[SickStew]

The Story
Why I got a Intel Core i5 650 3.20GHz over a Intel Core i5 750 2.66GHz

Where do I start I have been doing tonnes of research with Swiftes fellow OCN member. It appeared that the Intel Core i5 750 2.66GHz was a great CPU with 4 actual cores unlike the Intel Core i5 650 3.20GHz with 2 actual cores and 2 logical cores. We all know here that 4 cores are better than 2.

The reason for choosing the Intel Core i5 650 3.20GHz was because of it's overclock-ability and it very high multiplier of x25 and then with turbo boost changes the multiplier to x26 this all helps when achieveing high level overclocks.

Another reason was Gaming performance, checking benchmarks and it appears that most games don't benefit from 4 cores but do benefit from 2 highly overclocked cores which the Intel Core i5 650 3.20GHz can do with ease.

Overclock-ability
Intel Core i5 650 3.20GHz
Overclocks to 4.4+GHz

Intel Core i5 750 2.66GHz
Overclocks to 3.9+GHz

I know it's not much Megahertz but it is more fun when you can hit more than 4.0+GHz and even more, as most of the Intel Core i5 650 3.20GHz are hitting 4.60GHz. Plus the new 32 nanometre process helps with temperatures.

Overall it's a great CPU not as powerful as a Intel Core i5 750 2.66GHz but it is on par with the likes of Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400 2.66GHz and it's only a dual core with hyper threading.

Bad Points
Integrated GPU = POINTLESS
Price compared to the Intel Core i3 530 2.93GHz but you do get turbo boost and 3 more multiplier's which can help with overclocking.

Please comments

SickStew

 

[OverTheBelow]

More and more games are utilizing 4 cores, meaning that cpu will quickly go out of date.

 

[AyeYo]

Personally, I can't see the point for the price difference. If you're doing mainly gaming, then, yes, two faster cores are probably better. However, that's only with current gen games. Games in the future (and some new current ones) will make better use of multi cores and the duals will be left in the dust soon enough.

Also, consider the poor memory performance of Clarkdale compared to Lynnfield.

Further, is the 650 really worth $80+ more than a 530 for an extra 200-300mhz on a high OC?

If you want to see this question answered, dig up the Prime95 benchmark thread in the general cpu section. Compare your times to some i5 people. I believe my last run was on 4.1 or 4.2ghz and I just barely, and I mean BARELY, edged out a STOCK i5 750.

Like anything, it comes down to personal choice and where you want to spend your own money. If I was in the market for a $200 CPU, the i5 750 would be a no-brainer. I have a Clarkdale because I was in the market for a $100 CPU.

EDIT:

Nevermind, on second look, I actually lost to the stock i5 750...

Me at 4.1ghz:

Quote:

Reran with new OC, i3 530 @ 4106mhz 1024k - 7.739 2048k - 13.573 4096k - 29.428 8192k - 60.654

i5 750 guy...

Quote:

At stock 2.67 GHZ with no turbo boost. 1024: 7.385 2048: 10.891 4096: 22.342 8192: 50.867

i5 750 guy at 4.0ghz... not even remotely close...

Quote:

4GHz 1024: 4.767 2048: 7.476 4096: 15.658 8192: 37.305

 

[merple]

Sounds like the old E8500 vs Q6600 argument.

By all means go for it, if all you run is games.

 

[Boyboyd]

This is relevant to my interests... I'm thinking of upgrading soon.

Thanks for the info.

 

[mcpetrolhead]

The i5-750 is a more future proof processor and unless you have an awesome crossfire/SLI setup then you wont see that much difference in games between an overclocked 650 and 750 i5.

My

 

[sotorious]

yea there is no point of stepping back in technology. I mean quad cores have been out for over 3 years, and just now being put into effect. Since the 6 cores just came out i assume its going to be as while before they start putting those in effect.

 

[CryWin]

If you have Crysis can you run the CPU benchmark at a low resolution?

I want to see how it compares to my CPU..

 

[Richenbals]

I decided to go with the 750 because I wanted a true quad and had no use for the IGP.
It's your money, spend it how you choose, but keep in mind we will judge you.

 

[Swiftes]

I am also relevant in this argument. Myself and Stew wanted a new setup after being bored of 775. We both opted for Clarkdale due to being on a stricter budget. He went with the 650 (Which is £40 more than the 530) and I went with the 530. Results are soon to follow.

 

[SickStew]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swiftes I am also relevant in this argument. Myself and Stew wanted a new setup after being bored of 775. We both opted for Clarkdale due to being on a stricter budget. He went with the 650 (Which is £40 more than the 530) and I went with the 530. Results are soon to follow.

Core i5 6 Series is a Great CPU I cannot fault it. Core i5 750 is even better but it's on the old 45 nanometre. I had the money to buy a i5 750 or i7 860 but i opted not to because i have no need for all that power i get more enjoyment out of overclocking my chip to high levels and still having the power to play the latest games

 

[louze001]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SickStew i have no need for all that power i get more enjoyment out of overclocking my chip to high levels and still having the power to play the latest games

With all these crazy games coming out it might not have the power to play the "latest games" for to long

 

[AyeYo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swiftes I am also relevant in this argument. Myself and Stew wanted a new setup after being bored of 775. We both opted for Clarkdale due to being on a stricter budget. He went with the 650 (Which is £40 more than the 530) and I went with the 530. Results are soon to follow.

Benchmark face off? See if the extra multiplier makes an $80 difference. Would make for a fun thread too.

 

[CryWin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swiftes I am also relevant in this argument. Myself and Stew wanted a new setup after being bored of 775. We both opted for Clarkdale due to being on a stricter budget. He went with the 650 (Which is £40 more than the 530) and I went with the 530. Results are soon to follow.

I will be looking forward to it... I doubt there will be much of a difference..

 

[Typhoeus]

I don't see why you put 3.9ghz as the OC limit of the i5 750. I've seen countless i5 750s @ 4-4.2ghz, and I myself am rock solid at 4.4ghz, so the difference is even less visible in clockspeed than you make it seem IMO.

 

[CaptainSWJR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Typhoeus I don't see why you put 3.9ghz as the OC limit of the i5 750. I've seen countless i5 750s @ 4-4.2ghz, and I myself am rock solid at 4.4ghz, so the difference is even less visible in clockspeed than you make it seem IMO.

Yeah, this. I'm running 3.8Ghz on 4 threads, up to 4.3Ghz on single threads. I could run 4.3 all day, except I'm weird and want my system to go easy on my electric bill when it's not loaded

I've also heard that the 32nm chips are a bit less tolerant of higher Vcore, which only makes sense if you consider you're running the same volts through smaller paths.

 

[SickStew]

Just a little update i've been using my CPU for 2 weeks now i think taking the leap from a Q6700 to i5 650 was worth it everything is more snappyier and responsive.

 

[AyeYo]

You guys still plan on comparing benchmarks? I'd like to see how the two compare and if the slightly higher clocks are worth the price.

 

[SickStew]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AyeYo You guys still plan on comparing benchmarks? I'd like to see how the two compare and if the slightly higher clocks are worth the price.

Swiftes can only achieve 4.0GHz at high volts of 1.35

My chip can achieve 4.4GHz with volts of 1.35 but that could just be the chip as it newer and not many people are buying them so it's part of an early batch

 

[AyeYo]

Yikes. Is he sure he's not overlooking something?