Core i5-750 vs. i7-920

[myrmidonks]

My friend has an i7-920 and I have a i5-750 and both are standard non-overclocked standard processors. He says that even though they both operate at 4x2.66 Ghz, that his is better just because it is an i7 processor. Does anyone know the advantages or disadvantages of either cpu? I am just curious as to why intel made two products that have the same amount of cores and clock speed. If we were to overclock them, Is there an advantage to either one? Thanks in advance.

 

[nik11105]

The differec is in the hyperthreading. The i7 has 4 cores and an extra 4 because of hyperthreading while the i5 has not hyperthreading. In theory the i7 should be able to handle every day tasks and gaming better than the i5.

 

[captaincranky]

All of this depends on whether you're willing to spend for the more expensive LGA 1366 motherboard and triple channel RAM.

I suppose the short answer is, it should be better it costs a bunch more.

The i5-750 / P-55 LGA1156 platform seems to be regarded as the most attractive cost versus performance packages available .

That said, you can check out some testing yourself here: http://techreport.com/articles.x/18448

Ironically, an i3-530, it has been reported, will clean both their clocks so to speak, in certain tests, while running well overclocked, as opposed to the other two CPUs at stock.

 

[myrmidonks]

What exactly doss hyerthreading do? Does it improve performance somehow? Or is it just something that make the CPU like 8 cores at 2.66 ghz each? Also does hyperhreading apply to all applications? I dont think there are many things that are designed to run with 8 cores ao to speak so is this a real advantage? And as said above, the core i3 seems to have a lot of overclocking potential. How much more/less can an i7 be overclocked than an i5? Thanks again.

 

[captaincranky]

Hyperthreading is sort of a "faked" extra core. For many intents and purposes, the i3-530 presents itself as a quad core. You're right about most programs not being able to take advantage of "8" cores ( cores w/HT) most of them don't get past two.

The necessity for pursuit of absolute performance depends largely on need. In games, after a certain point, the players ability begins to determine outcome as much as the equipment. This makes sense that given the identical computers, one on one, there will likely be a winner, not a tie.

Very heavy CPU usage occurs in full hi-def video rendering. And no I don't mean "advanced analysis" in Nero. I mean compiling footage from Adobe Premier Pro or similar. The very fastest machines can render in real time, while an old P-4 would have your footage sometime around next Tuesday.

As to the overclocking question, thus far dual core CPUs seem to reach higher speeds than the quads. For a great while, the E8400 Wolfdale C2D (overclocked), was preferred over a quad for gaming. This was for 2 reasons; 1, higher clock speeds attainable, and 2, the games weren't written for 4 core processors.

 

[Ritwik7]

The i5 750 Vs. i7 920 is a tough call.

Value for money --> i5 750

Triple channel memory controller + Hyperthreading --> i7 920

A lot depends on what you do with the PC. If you run a large number of multi-threaded applications then the i7 series is a winner as HT can make a significant difference. However, for gaming, there is hardly any difference as some CPU limited benchmarks show.

The overclocking potential of both CPUs is excellent. Solely based on benchmarks and numbers the i7 920 would look to be the winner (not by a lot though). So I think you shouldn't worry about what your friend says. You have a fantastic processor with great VFM that will be good to go for a long time to come.

 

[myrmidonks]

Thank you captaincranky and ritwik7 for your great explanations. Although my friend defies your testimonies, he now somewhat understands that for our uses of our computers, his CPU does not blow mine away. I think he just wanted to prove that his "baby" is better than mine in someway, because I have the better GPU. He still brings up the argument the argument of overclocking potential, however he will not overclock his CPU until his warranty is expired, as it voids it. I am still curious as to what the difference in overclocking a Lynnfield (i5-750) and a Bloomfield (i7-920) series is. Does the difference in architecture have any impact on attainable speeds? And finally do hyperthreading and (maybe) a higher potential overclock make the i7-920 worth the extra 90$ or so?

 

[klepto12]

just to let you know with the same cooling solution the 750 will overclock just as much as the 920 so your friend really doesnt know what he is talking about also because both cpus will run around 4ghz or a little more with the same cooling also in gaming there is no difference between the two cpus. the only area his cpu is better in is high memory bandwidth and multitasking like converting video or using photoshop and the such his cpu will be better at those but since you have the better video card just overclock your cpu to around 3.5 ghz and watch the fps go up in most games but only do it if you have very good cooling.

 

[hellokitty[hk]]

I would get the i5...i7 920 doesn't hold as much value anymore.

 

[myrmidonks]

Thanks a lot klepto12. I was wondering if anyone knows of any good overclocking guides (safe overclocking, programs to use, etc.). If you have a link or want to post a brief summary yourself please post it. I don't want to overclock my CPU (i5-750) so much that its lifespan or integrity are damaged. I have heard that is a tradeoff for overclocking, but if anyone knows how to overclock and by how much to keep that at a minimum, I would welcome your help. Also, are any differences besides speed (i.e. temperature) when overclocking an i7 or i5? Thanks!

 

[hellokitty[hk]]

Nearly nothing is different...and you overclock with a BIOS.

 

[CMH]

Hmm.... I always thought that the i7 won't get as high clocks as the i5....

As far as damaging your CPU, the safest way to overclock is NOT to increase your CPU voltages. I must say its very tempting to do so, but as soon as you give in to it, you just wanna see how far you can go

If you don't increase your voltage, go ahead and push that GHz value up as high as you can go: worst case scenario you'd need to reset your BIOS, and everything goes back to pre-overclocked values. No harm done.

(selfless self-promoting) I've got an FAQ written up a few years ago regarding overclocking (not exactly a how-to). Mosey over to my sig....

 

[myrmidonks]

Thank you a lot for that guide CMH! I would recommend it to anyone curious on overclocking basics! I have a few questions about the whole process still. How would you know how much overclock your CPU is capable of without raising the voltage? Is it just guess and check or is there a way to tell? The guide also says:

Even then, different chips of the same CPU will overclock differently. My friend's CPU A might reach 80% overclock, while my CPU A may only reach 60% on the same hardware.

Does this depends on just the BIOS? Also safe overclocks seem to be up to 40% from what I've seen. Is this right? Thanks again.

 

[CMH]

How would you know how much overclock your CPU is capable of without raising the voltage?

The tried and true way of looking for the maximum overclock is to increase your CPU speed a little at a time, until it won't go any higher. This would be true for any sort of overclocking.

Of course, we can just cheat and see what other people are doing, and go to a "safe" level. If other people are getting constant 40% overclocks on stock voltage, start off at 30 or 35%, and slowly climb from there.

Does this depends on just the BIOS?

My scenario you quoted is based on the same exact hardware and software. Its just the luck of the draw.

And as far as how high each particular CPU can be OCed, I've long ago stopped following the stats. Its too time consuming to dig through all the available articles.

 

[myrmidonks]

Thanks a lot CMH and all others who have posted help for me! I really appreciate it and have learned a lot through your helpful comments! Anyone who wants to add any info, overclocking links, or personal opinions on the i5-750 vs i7-920 argument feel free to. Thank you all!

 

[CMH]

No worries, we're all just bored people who want to help people who need it.

Well, at least I'm bored

 

[hellokitty[hk]]

I would go with the i5...a decent $30+ air cooler, and you should be good to start out around 3.4 ghz no voltage increase. From there you will have to guess and check upwards, it probably won't be too hard to get around 4ghz.

 

[captaincranky]

No worries, we're all just bored people who want to help people who need it.

Well, at least I'm bored

Wow low tolerance. Even I don't get fed up 'til page 2 with no resolution, fell asleep in philosophy, (or was that sociology) too. Problem being, that sometimes after you think you've given all the answers, the askers reword and rephrase the questions. And then it's right back to philosophy class, Zzzzzzz........

 

[myrmidonks]

Problem being, that sometimes after you think you've given all the answers, the askers reword and rephrase the questions. And then it's right back to philosophy class, Zzzzzzz........

I would never do that! But I'm still welcoming any philosophers to give me any advice on the debate!

 

[tipstir]

More piped threads i7 4C/8T compared to prior quad-core technology 4C/4T but the Xeon an 8C/16T and Opteron 12C/12T still perform better in rending 3D Graphics..

 

[captaincranky]

I would never do that! But I'm still welcoming any philosophers to give me any advice on the debate!

"Debate", good choice of word. Since it is a "debate", it really can't be resolved. There are too many variables. All of the CPU choices are among the finest CPUs available, and at the end of the day, given similar tools, the gamer with the most >> talent << will likely prevail. You are however, asking us to give you the tools to defeat your "buddy" in this "dialog". That's not very nice, but it's not very bad either.

I'm a simple person, happy with more mainstream equipment, Windows 7 say the memory in the computer I'm using ATM, scores "5.4". It is Kingston Value RAM 2GB @800Mhz. In the computer I assembled last Friday, I installed GSkill DDR-3 4GB @1333 Mhz. Windows 7 say that RAM scores 5.9. Not that much better, for 4 times the price, and almost double the speed. But then, what does Windows know anyway. But my point here is, it has been shown that triple channel RAM is faster than dual channel, but I don't think it's been shown that a game operator can take advantage ot it. In other words, it's great to have, d*** around with, and benchmark, but does it really enrich your life? Especially when you consider the enhanced cost and intended use.

My car is faster than your car, my dad is bigger than your dad, it all seems like like an adolescent pissing contest to me.

 

[CMH]

o_O, we're talking Xeons and Opterons now?

While we're on the topic of being off-topic, I've got a calculator that can draw graphs

 

[CMH]

it all seems like like an adolescent pissing contest to me.

Couldn't have put it better myself.