1. Computer problem? Tech Support Guy is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations. Click here to join today! If you're new to Tech Support Guy, we highly recommend that you visit our Guide for New Members.

Solved: i5 vs Quad Core running XP 32-bit?

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by neshtak, Feb 9, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement
  1. neshtak

    neshtak Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Messages:
    44
    Am I better off with i5 or Core 2 Quad performance- and price-wise?
    Will be strictly using XP Professional 32-bit OS.
    Current CPU is Core 2 Duo e6750 @ 2.66Ghz.
     
  2. Sponsor

  3. Urban_Conflict

    Urban_Conflict

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7
    Well, both of them are fast, but if you install windows 32 bit. your wasting your time. You will find that when you upgrade your computer with a quad or a i5 it will be fast but it will come close to the same as your current cpu. I highly advise installing a windows 64bit Operation System to fully benefit from one of those multiple core processors. Since 64 bit is designed to take full advantage of your multiple processors. It would only seem funny to put a 32 bit OS on a computer and only utilize only a portion of your processing power. Personal experience. I'd go with a quad core. they run a cooler and there not overpriced.
     
  4. tommo020788

    tommo020788

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    322
    I would have to agree with Urban_Conflict here. You are probably better off (Price wise) going for the AMD quad core phenomII CPU's.
    Do they run cooler? not specificly... if you over clock the cpu, then amd might run cooler, otherwise, they are both pretty good with heat.
    You can however get an Intel I7 CPU for $360 AUD which is about 3-4 times better than the PhenomII quad core in ANY aspect.
    http://www.pcsuperstore.com.au/product-details.php?g_ProductID=13557

    Buy online, and your prices are always cheaper than in a retail store ;)


    One more note: Apparently, according to most reviews I have seen, the I5 processors are allot more stable than the AMD PenomII processors as far as overall performance goes, but they are also a little more expencive... So really, they are both pretty evenly matched
     
  5. Compiler

    Compiler

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,855
    Er... Both of you are wrong. 32bit vs. 64bit have to do with memory access. A 32bit OS can deal with 4~8cores just fine... depending on the OS.

    Windows7 is supposed to be better with load balancing than XP... consider than when XP came out, there were only single core CPUs.

    And unless you have more than 4GB of RAM (or plan to), 32bit Windows7 does great. Vista needs more memory because of its badly designed memory systems that will never be fixed. (Get Windows7).

    An i5 will easily outrun most Core2Quads. Some programs will still work better on the older CPUs.

    Please don't spread FUD. Stability is a non issue. But if someone buys cheap junky parts, they will have an unstable system no matter which CPU. Your performance of 3~4 times is a typical fan-boy joke (your sources).

    lets look at Newegg prices:
    i5 661 = $210
    i7 860 = $280

    X4 965 = $180 (AMD)
    X4 630 = $100 (AMD low end)
    X3 435 = $75
    X2 550 = $85 (AMD high end dual core / can be converted into a quad 955/965)
    X2 250 = $65


    Note: For those who don't know: i3 & i5 CPUs are dual cores. i7 are quad intels.

    Look here: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3704&p=12

    Lets look at gaming:
    Fallout3: Hmmm... all the AMD low end (not the X4 965) are about 78~79fps.. as is the $200 i5.
    Oh look - the $185 AMD X4 is faster than the $300 i7 920... but only 2fps slower the i7-860. Nope, not seeing the 3-4x better here. the $65 CPU is only 12fps slower than the $280 i7-860.

    Crysis Warhead:
    The lower end AMDs are almost 70fps... i5 is at 80fps... The AMD x4 965 is a tad faster than the i5. The AMD X4 965 is an unlocked 3.4Ghz CPU that can clock upto about 3.8~4.0Ghz. But I have the $85 X2-550 running at 3.4Ghz quad mode. (Very cool)

    Batman:
    AMD x4 630 ($100) = 173fps... i5-661($210) = 187fps AMD X4 965 = 196fps... Wow, those AMDs are sooooo slow.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3704&p=10

    WinRAR (300mb Archive - bigger than most people ever go)
    x4 965 = 105 seconds
    i5 661 = 115 sec
    X4 630 = 134 sec
    X2 250 = 176 sec (Still not twice as slow as the i5 and its a dual core CPU too)

    AMDs bring excellent value and performance for basic and power users. The AMDs are running about 36~40c idle, typically cooler than i7s. Yes, the i5 is an excellent dual core - dominating over Core2 duals and quads. But there are cheaper options which is a good thing.
     
  6. BG-0

    BG-0

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    Messages:
    6,922
  7. Compiler

    Compiler

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,855
    Yeah, well I really don't care and I don't even try to keep up. :) This is intel's stupid model numbers, its very difficult to keep up with what goes with what and which socket to which CPU. That alone is enough to keep me from recommending ANY intel CPU unless you got the $$$ and the desire to have bragging rights.

    Two socket designs is stupid. There will be those who buy the smaller socket, thinking they may have the 1366 (i7 typically) and when the 6-8core intel comes out, they won't be able to use such CPUs.

    It should be simple... i3 & i5 are socket tiny (if still want two sockets) but i3 = dual, i5 = quad... but I would go for better naming like i2 & i4... wow. Then any and all i7 would be 4 / 6 / 8 core CPUs. Like i7-420, i7-460 (quad) i7-620 = six core, etc... where in the world do those morons come up with i7-920?

    AMD model Numbers aren't perfect... but they are more logical. X2, X3, X4, X6... ah... sweet... and the current CPUs fit into Socket AM2+ or AM3. Now, AMD is coming out with a new CPU-GPU chip that will require a new socket.. :( But we'll see that in 2011.
     
  8. BG-0

    BG-0

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    Messages:
    6,922
    I think it would've been so much better to just stick to one i* 'master' family, then use numbers to identify the different models (they're already breaking even tens for no reason at all with the 661, so I think there would've been plenty of numbers to use for models...) but I guess you just can't be reasonable in this business. I would think you really don't need to come up with attracting names as the Average Joe the Moron will not know of the model name but instead just clock speed, brand and core count. Why make names that just outright serve no purpose and not even nearly imply the product's place in the product tree? Erh, I guess it's really just pointless to nag about it here, or anywhere, they will continue that ridicule no matter what.
    The CPU-GPU hybrid may be a good thing for AMD, Intel already pushed the H55 motherboards out that will support the Larabee or whatever it was, AMD just might be able to get some new innovation regarding that kind of design and strike Intel at hardware level like Athlons did to P4s, and even might be as popular as they should be this time. Could.
     
  9. Mosquito555

    Mosquito555

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    1,357
    "Intel admitted that these high end SKUs aren't going to be very high volume. Most users are expected to opt for the Core i5 750 instead of the i5 661 unless they absolutely need Intel's HD Graphics for some bizarre reason. The real volume is going to be in the Core i3 and that's where I believe Intel has a real winner here."

    Source:

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3704&p=16

    Go figure... :D

    By the way, BG-0 have you heard the news regarding NVIDIA's new line of GPUs? After all these delays and misinformation they decided to skip the entire 3xx series and name their new "Fermi" cards as 4xx. The 3xx series will be -what else- rebrands...

    For me that's an additional reason to stick with AMD and ATI...

    (Sorry for being off-topic but I had to tell)

    Anyway, to the OP, if you really need to buy Intel then just stay away from the Core 2 Quads. You'd better stick with an i5 unless of course your current motherboard supports any higher end Core 2 Quads and you want to save some money. The Core i3s seem to be good chips so far but you can get a "real" quad core Phenom II for a similar price.


    EDIT:
    Please...

    I really don't get it. Can you post a link to one of those reviews you've been reading? Why would a Core i5 be "more stable"? Is it something about it's design? What's your definition of stability anyway?
     
  10. neshtak

    neshtak Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Messages:
    44
    I'm planning to go with i5 750 and, I guess, Windows 7 32-bit.
    Figured out that 7'th OS would take more processing and graphic power, therefore stay with XP, otherwise I would upgrade with no significant performance change.
    Don't know about AMD choice though, since judging by http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html the X4 965 does squeeze a bit more juice than i5 750, but it requires 125W of power while intel's i5 eats up only 95W.

    Don't know if it matters but I'm going with Micro-ATX Socket 1156 motherboard.
     
  11. Compiler

    Compiler

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,855
    BG-0 & Mosquito555: All intel had to do to make more sense would have been to call the new CPUs "Core3" (I guess people thought Core2Quads are still dual cores)...

    The i5-750 is a good chip. If you go with a mobo combo deal with Newegg, they'll take off $15. The gigabytes are ATX standard. The EVGA... well, they have an matx... but I don't trust them for mobos. But most cases will handle a regular mobo... This gigabyte is $160 with SATA 3 & USB 3. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128417 ($100 without those).

    Go with Windows7.
     
  12. neshtak

    neshtak Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Messages:
    44
    How about x4 955?
    I'm skipping x4 965 because it looks like an overclocked 955 and costs almost as much as i5 750.

    I noticed that every am3 mobo had onboard video(will it be in my way if i have pci-e x16 2.0 card?). I don't need it anyways, so any good mini-atx anyone could recommend?
     
  13. Compiler

    Compiler

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,855
    955 = 3.2Ghz, 965 = 3.4Ghz. On newegg there is about a $5~10 difference in price. Again, the X2 550 or X2 555 most likely can be turned into a quad.

    Your call on the 4 options.

    Yes, almost all AMD mobos include onboard video.... Why would it be in the way? Install the video card and plug it into the monitor - then tell the board to disable the onboard video.

    Already recommended Gigagbyte boards. use Newegg to look at other models. Theres two 785 AM3 boards to choose from: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...rboard&Ntk=&CFG=&SpeTabStoreType=&srchInDesc=

    I like setting them up to turn on by pressing any key on the keyboard or mouse button.
     
  14. BG-0

    BG-0

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    Messages:
    6,922
    For the LGA1156 board, I would say this one is better for 25$ less for most: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128412
    No eSATA, and might have less power phases for extreme overclocking but still seems like the better deal to me. I was quite certain that one was µATX but I guess I misremembered.

    neshtak, do you have some specific reason to go for a MicroATX board (mini-ATX is another size standard, FYI, just to avoid confusion)?
     
  15. neshtak

    neshtak Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Messages:
    44
    Mainly because I'm not going SLI or Crossfire.

    Thanks for the mobo suggestion for intel, how about the amd mobo?
     
  16. BG-0

    BG-0

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    Messages:
    6,922
  17. Sponsor

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 733,556 other people just like you!

Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Short URL to this thread: https://techguy.org/901694

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice