Comparing an overclocked i5 750 at 4GHz to a modern i7 would depend on the specific models and conditions.
Comparing an overclocked i5 750 at 4GHz to a modern i7 would depend on the specific models and conditions.
Well guys, even with all the bad feedback I've received, I've found a guy who has an i5 [email protected] without any extra cooling and can run modern games smoothly at high FPS (like Mad Max) using an MSI GTX 660. If I push it to over 4 GHz, I'm pretty sure it'll perform just as well as I need. However, I've learned it won't match a modern i7. Thanks for all the support and advice!
tea urchin :
Dja know what? I've had five pints and a bag of peanuts and still cant make head or tail of what oinkypig was saying.
Let me try and make this more simple ...
He states that the 1st generation i7 (released in 2008) which is Overclocked to 4.5 GHz (base clock is about 2.9GHz) can perform about 25% slower than a much newer processor (5th gen) like the i7 4770K - when it is at stock speeds (3.5GHz).
If you OC an i5 750 to 4.5GHz (base clock is 2.66GHz) It will perform the same as an i5 4690K (at 3.5GHz - stock speed).
And then he states that I should wait for skylake 10 core CPU, so the online prices will drop. (which is a super-helpful answer)
tea urchin :
Ah! As I thought it would; a lot of guesswork and maybe some inaccuracies in that response. He either performed the benchmarks himself or obtained them from someone else, but his answer seems quite realistic and useful. I’m almost sure these are the outcomes I’ll see. I strongly doubt they’re fake or estimated. He also mentioned that the benchmarking firms are CNE11.5/15 and PCmark 7
Tea urchin:
I've rechecked and I'm sorry. It's partly because I was being rude and partly because I was right.
Oinky pigs gave a realistic assessment about how fast this setup would actually be, except for Skylake—it's completely misleading. Even if you could push a 920 up to 4.5 gigahertz (which is pretty much impossible at best), it wouldn't reach more than 25% of a Haswell i7 performance. I'd guess the PC would score around 5000 CPU marks or less, whereas a stock Haswell i7 is at 10,160. That's fair.
I think this machine would perform almost like an early 4 series i3 (around 3.3 gigahertz) in older games. The i3 would outperform it in older titles, and any newer Haswell i3 (3.6-3.7 gigahertz) or i5 would surpass it in every game available.
AdmiralDonut was accurate in his evaluation; attempting to build a gaming rig with this setup is essentially pointless unless you already own it, but even then, it wouldn't justify a Windows license.
Not for gaming, that's clear.
And I'm not entirely sure about that, you can take it to the bank.
Here are some benchmark links for reference:
https://cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Int...GHz&id=772
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu...40+3.40GHz
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=...40+3.70GHz
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=...hz&id=2230
I didn't expect you to be being rude, but let's move forward. The main performance boost comes from the GPU, though the CPU might limit things. Once the game runs smoothly without frame-rate problems (just on CPU rendering), the rest will come from the GPU. I agree many CPUs are better than this, but the 8MB L3 Cache is impressive—especially since it'll actually outperform most modern CPUs in tasks like Photoshop because Intel only offers 6MB of L3 Cache. I appreciate your help.