How much more real world performance would I get with the i5?
I'm upgrading my htpc from a haswell 1.1 ghz slowpoke to at least an i3-4150. The plan is to play some games and enjoy the better browsing & performance with just onboard graphics, then get a decent graphics card in a couple months to play games on my tv. I'm also interested in getting into photography and video editing next year.
How much more real world performance would I get with the i5?
The I5-4440 runs at 3,1Ghz and turboes up to 3,3
the I3-4150 runs at 3,5 ALWAYS(well excluding speed step but that doesn't matter really) so real world,the I3 would give you better performance since every day work is depending on the speed of the cpu and not the core count,the I5 would kill the I3 at 3D rendering, video encoding and this kind of (semi) professional workloads.
Games is a no win scenario, some will run better on the I3 some on the I5 depending on how speed or "thread" (total computation power) demanding they are.
That's about the same difference as between ivy and haswell ,same as an architecture change,I never said that it will be much better,but at the price difference and him not really needing the extra cores,the I3 is a more reasonable choice,now if he has the money let him go for it.The difference between 3.2 ghz (likely 4C turbo or even 3.3 ghz with a motherboard with multicore turbo) is less than 10%.
I'm upgrading my htpc from a haswell 1.1 ghz slowpoke
Sorry for the confusion. I meant I'm making a new HTPC. A year and a half ago I bought a celeron 1.1ghz & mobo combo that came with 8gbs of ram and put it in a cooler master elite 120.
I'm planning on getting a corsair 250d, new mobo and probably an i3. I'll reuse all my other components. So, as a tv computer, it will be a big upgrade. The celeron is really slow on loading some of the podcast and television websites I go to, and can't play even simple games. Plus, I want the corsair because it has really good dust guards and I have a shedding corgi.
So, it mostly comes down to multi-threaded performance?
Also, broadwell processors should work with whatever mobo I get for haswell, right? I'm probably going to get this one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157526
Sorry for the confusion. I meant I'm making a new HTPC. A year and a half ago I bought a celeron 1.1ghz & mobo combo
How would a g3258 (overclocked) compare to that 4440?
I'm also interested in getting into photography and video editing next year.
Sorry to veer off. Did anyone notice the Anandtech gaming benchmark of the i3-4130T, it looked to good to be true. The cpu was scoring higher frames than a G3220@3.0ghz around the clock. The i3-4130T is clocked lower but has HT, does it really make that big of a difference. It was neck and neck with the i5's.
I agree with your conclusion, but not with your maths. If a 4790K is only 20% faster than a 4690K with a 14% clock speed advantage, that would make hyperthreading worth only 5%.
It's true that you're not going to see a 50% gain in FPS in today's games (or perhaps any in the foreseeable future) with the i7, but in anything that actually uses the extra threads, hyperthreading is worth well over 5%. See the Devil's Canyon review.
^ If we divide out a 14% clockspeed advantage, hyperthreading (and perhaps the extra cache) is worth around 43%.
Here we can compare apples to apples, with chips clocked the same. Hyperthreading is worth 33%.
Here, hyperthreading and larger cache are worth a whopping 72%.
Even if you're only getting an extra 30% multithreaded performance out of the extra threads, a 14% increase in clocks * 30% = ~50% extra performance for ~50% extra cost.
Whether or not it's relevant to the OP is for him to decide. Today, an i5 is plenty fast for most games, and he probably won't see scaling in most by buying an i7 (in part because generally, games won't use more than 4 threads), but by some metrics an i7 is actually a better value.
That i5 will be a minimal upgrade for a premium price.I'm planning to upgrade to an i5 later on