Intel: i3, i5 or i7?

[MrTub]

I would buy i7 since it got HT

 

[Hoplon]

I would buy i7 since it got HT

So do the i5 dual cores.

 

[Lord Doomhammer]

Oh, I forgot to mention, Hyper threading on my i7 put it to 4 logical cores clocked to 3.4ghz when I'm running in turbo mode. Just a random piece of information, but it dose help paint the picture that an i7 is an absolute powerhouse, you will not wait for things to load again, ever.

 

[MrTub]

I would buy i7 since it got HT

So do the i5 dual cores.

Who buys dual cores anymore?

 

[Hoplon]

I would buy i7 since it got HT

So do the i5 dual cores.

Who buys dual cores anymore?

People that don't want to waste 3 times the money for processing power they won't ever use?

 

[Ph33nix]

i like my i7 alot i have an hp dv7-4071nr and love it the i7 does have some noticeable performance advantages over the i5 when i'm compiling code.

 

[lacktheknack]

i5 if you're watching your price, i7 if you want that extra edge.

i3 is crap for gaming, stay away.

And about AMD: While cheaper, you get what you pay for. I've had two AMD processors and they both crapped out after about two years. My first Intel chip lasted for eight until we trashed the computer, and my current Intel (an i7) is too young to make conclusions with.

 

[lacktheknack]

I would buy i7 since it got HT

So do the i5 dual cores.

Who buys dual cores anymore?

People that don't want to waste 3 times the money for processing power they won't ever use?

Moore's Law, dear sir. While it isn't as true as it used to be, you'll need (need, not want) that processing power within the next three years.

Also, three times as much money? 1.3 times as much money is more accurate (if you build it yourself, anyways...).

 

[Hoplon]

I would buy i7 since it got HT

So do the i5 dual cores.

Who buys dual cores anymore?

People that don't want to waste 3 times the money for processing power they won't ever use?

Moore's Law, dear sir. While it isn't as true as it used to be, you'll need (need, not want) that processing power within the next three years.

Also, three times as much money? 1.3 times as much money is more accurate (if you build it yourself, anyways...).

Moores law, sigh... 1)Not an actual law of anything. 2)Only describes the increase of the number of transistors on a chip, nothing to do with the demands on the device.

 

[lacktheknack]

I would buy i7 since it got HT

So do the i5 dual cores.

Who buys dual cores anymore?

People that don't want to waste 3 times the money for processing power they won't ever use?

Moore's Law, dear sir. While it isn't as true as it used to be, you'll need (need, not want) that processing power within the next three years.

Also, three times as much money? 1.3 times as much money is more accurate (if you build it yourself, anyways...).

Moores law, sigh... 1)Not an actual law of anything. 2)Only describes the increase of the number of transistors on a chip, nothing to do with the demands on the device.

Call it what you will, then, but to think that you "won't ever need" available processing power is incredibly short-sighted. If it's available, developers will use it.

After all, the founder of IBM figured that he'd be able to sell up to several hundred computers in the twentieth century (founded in the forties, I think). Also, Popular Mechanics 1949 estimated that computers of 2000 would be "possibly as small as a car". It's very hard to overestimate what computers can do in a few years, so stock up now.

 

[Hoplon]

Moores law, sigh... 1)Not an actual law of anything. 2)Only describes the increase of the number of transistors on a chip, nothing to do with the demands on the device.

Call it what you will, then, but to think that you "won't ever need" available processing power is incredibly short-sighted. If it's available, developers will use it.

After all, the founder of IBM figured that he'd be able to sell up to several hundred computers in the twentieth century (founded in the forties, I think). Also, Popular Mechanics 1949 estimated that computers of 2000 would be "possibly as small as a car". It's very hard to overestimate what computers can do in a few years, so stock up now.

So today's tech can be superseded by something new? That would seem to imply that buying stuff that isn't really used except in specialist application would be a bad investment since the tech we can't see coming over the hill yet would make it useless anyway.

Parallel computing is not easy to program I am told and the 3ghz barrier is holding back series computing since the power/cooling requirements are excessive for non specialist systems.

So, once more, why would anyone pay for processing power they don't need and by the time you will the hardware will be different anyway.

 

[Virgil]

So basically, I'm FINALLY changing my laptop soon. Now I've never really been keeping track of these cores since I bought this laptop of mine in 2007-2008 (I know, I know)...so thus I need your help. I need suggestions on which Intel core is the better one for decent gaming on a laptop.

Suggestions?

The Core i5 is the standard mid-range processor level, and should work just fine for gaming. I wouldn't suggest the Core i3 for a gaming machine - that's the processor for the email/web/word processor machines.

Unless you plan on doing some kind of 3D rendering or video encoding, there's not much need for a Core i7 in a gaming machine. Games just don't take advantage of that kind of power, and it's unlikely that they will for years (when that power is in new low-end machines). It also won't increase the lifespan of your laptop for gaming, because the video card is, and always will be, the weakest link on a laptop.

It really comes down to the price difference, but I would suggest a video card upgrade over a processor upgrade if you have the option, particularly on a laptop. Alternately, more RAM, though that's easy to upgrade later if you need it.

 

[Hashime]

Wait a bit, the i5K/i7K chipset will be on laptops soon. Those being the new sandy bridges architecture.

 

[CCountZero]

His point is that "decent gaming on a laptop" is... not a realistic prospect.

At least not without a docking station, external keyboard, line connection, mouse and an external screen.

Why isn't it? I feel that the gaming experience on my ASUS N61Ja is quite decent, thank you very much.

Of all the things you mention, only the mouse and docking station are necessary. A 16" screen with a high resolution is sufficient for gaming, and external keyboard/line connection aren't necessities either. I'm still ruining plenty of peoples day in Counter-Strike: Source.

If you stick to first person shooters like CS:S, CoD, MoH etc., sure.
Once you consider games with more hotkeys, then you'll miss out with an integrated laptop keyboard, both by number of keys, and even worse, in ergonomics.

The screen size issue isn't something that can be explained. All I can do is ask you to spend a couple of nights with a 21-inch 16:9 or larger screen.
Very few people could truthfully say that the screen doesn't add a noticeable amount to the game experience.
Especially if you play games that require you to immerse yourself, such as Amnesia: Dark Descent.

Also, a larger screen equals the ability to see smaller objects at greater distances, and will most certainly help your reflexes and precision aiming given that all object to be noticed or aimed at are proportinally bigger as well.

Having a corded net connection is probably my own perfectionism, but I've died due to WiFi lag before, and I don't like it.

 

[Athinira]

If you stick to first person shooters like CS:S, CoD, MoH etc., sure.
Once you consider games with more hotkeys, then you'll miss out with an integrated laptop keyboard, both by number of keys, and even worse, in ergonomics.

That depends on how good the laptop-keyboard is to begin with.

The only issue i have with my laptop keyboard is that extended playing can get tirering on your fingers. But i do have an external gaming keyboard i plug in.

The screen size issue isn't something that can be explained. All I can do is ask you to spend a couple of nights with a 21-inch 16:9 or larger screen.
Very few people could truthfully say that the screen doesn't add a noticeable amount to the game experience.

...

Also, a larger screen equals the ability to see smaller objects at greater distances, and will most certainly help your reflexes and precision aiming given that all object to be noticed or aimed at are proportinally bigger as well.

As we are speaking right now, my laptop is plugged into my 32" TV. I also have a 21" screen i regularly use with my laptop.

Also you are dead wrong on one thing: Larger screens actually DECREASE your reflexes. Why? Because it means your eyes need to scan, view and interpret a much larger area. On the other hand, you are correct that too small a screen just means you can't see things in the distance properly, i wouldn't recommend playing a fast-paced reflex-intensive FPS game (like Counter-Strike: Source or Unreal Tournament) on anything larger than a 23-24" screen, and preferably a 21-22" screen.

A high-quality screen with a high enough resolution still works really well, even if it is only 16". You just have to sit sufficiently close enough to it (which you typically will if it's a laptop). I can see everything clearly when playing at 1366 x 768, even in the distance.

Having a corded net connection is probably my own perfectionism, but I've died due to WiFi lag before, and I don't like it.

Mostly a router or Wi-Fi Card issue. If you got good equipment, it's irrelevant.

With that said, some people of course doesn't have good equipment, so for their part, you're right

 

[zfactor]

For decent gaming - get the i5. The difference between the i5 and i7 is hardly noticeable or worth all the hoohah that the massive fanboys will no doubt brag about.

If you have the money get an i7 if you must (especially if you intend on doing video editing and other multimedia related stuff) BUT the i5 is the more economical option for gaming, considering it is equivocal to the i7 if not arguably better at processing speeds.

Yeah... I have the i7-920 (the low end one - 2.67GHZ) and it never goes over %60 when playing games. The max is about %50 when playing Dragon Age: Origins. All other games are less than that. Massive overkill.

But it also means I won't be upgrading for the next 10 years. Probably about 5 years really...

 

[CCountZero]

Downsized

As we are speaking right now, my laptop is plugged into my 32" TV. I also have a 21" screen i regularly use with my laptop.

Also you are dead wrong on one thing: Larger screens actually DECREASE your reflexes. Why? Because it means your eyes need to scan, view and interpret a much larger area. On the other hand, you are correct that too small a screen just means you can't see things in the distance properly, i wouldn't recommend playing a fast-paced reflex-intensive FPS game (like Counter-Strike: Source or Unreal Tournament) on anything larger than a 23-24" screen, and preferably a 21-22" screen.

A high-quality screen with a high enough resolution still works really well, even if it is only 16". You just have to sit sufficiently close enough to it (which you typically will if it's a laptop). I can see everything clearly when playing at 1366 x 768, even in the distance.

I use a 25.5" 1920x1200 myself, at an eye-to-screen distance of about 40cms. (which seems to be a pretty standard distance in my experience)
It fits perfectly within the confines of my "primary" vision, but even if you used a 28" you'd still have perfectly good reflexes by way of your periphial vision.

32" gets a bit too large unless you up the distance.

I wouldn't be able to make out if it was a Ford or a Volvo driving on the side of the screen, but I would most certainly notice the movement. So no, you don't really have reduced reflexes unless you sit so close to your screen that your eyes change shape to rectangular, or game on a 42".

There's a major immersion factor in having a screen size that fills up your field of view, similliar to the same effect experienced when watching TV/films on a proper screen size.
I'll admit that I don't know the technicalities behind it, but it's there, and it adds a whole other level of awesome to games like Amnesia, Metro 2033 & Stalker. Hell, even to an oldschool Thief game.


On a whole other level, some people actually choose a screen that's a little bigger than optimum, in order to achieve natural blurred pheriphial vision, which adds a certain amount of realism to shooters in first person. Few of the guys I play ARMA2 with likes it.

Lastly, while it's true that WiFi can be just fine, I don't see any reason not to run a cord to your system.
No matter how good your wireless is, it will never beat a cord, and there's always the chance that something might happen.
I'm happy to sit in a lawnchair with my laptop and surf the interwebz, 'cus 95% of all the things that can go wrong won't be noticeable.
But they will be when gaming.