PDA

View Full Version : Is it true i5 and i7 is only 30% increase in speed over core 2 dual?



nec207
May 15th, 2012, 07:50 AM
Is it true i5 and i7 is only 30% increase in speed over core 2 dual?
Some one was saying to me i5 and i7 is only 30% increase in speed over core 2 dual?

Is like that with most i5 and i7 ? Or is only some i5 and i7 is going be 2 or 3 times fater than core 2 dual and is it going be very costly?

Paqman
May 15th, 2012, 07:59 AM
Waaaay too many variables there dude. Are you talking about clock speeds, or benchmarks? And what chips? Core2, i5 and i7 cover a lot of chips, of very different speeds.

The lowest end i5 actually benchmarks at about the same as the top end Core 2 Quad, but the top end i7 is about 4-5 times as fast as the lowest Core 2 Duo.

In general Core iX machines will be somewhat quicker than Core 2 machines, but not astronomically so. It's probably not worth forking out on an upgrade just for the speed boost for most people. Where iX chips do excel is in their integrated graphics and power saving features, so they're a lot better for laptops.

mips
May 15th, 2012, 09:22 AM
Way to many variables involved but have a look at these links,

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/processors,6.html
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/charts/

My core 2 quad 6600 gives about a third the performance of the fastest core i7 cpu.

medic2000
May 15th, 2012, 12:32 PM
Way to many variables involved but have a look at these links,

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/processors,6.html
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/charts/

My core 2 quad 6600 gives about a third the performance of the fastest core i7 cpu.

Third the performance? Does that means 1/3?

3rdalbum
May 15th, 2012, 12:42 PM
The i5s and i7s have Hyperthreading, which is a way for the CPU core to execute a different thread while waiting for data on its main thread.

That alone can boost performance by up to 30% for some workloads. The Core 2s don't have Hyperthreading.

Also, remember that many i5s and all i7s have more than just two cores, so you're looking at more than a 50% jump in performance from a Core 2 Duo to a similar-priced i5 or i7.

But rather than go out and buy a new motherboard, RAM and CPU, try buying a decent SSD instead. You'll probably see more improvement.

BrokenKingpin
May 15th, 2012, 01:41 PM
30% seems like a pretty decent speed increase to me... but maybe not worth buying a whole new PC for.

As 3rdalbum said, maybe pick up an SSD... I found this to have a more significant performance increase in every day tasks than a new CPU. Or pick up an i7 and an SSD :P

mips
May 15th, 2012, 01:54 PM
Third the performance? Does that means 1/3?

Yes. 1/3 or 33%

Grenage
May 15th, 2012, 01:57 PM
As above, it's all down to application. If you throw stable overclock (nothing heavy, just slow air cooling) into the mix, it all shifts again.

rg4w
May 15th, 2012, 02:01 PM
True, many different things can affect performance, but the benchmarks at www.cpubenchmark.net (http://www.cpubenchmark.net) can be very helpful to get a feel for relative performance of a CPU.

Given the wide variety of specific models of both the Core2 Duo and i7 families, it's possible to find some Core2 models which score higher than i7s.

But overall, looking at the most recent models using the latest architectures available for each, I'd be surprised if you could find even an i5 that wasn't at least twice as fast as most Core2 Duos.

And if you have budget for more than $1k on the CPU, the Core i7 Extreme is unmatched by the fastest in the Core2 series by a mind-bendingly wide margin (14,071 to 2,534).

But even just looking at more middle-of-the-road CPUs, the Core i5 2500 is arguably the most popular i5 on the market right now with a Passmark score of 6,740.

So in terms of proving a point, your friends are more than correct, there are some Core2 Duos which are even faster than some Core i7s.

But in terms of what's available for you to choose from today, there's a good reason every manufacturer has moved from the Core2 to the Core i series. Extra bonus points that Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge offer better power efficiency along with their greater performance.

misterblobby
May 15th, 2012, 02:12 PM
Technical software that uses multiple cores will generally go about 30 to 40 percent faster if a (second) hyperthreaded core is added, but will double if a real core is added. In my experience, an i7 at 1.7 GHz was substantially slower than a quad core Xeon at 2.4 GHz with the rest of the hardware roughly the same.

The difference will be fairly small if all you are doing is looking at web pages, but not if you want to do something heavy like finite element modelling.

NadirPoint
May 15th, 2012, 02:18 PM
"Performance" as t'were, has been emphasizing battery support and power saving more as of late. On that note, the newest i7 (Ivy Bridge) is just now coming into the market and should make an impressive leap over it's AMD rivals by the end of the year.

mips
May 15th, 2012, 07:22 PM
"Performance" as t'were, has been emphasizing battery support and power saving more as of late. On that note, the newest i7 (Ivy Bridge) is just now coming into the market and should make an impressive leap over it's AMD rivals by the end of the year.

AMD lost the plot a long time ago. I should know as I've always had AMD CPUs, my current C2Q 6600 is my first Intel CPU.

nec207
May 24th, 2012, 02:36 AM
"Performance" as t'were, has been emphasizing battery support and power saving more as of late. On that note, the newest i7 (Ivy Bridge) is just now coming into the market and should make an impressive leap over it's AMD rivals by the end of the year.

I read Ivy Bridge is to be 18% to 30% faster than what they have now but not sure what CPU thay are basing this on.