount that make use of more than 4 threads. Since the processing requirements are slowly becoming more intensive, a dual core with only 2t is finding it harder to keep up and the additional threads help quite a bit - in that case. Threading (ht) is still no substitute for physical cores. The benchmarks I provided earlier proved that as both the i3 and i5 are processing up to 4t and yet the i3 is suffering from lack of processing power. A direct result of being a dual core cpu.
The pentium in my opinion is a novelty. The equivalent of buying a cpu in one of those plastic bubbles out of a quarter machine, great for tinkering sort of like a raspberry pi. The g3258 is a $65 chip, what do people want? It does offer overclocking which is a bonus, it's something for people to mess with. For people who have never oc'd before, it's a great option to test on. I'd rather burn a $65 chip than a $230/$330 chip. Being that it was an anniversary edition, it was clear that it was a modern day throwback to the old original pentiums and more of a nostalgic thing. Intel didn't produce it to be a serious contender, if they had it would be priced like the rest of their lineup. It's also a cheap option that would be great for a kid's first pc, if you had a kid looking to get into computers it's at a price that's attainable to just about everyone and you don't have to dump a fortune on it. On top of it, it doesn't do half bad all things considered.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram