I always thought bigger number = better in the terms of pc components. Recently ive learned i5s can compete with i9s. I saw a post one day that said “i could replace your processors with i3’s and almost none of you would even notice”
How does this work?
In: Technology
“You wouldn’t notice” and “compete with” are two different standards.
The former says, “the stuff you need a processor to do is easy enough that most processors could do it without a problem.” The latter says, “Anything an i9 can do, an i5 could also do.”
i9 processors *are* better than i5s. But the ways in which they are better aren’t really necessary for a lot of users. Certain software and video games *may* depend on things that could benefit from the better processor, but most things that most people do won’t see any noticeable difference.
iX is part of the brand name, it actually not refer to the generation or design or performance. An i7 could’ve been produced in 2012 or in 2023. Same for any i.
i7-6700T Q3’15 4/8 2,80 GHz 3,60 GHz 8 MB
i3-10300 Q2’20 4/8 3.70 GHz 4.40 GHz 8 MB
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_microprocesseurs_Intel_d%27architecture_Core#
but an i7 will be better than an i3 if they are from the same generation (a shiny word to say design/technology). As for why iX come before the generation in the chip naming…ask marketing department 😉
Intel’s CPUs go in generations, each generation generally being better than the one prior. Between some generations, it meant the way the circuits were printed was different, printing finer ones allowing for denser circuitry.
The 13th generation features the i5-13600 and the i9-13900. The 13600 has 6 performance cores and 8 efficiency cores, while the 13900 has 8 performance cores and 16 efficiency cores. The number of cores is how many different tasks as part of the same program can the CPU work on – the CPU switches between running programs many times in a second, but a properly written program can split its work into many sub-tasks that can be done at the same time so that they aren’t switched between, they go simultaneously.
Intel’s CPUs, since some generation, can alter their clock rate to bring it up when needed. In the olden times, CPUs just sat on one clock speed all the time and you could mod your computer to bring it up a bit past the safe one the manufacturer set, which could still be bearable; now they do it themselves. At the top end, the 13600’s performance cores can go to 5 Gigahertz and the 13900’s can go a bit higher, to 5.2 or more. Clock speed means how fast the CPU goes through steps, because ultimately all it does is do math operations in steps.
The 13900 also has more cache. Cache is like a place to put saved numbers, because referring to numbers stored in the RAM is many times slower than referring to the numbers in the cache, so if a number was saved in the cache and hasn’t changed, then it can be referred to quickly for another operation.
But I digress. Yes, the 13900 has better numbers – more cores, more cache, cores can clock a bit faster when they need to. But the real question is – what are you doing that really needs all that power?
If you run an improperly written program, like an old version of Dwarf Fortress, it isn’t split into subtasks, so you’ll only have one core work on all of it, and in terms of one core, the 13600 can go nearly as fast as the 13900.
If you run something that just isn’t all that demanding, like a game from ten years ago, then it’ll just run fine on both – the 13600 will do all the math of updating the game state 60 times a second and so nothing will stutter or anything.
You need to do something that’s properly demanding to notice.
Lot of great answers here thanks ppl
So, fun fact. Your i5 most likely started out as an i9, still surprised people haven’t talked about this.
Intel has no interest in making i5s outright really, why make them when you can just make i9s instead, they generally cost the same to make.
Issue is that silicon manufacturing has defects. It can happen that intel makes an i9, but theres a tiny defect that kills one core on the processor, so they disable that core and the weakest core beside that and call it an i5 and sell it to you that way.
You just didn’t get the i thing which is just the name of different families of processor. For each generation, these families get updated with new members that replace the previous ones of the older gen . So in the same gen , the bigger number is actually superior as you thought meaning i9 > i5. But if you start comparing processors from different gens, then yes a recent i5 can not only compete with but also outperform by far an older i9 depending on the gen difference.
Because most people, not all people (lul) will never utilize the cores with the applications they use.
Imagine a big lorry versus a small car.
If the task at hand is “move twenty pallets of cereal from a warehouse to a supermarket”, the lorry will do that easily but the car will struggle. Now imagine the task is, instead “carrying your groceries home”. The lorry is no better at this task than the car is. In fact, the car can drive faster than the lorry can, and get you to your destination faster.
This general distinction can happen in many places on a modern computer: whether you’re faster doing a single task is separate from whether you’re faster when doing bulk tasks.
This might or might not be true for current-gen i5 vs i9, but it’s definitely a thing. Here’s [a top-of-the-line Threadripper Pro compared to a Ryzen 5](https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/5726vs5033/AMD-Ryzen-Threadripper-PRO-7995WX-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-7600X). The Threadripper is something like 5x faster than the Ryzen 5, and a fair bit more efficient (gets that 5x out of only 3x as much power consumption), but look at the “Single Thread Rating” line. The Ryzen 5 actually gives you better performance on single-threaded applications! This makes sense: the Threadripper part is meant for high-end workstations suited for large number-crunching workloads, whereas the Ryzen 5 is more at home in gaming PCs.
Most people do not need a powerful computer. That’s why most people can get along with a laptop or with just their phones. If your needs are more demanding, you need a more powerful computer. However depending on the application the needs differ. Some applications require a lot of processing power, others need a powerful GPU, others need a lot of memory.
Most people with powerful computers want them for gaming. I’m not talking about professionals here. For gaming you need a good GPU and decent RAM but video games in general do not need a lot of processing power. However since a lot of gamers see their pc build as a dick measuring competition, they get the best PC they can with no regard to their actual needs. What that person was referring to was that fact. Most people who have i9s when all they want their PC to do is game wouldn’t notice the difference if they had an i5, or to put it in another way, they can’t truly justify why they went for the i9 instead of another processor.
In a given generation, it’s pretty much the same chip. Making chips is hard and not all chips are perfect. The lesser chips are basically from the i9 reject pile.
The i9-14900K for example, it has 24 cores – 8 performance and 16 efficiency cores – and runs at up to 6 GHz.
The i5-14600K is the same chip, but only 14 cores work – 6 performance and 8 efficiency cores. And it’ll only run at up to 5.3 GHz.
So the performance cores, that’s the really powerful ones, are still there for the most part. You got six instead of eight and they run a bit slower but it’s the same cores.
Your average video game isn’t going to care if it runs on six or eight cores. Most games won’t even use more than four. And most games won’t 100% use your CPU anyway, so it doesn’t matter that it’s “only” running at 5.3 GHz.
The i3, i5, i7, i9 branding does not mean they are different CPUs. They make the same silicon and check how functional they are, and then sell them with “less cores” and “less GHz” because that’s what they can guarantee works on the chips.
Most gamers genuinely do not need more than an i5. They’re great chips and so much cheaper and more power efficient.
Latest Answers