Why is the i3 8100 considered 'low end'?

[VossyDev]

Seems a weird one to me - Constantly read about how the i3 is a low end CPU, yet less than a year ago, the likes of the i5 7500/7600 were considered to be "high end" and the go to bang for your buck CPUs to pair with a high end graphics card, only bettered by the i7s of that generation, and even then the difference was negligible. 

I know generally speaking the main reasoning behind this is just due to the fact you can get a 6 core CPU for the same price as what a quad core cost last year, but price aside, how can a CPU that competes, and often beats the best choice high end CPUs of last year, all of a sudden be considered 'low end'?

Feel like the name, "i3" just gives it that, not necessarily bad reputation, but at least something that sounds lower end, when in reality I don't really think it is

[themctipers]

because you can get a ryzen 3 1200 for ~$100 that performs almost the same, and it has the same number of cores and threads..

the price for the i3 8100 is ~$120.. mid ranged CPUs are $200 and high end ones are $300+..

 

the i5 7500/7600 wasn't really even seen as mid ranged by me, more like lower mid ranged with AMDs offerings at the time, one of 'those' cpus that why would anyone buy; could've gotten a 1600 at the same price and it would be better in multi and close enough in single. 

[Enderman]

Who told you an i5 was high end?

[Streetguru]

6 minutes ago, VossyDev said:

 

Ryzen destroyed Intel's BS segmented line up and saved PCs as a whole.

The i5s were mid range at best only because there was no competition. Only thing FX was better at was streaming/rendering vs 4 core i5s.

[Zobbes]

Um the i3 8100 is considered low end because it is on the lower side of the product stack. Probably runs fine, I have a pentium g5500 and it runs great. But a i3 8100 would only run a bit better. 

[VossyDev]

I do agree that now, in terms of best for your budget, it has changed dramatically. Just don't think I'd consider it 'low end'. In terms of the last gen i5s being considered mid range, I think the main thing I look at is, in terms of gaming performance, they'd match their 'high end' i7 counterparts in terms of gaming performance quite closely.

 

That aside, can't stand Intel as a company really happy AMD have brought a significant amount of competition to the market. Can only make for a much better future in the PC industry, but it does baffle me that a CPU that keeps up/beats one of the main go to gaming CPUs of the last gen is considered low end

 

 

[Streetguru]

4 minutes ago, Zobbes said:

Um the i3 8100 is considered low end because it is on the lower side of the product stack. Probably runs fine, I have a pentium g5500 and it runs great. But a i3 8100 would only run a bit better. 

4c/4t is going to be a good deal faster than 2c/4t

[dgsddfgdfhgs]

they have intel and amd i3/i5/i7 and r3/r5/r7, its just a position in their line.

there is nothing to do with cores/threads/performance. eg i7 9700k 8c8t, 

[Enderman]

11 minutes ago, VossyDev said:

I do agree that now, in terms of best for your budget, it has changed dramatically. Just don't think I'd consider it 'low end'. In terms of the last gen i5s being considered mid range, I think the main thing I look at is, in terms of gaming performance, they'd match their 'high end' i7 counterparts in terms of gaming performance quite closely.

 

That aside, can't stand Intel as a company really happy AMD have brought a significant amount of competition to the market. Can only make for a much better future in the PC industry, but it does baffle me that a CPU that keeps up/beats one of the main go to gaming CPUs of the last gen is considered low end

Breaking news, CPUs are used for thousands of other tasks than just 'gaming'.

[VossyDev]

12 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Breaking news, CPUs are used for thousands of other tasks than just 'gaming'.

Yes, hence stating "in terms of gaming", which, I'd be willing to bet is what the majority of this forum looks at when deciding on their chosen hardware. It's also the reason I mentioned GPU pairing

 

Spoiler

"Graphics cards are used for thousands of other tasks other than 'gaming"

 

[YakityYak]

because it has a 100 on it and not a 500-900 I think tbh i dont entirely know for sure but i think im right

[homeap5]

11 hours ago, VossyDev said:

Feel like the name, "i3" just gives it that, not necessarily bad reputation, but at least something that sounds lower end, when in reality I don't really think it is

And you're probably right.

Name is very important. People buy computers by looking at parameters and for lot of people "1000 GB" sounds better than "240 GB", even if first one is 5400 HDD and second one - fast SSD. People need "8 GB RAM at least", while they using laptops (for example) just for Facebook and browsing photos, and never play games. People needs "i5", because "i7" is for pro users and "i3" is something worse, not worth even considering. Now, i3-8100 can beat most of i5 processors, but it's still "cheap crap" for people, who likes "magic of numbers".

 

Even on this forum, when someone ask for computer for Photoshop, he get answer about i7 + some expensive GPU and 32 GB of RAM (minimum). That is how it works in many cases - name is important. And if someone have lot of money - even more important.

[JoostinOnline]

10 hours ago, VossyDev said:

yet less than a year ago, the likes of the i5 7500/7600 were considered to be "high end"

No they weren't. A year ago they were a mid tier option that nobody was recommending. They've never been high end.

 

Edit: it's been many years since an i5 matched its i7 counterpart in gaming. A 7500 bottlenecks pretty hard.

[VossyDev]

4 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

No they weren't. A year ago they were a mid tier option that nobody was recommending. They've never been high end.

Then what were people recommending? Because nobody foresaw the oncoming CPU changes from Intel when the i5 7500/7600 were released, and given the fact that Intel do outperform AMD in terms of performance I can't see people recommending an AMD CPU in terms of getting the best performance possible, even if AMD are much better value for money. 

 

In any case, the only other competition was AMD, and considering Intel still hold a significantly higher market share and far more systems still use Intel, those purchases & recommendations must have come from somewhere... 

 

Either way, obviously the i5s were considered to be mid-range when you consider the fact there are i7s and i9s (Although i9 is technically enthusiast grade, with i7 being the high end), I still think the fact people consider an i3 8100 to be a lower end CPU is a little bit weird 

[JoostinOnline]

1 minute ago, VossyDev said:

Then what were people recommending? Because nobody foresaw the oncoming CPU changes from Intel when the i5 7500/7600 were released, and given the fact that Intel do outperform AMD in terms of performance I can't see people recommending an AMD CPU in terms of getting the best performance possible, even if AMD are much better value for money. 

 

In any case, the only other competition was AMD, and considering Intel still hold a significantly higher market share and far more systems still use Intel, those purchases & recommendations must have come from somewhere... 

 

Either way, obviously the i5s were considered to be mid-range when you consider the fact there are i7s and i9s (Although i9 is technically enthusiast grade, with i7 being the high end), I still think the fact people consider an i3 8100 to be a lower end CPU is a little bit weird 

Where have you been for the past two years? Clearly not here. The R3 and R5 series dominated in CPU suggestions. We all saw Coffee Lake coming because Intel sales had really been sinking. Except for people who bought based on brand, nobody was buying an i3 or i5 anymore for gaming. The Pentiums held on for awhile until the R3 1200 came out.

 

 

[homeap5]

For me Celeron and Pentium are low-end. I3 and i5 are mid range and i7 - high end. Better ones are for enthusiasts (all that X299 boards processors etc.)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvY8VqqBt4Q

Is it really that big difference? Ok, it's in games test only, but still. Most of users doesn't need anything more than i3-8100 imo.

[JoostinOnline]

43 minutes ago, homeap5 said:

For me Celeron and Pentium are low-end. I3 and i5 are mid range and i7 - high end. Better ones are for enthusiasts (all that X299 boards processors etc.)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvY8VqqBt4Q

Is it really that big difference? Ok, it's in games test only, but still. Most of users doesn't need anything more than i3-8100 imo.

Well Celeron and Pentiums aren't being made anymore. Dual core is dead.

[homeap5]

1 hour ago, JoostinOnline said:

Well Celeron and Pentiums aren't being made anymore. Dual core is dead.

And where do you found that funny information? G5400 is Pentium, G4900 is Celeron, both are Coffee Lake. So at least for now they are still in production. And works pretty well.

[JoostinOnline]

1 minute ago, homeap5 said:

And where do you found that funny information? G5400 is Pentium, G4900 is Celeron. Both - Coffee Lake.

You're right, I'd completely forgotten about them. They're such a bizarre product that they slipped my mind.

 

I do stand by my statement that dual core is dead. With a few exceptions, nobody makes then anymore.

[homeap5]

No, people who wants to tell friends that they have i7 and 64GB RAM and 1080 don't want these processors. But for standard office, for normal user, for multimedia, for watching movies, internet and everything that average person wants from computer - Celeron is great processor. Costs almost nothing and gives... Well, tell me - is it that bad processor?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hkq-Fu_b1s

Look - it's not 5 FPS or less. It's really good unit. And it's paired with 1050 only.

[xriqn]

People who say that i3/ryzen 3 1200 are low end are stupid. They match the performance of a 4770/4770K which happens to be a brilliant CPU and still holds its own in gaming to this day.

[JoostinOnline]

5 minutes ago, homeap5 said:

No, people who wants to tell friends that they have i7 and 64GB RAM and 1080 don't want these processors. But for standard office, for normal user, for multimedia, for watching movies, internet and everything that average person wants from computer - Celeron is great processor. Costs almost nothing and gives... Well, tell me - is it that bad processor?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hkq-Fu_b1s

Look - it's not 5 FPS or less. It's really good unit. And it's paired with 1050 only.

Not even 30fps. That's pretty terrible.

4 minutes ago, xriqn said:

People who say that i3/ryzen 3 1200 are low end are stupid. They match the performance of a 4770/4770K which happens to be a brilliant CPU and still holds its own in gaming to this day.

Low end doesn't mean bad.

[homeap5]

1 hour ago, JoostinOnline said:

Not even 30fps. That's pretty terrible.

Lol! Terrible? For processor that is not made for games?

You really don't know how to watch that video. It should not prove you that Celeron is great for games. It suppose to show you how strong is processor that costs about 10% of i7-8700K.

 

I bet that if I launch Photoshop with the same amount of RAM on coffee-lake Pentium and i7 8700K, no one would see difference. Except cost difference of course.

 

[JoostinOnline]

9 minutes ago, homeap5 said:

Lol! Terrible? For processor that is not made for games?

You really don't know how to watch that video. It should not prove you that Celeron is great for games. It suppose to show you how strong is processor that costs about 10% of i7-8700K.

 

I bet that if I launch Photoshop with the same amount of RAM on coffee-lake Pentium and i7 8700K, no one would see difference. Except cost difference of course.

 

You keep acting like I'm encouraging people to buy an i7. I give professional tech advice almost daily. You can get a used computer with an i5-2400 and 8GB of RAM for $100. It would crush anything with a Celeron.

 

This is starting to turn into an argument and I find it unpleasant, so I'm done. I hope you have a nice day though.