Why must the i5 be so expensive?

closers said:
Ammonia and alcohols are soluble in water, being polar and all. Stop digging. :p

P.S. I5 is not expensive. It's just Intel has raised expectations by lowering price/performance tiers.
Click to expand...

Expensive is a relative term. It's expensive for me because I don't think it's worth the 200 dollars for me to upgrade from my Athlon x4 which I paid only 97 dollars for. Wow, 97 dollars that's %50 cheaper for only %30 (give or take) less overall performance. What I deem expensive might not be the same for somebody that earns $30 dollars an hour. It's all relative.
 
It's expensive for me because I don't think it's worth the 200 dollars for me to upgrade from my Athlon x4 which I paid only 97 dollars for. Wow, 97 dollars that's %50 cheaper for only %30 (give or take) less overall performance.
Click to expand...

The cheapest i5 would be way more than 30% faster than your 2.4 GHz Athlon X4 at everything. I would expect it to be 2 times as fast or more at most CPU bound tasks.
 
Last edited:
[H] review shows the 2500K at 153W at the wall outlet under full load on a P67 with a GTX 470... Not bad at all.
 
ZodaEX said:
Yea and the TDP is over twice as high.
Click to expand...

And its significantly more energy efficient then your CPU. However if you do not want an ~85W max CPU (i5s have been shown that they do not use 95W at stock) you could always get an i3 which will still be significantly faster than your current CPU and use even less power than a SB i5. Also I would consider an ivy bridge for added performance / watt. The i5-3450S is a 65W TDP part and will be a significant upgrade to your current CPU offering over 50% more performance at more tasks and being even more energy efficient than an SB i5 at idle and at load.

Thats one smoldering hot cpu.
Click to expand...

Being hot is actually an advantage. This CPU like most other Intel CPUs are designed to run at 100C. That should help you since there will be a larger difference between ambient.
 
Last edited:
DejaWiz said:
[H] review shows the 2500K at 153W at the wall outlet under full load on a P67 with a GTX 470... Not bad at all.
Click to expand...

This is hard for me to believe. How could that system draw less power than mine at load? Are you sure they are loading up both the CPU and the GPU? It sounds like to me perhaps they aren't running the GPU at full load too. Correct me if i'm wrong.
 
That is a good question. Not sure, as I didn't see it specified in the review.
 
ZodaEX said:
This is hard for me to believe. How could that system draw less power than mine at load? Are you sure they are loading up both the CPU and the GPU? It sounds like to me perhaps they aren't running the GPU at full load too. Correct me if i'm wrong.
Click to expand...

GPU had to be at idle...pretty sure those GPUs pull over 200w at full load. In the [H] GTX 470 review an i7 920 with a GTX 470 the system pulled 433w in Furmark. Different CPU, and OCed but i dont think thats going to account for almost 300w.
 
DejaWiz said:
The 610e isn't listed, but the 620 with a 200MHz core speed advantage is. Compared to the SB i5-2400:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/363?vs=106

Damn near twice as fast.
Click to expand...

But the 605e IS available in the Anandtech charts. It's only 100MHz off, which is close enough, and ALSO a 45w TDP part so the power numbers are comparable!

See how it compares versus the Core i3 2100:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=111

The i3 has drastically lower idle power, significantly lower load power (all this despite being marked 65w TDP).

It has a little faster multithreaded performance, and drastically faster single-threaded performance. A helluva upgrade in all respects!

It sounds to me like you're looking for an upgrade in your original post, but you can't stomach the price or TDP of the i5. So why not go with the i3 instead?
 
Last edited:
I paid $650 for my i7-3930k. Kicks butt in Kolor AutopanoGiga, Photomatix Pro Lightroom, video encoding, and playing computer games. :D
 
defaultluser said:
But the 605e IS available in the Anandtech charts. It's only 100MHz off, which is close enough, and ALSO a 45w TDP part so the power numbers are comparable!

See how it compares versus the Core i3 2100:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=111

The i3 has drastically lower idle power, significantly lower load power (all this despite being marked 65w TDP).

It has a little faster multithreaded performance, and drastically faster single-threaded performance. A helluva upgrade in all respects!

It sounds to me like you're looking for an upgrade in your original post, but you can't stomach the price or TDP of the i5. So why not go with the i3 instead?
Click to expand...

The day that the Ivy Bridge i3 comes out, i'm getting one! I already had purchased a Pentium G850 CPU with the intent on upgrading to that, but I do a lot of encoding and my X4 really smokes the Pentium on encoding, not to mention multitasking. But yea I definitely plan to move to i3 in the future as long as AMD doesn't beat Intel to the punch with a better $100-$130 low TDP upgrade. I'll under volt if I have to but i'd rather not.
 
lombasto said:
Uh, no, a basic gaming computer for "high settings" is gonna cost about 1k ore more due to the current high video card prices and the PSU to go along with that.

During the Radeon HD4000 days (the few years ago you quoted), that was the time when you could get a high-end gaming computer for $800. And even then it's not "peanuts" compared to anything, it's a 20% decrease.
Click to expand...

A Radeon 6950/Geforce 560 will run any current game at high, if not max settings at 1080p and run you about $200.

I5 + mobo = $300ish
Video Card = $200ish
8GB DDR3 = $40ish
1TB HD = $90ish
Case = $40ish
TN Monitor = $120ish
KB/M = $30ish

Looks like you could do it for $800ish or even cheaper if you wanted to be frugal or already have a monitor/case/hd/etc. You could probably do it for $500ish if you wanted to use the FS/FT forums.
 
Zarathustra[H];1038995622 said:
An i5-2400 costs what it does because there is no competition.

It outperforms AMD's top CPU, the FX-8150 in most things except for some rare applications that use multiple threads well..
Click to expand...

Applications that are multithreaded aren't rare. I use winrar and handbrake on a daily basis, both are multi threaded. I also often run long virtualdub single thread encodes along side an instance of GTAIV which uses 3 threads. 1 thread + 3 threads = 4 threads. Quad core = 4 threads. In one week of use it was obvious to me the advantages of sticking with AMD at the 100 dollar price point. Remember i'm not comparing a 200 dollar AMD vs. a 200 dollar Intel. You'd be a fool to buy an AMD CPU for 200 dollars right now and that's not my point at all. $200 dollars is more than I will spend on a CPU. Having more performance than a $80 cpu isn't going to change that - it's still more than I will spend.
 
ZodaEX said:
Applications that are multithreaded aren't rare. I use winrar and handbrake on a daily basis, both are multi threaded. I also often run long virtualdub single thread encodes along side an instance of GTAIV which uses 3 threads. 1 thread + 3 threads = 4 threads. Quad core = 4 threads. In one week of use it was obvious to me the advantages of sticking with AMD at the 100 dollar price point. Remember i'm not comparing a 200 dollar AMD vs. a 200 dollar Intel. You'd be a fool to buy an AMD CPU for 200 dollars right now and that's not my point at all. $200 dollars is more than I will spend on a CPU. Having more performance than a $80 cpu isn't going to change that - it's still more than I will spend.
Click to expand...

Why are you saying i5's are expensive when they cost less/same than the AMD cpu's they are competing against? i5's are not meant to compete with the low end X4's.

I still don't understand what you are trying to accomplish with this thread.
 
All this crying about "how expensive i5 is" made me go out to Microcenter, and get 3570k, Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UDH3, and 8GB Crucial set for $370. That's the bad news, since I usually try not to spend more than $200 on any single computer part purchase.... The good news, I can sell my current CPU (i7-870) for $200, and have a buyer for old motherboard/CPU(i3-540)/4GB/GTX260(pulled outta closet) for $150... Sooooo, in the end I'm paying $20 for this upgrade.... It's all about planing ....:cool:
 
ZodaEX said:
Applications that are multithreaded aren't rare. I use winrar and handbrake on a daily basis, both are multi threaded. I also often run long virtualdub single thread encodes along side an instance of GTAIV which uses 3 threads. 1 thread + 3 threads = 4 threads. Quad core = 4 threads. In one week of use it was obvious to me the advantages of sticking with AMD at the 100 dollar price point. Remember i'm not comparing a 200 dollar AMD vs. a 200 dollar Intel. You'd be a fool to buy an AMD CPU for 200 dollars right now and that's not my point at all. $200 dollars is more than I will spend on a CPU. Having more performance than a $80 cpu isn't going to change that - it's still more than I will spend.
Click to expand...

If you truly are such a heavy user of RAR, Vdub and Handbrake (video stuff obviously), that you need to run it while gaming instead of batching overnight, can't you find another $120 in your budget to get the i5-3570K and the massive performance increase? Seriously, daily heavy use, it's worth it, just do some extra work for a few hours to get the money.
 
grambo said:
If you truly are such a heavy user of RAR, Vdub and Handbrake (video stuff obviously), that you need to run it while gaming instead of batching overnight, can't you find another $120 in your budget to get the i5-3570K and the massive performance increase? Seriously, daily heavy use, it's worth it, just do some extra work for a few hours to get the money.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't cost me only $120 dollars though that's the thing. I could barely justify the price if it was $130 or less, but as it stands it's $200 + motherboard and for such a small upgrade it is out of the question for me.
 
It wouldn't cost me only $120 dollars though that's the thing. I could barely justify the price if it was $130 or less, but as it stands it's $200 + motherboard and for such a small upgrade it is out of the question for me.
Click to expand...

Again the cheapest i5 offers 2 times the performance of your current CPU. Where is the small upgrade?
 
drescherjm said:
Again the cheapest i5 offers 2 times the performance of your current CPU. Where is the small upgrade?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's 2 times as fast but also it's TDP is twice as high! I expect a 95W CPU to be twice as fast as a 45W CPU thats to be expected. However it's at the cost of higher operating temperatures and noisier cooling solutions which I am not a fan of. (get my pun?) I could theoretically underclock and undervolt a i5-2400 but for $200 I expect Intel to do the unvervolting for me like AMD did for only 97 dollars.
 
I think you only real solution to increase performance by a worthwhile amount under your TDP restriction is to wait for haswell or future FM2 processors.

I expect Intel to do the unvervolting for me like AMD did for only 97 dollars.
Click to expand...

That is kind of what the dual core lga1155 Pentiums are about. However that will not help your multithreaded requirement.
 
ZodaEX said:
Yes, it's 2 times as fast but also it's TDP is twice as high! I expect a 95W CPU to be twice as fast as a 45W CPU thats to be expected. However it's at the cost of higher operating temperatures and noisier cooling solutions which I am not a fan of. (get my pun?) I could theoretically underclock and undervolt a i5-2400 but for $200 I expect Intel to do the unvervolting for me like AMD did for only 97 dollars.
Click to expand...

You can't directly relate TDP to the processing speed nor the actual power used by a CPU.
 
Sgraffite said:
You can't directly relate TDP to the processing speed nor the actual power used by a CPU.
Click to expand...

What I am trying to say is a 95W TDP CPU should be faster than a 45W TDP CPU. Should be. I'm aware this isn't always the case. But if you have the choice between a 45W and a 95W TDP, and the 45W CPU is faster then it's a no brainier that the 45W one is a better buy. High TDP isn't necessarily a good thing, but high performance always is.
 
see, i posted a question in the general hardware section... i was looking at the xeon e3-1230 v2 .. if you dont mind overclocking, this is the i7 2600 / i7 3770 counterpart and its $65 less ...it doesnt have onboard hd graphics. If you're a gamer you wont use it anyways...
 
vict0r said:
see, i posted a question in the general hardware section... i was looking at the xeon e3-1230 v2 .. if you dont mind overclocking, this is the i7 2600 / i7 3770 counterpart and its $65 less ...it doesnt have onboard hd graphics. If you're a gamer you wont use it anyways...
Click to expand...

That is still overly expensive. I paid less than that for my cpu+mobo+ram.
 
xBanzai89 said:
If you don't want to cough up the doe, thats your problem not Intel's.
Click to expand...

thank you for reminding me... lemme go rage at Maserati for their damn quattro porte being too expensive compared to my lancer :( They're both a sedan and yet its a lot more expensive :rolleyes:
 
ZodaEX said:
That is still overly expensive. I paid less than that for my cpu+mobo+ram.
Click to expand...

Your CPU, motherboard, and RAM would also take over 3 times as long to solve a simple CFD problem I'm running now, that is, if you could even run it with only 4GB of RAM (and time is money when it comes to this). It was also be able to run less than half the amount of virtual machines I run on my second computer (and thus majorly cut some side income I have going).

And then of course, there's a the fun/gaming aspect of it. Your stuff is already pretty much obsolete to me in that regard. I don't consider medium settings to be playable on a PC. I might as well just play on my Xbox360 in that case. And last, but not least : the hobby aspect of it...

If you're happy with you've got, that's great. Unfortunately not all of can be. And what's overly expensive for you, may not be for others (ie my so called expensive virtual machine server has long paid itself off).
 
Last edited:
My 2 main computers at home are an i5-2500k i built about a year ago, and a fx-8120 i build 5 mos ago. The 2500k KILLS performance wise for desktop use. Both machines are similarly spec'd.
 
vict0r said:
thank you for reminding me... lemme go rage at Maserati for their damn quattro porte being too expensive compared to my lancer :( They're both a sedan and yet its a lot more expensive :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You are comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare spending at most a couple hundred bucks on better computer parts to spending over $100K on a vehicle.
 
xBanzai89 said:
You are comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare spending at most a couple hundred bucks on better computer parts to spending over $100K on a vehicle.
Click to expand...

hey smarty, that wasn't even the point.

actually comparing AMD to INTEL based on price is actually comparing a shoe to a table...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top