i7 vs i5 gaming

[zero koopa]

So I have read a few articles that hyperthreading causes games to be slower on an i7 but that was about 6 months ago and I am wondering what processor I should get.

I am looking at getting a Z77 board with either of the following

i7 3770K 3.5ghz ivy -I hear hyperthreading slows it down
i5 3570K 3.4 ghz ivy - I hear good price/performance
i5 2500K 3.3 ghz sandy - I hear better OC than i5 ivy

I was talking to one of my IT buddys and he told me go with the i7 to keep it fast and at stock. He says he sees too many busted boards from OCing and to just buy the fastest chip you can afford. That being said, I am a bit afraid of the i5 2500K sandy just because I know it OC's easier but I dont want to have to be worried about frying the processor or board.

Which would you get?

 

[crazymonkeyzero]

If you're gonna be gaming, my vote definitely goes for the i5 3570k. It's a beast of a chip and should be able to toast any modern game, given you couple it with a decent video card. Also, go ivy because of the 10% ipc improvements over sandy. Although you sacrifice a bit of oc potential, you don't need to oc as high either. HT does not help in gaming, so save some money by not buying the i7 unless you plan to utilize all it has to offer; (ie, running heavy programs such as PS or video editing, rendering etc.)

Sidenote

I recommend an aftermarket cooler, like the Coolermaster Hyper 212 Evo, as ivyb does tend to run a bit warm.

 

[hokies83]

If your gaming the 3570k is King atm.

 

[Red Hawk]

Right now there's almost no game that uses more than 4 threads, and most just use 2 threads. The most notable exception is Battlefield 3. So for the time being an i7 will show very little advantage over an i5 at the same clock speeds when it comes to gaming; I've heard about minor performance losses on i7s possibly due to hyperthreading, but really nothing major.

Of course, just a few years ago we were saying the same thing about dual cores vs quad cores, and before then the discussion was single core vs dual core. As time passed, developers learned to code for multiple threads and now most games make use of two threads and some try using three or four threads. Now having a quad core is practically indispensable for a gaming enthusiast. Will that progression continue and will games eventually use up to 8 threads commonly? It's certainly possible, but still unknown. We'll probably see more of a leap when the next console generation comes out (and the Wii U doesn't count, because from pictures released of the Wii U's CPU it seems pathetic).

Personally I am confident in the OCing abilities of Sandy Bridge processors after running a 2500k at 4 GHz for almost a year now. 100 MHz is not that much of a difference, but if you really do want those Hertz then it should be trivial to get an overclock to that level. I don't have direct experience with other users, but I imagine that most burned out boards your IT buddy sees come from people who try pushing the processor as far as it can go and do things like messing with voltage. I haven't done that and I've been safe. Keep it simple. You don't even have to disable Intel's automatic TurboBoost feature if you want; just change the multipliers it automatically boosts to.

If you're buying right now though you probably want the 3570k; it has slightly higher IPC (instructions per cycle; essentialy how much work it can do per GHz), better iGPU, better power efficiency, native USB 3.0, etc. You definitely get more for your money stepping up from a 2500k to a 3570k; really, the only reason I would recommend a 3770k is if you're doing a highly multithreaded task suck as video encoding. As I said above, it should be very easy and safe to simply nudge a 3570k to the clock speeds of a 3770k.

 

[Sheep221]

i5-3570K

 

[ShintaiDK]

Another +1 for i5 3570K

 

[cytg111]

with the i7 you get hyper threading. Say you're using 1 core, 1 thread, 100% CPU utilization. Those 100% is a tad misleading, as subparts of the cpu will only be at 60-80%. That is what hyperthreading does, tapping in to those last 20% of one core, and that's why some games are slower on an i7 compared to an i5, the i7 may give the game a thread to an allready busy core, while the i5 have no option(so and so) but to give the second thread to the second core.

Summed down, gaming? go for the i5.

on the other hand, if you know that you'll be using 8 threads+, hyperthreading can kick it up as much as ~40% (thats alot...)

 

[kleinkinstein]

The 3580k can be had for $170 at MicroCenter. Sometimes less on ebay.

 

[IntelEnthusiast]

I would go with the Intel® Core™ i5-3570K simply because most games won't use more than 4 threads. For this reason the hyper-threading on the Intel Core i7-3770K has minimal value in a gaming system. So save the money and put in something that will make a bigger difference on performance i.e. a better video card or a SSD.

Here is a good piece hyper-threading in games.

 

[tweakboy]

Games don't use HT and don't use multi core optimizations. So i5 3570k even my 2007 processor can play games @ 60fps 1080p 8xAA 16xAF vsync on :thumbsup:

 

[ND40oz]

I would go with the Intel® Core™ i5-3570K simply because most games won't use more than 4 threads. For this reason the hyper-threading on the Intel Core i7-3770K has minimal value in a gaming system. So save the money and put in something that will make a bigger difference on performance i.e. a better video card or a SSD.

Here is a good piece hyper-threading in games.

While testing from 2 years ago may show that, BF3 begs to differ: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33814087&postcount=174

 

[fishsauce]

Most games will not use more than 4 threads. BF3 is the exception to the rule. Even with just 4 cores, it's still more than playable.

 

[ND40oz]

Most games will not use more than 4 threads. BF3 is the exception to the rule. Even with just 4 cores, it's still more than playable.

Sure, but it performs better with more then 4, isn't that what was being asked? Sure it's the exception to the rule now, but we know how those exceptions work.

I own a Z77/3570k combo, would I buy one specifically for gaming, no, I'd get the i7 2700k from MC for $229 instead.

 

[Red Hawk]

I would go with the Intel® Core™ i5-3570K simply because most games won't use more than 4 threads. For this reason the hyper-threading on the Intel Core i7-3770K has minimal value in a gaming system. So save the money and put in something that will make a bigger difference on performance i.e. a better video card or a SSD.

Here is a good piece hyper-threading in games.

Preferably an Intel brand SSD, right? :sneaky: I jest, I jest.

Games don't use HT and don't use multi core optimizations. So i5 3570k even my 2007 processor can play games @ 60fps 1080p 8xAA 16xAF vsync on :thumbsup:

I'm sure the hyperthreading on dual core i3 CPUs gets put to good use in more multithreaded games. i7s just offer more threads than most games can use right now.

Sure, but it performs better with more then 4, isn't that what was being asked? Sure it's the exception to the rule now, but we know how those exceptions work.

I own a Z77/3570k combo, would I buy one specifically for gaming, no, I'd get the i7 2700k from MC for $229 instead.

Yes, but you were acting like you were contradicting Christian, when he said "most", allowing for an exception like BF3. Which for now remains nothing more than exception.

 

[ND40oz]

Yes, but you were acting like you were contradicting Christian, when he said "most", allowing for an exception like BF3. Which for now remains nothing more than exception.

The biggest problem I have is he's quoting something from Feb. of 2010, 2.5+ years is an eternity when it comes to both hardware and software.

 

[BrightCandle]

We had someone on this very forum a few weeks ago showing just how effective ht is. It is worth having for gamers.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

In some cases ht will make the CPU faster and in cases like bf3 mp much faster. In most cases the performance will be exactly the same with the option of disabling ht at will.

If you can afford it get a 3770k. Else the 3570k is nearly as good most of the time.

 

[Termie]

We had someone on this very forum a few weeks ago showing just how effective ht is. It is worth having for gamers.

Here are the benchmarks I put together on both an i7-3770k (with and without HT) and an i7-860 (with and without HT): http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2274887

Overall, I'd say that for older games, HT helps very little and may actually hurt, often because a modern CPU is powerful enough without the overhead. On the other hand, modern game engines do take advantage of hyperthreading, and the older the CPU is, the bigger the benefit. And the biggest difference is in the minimums, not the averages that most websites report on.

Is HT a cost-effective upgrade for a gaming rig? Probably not - the money is better spent on graphics processing power. But to say it doesn't make a difference in just incorrect.

For additional (professional) benchmarks on this, see these results: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...-8350-cpu-review-amds-vishera-arrives-17.html

In all five games tested, the delta between the 3770k and 3570k was significantly larger than the delta between the 3570k and 2500k. This is despite only 100MHz separating each of the three CPUs, and the 3770k and 3570k sharing the same process improvements. Hyperthreading is clearly making a difference.

 

[extreme oc'er]

I have the 3570k coupled with GA-Z77-D3H motherboard and Geforce GTX 660, havent found a game yet that will not run in high-ultra settings @ 1920x1080

 

[extreme oc'er]

Have overclocked to 4.3 GHz (turbo multiplier turned up)
Cooler: Corsair H100 Idle 27 C load 68 C

 

[dragantoe]

+1 pentium 4

 

[rgallant]

running a 3770k on 4 cores.
-if I feel I could use/need the HT this year or next
I'll just turn it on ,can't do that on a 2500k or 3570k ,but I have good vid. cards
that said
a vid card returns more gaming fps per $$$ so pick a 3570k ,z77 and update your vid card.[gtx460?]

-can't do it all ? I would look at updating the vid. card first.[gtx670?]