I5 with Sli or I7

[yoyodar]

I was looking around and realised that the y410p would be good to since it has the same I7 and 755m instead of a 750m and since its a 14' it is more mobile and since I will be using a 23' monitor it doesn't hurt and it is 100 less so it is a option I am also considering. So now I guess its time to think about lol, also thanks for all the help malastare, especially when the amd guy came in lol Edited May 27, 2014 by yoyodar

[Ansultares]

Get an i7, unless you insist on running some roflbig monitor.

[ZahirS]

Sadly, this is false.

 

It's been a few generations since AMD was better at gaming. For now, and the next generation at least, AMD simply cannot match the single-core performance of an Intel chip.

 

Wrong, single core performance only is noticiable in heavy memory depadent programs, AMD cores are built for multi-tasking while intel is "narrow task per task", which is better? AMD

 

The only reason that AMD chips are suggested for gaming is because, in most games, performance is primarily dependent on GPU performance and the CPU has next to no impact. In that case, pick AMD because it cheaper. SWTOR, however, is highly CPU dependent, and does the bulk of its processing on single thread family (ie: single core). In that situation, you want a CPU with good single-core performance, and no one reputable claims that AMD has better single-core performance.

 

Wrong in everything, not even one thing right. First AMD chips are popular because you can listen to music while playing SWTOR as an example, also AMD chips are cheaper per performance rating.

 

SWTOR depends on GPU not processor chip, so Intel is just a lame excuse at gaming.

 

If the OP is trying to do a budget build, we can discuss AMD as an option. For performance: Intel.[//QUOTE]

Wrong, performance per buck goes to AMD chips, Intel is only energy efficient and good at excell and common tasks for computers not gaming.

 

 

[quote

From what I can see, the 7850k's GPU is not what I'd call 'powerful'. It's good for integrated graphics, but it turns in half the framerate of a GTX 580, and noticeably less performance than a Radeon 6750.

 

Wrong article, I have AMD 7850K and from experience I play SWTOR on max settings 1080p Gaming while having framerates of around 30 consistent even if have Browser open.

 

 

This is pretty wrong. The i5-2500K is still one of the most popular gaming CPUs, and the most popular bang-for-the-buck CPU for new gaming builds is the i5-4570. Check out this rundown for May 2014. Intel is the best pick in all categories except entry-level gaming... and SWTOR is not a game for entry-level builds.

 

i5 is not gaming budget chip, is still overpriced and used by people that dont know what they are buying, a person that likes performance per buck goes to AMD and buys his chip there.

 

 

This is absolutely false with SWTOR. For CoD or Battlefield, sure. But MMOs put a lot of work on the CPU. In SWTOR, the most common cause of graphical lag is high CPU loading.

 

This is wrong.

 

The 7850k does not have great graphical performance. It seems to be on par with a AMD 5700 or a GTX 560. Yes, its cheaper than a i5-4570 and a GTX-750, but the performance is much lower, too. It would be great for a budget gamer, but in SWTOR you should expect low framerates (20-40fps), particularly in warzones and Ops.

 

I have owned a Intel-based and AMD based computer similar specs both running SWTOR, I have to say it was an Intel Mac with NVIDIA graphics card, but even then my AMD spec which doesnt have graphic card (I saved money) runs SWTOR smoother than ever, no lagg, no OP lagg, no warzone lagg....AMD delivers.

 

My best spec is AMD, it cost me around 400 dollars or less and very happy with it, there isnt a game I cant play on max.

Edited May 27, 2014 by ZahirS

[AshlaBoga]

cost me around 400 dollars or less and very happy with it, there isnt a game I cant play on max.

 

Just to clarify:

The CPU/GPU cost $400 right? Because I can't imagine a $400 computer that could play all current games on max.

[ZahirS]

Just to clarify:

The CPU/GPU cost $400 right? Because I can't imagine a $400 computer that could play all current games on max.

 

Yes actually is less than 400 dollars and plays everything on max.

 

Ill add there is no Budget PC that tops an AMD build, not even i5 intel specs.

[Zoom_VI]

Just to clarify:

The CPU/GPU cost $400 right? Because I can't imagine a $400 computer that could play all current games on max.

 

My Laptop which is optimized for Word Processing with a i7 runs SWTOR on maximum settings at 30 fps. His build isn't that impressive at all.

[BuriDogshin]

It's not enough to quote a frame rate and graphics level without also saying what resolution you run at.

 

I run max settings at 2560x1440 on a GeForce 760 and an i5, while also driving three other monitors, and have no frame rate issues as far as I've noticed (just the normal server lag). Of the three systems here that people use for raiding in SWTOR, mine has the slowest CPU and GPU, but the highest resolution monitor (the others run at 1920x1080 with a second 1920x1080 monitor).

 

A less expensive system might do just as well, even at this resolution, but you would have to try it to find out.

[yoyodar]

Yes actually is less than 400 dollars and plays everything on max.

 

Ill add there is no Budget PC that tops an AMD build, not even i5 intel specs.

 

If it is a laptop can you give us a link and if it is a desktop the show us a pc part picker build becuase I doubt a computer for 400$ could max all current games

Edited May 28, 2014 by yoyodar

[ZahirS]

If it is a laptop can you give us a link and if it is a desktop the show us a pc part picker build becuase I doubt a computer for 400$ could max all current games

 

Here:

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/kJ2dxr

 

Note, some prices online are too high I bought mine by going to the computer local were prices are lower and you can choose parts by negociating prices.

 

the mouse is alambric acktek mini mouse which you cant find in the site, also the gabinet is mini atx, the cooler was recommeded by the employees of the local I went.

 

Mine costed 400-500, the rest of the setup is similar to the link, converted from my local currency.

Edited May 28, 2014 by ZahirS

[DavinC]

Although it sounds like the OP has decided on a laptop, I wanted to inform you on some misconceptions about the difference between i5's and i7's on laptops and desktops. The desktop i5 and i7 are both quad-core (the only difference being hyper-threading), but on the laptop side of Intel's CPUs the i7 is the quad-core and i5 is dual-core both with hyper-threading.

 

desktop/cores/HT

i3/2/yes

i5/4/no

i7/4/yes

mobile/cores/HT

i3/2/yes

i5/2/yes

i7/4/yes

 

Between the 2 laptops the OP was looking at the i5 is:

http://ark.intel.com/products/76348/Intel-Core-i5-4200M-Processor-3M-Cache-up-to-3_10-GHz

and the i7:

http://ark.intel.com/products/75117/Intel-Core-i7-4700MQ-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_40-GHz

 

So, yes the i7 would be a better suited CPU for SWTOR.

[yoyodar]

Just googled the a10-7850k and in this review it shows that tomb raider at medium settings and 1080p was barely at 30 fps, so for some reason I doubt it can max any current game.

[ZahirS]

Just googled the a10-7850k and in this review it shows that tomb raider at medium settings and 1080p was barely at 30 fps, so for some reason I doubt it can max any current game.

 

Im using it, not tried Tomb Raider but that game is optimized to play better on AMD 7850k like Battlefield 4 too, so I doubt the veracity of that article.

 

Im playing SWTOR all maxed out, did I say Battlefield 4 plays smootly enough in AMD to actually make a difference in the results you get in that game considering is a first person shooter a milisec can make a difference.

[Malastare]

Wrong, single core performance only is noticiable in heavy memory depadent programs

 

Um. SWTOR runs the bulk of its game code in a single thread, and often references up to 3 GB of RAM. That's a heavily memory dependent application. In fact, SWTOR runs a second process in order to expand the amount of addressable memory. Both the second process and the pipe used to communicate with the main process put a lot of strain on the CPU's memory subsystem. The Sandy Bridge and later Intel chips have notably better memory controllers, and this is one of the reasons why Intel chips outperform AMD chips on SWTOR.

 

Wrong in everything, not even one thing right. First AMD chips are popular because you can listen to music while playing SWTOR as an example, also AMD chips are cheaper per performance rating.

 

I don't know where to start on that first statement. I expected it to be a joke, but...

 

Let me confirm for you that you can play SWTOR and listen to music at the same time on an Intel CPU. I do it quite often, actually. Of course, I've also been known to play SWTOR and run Linux in a Virtual Box VM at the same time... while playing music. And I normally have two browsers open (usually 8-20 tabs). And my development IDE is constantly running. And I have system monitors running. ... while I play SWTOR.

 

But that's not me bragging. That's what you should expect of a quad-core CPU. AMD chips can do that, too. I remember the days when gaming and playing MP3s would cause problems. That was 1997. Modern processors have no problems handling that load. At least... they shouldn't. I mean, my phone plays MP3s and browses the internet at the same time without problems.

 

You are right about cheaper-per-performance, at least for the upper levels of AMD chips. However, cost/performance ratios are only half of the discussion (actually, maybe less than half). Games don't run better because you got a deal on the chip. AMD chips are often more economical, but that doesn't make them fast. Analogy: Just because a Ford has better gas mileage than a Porche doesn't mean its a good choice for racing.

 

SWTOR depends on GPU not processor chip, so Intel is just a lame excuse at gaming.

 

No, SWTOR is pretty balanced between CPU and GPU. Take a look at your processor utilization graphs while playing some time. SWTOR will load a single core of my i7 to about 80%. The other cores are generally unloaded, unless I have other background apps loading them. At the same time, it will be running my GPU at full capability. Now, just because SWTOR is only using 1 of 4 cores doesn't mean the game isn't CPU-bound. The bulk of its work is in a single thread within a single process. That single thread on that one core is responsible for the bulk of the game performance. That's why, when looking at which CPU to suggest for SWTOR, we look at the single-thread benchmarks. It doesn't matter what the other cores are doing, or even how many of them there are. All that matters is the question of How much work can a single core do in a period of time?

 

Wrong article, I have AMD 7850K and from experience I play SWTOR on max settings 1080p Gaming while having framerates of around 30 consistent even if have Browser open.

 

I'm sorry, but that's not terribly impressive. Most gamers are looking to hit 60fps, and the existence of a browser in the background shouldn't make any real difference. With my i7, I hit framerates of 50-60fps in warzones. If my framerate drops to 30fps, I start looking for problems with my PC.

 

Next, while I take issue with Tom's for some of their build preferences (eg: their love of water cooling and overclocked RAM), I think you need to think twice before claiming that you know more about CPU performance than they do.

 

i5 is not gaming budget chip, is still overpriced and used by people that dont know what they are buying, a person that likes performance per buck goes to AMD and buys his chip there.

 

I didn't say it was. The i5 is the bang-for-the-buck selection, and that implies that the bang needs to be sufficiently impressive. That guide is written for people intending to play current generation games with high performance standards. The i5 sits on the "corner" of the diminishing returns graph, ie: its at the point where paying more actually gets you a proportionate increase in performance; past that, you pay a premium for only minor gains. AMD chips have better cost-performance ratios, but they also have routinely lower performance ceilings. If you want the best performance from a game, AMD just can't get you there.

 

The budget gaming chip of choice is actually an i3, and that i3 still outperforms your 7850K, and only costs about $40 more.

 

...my AMD spec which doesnt have graphic card (I saved money) runs SWTOR smoother than ever, no lagg, no OP lagg, no warzone lagg....AMD delivers.

 

Okay, let's get a little brutal here.

 

My i7-2600K from over three years ago outperforms your 7850K from January at stock speeds. An i3-2330 outperforms your 7850K. I'm not bragging, just pointing out the truth of the matter here. The 7850K is decent chip for gaming, but its no powerhouse, and it can't match Intel chips from even 2 generations ago.

 

Yes, the 7850K is cheaper than the other chips, but for gaming performance, the Intel chips are simply better. If you want to talk about budget builds, then we can start a thread for that. The OP wanted to know which of two laptops was better and if there were other options that had better performance for a similar price. The simple --and very unfortunate-- truth is that for SWTOR, AMD won't deliver the same performance that he can get from an Intel chip.

 

At the end of the day, the most common limiting factor on framerate in SWTOR is the CPU, not the GPU. Run a warzone, look at the utilization of your CPU cores, look at the memory throughput and see how often it correlates to framerate drops. GPUs matter, certainly, but in SWTOR it sets the level of detail you can play at. The framerate is much more likely to be affected by animation loads, texture manipulations, and the various particle effects. Those are dependent on the CPU, not the GPU.

 

My best spec is AMD, it cost me around 400 dollars or less and very happy with it, there isnt a game I cant play on max.

 

Then you haven't played many recent games. There are games that challenge the very most powerful CPUs on the market, and the 7850K is not even close to them.

 

Don't get me wrong. I don't hate AMD. Quite the contrary. I want to like AMD. I think AMD does a lot of things the right way. I worry about the ethics displayed by Intel, and I think they designed their best chips when AMD forced them to actually work at it. At the same time, I'm not willing to let my appreciation for AMD skew my understanding of CPU operation and performance, and I won't force my opinions on AMD onto others. The sad truth is that current generation AMD chips cannot match the performance of Intel chips. AMD Is cheaper, and in some cases, you can use a cheaper CPU and still get good game performance. But in CPU-dependent games --and SWTOR, and virtually all MMOs are-- an Intel system will get you better performance than an AMD system of equivalent cost.

[Malastare]

The desktop i5 and i7 are both quad-core (the only difference being hyper-threading), but on the laptop side of Intel's CPUs the i7 is the quad-core and i5 is dual-core both with hyper-threading.

...

So, yes the i7 would be a better suited CPU for SWTOR.

 

Hmm. How did I miss that? I thought I looked them up. I guess that's what I get for not just going to the ARK and trusting whatever Google found for me.

[ZahirS]

here is for you:

 

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/538/AMD_A10-Series_A10-7850K_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-4770K.html

Source: cpu-world (Best source)

 

Not counting on future games which will be HSA enabled which is a reality because Xbox, PS4 main consoles for gaming are using AMD chips...

 

Anyway, for the rest by memory depandent I meant RAM, yes intel does a good job allocating memory on mem intensive programs, but SWTOR is graphic memoery depadant see the difference? its GPU!

 

Now back to AMD the chips have graphics cards (very good ones) inside. Something Intel doesnt, so AMD is aimed at casual/hardcore gamer, while intel is aimed at General market like offices, stores, labs did I say intel is like the Sith empire? yes! it minituarizes everything without are real result in performance, like i7 is minimal considering i5 performance even unoticiable unless you use benchmarks with most focusing on task per sec.

 

Amd wins now and in the future so buy AMD.

Edited May 28, 2014 by ZahirS

[Malastare]

Im using it, not tried Tomb Raider but that game is optimized to play better on AMD 7850k like Battlefield 4 too, so I doubt the veracity of that article.

 

Sure. Guru3D and Anandtech got it all wrong. Tom's Hardware corroborates them, as well, so I guess they don't know what they're talking about, either.

 

To save people from needing to hit the links: the 7850k manages 12fps in Bioshock Infinite at 1080p and high quality settings. Tom's says it gets to 27fps at 1080p/medium. At max settings with Tomb Raider, the 7850K gets up to 8.2fps. Looking at a recent game, the 7850k gets 8fps in Sleeping Dogs at 1080p. And in Company of Heroes 2 (a more CPU intensive game) it gets almost 10fps in 1080p. The best guesses I have for its performance in Crysis 3 is about 16fps at medium quality.

 

Since many gamers consider framerates of under 30fps to be "unplayable" (or at least "unsatisfactory"), I don't think we can say that the 7850K can play all games at 1080p with max settings.

 

Actually, check out this thread. Seems the 7850K can't even hit 60fps in WoW, and struggles quite a bit with Battlefield 4.

[ZahirS]

here is for you:

 

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/538/AMD_A10-Series_A10-7850K_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-4770K.html

Source: cpu-world (Best source)

 

Not counting on future games which will be HSA enabled which is a reality because Xbox, PS4 main consoles for gaming are using AMD chips...

 

Anyway, for the rest by memory depandent I meant RAM, yes intel does a good job allocating memory on mem intensive programs, but SWTOR is graphic memoery depadant see the difference? its GPU!

 

Now back to AMD the chips have graphics cards (very good ones) inside. Something Intel doesnt, so AMD is aimed at casual/hardcore gamer, while intel is aimed at General market like offices, stores, labs did I say intel is like the Sith empire? yes! it minituarizes everything without are real result in performance, like i7 is minimal considering i5 performance even unoticiable unless you use benchmarks with most focusing on task per sec.

 

Amd wins now and in the future so buy AMD.

Edited May 28, 2014 by ZahirS

[DawnAskham]

here is for you:

 

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/538/AMD_A10-Series_A10-7850K_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-4770K.html

Source: cpu-world (Best source)

 

Not counting on future games which will be HSA enabled which is a reality because Xbox, PS4 main consoles for gaming are using AMD chips...

 

Anyway, for the rest by memory depandent I meant RAM, yes intel does a good job allocating memory on mem intensive programs, but SWTOR is graphic memoery depadant see the difference? its GPU!

 

Now back to AMD the chips have graphics cards (very good ones) inside. Something Intel doesnt, so AMD is aimed at casual/hardcore gamer, while intel is aimed at General market like offices, stores, labs did I say intel is like the Sith empire? yes! it minituarizes everything without are real result in performance, like i7 is minimal considering i5 performance even unoticiable unless you use benchmarks with most focusing on task per sec.

 

Amd wins now and in the future so buy AMD.

 

You were saying...

 

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/177677-dual-graphics-dud-intel-clobbers-amds-apus-in-budget-gaming

 

Anyways, while I'd love to see the two chip companies compete more so we can all get better stuff for less, when it comes to real-world overall performance, I haven't even bothered looking at AMD chips in quite a while because they seem to always be playing catch up.

 

And while integrated graphics have come a long way, they still don't hold up performance wise to systems with discrete GPUs.

Edited May 28, 2014 by DawnAskham

[DarkDisturbed]

 

Now back to AMD the chips have graphics cards (very good ones) inside..

This is a joke right?

 

please say yes

[Malastare]

here is for you:

 

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/538/AMD_A10-Series_A10-7850K_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-4770K.html

Source: cpu-world (Best source)

 

First, that's just a spec sheet. It doesn't show any performance numbers. Not like this comparison.

 

Anyway, for the rest by memory depandent I meant RAM, yes intel does a good job allocating memory on mem intensive programs, but SWTOR is graphic memoery depadant see the difference? its GPU!

 

No, its not. Look at your CPU utilization graphs. SWTOR requires GPU and CPU power. The GPU power required is dependent on your graphics settings (something you can control). The CPU power required is most heavily dependent on the number of players around you, the number of mobs around you, and what those players and mobs are doing. That is why CPU usage is higher in warzones and ops: lots of players in view constantly performing actions which require your CPU to load, calculate, and move around data for animations.

 

This is precisely why MMOs and RTSes are more CPU dependent than FPSs; they run large numbers of AI routines and often require constant updates and recalculations based upon network messages.

 

Now back to AMD the chips have graphics cards (very good ones) inside.

 

They have good graphics chips... for on-die graphics. They are destroyed by even mid-level gaming GPUs.

 

Something Intel doesnt, so AMD is aimed at casual/hardcore gamer, while intel is aimed at General market like offices, stores, labs

 

No... AMD is aimed firmly at the budget and cost-efficiency sector. Intel is the CPU of choice for high performance applications, whether that is games, real-time statistics, rendering/graphics or massive data processing. AMD is actually more popular as office and lab machines because they are cheaper and offices aren't hurt by the weaker processing power.

 

Amd wins now and in the future so buy AMD.

 

Okay... I see you're just cheering for your team, not trying to give actual advice based on facts.

 

Please don't force your bias on others who are just searching for answers.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Malastare

[BuriDogshin]

here is for you: Amd wins now and in the future so buy AMD.

 

That's not good advice for everyone, though it may be for some. First, if you need it now, buy based on now, not on the future. Both companies will support their latest platforms for long enough that you will replace them before you cannot get spare parts anymore.

 

Now, while AMD might be good for people on a budget, if you have dropped or plan to drop $300+ into your video card and $1200 into the monitors that are attached to it, as well as $120 for a mechanical keyboard, $140 for a gaming mouse, $60 for a gaming keyboard -- all things with indisputable benefits BTW, if you can afford them -- the price difference between Intel and AMD CPUs becomes pretty irrelevant, and you should just buy an i7 in order to squeeze every last bit of benefit out of the $2000+ you have invested in the rest of the system.

 

That's just an example of how price-performance of the CPU is the wrong measure -- it is price performance of the system that matters (after taking into account sunk costs, of course - an upgrade that just costs you an AMD chip and motherboard might be better than a similar upgrade to an Intel chip and motherboard, assuming you can find an AMD chip that is actually an upgrade. )

 

There's a market that is best served by AMD chips, yes. But if you look how people vote with their wallets, it is a smaller market than the one best served by Intel.

[Manbropig]

AMD 7850k (4 core), has a powerful card inside the chip.

 

I think you might have "card" and "chip" in the incorrect order.

[RandomXChance]

I really think those are pretty good examples of $900 laptops for moderate gaming. The Lenovo off of Newegg was the top of my list when I searched for stuff that fit your requirements, but the i7 off Lenovo's site was a good find, too. Despite the the number of words I've used pointing out the weaknesses, you did pick some decent laptops and I think either would serve you, and you'd certainly get an improved experience while playing.

 

If I had to pick some alternates for you to choose from, the next best option would be:

 

MSI GE60: $979

i7-4700MQ

GTX-765M

Pros: Faster graphics card, no SLI, good RAM amount right out of the box

Cons: More heat, higher price, likely worse battery life

 

For really good performance with less concerns on price:

 

ASUS G750JM: $1,279

i7-4700HQ

GTX-860M

Pros: A real mobile gaming GPU, good cooling, good value for money, very good game performance

Cons: Well over budget, heavy

 

In truth, if I had to pick from the two you mentioned and the two I mentioned, I still might go with the i7 off Lenovo's site. It's really not a bad choice and I think you did a good job selecting it.

 

As an owner of an MSI laptop, I would warn you against one. The price/performance is very good on their laptops, but build quality is low. Cheap plastic cases that crack easily and terrible driver support.

 

More expensive, but I have never been disappointed by Asus build quality and driver availability.

[Sundown]

As an owner of an MSI laptop, I would warn you against one. The price/performance is very good on their laptops, but build quality is low. Cheap plastic cases that crack easily and terrible driver support.

 

More expensive, but I have never been disappointed by Asus build quality and driver availability.

I own that one and have to reduce all settings to LOW to run in 16m OPs with acceptable framerate (meaning ~20 FPS).

Also had to send it in twice already to fix issues.

 

I would never go for a laptop again - even though it means I can't play when traveling.

[Malastare]

As an owner of an MSI laptop, I would warn you against one. The price/performance is very good on their laptops, but build quality is low. Cheap plastic cases that crack easily and terrible driver support.

 

Noted.

 

I've never actually been able to sit in front of an MSI laptop. I only have experience with their motherboards and video cards. Those are usually very well made. I guess I assumed they'd do okay with a full laptop. Seems I assumed wrong. I'll remember that for future recommendations. Thanks for the hands-on info.

 

More expensive, but I have never been disappointed by Asus build quality and driver availability.

 

Same here. ASUS is the brand I normally suggest, but unfortunately ASUS doesn't have much for gaming in the $900 area. My wife uses a G55 and gets pretty good performance from it (just a few places where the framerate drops to 30fps or so). But we paid $1200 for that. Still, it's been a solid performer with no problems. Doesn't even overheat.