Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 195 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
**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
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,636 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,594 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,635 Posts
get raped lol

nice review
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
491 Posts
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 !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
482 Posts
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? ***!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,241 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
744 Posts
First post. Just joined because of this thread.

Very nice to see i3 vs i7 comparison. Great job. I'll rep you as soon as I can.

The shows how a OC'd i3 is good enough for most games with a single gpu/single graphics card. I am running i3 [email protected] 3.99GHz with OC'd GTX 580 and Nvidia 3D vision and it works great for gaming, especially in 3D because of the extra heavy load on the gpu. I am usually gpu limited in 3D games, or I hit the 60fps v-sync limit (v-sync is on in 3D).

Big question: Why did you turn off hyperthreading on the i7?
Hyperthreading is the main benefit of the i7 over the i5. It would be nice to see another benchmark i7 w/HT on. Anyways, great benchmarking idea. super job.
specool.gif
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: lapengu

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partol;12423627
First post. Just joined because of this thread.

Very nice to see i3 vs i7 comparison. Great job. I'll rep you as soon as I can.

The shows how a OC'd i3 is good enough for most games with a single gpu/single graphics card. I am running i3 [email protected] 3.99GHz with OC'd GTX 580 and Nvidia 3D vision and it works great for gaming, especially in 3D because of the extra heavy load on the gpu. I am usually gpu limited in 3D games, or I hit the 60fps v-sync limit (v-sync is on in 3D).

Big question: Why did you turn off hyperthreading on the i7?
Hyperthreading is the main benefit of the i7 over the i5. It would be nice to see another benchmark i7 w/HT on. Anyways, great benchmarking idea. super job.
specool.gif
This was mainly to see how they compare in games, and HT doesn't really help the i7 in games, and in some performance even decreases. It does a lot for other things like video rendering and stuff.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,905 Posts
Maybe this will shut up those who insist on saying "Dual core is dead for gaming".

It's never really been about how many cores you have, buy WHAT you can do with the cores you have.

Well done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,200 Posts
in the games where the i3 outperformed the i7, it was only by a 3-4 frames.

in the games where the i7 outperformed the i3, it was by 5-15 frames.

i think you would notice a bigger difference with an i7. the i3 is a good chip nonetheless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,361 Posts
Pretty cool thanks for the review.
Rep+
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanicProne;12423740
Then show us the multi player results, please.
It would be hard, since its not always gonna be the same. I mean, with singleplayer its always the same, you can do it exactly the same to keep it 'fair', where as with MP it will always be different, and you can't really record a time demo to bench later. The difference isn't more than about a few fps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
744 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanicProne;12423678
Maybe this will shut up those who insist on saying "Dual core is dead for gaming".

It's never really been about how many cores you have, buy WHAT you can do with the cores you have.
Very true. But dont forget. i3 has hyperthreading too.

HT helps the i3 for games, right? Or should I turn off HT on my i3 when gaming??
 
1 - 20 of 195 Posts
Top