Intel to release first i3 K SKU with Kaby Lake

[Senzelian]

22 hours ago, TheLaserCucumber said:

Yeah, but i5s have 4 native cores, which should be faster in all ways than 2C/4T

You would think that, but in reality they come actually relatively close and an overclock will give the i3 a substantial boost in performance.  Sadly I don't have an i3 available to test it right now, but if you consider the amount of performace you gain when switching from an i5 to an i7, then it is quite obvious that hyper-threading alone can achieve a lot.

 

 

[Morgan MLGman]

On 16.11.2016 at 10:05 PM, DarkBlade2117 said:

My i3 competes with locked i5's pretty well in a ton of games.

It might give similar benchmark/fps results, but will NEVER do as well as a locked i5 with frametimes and smoothness of the gameplay cause all in all, two hyperthreaded cores are inferior to full four cores

[typographie]

17 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

It might give similar benchmark/fps results, but will NEVER do as well as a locked i5 with frametimes and smoothness of the gameplay cause all in all, two hyperthreaded cores are inferior to full four cores

NEVER is too certain. That's true in theory that two Hyperthreaded cores are capable of less than four physical cores, but in my time watching benchmarks only a minority of games have any observable frame timing issues with an i3. And in such games, 60 FPS from an i5 is not noticeably better than 60 FPS from an i3.

[DarkBlade2117]

37 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

It might give similar benchmark/fps results, but will NEVER do as well as a locked i5 with frametimes and smoothness of the gameplay cause all in all, two hyperthreaded cores are inferior to full four cores

No reason to upgrade from an i3 to an i5 imho. There is a benefit, but it is not worth it to me. I can record, live stream, edit videos/photos, recording is actually easy since I can just use my 290. The most it would do for me is allow for a bit higher quality streams and allow me to render a bit faster.

 

19 minutes ago, typographie said:

NEVER is too certain. That's true in theory that two Hyperthreaded cores are capable of less than four physical cores, but in my time watching benchmarks only a minority of games have any observable frame timing issues with an i3. And in such games, 60 FPS from an i5 is not noticeably better than 60 FPS from an i3.

And this also, yeah in games like GTA V there may be a slight advantage though 10-15FPS more in the minimum is not worth the extra $100. Benchmarks are very niche to me also, many many settings you can do slightly down and won't notice a difference unless you do side by side comparisons or purposely look for the difference and they make a huge difference in frame rates.

[Morgan MLGman]

32 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

No reason to upgrade from an i3 to an i5 imho. There is a benefit, but it is not worth it to me. I can record, live stream, edit videos/photos, recording is actually easy since I can just use my 290. The most it would do for me is allow for a bit higher quality streams and allow me to render a bit faster.

Oh, obviously! I never argued with that, if you have an i3 at 4,5GHz then I wouldn't upgrade unless it was at least a 6600K.

 

51 minutes ago, typographie said:

NEVER is too certain. That's true in theory that two Hyperthreaded cores are capable of less than four physical cores, but in my time watching benchmarks only a minority of games have any observable frame timing issues with an i3. And in such games, 60 FPS from an i5 is not noticeably better than 60 FPS from an i3.

This is certain actually... Watch this:

 

This is a stock 6100 with OC'd RAM vs a stock 2500K with a 1333mhz RAM only, if you watch the frametimes graph carefully, you'll see the i3 drop quite a bit more often. If you picked an i5-6400/6500 with 2666mhz RAM, it'd drop even less

 

[typographie]

40 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

This is certain actually... Watch this:

 

This is a stock 6100 with OC'd RAM vs a stock 2500K with a 1333mhz RAM only, if you watch the frametimes graph carefully, you'll see the i3 drop quite a bit more often. If you picked an i5-6400/6500 with 2666mhz RAM, it'd drop even less

I'm not sure what you're trying to show me. The only game I see where the i3 had really noticeable issues was Assassin's Creed Unity, and that probably shouldn't surprise anyone. I'm a bit surprised how well it did in their Novigrad benchmark, that's where I would've expected problems.

 

When I said you sounded too certain, I meant that you sounded too certain that an i3 could NEVER do as well as an i5. I'm just trying to encourage precise language, because we shouldn't be telling people with a CPU budget < $200 that they are going to have a terrible gaming experience. I think a casual observer would have a hard time noticing that their i3 was underperforming an i5 when capped to 60 FPS in most of those games.

[DarkBlade2117]

1 hour ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Oh, obviously! I never argued with that, if you have an i3 at 4,5GHz then I wouldn't upgrade unless it was at least a 6600K.

 

This is certain actually... Watch this:

 

This is a stock 6100 with OC'd RAM vs a stock 2500K with a 1333mhz RAM only, if you watch the frametimes graph carefully, you'll see the i3 drop quite a bit more often. If you picked an i5-6400/6500 with 2666mhz RAM, it'd drop even less

 

I'm not upgrading unless it's at least a i7-6700/k for what I do

[Sreno1]

I'd rather spend $200 total on a 6100 and Z170 board and BCLK OC tbh.