i3-3220 & 2133 vs i5-2500 & 1333 (gaming)

[RedJamaX]

So, here's the question...

 

Would an i3-3220 (3.3GHz) with 16GB of 2133MHz memory be faster in gaming than an i5-2500 (3.3) with 16GB 1333MHz memory??

 

I've got an HTPC build currently running an i5-2500 (non-K) on an ECS H61H2-I (v1.1).  I am acquiring an H67 board to upgrade my kid's computer which would be fine with an i3-2120... BUT,  I was checking the specs on my HTPC board and it seems that with the Sandy-Bridge 2500, the memory will only function at 1333.   But, if I get an Ivy Bridge 3220 for the HTPC, I could get some 2133 memory for it, then give the kids my i5-2500.  So I am curious if the 1333 is holding the 2500 back enough that 2133 with the i3 would actually be beneficial...   Of course, there's always the possibility that and performance increase from the memory would just cancel out from going down to 2-core HT...

The HTPC is coupled with a GTX 960 4GB, running games like Batman Origins, Transformers Devastation, and Mad Max  (those would be the most demanding)

 

Thoughts?

[Bananasplit_00]

I5 is a better CPU

[RedJamaX]

I should probably clarify...  I've been doing this stuff for a while, and I am aware that the i5 is better all around...  It's 4 full cores vs the 2 Core and HT of the i3...  I also know that it's spec has a boost clock of "up to" 3.7GHz, though, on my H61 board it only goes to 3.4GHz.   I also know that a significant difference in memory speed can have an effect on gaming IF the graphics card is waiting on the CPU to send data.   Since I game on my HTPC at 1080, typically without AA, this may very well be the case for most of the games I play.

So... in theory, it's quite possible that the i3-3220 @ 3.3GHz with 2133 RAM could be faster for gaming than the i5-2500 @ 3.4GHz with 1333 RAM...  But, I cannot find any tests which compare that situation.

[swordsman247]

2 minutes ago, RedJamaX said:

I should probably clarify...  I've been doing this stuff for a while, and I am aware that the i5 is better all around...  It's 4 full cores vs the 2 Core and HT of the i3...  I also know that it's spec has a boost clock of "up to" 3.7GHz, though, on my H61 board it only goes to 3.4GHz.   I also know that a significant difference in memory speed can have an effect on gaming IF the graphics card is waiting on the CPU to send data.   Since I game on my HTPC at 1080, typically without AA, this may very well be the case for most of the games I play.

So... in theory, it's quite possible that the i3-3220 @ 3.3GHz with 2133 RAM could be faster for gaming than the i5-2500 @ 3.4GHz with 1333 RAM...  But, I cannot find any tests which compare that situation.

Well it would be snapper but losing the 2 'real' cores will cause some things to be a bit slower overall. So it depends on the game you're playing and if it can use all the cores or not.

[RedJamaX]

yeah... I was thinking the same thing....   I might just have to get the i3 and test to see what happens....  if it's not faster, the kids can have it

 

[Imakuni]

6 minutes ago, RedJamaX said:

on my H61 board it only goes to 3.4GHz

Seems like you have Turbo Boost disabled... go into the Bios and enable it.

 

7 minutes ago, RedJamaX said:

I also know that a significant difference in memory speed can have an effect on gaming IF the graphics card is waiting on the CPU to send data.   Since I game on my HTPC at 1080, typically without AA, this may very well be the case for most of the games I play.

That really depends on the GPU. If it's potato, then memory is the least of your concearns. And even if it isn't, it doesn't make a difference if you can already match the refresh rate of your monitor in the games that you play.

[RedJamaX]

So, I pulled the trigger on getting an i3-3240 3.4GHz, I'll post some benchmarks after it comes in.

[Nena Trinity]

i5 because I doubt the board can handle that fast RAM!

[RedJamaX]

On 6/3/2016 at 11:55 AM, Imakuni said:

Seems like you have Turbo Boost disabled... go into the Bios and enable it.

 

That really depends on the GPU. If it's potato, then memory is the least of your concearns. And even if it isn't, it doesn't make a difference if you can already match the refresh rate of your monitor in the games that you play.

Turbo Boost on a non-K 2500 only hits 3.4GHz when all four cores are being used.   only the K version hits 3.7 with the factory Boost clock.

GPU is a 4GB GTX 960...  It's basically a secondary gaming PC that I use to play less demanding games.... 

[TheSuspect]

Reasons for i5: 

- 4 cores, 4 threads (more cores will help eliminate bottlenecks)

- Faster overall

- Can boost to 3.7Hgz when needed

 

Reasons for i3:

- Manufacturing process is better

- More recent

- Faster memory in your situation

- Lower power consumption

- Integrated graphics performance is higher (although that may not matter since you have a 960) 

 

I'd easily opt for the i5 if I were in this situation 

[Imakuni]

2 hours ago, RedJamaX said:

only the K version hits 3.7 with the factory Boost clock.

Intel wholeheartedly disagrees with that: http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/processors/000005647.html

 

The K and non-k versions are exactly the same in regards to boost clocks.

[RedJamaX]

43 minutes ago, Imakuni said:

Intel wholeheartedly disagrees with that: http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/processors/000005647.html

 

The K and non-k versions are exactly the same in regards to boost clocks.

True... that is what Intel says... and When ONE core of the 2500 (non-K) is being used, the boost speed "is" 3.7GHz... for that one core...  The more cores you are using, the lower the boost speed.  I know Intel doesn't say it.. .but that's how it works.   I know, I have a 2500 (non-K) in my HTPC, and a 2500K in my Game Rig.

# of cores used = Boost Speed

1 = 3.7

2 = 3.6

3 = 3.5

4 = 3.4

 

While, at the moment, I can only confirm that "4-Cores = 3.4"... I'll be glad to do some testing and post the results for the other possibilities. 

[RedJamaX]

9 hours ago, Nena360 said:

i5 because I doubt the board can handle that fast RAM!

Just going by what the manual says...  I ordered the i3-3240, and I have some extra 2133 RAM... so, I'll find out soon enough.

Here's the support page for the motherboard...  http://www.ecs.com.tw/ECSWebSite/Product/Product_Detail.aspx?CategoryID=1&DetailID=1448&DetailName=Feature&MenuID=1&LanID=0

 

Under the memory support, it clearly shows that some 1600, 1866, and 2133 memory will run at "Full Speed" with an Ivy-Bridge CPU, but only 1333 with a Sandy-Bridge.

[Nena Trinity]

1 hour ago, RedJamaX said:

Just going by what the manual says...  I ordered the i3-3240, and I have some extra 2133 RAM... so, I'll find out soon enough.

Here's the support page for the motherboard...  http://www.ecs.com.tw/ECSWebSite/Product/Product_Detail.aspx?CategoryID=1&DetailID=1448&DetailName=Feature&MenuID=1&LanID=0

 

Under the memory support, it clearly shows that some 1600, 1866, and 2133 memory will run at "Full Speed" with an Ivy-Bridge CPU, but only 1333 with a Sandy-Bridge.

Then you are good to go if its not bull good luck sir!

[RedJamaX]

2 hours ago, Imakuni said:

Intel wholeheartedly disagrees with that: http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/processors/000005647.html

 

The K and non-k versions are exactly the same in regards to boost clocks.

OK...  Got some screen shots... sure enough, running a single core on the non-K 2500 will Boost to 3.7GHz...  dropping 100MHz Boost speed for each additional core until running all 4 cores yields a Boost speed of only 3.4GHz.

 

For each test I set the active amount of cores in the BIOS.  Initially I tried just using the thread-test utility but even running a single thread on a single core only peaked at 3.6GHz intermittently.  I'm guessing this was due to the balanced system load across the other cores for application running in the back ground.