However, the only reason why you would consider using integrated graphics on an intel chip is on a laptop (and even then, it's a bad idea). There, usually the only difference between i5's and i3's is clock speed, so i5's would be considerably better. Mobile i7's often have lower clock speeds and more cores than mobile i5's (at least when priced similarly), so performance in gaming will suffer because games won't use that many cores.
For gaming, there's zero difference between the i5 and i7 (unless you're running something like X-Plane 10, which takes up as many threads as you can throw at it). The i3 to i5 switch should be somewhat noticeable with some games, and not so much with others.
If you're talking about integrated graphics... Eww. Not a great idea.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” — Albert Einstein
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." — Robert Heinlein
Assuming you are talking about the desktop Sandybridge platform, there are different models of each. Some have HD2000, some have HD3000. As said however, both give poor performance with games, even the newer HD2500 and HD4000 aren't suited either. Either get a discrete graphics card with an i3 or i5, or get an APU.
However, what exactly are you looking into?
Just wondering because I currently have a laptop with the i3 processor and Intel Graphics and I wanted to compare it with my friend's HP with i5 + Intel Graphics
Just wondering because I currently have a laptop with the i3 processor and Intel Graphics and I wanted to compare it with my friend's HP with i5 + Intel Graphics
The i5, for all intents and purposes is better then the i3s in nearly every way. Though not all i7s are better then i5s. Theres some overlap there. The high end i7s are far better then anything else in the intel line, and the high end i5s are better then many i7s.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cast aside your festive doylaks: dragon stuff is about to happen.
Multiplayer is lonely once you understand how it actually works.
The i5, for all intents and purposes is better then the i3s in nearly every way. Though not all i7s are better then i5s. Theres some overlap there. The high end i7s are far better then anything else in the intel line, and the high end i5s are better then many i7s.
Id love to see a serious gamer build a computer with an i3.
To say they match up to the higher i5s is silly.
they do, they're the exact same arch as the i5, only with two virtual cores and two true cores instead of four true cores, the diference is within 3-4 FPS
Many people use benchmarks to show that there is little difference between an i3 and an i5 for gaming, but aren't those benchmarks recorded in singleplayer mode? I'm almost certain the i5 will be a great deal better than an i3 once you play BF3 on multiplayer on a large 64 man map. I believe it depends more on the game since we know that games like Skyrim and Starcraft 2 are more CPU dependent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from TheFieldZy »
Nobody's perfect, so neither is Hannah Montana Linux, but it's pretty great.
Quote from BC_Programming on Operating Systems »
They all suck. They just suck differently. Sort of like prostitutes.
Many people use benchmarks to show that there is little difference between an i3 and an i5 for gaming, but aren't those benchmarks recorded in singleplayer mode? I'm almost certain the i5 will be a great deal better than an i3 once you play BF3 on multiplayer on a large 64 man map. I believe it depends more on the game since we know that games like Skyrim and Starcraft 2 are more CPU dependent.
It does depend more on the game, but in all honesty, at the current time, the performance difference might as well not even be there.
Many people use benchmarks to show that there is little difference between an i3 and an i5 for gaming, but aren't those benchmarks recorded in singleplayer mode? I'm almost certain the i5 will be a great deal better than an i3 once you play BF3 on multiplayer on a large 64 man map. I believe it depends more on the game since we know that games like Skyrim and Starcraft 2 are more CPU dependent.
I5 is actually quite a bit better for BF3.
From the toms fourm
-With HT on, average FPS of just under 60, frequent slow-downs and occasional stuttering - was getting really annoyed.
-With HT off, average FPS around 85 and NO stuttering, and smooth game-play.
The games loves multicore CPUs this is why Bulldozer does well in it but the game dislikes Hyper threading.
Starcraft however seems to make usage of Hyperthreading and it helps it keep up with I5s but I don't see any scaling beyond 2-3 cores.
Skyrim seems to not make usage of the extra cores.
We seem to be getting there but games are still not making use of more then a few CPU cores.
I've herd it's all about the processor when you have the integrated graphics, but is there a big difference between those 3?
I believe he is talking about gaming performance with the integrated GPUs.
OP, Intel graphics are terrible. And don't change much across all 3.
However, the only reason why you would consider using integrated graphics on an intel chip is on a laptop (and even then, it's a bad idea). There, usually the only difference between i5's and i3's is clock speed, so i5's would be considerably better. Mobile i7's often have lower clock speeds and more cores than mobile i5's (at least when priced similarly), so performance in gaming will suffer because games won't use that many cores.
If you're talking about integrated graphics... Eww. Not a great idea.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." — Robert Heinlein
Just wondering because I currently have a laptop with the i3 processor and Intel Graphics and I wanted to compare it with my friend's HP with i5 + Intel Graphics
The i5, for all intents and purposes is better then the i3s in nearly every way. Though not all i7s are better then i5s. Theres some overlap there. The high end i7s are far better then anything else in the intel line, and the high end i5s are better then many i7s.
Cast aside your festive doylaks: dragon stuff is about to happen.
Multiplayer is lonely once you understand how it actually works.
Alpha 1.0.4
Id love to see a serious gamer build a computer with an i3.
To say they match up to the higher i5s is silly.
Cast aside your festive doylaks: dragon stuff is about to happen.
Multiplayer is lonely once you understand how it actually works.
Alpha 1.0.4
they do, they're the exact same arch as the i5, only with two virtual cores and two true cores instead of four true cores, the diference is within 3-4 FPS
i5-4690K @4.6GHz ~ ASRock Z97X Fatal1ty Killer ~ EKWB Supremacy MX ~ Watercooled SLI STRIX 970s
Project RedShift
Not really:
Thinking about coming a mod to simply not moderate.
They quite literally perform near identically to each other for games. The same can be said for the i7 vs. the i3 or i5.
I5 is actually quite a bit better for BF3.
From the toms fourm
-With HT on, average FPS of just under 60, frequent slow-downs and occasional stuttering - was getting really annoyed.
-With HT off, average FPS around 85 and NO stuttering, and smooth game-play.
The games loves multicore CPUs this is why Bulldozer does well in it but the game dislikes Hyper threading.
Starcraft however seems to make usage of Hyperthreading and it helps it keep up with I5s but I don't see any scaling beyond 2-3 cores.
Skyrim seems to not make usage of the extra cores.
We seem to be getting there but games are still not making use of more then a few CPU cores.