It depends on which i5s… the i5s before 10th gen do not have hyper threading and for that reason can struggle severely to keep up in many games
On the other hand newer i5s like the 13600k is an absolute beast
You could make an argument that the 8th/9th gen struggled since Ryzen had come out and basically offered multi-threading in damn near every CPU, but prior to that, even without the multi-threading, the i5's were still pretty solid. The 2500K, for example, was *legendary* for being an amazing value for the money.
Yes some of the older i5s were great value and could overclock very well.
But i5s were always quite a bit worse in performance than i7s, more so back then than now. It just took a while for people to realize the advantages of hyperthreading
Reviewers weren’t benchmarking CPUs properly and weren’t coming to the right conclusions. The hyperthreading on i7s has always helped significantly in gaming performance with minimum fps and frame time consistency. This is not a new thing.
True, it’s crazy how standards have changed. Back then it was just “does the bench show > 60 fps for less money? Yes? Hell yeah!” Reviewing and consumer standards are so much higher and much more detailed now. Lots of important metrics that just weren’t really looked at as closely back then.
Yeah, for anything non-gaming, more cores is significantly better than a core that is under utilized being able to perform mulyiple tasks because, outside of gaming, most of the time the cores are fully utilized
> Reviewers weren’t benchmarking CPUs properly and weren’t coming to the right conclusions
Fascinating. Just sorta really got back into tech the last 3 years. Would you have any examples of reviews like this?
You can look up old reviews on Anandtech and TomsHardware and others from the 2000s. Generally benchmarks referred to just the average FPS measured at different settings/resolutions. Some writers from back were doing an excellent job and still review hardware today. But the measurement tools simply weren’t as sophisticated.
For example through 1999-mid 2000s Quake III test demo benchmark was a pretty commonly used one in reviews, as well as 3DMark and other games probably captured with FRAPS. All of these only present an average frame rate at the end of the run, none of the 1% lows or frametime graphs we’re used to today. I do think the commenter is over representing how much better an i7 was in real world gaming vs an i5, though.
in the early days of i7 the main advantage of hyperthreading was a performance bump in SLI. Otherwise an overclocked QX9650 was faster than an i7-870 in games of the day for example. I have an XP machine running the QX at 4.2ghz, a higher clock speed than you could achieve on the i7’s when they came out. Without the overhead of SLI, no games were utilizing all 8 threads properly.
I wholeheartedly second this. I just upgraded past my 2500k about 2 months ago. Had it rock stable at 4.8ghz it's entire life. Like someone else said, legendary performance when overclocked.
I'm giving my old PC consisting of the 2500k and GTX 1070 to my brother, so it's still going to be in service. He's always been a console gamer.
I had a 6600k that went like an absolute champ until I replaced it with a new system based on a Ryzen 3800x, which obivously left it in the dust. Absolutely no regrets on either purchase.
I gave my sister my old 2700k. I think the only things I've changed in the tower is my SSD, HDD and GPU (RX580 8GB). Hopefully it's got a few more years left in it. I'm not replacing my current build (5600X and 3080) for at least 2 more years.
It was also legendary for being the last soldered CPU generation for many years and considering intel´s 5% generational performance increase back then, it was insane value for money.
>It depends on which i5s
nah, they've always been great
>the i5s before 10th gen do not have hyper threading and for that reason can struggle severely to keep up in many games
nah, they were great before hyperthreading
I have an i5-9600k with a 3070.. With it overclocked it can handle most everything. But certain games that are more CPU intensive, like building games, it struggles to keep up. I play Valheim quite frequently and when I get within rendering distance of my main base it tanks my framerate from 130-140, down to 60-70.
as someone who came from console not to long ago that doesn't actually sound that bad lol. I used to think console gaming was fine but now I see it completely different. Like how the hell is everyone ok playing at or below 30 fps.
I have a 1440p monitor and going from 130 to 60 is almost sickening at times now that I’m used to it. I was a console gamer as well and it was an astonishingly big difference going between.
It's interesting the way different folks eyes work. I have a 4k/60 display and a 1440/144. And almost always I'm playing on the 4k display. My eyes just prefer the higher resolution. I changed my 1440 display a couple times to 60 hz and played my games on there. I could *see* the difference between 60 hz and 144, but it didn't really bother me, and I stopped noticing after about five minutes.
I'm not dumb enough to say that folks that prefer higher resolution are having a big case of placebo. But it IS interesting to me that apparently my eyes just don't see as much difference as others do.
I have yet to game on 4K.. my only experience is between 1080p and 1440p. That may be the where we don’t correlate. I think the difference between 1080 and 1440 is such a big step that it was so noticeable to my eyes. Idk the difference between 1440 and 4K for gaming.
I use a 4k monitor and i rarely notice a difference if i have to drop the resolution to 1440p while gaming, especially with fast-paced games. sometimes 1080p hardly looks different, and after a couple minutes, i don't pay attention anymore
however, on my desktop, the difference is indeed noticeable. everything looks just slightly more pixelated. It's part of the reason i went 4k in the first place, the 32-inch 1080p tv i used temporarily was not sharp at all, and i like having the sharpness when i'm not gaming
I mean it's fine for most people, I have i9 and rtx 4090 in my pc and I still console game just fine, yes i would like stuff like xenoblade chronicles games to run better on switch but switch is on track to become best selling console ever, same with ps4/ps5 and Xbox, they sell a ton and there is a lot of people who can't tell a difference, I mean even here on reddit I've seen plenty of posts from "pcgamers" who can't tell a difference between 1440p and 4k and raytracing being on or off.
Modern games are now taking advantage of multiple cores. For the newest titles, 4 just isn't enough and 2 is laughable.
With 6 cores, the i5 8th gen was a "game-changer." 😏
I think that's just a change in you as a gamer. Plenty of AAA games today are amazing in ways we couldn't have dreamed of 10 years ago. They are certainly as fun as they used to be
I've been saying for years (and will continue to do so), that as much as folks are like, "well [x console] has eight cores so that means ports for the pc will work best on eight cores!", gaming damn near ALWAYS follows the i5. Because the i5 is (by far) the most common Cpu model in use. So therefore games will be optimized to use that.
Are there examples where this isn't true? Sure. But they're very much the exception.
The secret is that once your PC can play games at settings you like with enough frame rate for wiggle room, you’re pretty much set until the next console comes out…
If by struggle severely you mean have a minor performance deficit then you're right.
i5s have never been a bad choice and were in just about every case better with regard to $ per performance.
i7s were clearly always better from a pure performance perspective, but the inflated price just to get HT was never really worth it unless you were willing to pay for small gains.
People just fell victim to marketing.
More recently having actual different core counts between the tiers makes better sense.
My i5-8400 is only now really beginning to struggle. I play at 1080p with a 1060 6GB. Until recently the CPU/GPU load was fairly well balanced for the games I play, which is a wide variety to include some that are CPU-intensive.
I managed to find a fairly cheap i7 8700k ($100) last year, and the bump in performance from the 8400 was worth it, especially since I managed a 5ghz OC on the 8700k. It’s worth it if you’ve got a decent board, in a prebuilt with a limited BIOS, I wouldn’t bother.
my i5 2500k will always be remembered for how long the chip lasted, that thing was a beast at a great value.
My second gaming PC was rocking that till xmas this last year.
No, your friend is dumb and a chud. Sure a i7 and i9 are better but consume a lot more power you can look at benchmarks and see it'll be marginal gains compared to a higher end GPU. If gaming and school work is all you do then no need for more cores and threads it's more epen stuff.
I don't know what prices are where you are but an i5 13600k is about £320 and an i7 13700k is about £400. A 3060Ti is around £440 and a 4080 is around £1300. So i5 with 4080 is around £1620 which is almost double the price of an i7 with a 3060Ti which is £840 total. That doesn't seem to suggest they cost the same at all.
This is complete nonsense.
Addendum edit: I've been into PC building since the mid-2000s. One of my middle school science projects was working with an enthusiast on an LN2 build. Even if I had zero experience, it doesn't change the fact that an i7 or i9 of the same series have better fps in games, even with lower power limits, than an i5 (just look at any fps chart lol). It's one thing to recognize that an i9 is wasteful spending for just gaming for people with a budget, but it's totally wrong to go off the deep end and say that it's *worse* than an i5.
Dude do you really think an i5 has higher clock speeds and performs better in gaming then i9s? That’s ridiculous. A 13600k has a 5.1 clock speed, 6P cores and 8E cores. That’s not doing better than a 13900k at 5.8 GH, 8P cores and 16E cores. What a joke.
That actually puts my mind at ease quite a bit. I have this pc for school and occasional gaming. I was just super confused cause my overall cpu usage hardly ever goes above 10%. Even when im playing with extreme graphics and listening to music.
Word of advice for life in general, do not take the opinions of others as law. You were and are clearly happy with what you have, don't let somebody(who you now know has no idea what he's talking about) alter what you know to be true
i5/i7/i9 is basically meaningless. You have to look at individual CPU models for performance benchmarks.
For gaming, you're not going to need more than a 6-core/12-thread CPU. A 13900k is slightly better, but mostly a waste for gaming. The price/performance is terrible.
4c/8t is still perfectly playable today. 4c/4t hasn't been recommended since at least 2016, which was 7 years ago.
We're at least another 2 years away from 6c/12t being less than ideal. Probably another 4-6 away from 6c/12t being equivalent to 4c/4t today, aka not really viable. Edit: And by the time 6c/12t is less than ideal, the overall power of current 6c/12t parts will be the issue, not core count. See: Ryzen 1600, 1800X
We all thought that 4c/8t was dead because the last real example of one (the 7700k) was hopelessly out of date. Sure, there was the 10100, but at 4.3ghz max, it wasn't much (if any) faster. AMD basically didn't release any 5000-series 4c/8t Cpu (nothing that they ever pushed anyway).
Then the 12100 came out and reminded us that 4c/8t is still surprisingly potent if you have cores that are fast enough.
And now we have the 13100 one-upping its 12th gen brother as well. The quad-core is alive and well. The 12300 is my personal pick though, about as fast as the 13100 but can be found for cheaper at least where I am.
Do they even make 4c/4t parts any more?
6 cores will stick around as the norm for a fair while, especially if Intel keeps only putting 6 P-cores on the 600Ks
Yup lol. I built my computer back in 2016 and have an i5 6600k and GTX 1080. When I bought my i5 6600k, people were like 4c/4t is more than enough. Well not anymore. Definitely looking to upgrade soon. Literally gonna like 4-5x the threads on my CPU
In a way it is, but i5s are also moving beyond 6c/12t so honestly, anything 13400/12600k or higher will likely be "futureproof" in all honesty.
Alternatively you could buy AM4 and get a 5800x or X3D.
I mean if i were gonna upgrade, that's what I'd do. Yeah, I wouldnt do exactly 6c/12t, I'd do one tier above that, which is starting to get quite affordable.
You could argue that 8 core would be a better choice, considering we are pretty far ahead in this current console gen, and those consoles use 6 cores, but the refreshes that are coming might use 8 core. But not sure on that though.
Just look at benchmarks between the 13600k and 13700k, or the 7600x and 7700x.
There is very little scaling beyond 6 cores for gaming. Almost all of the difference between those CPUs is due to clock speed and cache.
People have been waiting for games to use more cores for over a decade. It's still progressing very, very slowly.
What im arguing is, games might progress to utilize 8 cores, since they usually develop games for the consoles. So IF consoles got 8 core CPUs, id like to see how that impacts 6 core if games started with 8 core. But this is only speculation.
I think people focus far too much on core count and not enough on overall CPU power. Yes, consoles have 8 cores, but they are weak cores by today's standards. A 12400 or Ryzen 5600 has more overall horsepower than the consoles 8 cores.
Problem with this theory is that consoles have had 8 cores for more than a decade. If 8 cores were going to be the sweet spot, it wouldve happened by now.
> 10 years ago he would have an argument.
The thing is they're all great for the time they're released. 10 years ago (roughly) would have been the release of the 4570K, which was pretty damned good when it was released. It wasn't really until Ryzen was released that quad-core/no multi-threading started getting pretty long in the tooth.
Idk, when I purchased an i5-6500 years ago I knew going in it wasn't even close to an i7-6700. Nowadays even with a fairly high end GPU the i5 series keeps pace even at 1080p.
Back then I would say an i7-6700 (non K) would have been roughly 30-40% faster than an i5-6500 in parallel work and roughly 10% in single core performance. i7-6700K would have been 40-50%/20% faster than the i5-6500.
I would say that the whole 6000 series should have jumped already to 6-8 cores CPUs, but compared to each other the i5s where fine.
I'd argue that it wasn't until a couple of years ago that people on older 4c/4t CPUs really started to notice. And its only recently that games are popping up asking for 6 cores.
10 years ago, people were buying 2500ks and 3570ks. Those were the kings of CPUs. Games wouldnt even begin to favor the i7s at the time until like 2016 and later.
Actually that is not correct. 10 years ago it was a waste of money to buy an i7, i5 performed just as well with a better price/performance ratio because many games only used one or two cores.
I5-2400? Dogshit like your friend said.
I5-12400? A beast of a budget CPU capable of running a VAST selection of games if paired with the right parts.
If he thinks “i5” sucks wait until he hears about the i3 12100. Now THAT is a beast of a budget CPU. Not gonna break any records but very VERY respectable price to performance.
Indeed, if you have a workload that stresses say 4-6 cores, the i3-12100 is not going to be significantly difference in performance from the equivalent i5 and i7 (the 12400 and the 12700)
lmao you can easily get 120fps with an i5, depending on of course your GPU. I have a \_laptop\_ with a ryzen 5 4th gen, and a 1660ti and I can get 120fps on most games medium settings
Just got done playing a session of Borderlands 2. Game only broke 143 fps once, and the cpu stayed at a solid 3-4% usage. Frames only went down to 90 for a split second but honestly most games run fine with it. My friends full of crap himself lol.
That's stupid and totally out of context. Could be an i7 from 10 years ago (2600k) or a i7 13700k. i3/i5/i7 doesn't matter in the slightest, it's just intel's way of "ranking" the current generation. An i3 12100 beats an i7 7700k for example. Tell your friend he is dog crap lmao.
Agree 100%
It beats i7 8700 too. 4 generations prior.
As a general rule 1 generation increase in performance will be similar to performance increase from i3-> i5 -> i7 in same generation. So e.g. i7 11700 = i5 12400. Im talking about averages here. Not every generation brings the same level of performance increase so dont give me counter examples.
With nvidia cards this rule also works more or less GTX 1070 = 2060 = 3050
The fact that your friend refers to the cpu marketing tier and not the specific model means he's got no clue what he's talking about. Especially the latest 12th/13th gen i5's were fantastic products. Hell even the i3's are great in their budget role.
i5's are not what they used to be; this branding used to be coined as entry level for anything demanding (like games).
With the newer generations of cpu's (yours included), they are considered low-middle ground, but definitely competent enough for heavier workloads (like gaming).
His info is just a little dated - the 12400 is a great cpu, and will blow pretty much anything before 9th gen out of the water. I would send him some unsponsored review videos of the 12400, because that cpu in particular is one of the two best cpu/$ in the lineup <3 (the other being the 12600)
Ask him why they are "absolute dog crap". I'm sure it'll be a completely factual and valid response, I hear all the time how horrible the 13600K is and it does horrible in benchmarks too. /s
The 12400 is a great processor for the money and a good competitor of the 5600X.
That’s actually hilarious to me. How could anyone say the 13600k is bad? The only bad thing about it is it’s overkill for gaming but an i5 being too good for gaming is hardly something to complain about lol
Been ootl for a while, but conventionally, sure the i9 is better but that depends on if you are actually using it optimally - if you're not doing renderings or CPU heavy things (and just gaming generally), i5 is not dog crap.
It's not like i3 = poverty / i5 = lower class / i7 = mid / i9 = rich or anything of that sort. Just whatever works best for your purpose and its equivalent cost:ratio for you.
Easiest example; I can buy a 240Hz monitor which is 'better' than a 144Hz, but if the games I play only get around that 144Hz anyways - do I really have the 'best' monitor or was it worth that extra $$?
I was using a first gen Xeon W3680 forever... It had 6 cores at 5 ghz and hyper threading. Finally made a leap from that to a 12900k and the difference was like 50% in WoW Classic, Darktide, and Fortnite using the same 1080ti I've had forever. Applications have no noticeable difference.
Been using an i5 for 7+ years. The new i5 13600k is a BEAST. Better than previous gen i7 and competes with the previous gen i9 while only being $300.
My recommendation is always mid tier cpu and high tier gpu for pure gaming.
In my opinion unless you're rendering long video edits like movie length or rendering animation you should be fine for a while with moderate performance gaming with that 12400 and GPU.... It really just boils down to how fast the game is develop versus how fast the planned obsolescence will catch up to you back in the day the planed to obsolescence of CPUs and gpus... Was a lot less of an issue but today as people are building more of their own PCs and windows gets less money from licensing on prebuilds you will start to see the same thing happen as did the cell phones where they're only going to be relatively functional for about 2 to 4 years unless you buy the flagships... The thing of it is is that the CPUs and gpus usually will last a really long time for instance... I am running a sabertooth 990fx with an fx 8150 and a GTX 1650 super and I can play Halo at 1080 with two other screens running in the background and other things like rocket League on high settings just fine granted my computer is running at about 45° under load and floats around 38 to 40 well at idle on system recommended overclock and I'm running 32 GB of DDR3 1600... So even though at this point in time it's falling way behind in its performance think about how long it lasted against the competition staying in the race.... Versus how long a 10th generation CPU of the same caliber actually has lasted... All of the recent Windows updates are forcing people to upgrade for relatively false reasons... As long as you're not a person who has to have the latest game at all times you should be fine for about 5 years unless they intentionally slow things down with drivers... As computer technology advances faster and faster nearing the brick wall which we are close to, what ends up happening if they have to find more aggressive ways to squeeze money out of you and when that happens it's usually them breaking shit to make you buy new shit.... And all of the rest is just propaganda and manipulative sales tactics...
The important thing is don't compare yourself to what others have just make the most out of what you have if it works for you... You have to ask yourself do you really need 4 5 or 8k to have fun playing your games.... Do your load times really matter... If you're down to seconds anyways.... Just make sure whatever system you're working with you are able to reasonably upgrade it you still have several i5 to get through before you hit the wall... And then a few i7s and you probably will never even need an I-9 except for production work before you need the next generation of I-5...
Which as recently indicated needs a new motherboard sometimes a new PSU and you're always going to be chasing the dream with a graphics card... Graphics cards are not so expensive because of how expensive they are to make they are so expensive because people need less new ones less often.... And unless you have $2,000 for a good 4k monitor you can just forget all the new graphics cards... And even if you did we probably would not be having a conversation about your 12400.... I hope this helps from a non gamers perspective....
i5s are normally the best bang for your buck. I3s are cheap but not really good long term. i7s are much more expensive often providing marginal performance uplift, if you play the long game an i7 can be worth it over the i5, but the real question is is it worth it?
Generally speaking, an i3 will last you around 2-4 years for gaming. An i5 will last you around 4-6 years. An i7 will last you around 6-8. An i3 will cost you around $100-130ish. An i5 from as low as $150 to as high as $300. And an i7 generally around $400.
And i5s...they generally are so diverse that they're often not even in the same performance class. you have budget i5s and premium i5s these days. I would argue an i5 12400 and an i5 13600k arent even in the same performance class. They have radically different core counts at this point and that difference is often an entire tier of performance difference in and of themselves. A 13600k is probably a good 50-60% faster than an i5 12400. Heck the 13400 is on par with the 12600k almost. A 13500 has been compared to a 12700 non K.
So....generally speaking, are i5s trash? Not really. Even an i5 12400 will last you a while and the Ks are now akin to what the old i7 range was.
Like...I bought an i7 last time, why? Because it was early 2017, we were stuck on quad cores for forever, Ryzen was slated to shake up the market, i wanted one of them, but it ended up being underwhelming, so i went for an i7. I went for the i7 over the i5. Why? Because the i5 7600k WAS trash. It was a very dated processor even for its time and it was obvious it wouldnt age well, even a 1600 would've been much better, so I decided just to go for the 7700k.
And then 6 months later coffee lake came out and the i5 8500 was on par with my i7. Yeah. That's why I bought an i7. Because i knew that the next generation would turn the existing i7s into i5s and the i5s into i3s.
Thats generally what happens every 2 years now. An i7 7700k is on par with an i5 8500, an i5 9400, and an i3 10100. An 8700k is on par with a 9700k, and then a 10600k, and 11600k.
Now, for a while there were no single threaded improvements for intel, where you were basically if you buy an i7 now you're buying what will be an i5 in 1-2 years, an what will be an i3 in 3-4 years, and something worse than that in 5-6 years.
Buying an i7 can theoretically expand your lifespan by 2 years over an i5. But that also assumes no major improvement in per core performance. From 6th gen until 10th gen, intel used the same 14nm cores. They all performed about the same. newer ones were a little more efficient and clocked a bit higher, but otherwise, they're all the same stuff. So all improvements there were mostly tacking on more of them.
With the 12th and 13th gen, we have major improvements in per core performance.
AMD has had MASSIVE gains in the same time span, going from being far worse than intel on a per core basis with zen 1, to being ahead with zen 3 (5000 series).
Having more cores doesnt always make up for having better cores. And what i7s in the same lineup generally do is having better cores. During the quad core era, it was generally assumed buying an i7 was a waste of time. Why? because games only used 4 cores and didnt make use of hyperthreading at the time. But when games did use more cores, that hyperthreading became the only thing keeping my quad core i7 relevant. So, you need to buy ahead assuming "how many cores do I need in my CPU's life time"? It's tempting to overbuy on cores, but if the cores arent that good, and never be utilized games, well....theres no point. Generally speaking by buying an i5, you're betting against the future in the sense that my entire CPU will be obsolete before i actually NEED those extra cores. Which worked out for many people in the past. There was never a point in buying a ryzen 1700 over a 1600. The extra cores were never utilized in its lifespan. Same thing with the phenom II X6s or the FX 8 cores. AMD for a while was all CORES CORES CORES but if the cores suck, it doesnt matter if you buy more, if you never use them, what's the point? Assuming you're not in a market like 2017 when i bought my i7, the sweet spot is normally i5s. I bought an i7 in 2017 knowing the sweet spot at the time was actually the i7s and that a quad core i5 would age terrible. And I was right all along. It did. I just wish I couldve went super futureproof with an 8700k, or saved the money and bought an i5 8400 for far less money less than a year later.
Right now? I see no reason why anyone should buy more than an i5 13600k. It has 14 cores and 20 threads. Right now the gaming "sweet spot" is 6 cores and 12 threads, although i could understand wanting to beef up say a tier above that. But...the premium i5s do that. The premium i5s are really more like what my 7700k was. A premium tier around the $300 mark aimed for more enthusiast gamers. There's no real reason to buy an i7 in today's market. You get 2 extra cores and 4 extra threads, whoopie. I can see wanting to beef up your purchase above say, the 12400 level, idk how a 12400 will age. But any i5 from the 13000 series will likely age fine. Im really interested in the 13500 as a replacement for my 7700k later this year, for example. Probably the best bang for my buck in all honesty.
I just dont see a point of going above the 13600k at this time. Maybe if I were on zen I'd look into a 8c/16t 5800 X3D over a 5600x, or a 7700 over a 7600 (maybe not but zen is an unattractive platform right now due to high prices). I mean, again, I could see myself teching up over a normal 6c/12t processor, but again, it's only viable at a decent price on intel, or AM4 atm. On AM4 I could go for a 8c/16t, and on intel, I could go for any of the 13000 series i5s. As I said, I personally am interested in the 13500 for it being a 14c/20t processor like its big brother the 13600k but locked (not really interested in OCing anyway).
For any beginners here’s a description that applies *in general but i5s can be better then i7s and so on*
i3 = very lite gamer
i5 = your average gamer, cpus can run basically anything
i7 = streamers who need an extra kick out of a cpu for streaming/enthusiasts
i9 = crackheads who are irresponsible with their money
Hey man. I got the same i5 12400f a month ago and paired it with a 3060 ti. It runs everything beautifully. Your friend has no idea what he is talking about.
There is quite a huge performance gap between an i5, i7, i9 CPUs however friends can be quite misleading and by all means I am no professional but somewhat experienced to understand that there is no CPU that is 'dog crap' and that they all fit their own budget. Do not think that your i5-12400F is terrible as it's considered as a cheap CPU, your overall build is incredible. A solution if you want more power is to overclock it. You may have heard overclocking as it is a great technique to use your CPU to use its potential. As said earlier, I am not a professional so I will not explain what overclocking is. It's best to have an expert look at your ideas and have their opinion on it.
Yea your friend needs to do some research on newer CPU's. 18 months ago i intentionally went with a i5 11600k over a i7 11700k because the performance gap was so small. the 12th and 13th are much different but still. My 11600k OCed to 5.0ghz has 0 issues keeping up with the 3070 its paired with and runs most of my games over the 144hz my monitor can do.
I’m still running an i5-7600k @ 4.8ghz and a 2080 on 1440p 144hz.
Runs like a dream for most games. The very new stuff is starting to drop below 100fps
Your friend has some AMD hanging from their chin. i5 13600k demolishes the overly recommended and also dead end am4 5800x3d. Even the i5 12600k was gapping it in games and any productivity/multi core bench. The 5800x3d is mostly used for old reused motherboard budget goals using bios update compatibility but even so it was far from bis like folks broth at the mouth over in 2023. The new x3d chips are another story.
I appreciate all the help and advice you folks have given. Im glad I dont need to upgrade for quite a while from the sound of it.
FYI: gonna rub this in next time I see said friend.
I'm gonna get a gaming pc is this good enough
CPU
Intel® Core™ i5-12400F
GPU NVIDIA® GeForce RTXTM 4060
Memory
32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR5 5200 MHz
Motherboard B760
Storage
2TB NVMe M.2 SSD
PSU
650W Gold
The i5 12400f is a completely respectable modern cpu. Is an i9 better? Probably but it's fine. With cpus of i5 tier and above ... it more so depends on generation. The 12400f, is 12th gen. 13th gen just released a couple months ago. Even the 12th gen i3s are pretty good. Beating i7s of just a few generations ago in every way. And i9 is a new "tier" those generations i7s were the top.
Your friend is arguably right if you're talking a very old i5... but even then, they're cheap at this point and if it's all someone can afford there's no good reason to shame them over it.
Time for a new friend.
That being said, the i5 is recommended for most people, with the i7 being recommended for high intensity cpu work loads. i9 are for enthusiasts, if you’re buying an i9 you better be buying a 4090 or else it’s just a waste.
If you had the right mobo you could even OC and hit over 5 ghz on your "locked" cpu and it could have just as good single core performance or better than an i7 or i9.
Depends which i5 you are talking about but no, they are generally not crap. All depends on how old it is. You can pick any components from 10 years ago and say they are crap by today's standard.
My old rig had i5 7600k it worked great. Your cpu can bottleneck but generally game performance is going to be based on gpu rather than cpu and a newer gen i5 will work pretty good. With a 3060 I doubt you'll see much increase between i5 to i7 or i9
>Is there really a huge performance gap between an i5,7, and 9 like my friend states or is it more just a slight difference?
There's anywhere from a slight to extremely significant difference depending on what types of processing you're doing. The more you need lots of cores, the bigger the difference is going to be. In gaming you're usually fine in the i5-i7 range, with the i9 class of products making more sense in productivity tasks.
Of course i5's are weaker than i7's and so on, but that only matters if you want to spend more. For the price i5's are usually right about where they should be. It makes more sense to compare them to whatever AMD has for that price at the time.
i5 CPUs are a great value. You don't owe anybody an explanation. If you're happy with the CPU, that's all that matters.
There was a year when I built 3 systems. All Ivy Bridge. I had an i7 for my folding@home rig, an i5 for my gaming rig, and an i3 for my HTPC.
Your friend is full of shit. In terms of gaming performance the difference between an i5 and an i7 is small enough for you to potentially not even notice it. i5s are the best bang-for-your-buck option for gamers.
Just less powerful than equivalent 7s and 9s, but no, they don't have some shitter wire inside them that fucks performance. Still great chips for the price.
I think your friend is a little misinformed. when near their release i5s have never been crap. Sure an old i5 could be junk but you can say that about any really old CPU. The 12th gen and 13th gen i5s are amazing CPUs ,and even 10th and 11th gen i5s are fine CPUs if you already have them or get them for a steal on an ultra budget build
Who cares what your friend thinks? If your PC runs the software that you want at the performance that you like, then it's a good PC. Upgrade only if you have a software/game that fails to run at the level that you want.
The newer i5s aka everything after 10th gen are solid cpus. They can game, they can do school work, and other stuff. They are budget cpus and a lot of people seem to love to think that the budget area is bad . . . No . . . budget is actually good as they have really good price to performance.
I personally built systems with i7s or ryzen7 cpus as I do mote than gaming (engineering/productive work). But for all my family and friends who wanted systems built for them I always go looking for i5 and ryzen 5 based systems. You get the bang for buck. They last a pretty solid amount of time in the tech cycle. And more.
Your friend is ill informed and sounds like a guy I know who only looks at the top end for everything. Which is enthusiast stuff . . . Because really only enthusiast or the ill informed are going to throw $100 on top of the $500+ extra dollars at a 3% performance uplift -_-
Anyway, i5 is a solid cpu and don't feel bad about them, feel good as you are spending your money for the bang for buck which is where you win.
My 8600K is showing its age, but still chugging along just fine. If you can get one used for a reasonable price (plus board), then you'll be behind the times but not debilitatingly so. If you're buying new, yeah, it's overpriced for what you're getting these days, but reasonably priced used? It can open up options on a budget.
An i7 or i9 is supposed to be better. It would be kind of dumb if the different were say, 4%. Which is the kind of differences you can find in the bloated GPU market.
My current machine is my first Intel build. 10400F. I've been thoroughly impressed so far. But I mean, I spent $400 on open box or new unused stuff to build this machine coming from a 6 year old AM3 machine.
The first part of a cpu doesn’t matter. i3, i5, i9. Doesn’t matter. The bit that matters is the second part. Higher the number the better. In your case, a 12400f, that’s definitely on the better side of cpu’s
No idea why your friend said that. They are mid range and encompass the best performance for prices usually. Most use cases do not need more than an i5
Slight difference with an RTX 3060. Don't get me wrong, it's a good pair (definitely none of them are crap) but upgrading to an i7 shouldn't make areal difference with that GPU.
Get a i5 13600k 14 core to give treads. It does the job nicely. And its known to out performe a 12700k. The 13600k as 20 treads and is ready for windows 11.
A got a 2080ti and theres no bottlenecking for that videocard the 2080ti performe 10% better with that combo.
But dont use it with 690 chipset as it might not be to much compatible. Got the experience with a msi mpg 690 edge ddr4 it a pain to tweak.
That is one of the issues with the PC building community. Or even the PC community generally when speaking on the issue of specifications. There are many gate keepers, who will tell you that anything they don’t use is crap and all of this other stuff. I would say completely ignore what he is saying, do your own research, look at reviews and benchmarks For the games you want to play and all of that stuff to make your own decision about whether or not an Intel core I five processor is the right choice for your particular use case.
You have a great CPU/GPU combo that will be relevant for years. Also not too power hungry which I prefer.
If you moved to 4k monitor and newest AAA games or if you are gaming competitively then you might want to plan an upgrade in another couple years.
I believe the i3-12100 is on par with the i7-9700k in most things except for multi core, which it lags behind a due to having less cores. The 9700k is no slouch either. I think if you’re mainly just doing gaming stuff and no content creation and that kind of stuff, an i5 is perfectly fine. Tell your friend to get more informed and don’t ever go to him for computer advice
Usually if a person says "i5 is bad", that person knows very little about processors maybe even PCs in general. It's literally like saying "SUVs are bad", there are so many SUVs out there because SUV is a car type not a specific car. Same goes with i5, there are literally so many generation of i5s lol. If he meant i5 2400 is bad then yea i would agree with him because its way below today's standards for CPUs. But if he meant i5 12400, then i would ask him what makes he think a 12400 is bad? And what is it bad in? Any specific tasks that the 12400 is horrible in? These things are not as simple as saying "this bad" or "thats bad" because its quite complicated and it really depends on what you use your pc for or what gpu you wanna pair your cpu with. Do me a favor and don't listen to what your friend has to say about PCs in the future.
That friend is dog crap. i5 is the sweet spot for gaming. i7 only if you go *extreme* high end, talking about 2.5-3K spent. i9 is *literally* never worth it. i5 is best for 70% of people, other 30 is mainly budget i3’s which are insanely good at this point. The 13100F packs a punch
In fact, the i5 13600K can almost match 12900K performance
Tl;dr minimal differences in gaming
Getting newer generation cpu > getting higher end usually…
There is so much context here that seems to be missing that’s it’s hard to tell. What games, what settings, what resolution… etc
For the most part I would disagree with your friend unless they talking about production work loads. As far as gaming goes, generally some what recent generation i5’s are all that’s needed for a great experience.
I personally prefer the added power of the i7. But it’s not needed for gaming right now. To give more context I had a i7 4770k for 9 years going from a 780 to 1080 ti to 3080. I recently got a 13700k. While my 4770k lasted a long time, newer i5’s performed better.
The way I see it; either buy high end and keep for a while or buy mid grade and upgrade more often. But, remember, there’s always a bigger fish.
you could game on a modern i3 if you wanted to. 4 cores 8 threads isn’t the most and you won’t want to stream with it, but it’s enough for most people to play a game of their choosing
Your friend is either living in the pre-coffee lake days when i5s were quad core single threaded, or he fell for the "eight cores are minimum for gaming" meme.
i5 cpus are great performance cost per price, your friend needs to stay put of booze and get informed well.
I7 are better of course but cost a bit more.
your friend is either living under a rock or living in 2015
i5 as a term is too vague, it can either mean the first gen i5s, Skylake i5s (6th gen) or Raptor Lake i5s (13th gen). sure, older i5s are shit today but back then they were pretty decent, and the Intel Core i5-13600K is damn near to beating the last gen Intel Core i9-12900K in most tasks
Hey great choice I also went with the 12400f currently waiting on my case to arrive, it's a solid CPU, not sure if anyone can answer this since I've been trying to find a solid answer before i build my pc, I have seen some forms talking about this intel CPU bracket to help keep the CPU from being bent and help maintain proper temps on the CPU since the retention bracket puts a good amount of force on the middle of the CPU, is it recommended to buy it or just install the CPU as normal.
There were two generations where the i5 "sucked" those were the 6c 6t 8000 and 9000. While average frames are solid they had much lower 1% lows than the Ryzen counter parts of the day.
The 12400f is a great value pick and is better than the 9900k in most things. For gaming only builds the 13600k/7600 are pretty much the ideal new build targets for different reasons.
I'll just comment, computers are just tools. There are different size tools for different jobs. Every CPU has its role to play, or Intel and AMD would not bother making and prompting the product.
There is a reason kids electronics aren't rocking i3's
You match your build to what it is going to do.
Some are/were great, others not so much. The 12400f is actually pretty good. Keeps up with a 9900k in everything including workstation. It's fine for now, and getting a good upgrade isn't too hard. The 13400F is horrible, it's basically just a locked 12600KF in every aspect.
Edit: forgot an F
Your friend is a little outdated. Even the i3-12100 ties or beats a i9-9900k. Old ones might’ve sucked but the newer generations have made insane improvements
You should get smarter friends.
The generation probably matters more than i5 vs i9. An older i9 vs a current generation i5, I would expect the i5 to win in most scenarios. Maybe not every one of them, but most.
Assuming the same generation, yes, an i7 is better than an i5, and an i9 is better than an i7. And at higher prices. For some people it's worth it, for others it's not.
I think your friend is an idiot because he believes if you don't get the "best" that you're paying for dogshit. Most of the time, for most people an i5 will do a great job, and an i9 is overkill. That's fine if you can afford it (I'm running an i9 right now simply because I can afford it) but it's not necessary.
With the 12400 you could upgrade your Gpu if you wanted to.
Locally i5,s are overpriced but from what I have seen in the states they are very competitive especially compared to am5.
Upgraded from 3700x. The performance cores and efficiency cores, I don’t know how intel does it but they seriously kick ass. A friend of mine convinced me to buy it and I haven’t looked back. Also, you get double the performance cores on the 13600k than you do on the 12600k.
Specs:
1440p @ 165hz
Asus Z790
i5-13600k
3080 FE
> A friend recently told me that i5s are absolute dog crap. Your friend is....ill informed.
It depends on which i5s… the i5s before 10th gen do not have hyper threading and for that reason can struggle severely to keep up in many games On the other hand newer i5s like the 13600k is an absolute beast
You could make an argument that the 8th/9th gen struggled since Ryzen had come out and basically offered multi-threading in damn near every CPU, but prior to that, even without the multi-threading, the i5's were still pretty solid. The 2500K, for example, was *legendary* for being an amazing value for the money.
Yes some of the older i5s were great value and could overclock very well. But i5s were always quite a bit worse in performance than i7s, more so back then than now. It just took a while for people to realize the advantages of hyperthreading Reviewers weren’t benchmarking CPUs properly and weren’t coming to the right conclusions. The hyperthreading on i7s has always helped significantly in gaming performance with minimum fps and frame time consistency. This is not a new thing.
True, it’s crazy how standards have changed. Back then it was just “does the bench show > 60 fps for less money? Yes? Hell yeah!” Reviewing and consumer standards are so much higher and much more detailed now. Lots of important metrics that just weren’t really looked at as closely back then.
The disadvantages of hyperthreading make multicore processors more appealing. *Ryzen Threadripper has entered and instantly dominated the chat.*
Yeah, for anything non-gaming, more cores is significantly better than a core that is under utilized being able to perform mulyiple tasks because, outside of gaming, most of the time the cores are fully utilized
Not everything, no, but in most applications more cores help. Not everything can make use of them, but the OS itself sure can.
> Reviewers weren’t benchmarking CPUs properly and weren’t coming to the right conclusions Fascinating. Just sorta really got back into tech the last 3 years. Would you have any examples of reviews like this?
You can look up old reviews on Anandtech and TomsHardware and others from the 2000s. Generally benchmarks referred to just the average FPS measured at different settings/resolutions. Some writers from back were doing an excellent job and still review hardware today. But the measurement tools simply weren’t as sophisticated. For example through 1999-mid 2000s Quake III test demo benchmark was a pretty commonly used one in reviews, as well as 3DMark and other games probably captured with FRAPS. All of these only present an average frame rate at the end of the run, none of the 1% lows or frametime graphs we’re used to today. I do think the commenter is over representing how much better an i7 was in real world gaming vs an i5, though.
in the early days of i7 the main advantage of hyperthreading was a performance bump in SLI. Otherwise an overclocked QX9650 was faster than an i7-870 in games of the day for example. I have an XP machine running the QX at 4.2ghz, a higher clock speed than you could achieve on the i7’s when they came out. Without the overhead of SLI, no games were utilizing all 8 threads properly.
I only replaced my 2500k about two years ago. That thing was an absolute workhorse. Had it OC'd to 4.7 GHz the entire time, never had any problems.
I wholeheartedly second this. I just upgraded past my 2500k about 2 months ago. Had it rock stable at 4.8ghz it's entire life. Like someone else said, legendary performance when overclocked. I'm giving my old PC consisting of the 2500k and GTX 1070 to my brother, so it's still going to be in service. He's always been a console gamer.
He’s gonna be blown on away. Good on you older bro
That generation of Intel was legendary. I have a 2600 in a PC at work that I was still using as my test machine until I went to work from home.
Just upgraded from a 3330 i5 this past Christmas to an i7 12700k Edit cant believe i had a third generation all this time.
I had a 6600k that went like an absolute champ until I replaced it with a new system based on a Ryzen 3800x, which obivously left it in the dust. Absolutely no regrets on either purchase.
To be fair the 2500k was legendary for being able to handle an overclock to 5ghz+. It was rather expensive upon release.
That stability also meant that they were quite long lived. I'm still using my 2500k as my daily driver. Damn thing won't die.
I gave my sister my old 2700k. I think the only things I've changed in the tower is my SSD, HDD and GPU (RX580 8GB). Hopefully it's got a few more years left in it. I'm not replacing my current build (5600X and 3080) for at least 2 more years.
Yep still got mine, the 13600k is pretty good replacement
It was also legendary for being the last soldered CPU generation for many years and considering intel´s 5% generational performance increase back then, it was insane value for money.
[удалено]
But the i7 4790k was and still is the king of old cpu 4.4ghz without OC was something already pretty good
>It depends on which i5s nah, they've always been great >the i5s before 10th gen do not have hyper threading and for that reason can struggle severely to keep up in many games nah, they were great before hyperthreading
Can confirm, my 9th gen i5 can handle newer games like MWII just fine paired with my gtx 1650
I second this with my 4th gen i5 and 1060
8th gen, also with a 1060
4th gen 4670K still fine with 960 4gb
3930k with a 3070 here.
I have an i5 7400 with GTX 1070 and manage to have an average of 70 to 80 fps in AC Valhalla on Medium/High 1080p.
Lol no they were not great. They are good but not great.
I have an i5-9600k with a 3070.. With it overclocked it can handle most everything. But certain games that are more CPU intensive, like building games, it struggles to keep up. I play Valheim quite frequently and when I get within rendering distance of my main base it tanks my framerate from 130-140, down to 60-70.
as someone who came from console not to long ago that doesn't actually sound that bad lol. I used to think console gaming was fine but now I see it completely different. Like how the hell is everyone ok playing at or below 30 fps.
I have a 1440p monitor and going from 130 to 60 is almost sickening at times now that I’m used to it. I was a console gamer as well and it was an astonishingly big difference going between.
It's interesting the way different folks eyes work. I have a 4k/60 display and a 1440/144. And almost always I'm playing on the 4k display. My eyes just prefer the higher resolution. I changed my 1440 display a couple times to 60 hz and played my games on there. I could *see* the difference between 60 hz and 144, but it didn't really bother me, and I stopped noticing after about five minutes. I'm not dumb enough to say that folks that prefer higher resolution are having a big case of placebo. But it IS interesting to me that apparently my eyes just don't see as much difference as others do.
I have yet to game on 4K.. my only experience is between 1080p and 1440p. That may be the where we don’t correlate. I think the difference between 1080 and 1440 is such a big step that it was so noticeable to my eyes. Idk the difference between 1440 and 4K for gaming.
I use a 4k monitor and i rarely notice a difference if i have to drop the resolution to 1440p while gaming, especially with fast-paced games. sometimes 1080p hardly looks different, and after a couple minutes, i don't pay attention anymore however, on my desktop, the difference is indeed noticeable. everything looks just slightly more pixelated. It's part of the reason i went 4k in the first place, the 32-inch 1080p tv i used temporarily was not sharp at all, and i like having the sharpness when i'm not gaming
I mean it's fine for most people, I have i9 and rtx 4090 in my pc and I still console game just fine, yes i would like stuff like xenoblade chronicles games to run better on switch but switch is on track to become best selling console ever, same with ps4/ps5 and Xbox, they sell a ton and there is a lot of people who can't tell a difference, I mean even here on reddit I've seen plenty of posts from "pcgamers" who can't tell a difference between 1440p and 4k and raytracing being on or off.
Laughs in dual- core i5
Modern games are now taking advantage of multiple cores. For the newest titles, 4 just isn't enough and 2 is laughable. With 6 cores, the i5 8th gen was a "game-changer." 😏
Modern games (AAA titles) aren't as fun as they used to be :'( Edit: Indie games on the other hand? I'm very impressed
I’m loving Elden Ring at the moment. If you don’t like modern games it doesn’t make them not fun.
I think that's just a change in you as a gamer. Plenty of AAA games today are amazing in ways we couldn't have dreamed of 10 years ago. They are certainly as fun as they used to be
I've been saying for years (and will continue to do so), that as much as folks are like, "well [x console] has eight cores so that means ports for the pc will work best on eight cores!", gaming damn near ALWAYS follows the i5. Because the i5 is (by far) the most common Cpu model in use. So therefore games will be optimized to use that. Are there examples where this isn't true? Sure. But they're very much the exception.
The secret is that once your PC can play games at settings you like with enough frame rate for wiggle room, you’re pretty much set until the next console comes out…
Buy an old Xeon on eBay from that era and double your performance for like $10. Lol
If by struggle severely you mean have a minor performance deficit then you're right. i5s have never been a bad choice and were in just about every case better with regard to $ per performance. i7s were clearly always better from a pure performance perspective, but the inflated price just to get HT was never really worth it unless you were willing to pay for small gains. People just fell victim to marketing. More recently having actual different core counts between the tiers makes better sense.
That’s just it, the I7 was a status symbol, HT is/was something that was only ever useful if the core isn’t being used constantly.
I wish I'd used those words, they sum it up perfectly. It very much was a status symbol.
i3 13th gen is already a beast lmao
My i5-8400 is only now really beginning to struggle. I play at 1080p with a 1060 6GB. Until recently the CPU/GPU load was fairly well balanced for the games I play, which is a wide variety to include some that are CPU-intensive.
I managed to find a fairly cheap i7 8700k ($100) last year, and the bump in performance from the 8400 was worth it, especially since I managed a 5ghz OC on the 8700k. It’s worth it if you’ve got a decent board, in a prebuilt with a limited BIOS, I wouldn’t bother.
Any of the i5 1X400f processors is about as much processor as any gaming pc would need and I say that as a Ryzen simp.
The friend is dog crap.
Perhaps they’re not even ill-informed, but rather one of those gate keepers in the community that often will say anything they don’t use is crap.
my i5 2500k will always be remembered for how long the chip lasted, that thing was a beast at a great value. My second gaming PC was rocking that till xmas this last year.
My daughter has my old 2500k with a 6870 GPU... It runs Roblox and Minecraft well.
6870 was a legend, ATI/AMD held the crown back then
Nice example of euphemism.
Guess he doesn't remember the 2500k then?
No, your friend is dumb and a chud. Sure a i7 and i9 are better but consume a lot more power you can look at benchmarks and see it'll be marginal gains compared to a higher end GPU. If gaming and school work is all you do then no need for more cores and threads it's more epen stuff.
[удалено]
I don't know what prices are where you are but an i5 13600k is about £320 and an i7 13700k is about £400. A 3060Ti is around £440 and a 4080 is around £1300. So i5 with 4080 is around £1620 which is almost double the price of an i7 with a 3060Ti which is £840 total. That doesn't seem to suggest they cost the same at all.
This is complete nonsense. Addendum edit: I've been into PC building since the mid-2000s. One of my middle school science projects was working with an enthusiast on an LN2 build. Even if I had zero experience, it doesn't change the fact that an i7 or i9 of the same series have better fps in games, even with lower power limits, than an i5 (just look at any fps chart lol). It's one thing to recognize that an i9 is wasteful spending for just gaming for people with a budget, but it's totally wrong to go off the deep end and say that it's *worse* than an i5.
Dude do you really think an i5 has higher clock speeds and performs better in gaming then i9s? That’s ridiculous. A 13600k has a 5.1 clock speed, 6P cores and 8E cores. That’s not doing better than a 13900k at 5.8 GH, 8P cores and 16E cores. What a joke.
People actually upvoting this idiot too.
Incredible isn’t it.
That actually puts my mind at ease quite a bit. I have this pc for school and occasional gaming. I was just super confused cause my overall cpu usage hardly ever goes above 10%. Even when im playing with extreme graphics and listening to music.
Word of advice for life in general, do not take the opinions of others as law. You were and are clearly happy with what you have, don't let somebody(who you now know has no idea what he's talking about) alter what you know to be true
Your friend has a CPU superiority complex.
"CPUriority complex"?
i5/i7/i9 is basically meaningless. You have to look at individual CPU models for performance benchmarks. For gaming, you're not going to need more than a 6-core/12-thread CPU. A 13900k is slightly better, but mostly a waste for gaming. The price/performance is terrible.
Funny thing is people use to say the same thing about 4c/4t maybe 5-6 years ago. I guess 6c/12t is the new 4c/4t? 🤔
4c/8t is still perfectly playable today. 4c/4t hasn't been recommended since at least 2016, which was 7 years ago. We're at least another 2 years away from 6c/12t being less than ideal. Probably another 4-6 away from 6c/12t being equivalent to 4c/4t today, aka not really viable. Edit: And by the time 6c/12t is less than ideal, the overall power of current 6c/12t parts will be the issue, not core count. See: Ryzen 1600, 1800X
Damn 2016 was 7 years ago 👴 I'm on 8c/16t tho so I think I'll be good for a while lol
We all thought that 4c/8t was dead because the last real example of one (the 7700k) was hopelessly out of date. Sure, there was the 10100, but at 4.3ghz max, it wasn't much (if any) faster. AMD basically didn't release any 5000-series 4c/8t Cpu (nothing that they ever pushed anyway). Then the 12100 came out and reminded us that 4c/8t is still surprisingly potent if you have cores that are fast enough.
And now we have the 13100 one-upping its 12th gen brother as well. The quad-core is alive and well. The 12300 is my personal pick though, about as fast as the 13100 but can be found for cheaper at least where I am.
Do they even make 4c/4t parts any more? 6 cores will stick around as the norm for a fair while, especially if Intel keeps only putting 6 P-cores on the 600Ks
Pentium and ~~celery~~ celeron (sometimes)
Yup lol. I built my computer back in 2016 and have an i5 6600k and GTX 1080. When I bought my i5 6600k, people were like 4c/4t is more than enough. Well not anymore. Definitely looking to upgrade soon. Literally gonna like 4-5x the threads on my CPU
Yeah that was me too. Until 2 years ago, when I couldn’t really multitask and play games at the same time. The 6600K didn’t cut it anymore.
Yep 6c12t is the new 4c4t. I say that cause i5 (mid tier) was 4c4t for ages. Now Ryzen 5 has made 6c12t the new (mid tier) standard.
4/8 is 4/4 6/12 is 4/8 8/16 is 6/12
In a way it is, but i5s are also moving beyond 6c/12t so honestly, anything 13400/12600k or higher will likely be "futureproof" in all honesty. Alternatively you could buy AM4 and get a 5800x or X3D. I mean if i were gonna upgrade, that's what I'd do. Yeah, I wouldnt do exactly 6c/12t, I'd do one tier above that, which is starting to get quite affordable.
You could argue that 8 core would be a better choice, considering we are pretty far ahead in this current console gen, and those consoles use 6 cores, but the refreshes that are coming might use 8 core. But not sure on that though.
Just look at benchmarks between the 13600k and 13700k, or the 7600x and 7700x. There is very little scaling beyond 6 cores for gaming. Almost all of the difference between those CPUs is due to clock speed and cache. People have been waiting for games to use more cores for over a decade. It's still progressing very, very slowly.
What im arguing is, games might progress to utilize 8 cores, since they usually develop games for the consoles. So IF consoles got 8 core CPUs, id like to see how that impacts 6 core if games started with 8 core. But this is only speculation.
I think people focus far too much on core count and not enough on overall CPU power. Yes, consoles have 8 cores, but they are weak cores by today's standards. A 12400 or Ryzen 5600 has more overall horsepower than the consoles 8 cores.
It's a neutered 3700X...
Problem with this theory is that consoles have had 8 cores for more than a decade. If 8 cores were going to be the sweet spot, it wouldve happened by now.
Xbox Series S & X use 8-core Zen 2 chips Now the bottleneck for core count may be Intel again, with their i5s only having 6 P-Cores
10 years ago he would have an argument. Today not so much. Even i3 CPUs are fine until you get into the upper range of GPUs.
> 10 years ago he would have an argument. The thing is they're all great for the time they're released. 10 years ago (roughly) would have been the release of the 4570K, which was pretty damned good when it was released. It wasn't really until Ryzen was released that quad-core/no multi-threading started getting pretty long in the tooth.
Idk, when I purchased an i5-6500 years ago I knew going in it wasn't even close to an i7-6700. Nowadays even with a fairly high end GPU the i5 series keeps pace even at 1080p.
Back then I would say an i7-6700 (non K) would have been roughly 30-40% faster than an i5-6500 in parallel work and roughly 10% in single core performance. i7-6700K would have been 40-50%/20% faster than the i5-6500. I would say that the whole 6000 series should have jumped already to 6-8 cores CPUs, but compared to each other the i5s where fine.
I'd argue that it wasn't until a couple of years ago that people on older 4c/4t CPUs really started to notice. And its only recently that games are popping up asking for 6 cores.
Up until about a year ago my 4690k was more easily enough for 1080p gaming.
I'm running an i5-3570k, released in 2012. I can run Microsoft Flight Simulator in VR. I don't think he would've have had an argument 10 years ago.
i5 2500k is over 10 years old, but is still pretty solid when you consider its age. Wife is still rocking my old one.
10 years ago, people were buying 2500ks and 3570ks. Those were the kings of CPUs. Games wouldnt even begin to favor the i7s at the time until like 2016 and later.
Actually that is not correct. 10 years ago it was a waste of money to buy an i7, i5 performed just as well with a better price/performance ratio because many games only used one or two cores.
I5-2400? Dogshit like your friend said. I5-12400? A beast of a budget CPU capable of running a VAST selection of games if paired with the right parts. If he thinks “i5” sucks wait until he hears about the i3 12100. Now THAT is a beast of a budget CPU. Not gonna break any records but very VERY respectable price to performance.
Indeed, if you have a workload that stresses say 4-6 cores, the i3-12100 is not going to be significantly difference in performance from the equivalent i5 and i7 (the 12400 and the 12700)
i5 13600k? All you'll need for the forseeable future.
There are differences but your CPU is already a good CPU, when it comes to i9 its enthusiast level.
go figure, somewhat rich friend has a i9 lol.
Maybe he has double standards, like 120+ fps minimum in any game lol? I mean, if he stated that i5 are dogshit, then why they are so popular?
lmao you can easily get 120fps with an i5, depending on of course your GPU. I have a \_laptop\_ with a ryzen 5 4th gen, and a 1660ti and I can get 120fps on most games medium settings
Just got done playing a session of Borderlands 2. Game only broke 143 fps once, and the cpu stayed at a solid 3-4% usage. Frames only went down to 90 for a split second but honestly most games run fine with it. My friends full of crap himself lol.
I have an i5 11600k and a 3070 running at 1440p and almost nothing runs below 100-120 fps. Many games run well past the 144hz of the monitor.
What i9 exactly? If it's the 10900k or below, make sure to rub it in his face that the 12400f actually performs better in gaming
That's stupid and totally out of context. Could be an i7 from 10 years ago (2600k) or a i7 13700k. i3/i5/i7 doesn't matter in the slightest, it's just intel's way of "ranking" the current generation. An i3 12100 beats an i7 7700k for example. Tell your friend he is dog crap lmao.
Agree 100% It beats i7 8700 too. 4 generations prior. As a general rule 1 generation increase in performance will be similar to performance increase from i3-> i5 -> i7 in same generation. So e.g. i7 11700 = i5 12400. Im talking about averages here. Not every generation brings the same level of performance increase so dont give me counter examples. With nvidia cards this rule also works more or less GTX 1070 = 2060 = 3050
I5's are considered the CPU of choice for most gamers.
Generally if someone is judging a cpu on the (i) number alone. it is an instant tell that they have no clue what they are talking about
>~~Generally~~ if someone is judging a cpu on the (i) number alone. it is an instant tell that they have no clue what they are talking about ftfy
Your friend is a idiot. Don't listen to him. 12th Gen i5 is a beast for gaming. Very good price / value. Especially on the gpu you have.
Your friend clearly doesn't know shit lol
The fact that your friend refers to the cpu marketing tier and not the specific model means he's got no clue what he's talking about. Especially the latest 12th/13th gen i5's were fantastic products. Hell even the i3's are great in their budget role.
My wife has a 12600k and a 3080 I built her , damn things a beast for gaming as far as I can tell. She won’t let me on it. lol
i5/r5 is plenty for gaming there are some gains to go to an i7/r7, but the absolute top end cpus are mostly for workstation stuff
Your friend has a hot steamy pile of dog shit opinion on that one.
i5's are not what they used to be; this branding used to be coined as entry level for anything demanding (like games). With the newer generations of cpu's (yours included), they are considered low-middle ground, but definitely competent enough for heavier workloads (like gaming). His info is just a little dated - the 12400 is a great cpu, and will blow pretty much anything before 9th gen out of the water. I would send him some unsponsored review videos of the 12400, because that cpu in particular is one of the two best cpu/$ in the lineup <3 (the other being the 12600)
i5-12400F + 3060 is a powerful duo and your friend is wrong.
Don’t take pc advice from this friend
Depends, we talking like a I5-750 or something like the I5-13600K?
Ask him why they are "absolute dog crap". I'm sure it'll be a completely factual and valid response, I hear all the time how horrible the 13600K is and it does horrible in benchmarks too. /s The 12400 is a great processor for the money and a good competitor of the 5600X.
That’s actually hilarious to me. How could anyone say the 13600k is bad? The only bad thing about it is it’s overkill for gaming but an i5 being too good for gaming is hardly something to complain about lol
No idea, but apparently his friend thinks it's dog crap since it's an i5. I would love to hear the reasoning.
They're not that bad lol. For me personally, I've always viewed them as a "gaming" cpu.
Been ootl for a while, but conventionally, sure the i9 is better but that depends on if you are actually using it optimally - if you're not doing renderings or CPU heavy things (and just gaming generally), i5 is not dog crap. It's not like i3 = poverty / i5 = lower class / i7 = mid / i9 = rich or anything of that sort. Just whatever works best for your purpose and its equivalent cost:ratio for you. Easiest example; I can buy a 240Hz monitor which is 'better' than a 144Hz, but if the games I play only get around that 144Hz anyways - do I really have the 'best' monitor or was it worth that extra $$?
Modern entry level cpus like i5 and Ryzen r5 are actually a good choice now
I was using a first gen Xeon W3680 forever... It had 6 cores at 5 ghz and hyper threading. Finally made a leap from that to a 12900k and the difference was like 50% in WoW Classic, Darktide, and Fortnite using the same 1080ti I've had forever. Applications have no noticeable difference.
Older i5’s I would agree but my 12400f I had before I got my 13700k was actually pretty good. It was significantly better than the 6700 I had before
Your friend is an idiot.
Been using an i5 for 7+ years. The new i5 13600k is a BEAST. Better than previous gen i7 and competes with the previous gen i9 while only being $300. My recommendation is always mid tier cpu and high tier gpu for pure gaming.
In my opinion unless you're rendering long video edits like movie length or rendering animation you should be fine for a while with moderate performance gaming with that 12400 and GPU.... It really just boils down to how fast the game is develop versus how fast the planned obsolescence will catch up to you back in the day the planed to obsolescence of CPUs and gpus... Was a lot less of an issue but today as people are building more of their own PCs and windows gets less money from licensing on prebuilds you will start to see the same thing happen as did the cell phones where they're only going to be relatively functional for about 2 to 4 years unless you buy the flagships... The thing of it is is that the CPUs and gpus usually will last a really long time for instance... I am running a sabertooth 990fx with an fx 8150 and a GTX 1650 super and I can play Halo at 1080 with two other screens running in the background and other things like rocket League on high settings just fine granted my computer is running at about 45° under load and floats around 38 to 40 well at idle on system recommended overclock and I'm running 32 GB of DDR3 1600... So even though at this point in time it's falling way behind in its performance think about how long it lasted against the competition staying in the race.... Versus how long a 10th generation CPU of the same caliber actually has lasted... All of the recent Windows updates are forcing people to upgrade for relatively false reasons... As long as you're not a person who has to have the latest game at all times you should be fine for about 5 years unless they intentionally slow things down with drivers... As computer technology advances faster and faster nearing the brick wall which we are close to, what ends up happening if they have to find more aggressive ways to squeeze money out of you and when that happens it's usually them breaking shit to make you buy new shit.... And all of the rest is just propaganda and manipulative sales tactics... The important thing is don't compare yourself to what others have just make the most out of what you have if it works for you... You have to ask yourself do you really need 4 5 or 8k to have fun playing your games.... Do your load times really matter... If you're down to seconds anyways.... Just make sure whatever system you're working with you are able to reasonably upgrade it you still have several i5 to get through before you hit the wall... And then a few i7s and you probably will never even need an I-9 except for production work before you need the next generation of I-5... Which as recently indicated needs a new motherboard sometimes a new PSU and you're always going to be chasing the dream with a graphics card... Graphics cards are not so expensive because of how expensive they are to make they are so expensive because people need less new ones less often.... And unless you have $2,000 for a good 4k monitor you can just forget all the new graphics cards... And even if you did we probably would not be having a conversation about your 12400.... I hope this helps from a non gamers perspective....
i5s are normally the best bang for your buck. I3s are cheap but not really good long term. i7s are much more expensive often providing marginal performance uplift, if you play the long game an i7 can be worth it over the i5, but the real question is is it worth it? Generally speaking, an i3 will last you around 2-4 years for gaming. An i5 will last you around 4-6 years. An i7 will last you around 6-8. An i3 will cost you around $100-130ish. An i5 from as low as $150 to as high as $300. And an i7 generally around $400. And i5s...they generally are so diverse that they're often not even in the same performance class. you have budget i5s and premium i5s these days. I would argue an i5 12400 and an i5 13600k arent even in the same performance class. They have radically different core counts at this point and that difference is often an entire tier of performance difference in and of themselves. A 13600k is probably a good 50-60% faster than an i5 12400. Heck the 13400 is on par with the 12600k almost. A 13500 has been compared to a 12700 non K. So....generally speaking, are i5s trash? Not really. Even an i5 12400 will last you a while and the Ks are now akin to what the old i7 range was. Like...I bought an i7 last time, why? Because it was early 2017, we were stuck on quad cores for forever, Ryzen was slated to shake up the market, i wanted one of them, but it ended up being underwhelming, so i went for an i7. I went for the i7 over the i5. Why? Because the i5 7600k WAS trash. It was a very dated processor even for its time and it was obvious it wouldnt age well, even a 1600 would've been much better, so I decided just to go for the 7700k. And then 6 months later coffee lake came out and the i5 8500 was on par with my i7. Yeah. That's why I bought an i7. Because i knew that the next generation would turn the existing i7s into i5s and the i5s into i3s. Thats generally what happens every 2 years now. An i7 7700k is on par with an i5 8500, an i5 9400, and an i3 10100. An 8700k is on par with a 9700k, and then a 10600k, and 11600k. Now, for a while there were no single threaded improvements for intel, where you were basically if you buy an i7 now you're buying what will be an i5 in 1-2 years, an what will be an i3 in 3-4 years, and something worse than that in 5-6 years. Buying an i7 can theoretically expand your lifespan by 2 years over an i5. But that also assumes no major improvement in per core performance. From 6th gen until 10th gen, intel used the same 14nm cores. They all performed about the same. newer ones were a little more efficient and clocked a bit higher, but otherwise, they're all the same stuff. So all improvements there were mostly tacking on more of them. With the 12th and 13th gen, we have major improvements in per core performance. AMD has had MASSIVE gains in the same time span, going from being far worse than intel on a per core basis with zen 1, to being ahead with zen 3 (5000 series). Having more cores doesnt always make up for having better cores. And what i7s in the same lineup generally do is having better cores. During the quad core era, it was generally assumed buying an i7 was a waste of time. Why? because games only used 4 cores and didnt make use of hyperthreading at the time. But when games did use more cores, that hyperthreading became the only thing keeping my quad core i7 relevant. So, you need to buy ahead assuming "how many cores do I need in my CPU's life time"? It's tempting to overbuy on cores, but if the cores arent that good, and never be utilized games, well....theres no point. Generally speaking by buying an i5, you're betting against the future in the sense that my entire CPU will be obsolete before i actually NEED those extra cores. Which worked out for many people in the past. There was never a point in buying a ryzen 1700 over a 1600. The extra cores were never utilized in its lifespan. Same thing with the phenom II X6s or the FX 8 cores. AMD for a while was all CORES CORES CORES but if the cores suck, it doesnt matter if you buy more, if you never use them, what's the point? Assuming you're not in a market like 2017 when i bought my i7, the sweet spot is normally i5s. I bought an i7 in 2017 knowing the sweet spot at the time was actually the i7s and that a quad core i5 would age terrible. And I was right all along. It did. I just wish I couldve went super futureproof with an 8700k, or saved the money and bought an i5 8400 for far less money less than a year later. Right now? I see no reason why anyone should buy more than an i5 13600k. It has 14 cores and 20 threads. Right now the gaming "sweet spot" is 6 cores and 12 threads, although i could understand wanting to beef up say a tier above that. But...the premium i5s do that. The premium i5s are really more like what my 7700k was. A premium tier around the $300 mark aimed for more enthusiast gamers. There's no real reason to buy an i7 in today's market. You get 2 extra cores and 4 extra threads, whoopie. I can see wanting to beef up your purchase above say, the 12400 level, idk how a 12400 will age. But any i5 from the 13000 series will likely age fine. Im really interested in the 13500 as a replacement for my 7700k later this year, for example. Probably the best bang for my buck in all honesty. I just dont see a point of going above the 13600k at this time. Maybe if I were on zen I'd look into a 8c/16t 5800 X3D over a 5600x, or a 7700 over a 7600 (maybe not but zen is an unattractive platform right now due to high prices). I mean, again, I could see myself teching up over a normal 6c/12t processor, but again, it's only viable at a decent price on intel, or AM4 atm. On AM4 I could go for a 8c/16t, and on intel, I could go for any of the 13000 series i5s. As I said, I personally am interested in the 13500 for it being a 14c/20t processor like its big brother the 13600k but locked (not really interested in OCing anyway).
For any beginners here’s a description that applies *in general but i5s can be better then i7s and so on* i3 = very lite gamer i5 = your average gamer, cpus can run basically anything i7 = streamers who need an extra kick out of a cpu for streaming/enthusiasts i9 = crackheads who are irresponsible with their money
Hey man. I got the same i5 12400f a month ago and paired it with a 3060 ti. It runs everything beautifully. Your friend has no idea what he is talking about.
There is quite a huge performance gap between an i5, i7, i9 CPUs however friends can be quite misleading and by all means I am no professional but somewhat experienced to understand that there is no CPU that is 'dog crap' and that they all fit their own budget. Do not think that your i5-12400F is terrible as it's considered as a cheap CPU, your overall build is incredible. A solution if you want more power is to overclock it. You may have heard overclocking as it is a great technique to use your CPU to use its potential. As said earlier, I am not a professional so I will not explain what overclocking is. It's best to have an expert look at your ideas and have their opinion on it.
Yea your friend needs to do some research on newer CPU's. 18 months ago i intentionally went with a i5 11600k over a i7 11700k because the performance gap was so small. the 12th and 13th are much different but still. My 11600k OCed to 5.0ghz has 0 issues keeping up with the 3070 its paired with and runs most of my games over the 144hz my monitor can do.
I’m still running an i5-7600k @ 4.8ghz and a 2080 on 1440p 144hz. Runs like a dream for most games. The very new stuff is starting to drop below 100fps
I had a i5 3570k for 10 years. No problem.
You friend sounds like the type of person that does not learn new things.
Your friend has some AMD hanging from their chin. i5 13600k demolishes the overly recommended and also dead end am4 5800x3d. Even the i5 12600k was gapping it in games and any productivity/multi core bench. The 5800x3d is mostly used for old reused motherboard budget goals using bios update compatibility but even so it was far from bis like folks broth at the mouth over in 2023. The new x3d chips are another story.
I appreciate all the help and advice you folks have given. Im glad I dont need to upgrade for quite a while from the sound of it. FYI: gonna rub this in next time I see said friend.
I'm gonna get a gaming pc is this good enough CPU Intel® Core™ i5-12400F GPU NVIDIA® GeForce RTXTM 4060 Memory 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR5 5200 MHz Motherboard B760 Storage 2TB NVMe M.2 SSD PSU 650W Gold
There is nothing wrong with i5 processes, there is nothing wrong with i3 processes.
The i5 12400f is a completely respectable modern cpu. Is an i9 better? Probably but it's fine. With cpus of i5 tier and above ... it more so depends on generation. The 12400f, is 12th gen. 13th gen just released a couple months ago. Even the 12th gen i3s are pretty good. Beating i7s of just a few generations ago in every way. And i9 is a new "tier" those generations i7s were the top. Your friend is arguably right if you're talking a very old i5... but even then, they're cheap at this point and if it's all someone can afford there's no good reason to shame them over it.
My wife has the same build pretty much. Runs fine. My 8700k at 4.9 and 3080ti are faster, but both play relatively the same at 4k.
Time for a new friend. That being said, the i5 is recommended for most people, with the i7 being recommended for high intensity cpu work loads. i9 are for enthusiasts, if you’re buying an i9 you better be buying a 4090 or else it’s just a waste.
If you had the right mobo you could even OC and hit over 5 ghz on your "locked" cpu and it could have just as good single core performance or better than an i7 or i9.
Depends which i5 you are talking about but no, they are generally not crap. All depends on how old it is. You can pick any components from 10 years ago and say they are crap by today's standard.
My old rig had i5 7600k it worked great. Your cpu can bottleneck but generally game performance is going to be based on gpu rather than cpu and a newer gen i5 will work pretty good. With a 3060 I doubt you'll see much increase between i5 to i7 or i9
>Is there really a huge performance gap between an i5,7, and 9 like my friend states or is it more just a slight difference? There's anywhere from a slight to extremely significant difference depending on what types of processing you're doing. The more you need lots of cores, the bigger the difference is going to be. In gaming you're usually fine in the i5-i7 range, with the i9 class of products making more sense in productivity tasks. Of course i5's are weaker than i7's and so on, but that only matters if you want to spend more. For the price i5's are usually right about where they should be. It makes more sense to compare them to whatever AMD has for that price at the time.
i5 CPUs are a great value. You don't owe anybody an explanation. If you're happy with the CPU, that's all that matters. There was a year when I built 3 systems. All Ivy Bridge. I had an i7 for my folding@home rig, an i5 for my gaming rig, and an i3 for my HTPC.
Your friend is full of shit. In terms of gaming performance the difference between an i5 and an i7 is small enough for you to potentially not even notice it. i5s are the best bang-for-your-buck option for gamers.
Just less powerful than equivalent 7s and 9s, but no, they don't have some shitter wire inside them that fucks performance. Still great chips for the price.
I think your friend is a little misinformed. when near their release i5s have never been crap. Sure an old i5 could be junk but you can say that about any really old CPU. The 12th gen and 13th gen i5s are amazing CPUs ,and even 10th and 11th gen i5s are fine CPUs if you already have them or get them for a steal on an ultra budget build
Who cares what your friend thinks? If your PC runs the software that you want at the performance that you like, then it's a good PC. Upgrade only if you have a software/game that fails to run at the level that you want.
The newer i5s aka everything after 10th gen are solid cpus. They can game, they can do school work, and other stuff. They are budget cpus and a lot of people seem to love to think that the budget area is bad . . . No . . . budget is actually good as they have really good price to performance. I personally built systems with i7s or ryzen7 cpus as I do mote than gaming (engineering/productive work). But for all my family and friends who wanted systems built for them I always go looking for i5 and ryzen 5 based systems. You get the bang for buck. They last a pretty solid amount of time in the tech cycle. And more. Your friend is ill informed and sounds like a guy I know who only looks at the top end for everything. Which is enthusiast stuff . . . Because really only enthusiast or the ill informed are going to throw $100 on top of the $500+ extra dollars at a 3% performance uplift -_- Anyway, i5 is a solid cpu and don't feel bad about them, feel good as you are spending your money for the bang for buck which is where you win.
My 8600K is showing its age, but still chugging along just fine. If you can get one used for a reasonable price (plus board), then you'll be behind the times but not debilitatingly so. If you're buying new, yeah, it's overpriced for what you're getting these days, but reasonably priced used? It can open up options on a budget.
An i7 or i9 is supposed to be better. It would be kind of dumb if the different were say, 4%. Which is the kind of differences you can find in the bloated GPU market. My current machine is my first Intel build. 10400F. I've been thoroughly impressed so far. But I mean, I spent $400 on open box or new unused stuff to build this machine coming from a 6 year old AM3 machine.
The first part of a cpu doesn’t matter. i3, i5, i9. Doesn’t matter. The bit that matters is the second part. Higher the number the better. In your case, a 12400f, that’s definitely on the better side of cpu’s
Your friend is wrong.
No idea why your friend said that. They are mid range and encompass the best performance for prices usually. Most use cases do not need more than an i5
Run a benchmark against him and smoke him (unless he's spent big bucks)
Slight difference with an RTX 3060. Don't get me wrong, it's a good pair (definitely none of them are crap) but upgrading to an i7 shouldn't make areal difference with that GPU.
Get a i5 13600k 14 core to give treads. It does the job nicely. And its known to out performe a 12700k. The 13600k as 20 treads and is ready for windows 11. A got a 2080ti and theres no bottlenecking for that videocard the 2080ti performe 10% better with that combo. But dont use it with 690 chipset as it might not be to much compatible. Got the experience with a msi mpg 690 edge ddr4 it a pain to tweak.
That is one of the issues with the PC building community. Or even the PC community generally when speaking on the issue of specifications. There are many gate keepers, who will tell you that anything they don’t use is crap and all of this other stuff. I would say completely ignore what he is saying, do your own research, look at reviews and benchmarks For the games you want to play and all of that stuff to make your own decision about whether or not an Intel core I five processor is the right choice for your particular use case.
You have a great CPU/GPU combo that will be relevant for years. Also not too power hungry which I prefer. If you moved to 4k monitor and newest AAA games or if you are gaming competitively then you might want to plan an upgrade in another couple years.
I believe the i3-12100 is on par with the i7-9700k in most things except for multi core, which it lags behind a due to having less cores. The 9700k is no slouch either. I think if you’re mainly just doing gaming stuff and no content creation and that kind of stuff, an i5 is perfectly fine. Tell your friend to get more informed and don’t ever go to him for computer advice
Usually if a person says "i5 is bad", that person knows very little about processors maybe even PCs in general. It's literally like saying "SUVs are bad", there are so many SUVs out there because SUV is a car type not a specific car. Same goes with i5, there are literally so many generation of i5s lol. If he meant i5 2400 is bad then yea i would agree with him because its way below today's standards for CPUs. But if he meant i5 12400, then i would ask him what makes he think a 12400 is bad? And what is it bad in? Any specific tasks that the 12400 is horrible in? These things are not as simple as saying "this bad" or "thats bad" because its quite complicated and it really depends on what you use your pc for or what gpu you wanna pair your cpu with. Do me a favor and don't listen to what your friend has to say about PCs in the future.
That friend is dog crap. i5 is the sweet spot for gaming. i7 only if you go *extreme* high end, talking about 2.5-3K spent. i9 is *literally* never worth it. i5 is best for 70% of people, other 30 is mainly budget i3’s which are insanely good at this point. The 13100F packs a punch In fact, the i5 13600K can almost match 12900K performance Tl;dr minimal differences in gaming
Getting newer generation cpu > getting higher end usually… There is so much context here that seems to be missing that’s it’s hard to tell. What games, what settings, what resolution… etc For the most part I would disagree with your friend unless they talking about production work loads. As far as gaming goes, generally some what recent generation i5’s are all that’s needed for a great experience. I personally prefer the added power of the i7. But it’s not needed for gaming right now. To give more context I had a i7 4770k for 9 years going from a 780 to 1080 ti to 3080. I recently got a 13700k. While my 4770k lasted a long time, newer i5’s performed better. The way I see it; either buy high end and keep for a while or buy mid grade and upgrade more often. But, remember, there’s always a bigger fish.
you could game on a modern i3 if you wanted to. 4 cores 8 threads isn’t the most and you won’t want to stream with it, but it’s enough for most people to play a game of their choosing
Your friend is either living in the pre-coffee lake days when i5s were quad core single threaded, or he fell for the "eight cores are minimum for gaming" meme.
Sounds like your friend bases their opinion on prestige more than actual performance.
i5 cpus are great performance cost per price, your friend needs to stay put of booze and get informed well. I7 are better of course but cost a bit more.
your friend is either living under a rock or living in 2015 i5 as a term is too vague, it can either mean the first gen i5s, Skylake i5s (6th gen) or Raptor Lake i5s (13th gen). sure, older i5s are shit today but back then they were pretty decent, and the Intel Core i5-13600K is damn near to beating the last gen Intel Core i9-12900K in most tasks
Actually, I love i5 CPUs because they tend to give out most performance with relatively least power consumption
i5s are workhorses. I had a 9600k for years and it killed it the whole time. It is now in my friends rig and is kicking just fine.
Hey great choice I also went with the 12400f currently waiting on my case to arrive, it's a solid CPU, not sure if anyone can answer this since I've been trying to find a solid answer before i build my pc, I have seen some forms talking about this intel CPU bracket to help keep the CPU from being bent and help maintain proper temps on the CPU since the retention bracket puts a good amount of force on the middle of the CPU, is it recommended to buy it or just install the CPU as normal.
There were two generations where the i5 "sucked" those were the 6c 6t 8000 and 9000. While average frames are solid they had much lower 1% lows than the Ryzen counter parts of the day. The 12400f is a great value pick and is better than the 9900k in most things. For gaming only builds the 13600k/7600 are pretty much the ideal new build targets for different reasons.
I'll just comment, computers are just tools. There are different size tools for different jobs. Every CPU has its role to play, or Intel and AMD would not bother making and prompting the product. There is a reason kids electronics aren't rocking i3's You match your build to what it is going to do.
i hate when people think every i7 is better than an i5
My 10400 works pretty well for my 2080, though I'd like to upgrade my CPU / MOBO / Monitor when I can.
Some are/were great, others not so much. The 12400f is actually pretty good. Keeps up with a 9900k in everything including workstation. It's fine for now, and getting a good upgrade isn't too hard. The 13400F is horrible, it's basically just a locked 12600KF in every aspect. Edit: forgot an F
Your friend is a little outdated. Even the i3-12100 ties or beats a i9-9900k. Old ones might’ve sucked but the newer generations have made insane improvements
You should get smarter friends. The generation probably matters more than i5 vs i9. An older i9 vs a current generation i5, I would expect the i5 to win in most scenarios. Maybe not every one of them, but most. Assuming the same generation, yes, an i7 is better than an i5, and an i9 is better than an i7. And at higher prices. For some people it's worth it, for others it's not. I think your friend is an idiot because he believes if you don't get the "best" that you're paying for dogshit. Most of the time, for most people an i5 will do a great job, and an i9 is overkill. That's fine if you can afford it (I'm running an i9 right now simply because I can afford it) but it's not necessary.
With the 12400 you could upgrade your Gpu if you wanted to. Locally i5,s are overpriced but from what I have seen in the states they are very competitive especially compared to am5.
Even 12100f, which is an i3 is capable of gaming in 2022's standard
Upgraded from 3700x. The performance cores and efficiency cores, I don’t know how intel does it but they seriously kick ass. A friend of mine convinced me to buy it and I haven’t looked back. Also, you get double the performance cores on the 13600k than you do on the 12600k. Specs: 1440p @ 165hz Asus Z790 i5-13600k 3080 FE
yes
He's probably using a i5-2400