This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Is an i3 processor good?

#21BowsaaPosted 8/19/2013 10:20:21 AM
turbovirgin posted...
I know i5s are better because of the bigger caches and turbo boost, but I'm confused about the "more cores" argument. Desktop i3's have hyperthreading, so they can both run 4 threads, correct? Or is 4 physical cores a lot better than 2 cores with HT?


4 physical cores is much better then a dual w/ HT.

I've got an i3-3220 (Paired with a 2 GB 7850 and 8 gigs of ram), and it's great. I've been running everything that I play at high/ultra settings at 1080P (and/or max a good number of games) and don't see the framerate dropping below 30. That being said, I don't play a lot of the new releases and don't mind dropping some stuff a notch or two anyway.

You're pretty much going to be better of with an FX-6300 unless you play MMOs or strategy games, or you don't plan on playing new games much at all. When games only take advantage of a couple cores, the i3 will be a great buy, like for GW2 or SC2 (when compared to any AMD CPU), but in general the 6300 would be a better choice.
---
RENAMON!! *weeping* YOU HAVEN'T BENT ANYONE OVER THE SINK AND SHOVED A "CHECK THE STICKY* UP THEIR ASS IN MONTHS!! *curls into ball crying*- Cither3000
#22PhilOnDezPosted 8/19/2013 10:21:05 AM
turbovirgin posted...
I know i5s are better because of the bigger caches and turbo boost, but I'm confused about the "more cores" argument. Desktop i3's have hyperthreading, so they can both run 4 threads, correct? Or is 4 physical cores a lot better than 2 cores with HT?


It's a huge difference. You can run 4 things at 100% speed at once vs 2 things full speed or 4 things at greatly reduced speed. The hyperthreading usually results in a gain but it's no replacement for multiple cores.
---
Every time I try to go where I really wanna be it's already where I am, 'cuz I'm already there
XBL, PSN, Steam, Origin, BSN, GFAQs, MC: PhilOnDez
#23Snuckie7Posted 8/19/2013 10:23:06 AM
turbovirgin posted...
I know i5s are better because of the bigger caches and turbo boost, but I'm confused about the "more cores" argument. Desktop i3's have hyperthreading, so they can both run 4 threads, correct? Or is 4 physical cores a lot better than 2 cores with HT?


Physical cores are a lot more powerful than virtualized ones.

http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/467/bench/CPU_2.png

Look there for the difference between the i3 2120 and the i5 2500K.
---
Intel Core i7 3820 | EVGA X79 SLI K2 | MSI 7950 Twin Frozr III | Samsung / 840 120GB / 8GB RAM | 1TB WD Caviar Blue | Corsair / 550D / H70 | Silencer MKIII 600W
#24Dragonspawn1319Posted 8/19/2013 11:03:54 AM
For the time being it's okay. But if your looking for long term it will probably be more beneficial to look for an i5. In a year or 2 after the next gen consoles get settled in, there will probably also be a jump in pc requirements.

I have an i3 2120 and haven't ran into any playability issues yet. Paired with my now outdated 6770 I get high settings on most games. The only game I do have issues with is the one I bought it for, gw2. I can max the settings with 60 fps for most of the game; but when I get into the more intense parts of the game with 40+ players all fighting the i3 can't take it and get's bogged down to 10-20 fps. I know it's the i3 too I've tried turning down the video settings it makes no difference. Of course those same heavy battles are also known for giving i5's a run for their money as well.