i3 2100 or i5 2400???

[Bman123]

Looking into upgrading the cpu in my sig rig soon. The celeron is doing its job pretty good so far. For casual gaming do you think going to the 2100 i3 is a good idea or should i go to a i5 2400? I cant overclock on this board so a 2500k isnt a option.

If I go with the 2400 it will leave me $100 for the video card, if I go 2100 I have $150 for the video card.
Games played will be cod4, cod mw3, new Vegas, probably rage, nfs the run, dead island
Resolution is only 1280x720 so I guess I don't really need a diesel video card since I can max out new Vegas, cod4 and mw3 with full AA and AF with a 8800gt but I'm sure as newer games come out a better video card will be needed since the 8800gt is being listed as a minimum requirement in some games now.

What do you think?

 

[exar333]

Seriously I would say keep your current CPU and spend your $$$ on a $200 GPU. Drop in a cheap IB in 6 months that will be better than the current i3/i5 line-up.

 

[tweakboy]

Isnt that i3 a dual core. Get quad core,, games will breath and thank you for it and your video card and dish out all its fps... thx,,

 

[sm625]

I'd like to see any single benchmark where an i5 teamed with a $100 video card beats an i3-2100 teamed with a $150 video card. No way jose. Not even starcraft 2. I'd go as far as to say a pentium and a $180 card would be even faster. But then you're getting so close to the G530 that you ought to do what ExarKun333 said. Just put it all into the card. I wish we had benchamrks on all these possible configurations. I feel so let down by these review sites.

 

[watek]

Yeah not sure about going dual core to dual core but hell I3 2100 is one bad ass budget chip though.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Some forum members reported excellent performance in BF3 when they matched up a i3 2100 with a 6800 series amd gpu.

I would say the i3 2100 for sure heck some swear its better then any amd quad core and thats quite the claim for the i3 series.

 

[Arachnotronic]

i5 2400. Longevity is much improved on that platform. Twice the cores for only 50% more price.

 

[Skott]

Personally, I'd go with the i5 2400 because its a much better cpu but if you are on a tight budget the i3 2100 can work. Just make sure the mobo you get can upgrade to IB to give you some future expansion. ASUS, ASRock, MSI, Biostar, and Gigabyte make some nice H61/H67/Z68 mobos that are not too expensive that will allow IB later on. Buy the i3 2100 now and later on when you can afford something better pop in a IB cpu for improved performance. That is how I would approach it.

 

[GoStumpy]

Do people not read threads anymore? ^

He already has a H61 motherboard. It is a drop-in upgrade, not upgrading the motherboard.

With that in mind, I don't see the point of upgrading to just an i3-2100 from a G530... If you're going to upgrade, make it count!

But upgrade the GPU first if you game

 

[jacktesterson]

Seriously I would say keep your current CPU and spend your $$$ on a $200 GPU. Drop in a cheap IB in 6 months that will be better than the current i3/i5 line-up.

This

 

[Fefster]

Keep the cpu,the games you are playing are not at all cpu-intensive and they don't even need a 200$ GPU.If you want to waste money get a 6850 but anything more than that would be way overkill.My advice would be to keep the cpu and get a 5770/6770.You'll easily max out all those games.

 

[sangyup81]

I agree with above posters that say keep your current CPU.

It's not worth upgrading your CPU when you need more money for the video card.

 

[janas19]

Kind of have a few, perhaps muddled, things to say here...

I'm also interested in this choice as a casual gamer myself between the i3-2100 and the i5-2400. Not JUST exclusively to Sandy Bridge processors alone, but also to include a much wider discussion of the performance of two core, four thread CPUs vs four physical core CPUs.

If you consider brute power alone, obviously the four core CPU has advantage. Like others have said, when it comes to transcoding and rendering tasks, the four core is the clear winner, because those tasks have a set end-point and the four cores can reach that much faster.

But aside from this point, if you are looking at the gaming end of things where a similar set of calculations is being performed over and over for an indefinite period of time, why wouldn't it be a good idea to go with the i3-2100? Adding two virtual cores on top of two physical cores makes those cores more efficient. Since the four virtual cores of i3-2100 can handle even the most modern games with ease, it will use less power to do so, which will reduce the wear on the CPU over time, translating into more dollars saved in energy and longer CPU lifespan.

Am I missing something here, or isn't there a good debate at least for choosing the i3-2100?

*Edit: To sum up my position in a nutshell, I would ask the OP to consider the i3-2100 as the upgrade if he only wants to do casual gaming. Two cores with HT = less power used more efficiently. Four physical cores seems to be overkill - unless you want to do transcoding/rendering tasks (I don't).*

 

[GoStumpy]

I don't want to quote that, but this is in reply to Janas19 ^

i3-2100 may be a very strong chip and can take care of many things, but I wouldn't go so far to say that it handles all modern games with ease... My i3-2100 runs at 80+% consistently (sometimes 90%+) playing BF3... That means that it is working 80+% of capacity.

An i5-2400 on the other hand, may only be working at 70% capacity.. (unknown since I only have an i3-2100). Therefore it isn't really using any more "energy", it just doesn't work quite as hard. OR, it gives better performance.

The i3-2100 is a great chip for a budget minded user, HOWEVER, it is a great chip when upgrading TO the LGA1155 platform... Not a great upgrade when you already have LGA1155... He already has a dual-core Sandybridge chip... Upgrading to a i3-2100 will only get him hyperthreading.. Is that really worth $130, when you can spend $190 and get a quad-core version that is stronger in every way? *including* turbo-boost??? No brainer to me! If you're spending that much when you're current CPU isn't "horrible", you better be upgrading to something substantial!

This is coming from someone that has and LOVES his i3-2100 chip, but believe me, if I had the $$$ I would spend the extra 35% and get a true quad-core. Who knows, perhaps in a year or two we will have games that will completely use 4 cores.. Then wouldn't it have been silly to *upgrade* just to get Hyperthreading?

This is all IMHO of course!

 

[janas19]

I don't want to quote that, but this is in reply to Janas19 ^

i3-2100 may be a very strong chip and can take care of many things, but I wouldn't go so far to say that it handles all modern games with ease... My i3-2100 runs at 80+% consistently (sometimes 90%+) playing BF3... That means that it is working 80+% of capacity.

An i5-2400 on the other hand, may only be working at 70% capacity.. (unknown since I only have an i3-2100). Therefore it isn't really using any more "energy", it just doesn't work quite as hard. OR, it gives better performance.

The i3-2100 is a great chip for a budget minded user, HOWEVER, it is a great chip when upgrading TO the LGA1155 platform... Not a great upgrade when you already have LGA1155... He already has a dual-core Sandybridge chip... Upgrading to a i3-2100 will only get him hyperthreading.. Is that really worth $130, when you can spend $190 and get a quad-core version that is stronger in every way? *including* turbo-boost??? No brainer to me! If you're spending that much when you're current CPU isn't "horrible", you better be upgrading to something substantial!

This is coming from someone that has and LOVES his i3-2100 chip, but believe me, if I had the $$$ I would spend the extra 35% and get a true quad-core. Who knows, perhaps in a year or two we will have games that will completely use 4 cores.. Then wouldn't it have been silly to *upgrade* just to get Hyperthreading?

This is all IMHO of course!

GoStumpy, of course the i3-2100 will be running at a higher CPU load %, because it is running up to 4 threads on only two cores.

The i5-2400 is running that "70%", or whatever the number, across four cores. That means that although the percentage of the i5's computing power used (according to Windows) is less than the i3, overall, it will still consume more wattage. The only way this would not be true is IF the i5 had a CPU load half that of the i3, which will never happen, because of the hyper threads.

That might not be important to some people, but I still am thinking a dual-core HT can run games more efficiently than a quad-core.

 

[GoStumpy]

Ok after a good nights rest, I do agree that an x4 i5 will use more power than a x2 i3.... But really, in a desktop computer, 1 out of 10,000 (or less) people could care about that, so is it really an important argument to make? The difference in power usage between the two would be less than...well... leaving your bathroom nightlight plugged in :biggrin:

 

[janas19]

I'm interested in the power differences dammit!!!

....

Sorry for my outburst sir. :$

*Edit* I guess you're right, it's probably irrelevant, but atm I'm obsessed with virtual cores, so that's why I appear a little agitated... Carry on good people!

/end thread hijack

 

[Bman123]

Going from the celeron to the 2100 will gain me .7 ghz and hyper threading which should make a big difference I thought

 

[exar333]

Going from the celeron to the 2100 will gain me .7 ghz and hyper threading which should make a big difference I thought

It will, but not as big as a new GPU. For the games you listed, a solid GPU will give you huge results.

Gaming aside, is your current CPU giving you issues with general usage? Do you need more multi-tasking ability or more horsepower? If not, then just a GPU will do you fine for now. If you find that limiting, get a faster CPU.

 

[tweakboy]

Looking into upgrading the cpu in my sig rig soon. The celeron is doing its job pretty good so far. For casual gaming do you think going to the 2100 i3 is a good idea or should i go to a i5 2400? I cant overclock on this board so a 2500k isnt a option.

If I go with the 2400 it will leave me $100 for the video card, if I go 2100 I have $150 for the video card.
Games played will be cod4, cod mw3, new Vegas, probably rage, nfs the run, dead island
Resolution is only 1280x720 so I guess I don't really need a diesel video card since I can max out new Vegas, cod4 and mw3 with full AA and AF with a 8800gt but I'm sure as newer games come out a better video card will be needed since the 8800gt is being listed as a minimum requirement in some games now.

What do you think?

You can get for 150 dollars a 460 1GB. but less then that, like 120 to 130 dollars. it will couple well with your i5 2400 ... gl

 

[SolMiester]

The OP only has a 12x7 panel...I dont think he needs anything too powerful, whereas a new CPU will give better improvement in all programs!....Id go for the i5, it has turbo!

 

[Bman123]

It will, but not as big as a new GPU. For the games you listed, a solid GPU will give you huge results.

Gaming aside, is your current CPU giving you issues with general usage? Do you need more multi-tasking ability or more horsepower? If not, then just a GPU will do you fine for now. If you find that limiting, get a faster CPU.

Honestly this cpu is more then enough for general usage. I only game maybe a hour or two a night once the kids are sleeping. 90% of the time its streaming hulu and netflix since I refuse to pay high cable prices. This pc is multi purpose and it does a very good job. I only want to upgrade because ill have spare cash and wont have to upgrade or rebuild again for a couple years.