i3 vs i7 - Gaming Performance [updated] - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community
Forum Jump: 

i3 vs i7 - Gaming Performance [updated]

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 195 (permalink) Old 02-17-2011, 12:41 PM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Razi3l's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London, UK
Posts: 5,777
Rep: 365 (Unique: 270)
**PLEASE KEEP THIS THREAD CIVIL**

Introduction:
There have been numerous discussion about how different the i3 and i7 perform in games, and whether the more expensive 1366 CPUs are worth it over the much cheaper i3, if you mainly game on your system. There are always many who will say the quad-core i7 will dominate the dual-core i3 and others who will say the i3 can stand up to the i7. I too wondered this, considering I had moved from a Phenom II to an i5-750 to the i3 and not noticed much difference. So I decided to bench off the 2 CPUs against each other to see how they compare in some of todays games.

Test Systems:
Intel Core i3-540 @ 4.2Ghz w/ HT
Gigabyte H55M-UD2H
Corsair XMS3 4GB @ 1608 8-8-8-20 1T
Radeon HD 6970 (Cata 11.1a)
Western Digital Caviar Black (OS)
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit

Intel Core i7-920 @ 4Ghz and 4.2Ghz w/o HT
ASUS P6T WS Professional
Corsair XMS3 4GB @ 1600/1608 8-8-8-20 1T
Radeon HD 6970 (Cata 11.1a)
Western Digital Caviar Black (OS)
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit


Games Tested:
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (Operation Aurora - FRAPS)
Batman: Arkham Asylum (In-game benchmark tool)
Crysis Warhead (Benchmark tool - Frost)
Dirt 2 (In-game benchmark tool - London)
Far Cry 2 (Benchmark tool - Ranch small)
Grand Theft Auto IV (In-game benchmark tool)
Just Cause 2 (In-game benchmark tool)
Lost Planet 2 (In-game benchmark tool - Test B)
Metro 2033 (Benchmark tool - Frontline)
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II (In-game benchmark tool)


Testing Methodology:

Unlike most reviews, where games are tested at low to medium quality settings to see a (larger) difference in CPU performance, I ran these games at the highest possible settings because as with most other people with similar hardware, they would run the games at the highest (playable) settings they could, so it would be pointless to run on low or medium settings. Click the links for the settings for Lost Planet 2 and GTA IV, as they were not set to maximum because they were unplayable. The settings for Metro 2033 were DX11, V.high quality, AAA and AF 4X with tessellation on and Advanced DoF off. AA was set to highest (where possible) in all other games, aside from the above. All games were run at 1920x1080 resolution. Where FPS is zero, it is because the benchmark tool did not provide minimum fps results.

Results:
001.jpg

002.jpg

003.jpg

004.jpg

005.jpg

006.jpg

007.jpg

008.jpg

009.jpg


Conclusion:
So there you have it. In most cases the i3 outperforms the i7, however it lags behind in Lost Planet 2, GTA IV and Dawn of War 2 - Games which require more CPU power. While there is not a huge difference (in most cases) here, there could be a bottleneck in Multi-GPU setups, where the CPU would need to do more work, so I suspect the i3 would fall further behind the i7 there although I don't have a pair of one graphics card to test so I can't provide those results. Overall though, these results amazed me because I thought the i7 would beat the i3 by a long way in most of these games, however that is not the case.

So if you considering moving from an i3 to an i7 and the main thing you do on your system is game then it may not be worth it to you, or if you are thinking of moving from an older generation of CPUs but are constricted by a budget, then the i3 is great once overclocked. Of course you could always upgrade for "future-proofing", especially now that an i7 setup can be had for a good price. In the end the i7 is still a better buy if you have the money for it but if you don't and are thinking of saving up but need a desperate upgrade, the i3 is something else you can consider for a lot less that will give you comparable performance in most of the games.

Thanks for reading and i appreciate any feedback.
~Razi3l
Razi3l is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 195 (permalink) Old 02-17-2011, 12:44 PM
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nibiru
Posts: 4,674
Wicked sick review mate!


Fallen Angel -X is offline  
post #3 of 195 (permalink) Old 02-17-2011, 12:50 PM
Linux Lobbyist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,636
Rep: 485 (Unique: 408)
Nice comparison, a little surprising. I mean I know most games are still optimized for dual core, I guess I was hoping more would be taking advantage of the quad. I wonder how much the non-triple-channel ram (4gb?) hurt the i7.

Checkout my DOSBox LIVEusb - https://sites.google.com/site/dosboxdistro/
Retrogaming made portable.

PassMark System Score: Passmark Rating 5,710, CPU Mark 19,985CPU-Z Validation: LINK AIDA64: LINKCinebench15: LINK Geekbench3 scores: LINK Geekbench4.1 scores: LINKUserBenchmarks: CPU: 105.5%, GPU: 111.7% MEM: 127.9%
BinaryDemon is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 195 (permalink) Old 02-17-2011, 12:51 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 524
Rep: 29 (Unique: 28)
Very interesting review.

Phantom123 is offline  
post #5 of 195 (permalink) Old 02-17-2011, 12:52 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Slough, UK
Posts: 3,594
Rep: 135 (Unique: 117)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BinaryDemon;12422767 
Nice comparison, a little surprising. I mean I know most games are still optimized for dual core, I guess I was hoping more would be taking advantage of the quad. I wonder how much the non-triple-channel ram (4gb?) hurt the i7.

Maybe a single frame per second tongue.gif


Hy3RiD is offline  
post #6 of 195 (permalink) Old 02-17-2011, 12:55 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
skarm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,635
Rep: 89 (Unique: 84)
get raped lol

nice review

   |\/|  
  </ ̄ ̄丶 
__彡ノメノノレリ〉
 \ ルリ゚ヮ゚ノリ 
  ><(つiつ  
 ∠_く//」」〉  
skarm is offline  
post #7 of 195 (permalink) Old 02-17-2011, 12:56 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Markus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Finland
Posts: 489
Rep: 26 (Unique: 26)
Thank you, Razi3l, for making this comparison. I for one have grown tired of people saying that dualcores are pure crap for gaming nowadays, and that one would be stupid to buy one since they aren't worth anything anymore. This comparison however proves all of those people wrong ( looking at you, people who say that Sandy Bridge processors are the only ones worth buying anymore tongue.gif ), and might also prevent people from dumping more money into a system than necessary.
+ rep for this one Razi3l, you deserve it !

Quote:
Originally Posted by zzM go_quote.gif
Who needs real women when you have a forum full of dudes with attractive chicks as avatars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jellis142 go_quote.gif
Friendlier BSOD? So it's like a Blue Screen Of Coma?



Markus is offline  
post #8 of 195 (permalink) Old 02-17-2011, 12:58 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Amann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 482
Rep: 24 (Unique: 20)
wow this is very surprising and very angrying at the same time, this review tells me that basically for what I do from day to day I could easily do fine with a dual core over a quad core until I add more gpu's? ***!

Amann is offline  
post #9 of 195 (permalink) Old 02-17-2011, 01:03 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Posts: 5,236
Rep: 751 (Unique: 667)
The better test would have been to compare them with the processors at the same speed instead of one clocked to 4.2ghz and one at 4.0ghz. We all know that most games are only using 2 cores and are more dependent on MHZ when the same GPU is being used.

Always check back as I frequently edit my post - while we all try to be perfect in the information given, I'm here to learn just as much as you are.
appleg33k85 is offline  
post #10 of 195 (permalink) Old 02-17-2011, 01:53 PM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Razi3l's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London, UK
Posts: 5,777
Rep: 365 (Unique: 270)
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleg33k85;12422904 
The better test would have been to compare them with the processors at the same speed instead of one clocked to 4.2ghz and one at 4.0ghz. We all know that most games are only using 2 cores and are more dependent on MHZ when the same GPU is being used.

True, but these were typical overclocks. To get the most I could just put the i3 at 4.5Ghz but not every chip will hit that, but most should do 4.2 fine, same for the i7, not every one will do 4.2 and 4Ghz is more common. I guess some can argue its not totally fair but the i7 has more cache for example and all that so rolleyes.gif
Razi3l is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off