Jump to content

i5 vs i7 - real difference in FM days processing?


Recommended Posts

I know that there were some discusses about hardware, but I not found exactly the same question.

I want to buy new PC and choose between i5 9600kf (cheaper) and i7 9700k (more expensive)

1711072137_Image1.thumb.png.f881e00be046eee46a7d169de6f44563.png

i7 9700kf has 8 cores (+2 as you can see) and his workstation test status is 96%, i5 9600kf has 76% only.

As I understand games like FM use 'workstation' test for processing?

Is there any reason to choose i7? 20% of workstation is good for FM or just little better, not critical?

 

Many thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got an i5 and it works perfectly fine for FM. I tend to run 3-4 leagues, I'm sure it could handle a bit more.

If you're a player who likes to run a large amount of leagues, that might be an issue - but on that I'll defer to people with more knowledge than I! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm far from an expert, but my limited understanding is that most games benefit more from raw clockspeed than multiple cores. All other things being equal.

Happy to be corrected, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Novem9 said:

I know that there were some discusses about hardware, but I not found exactly the same question.

I want to buy new PC and choose between i5 9600kf (cheaper) and i7 9700k (more expensive)

1711072137_Image1.thumb.png.f881e00be046eee46a7d169de6f44563.png

i7 9700kf has 8 cores (+2 as you can see) and his workstation test status is 96%, i5 9600kf has 76% only.

As I understand games like FM use 'workstation' test for processing?

Is there any reason to choose i7? 20% of workstation is good for FM or just little better, not critical?

 

 

Many thanks in advance

That's not a great way of comparing them - it's a user benchmark - 331 users vs 131 users doesn't give a fair comparison, plus the usage for each person would be different, I doubt they are all playing FM. 

FM is processed in the single core mostly, so finding a fast single core processor is the best bet. 

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

According to that they are neck and neck on the list.

The i7 is going to be the better processor overall - but for FM the diference is negligible. 

 

I spoke to someone and this is the jist of what he and I came to:

Quote

 

For how the game uses threads - it will create as many threads for playing matches and shortlisting as you have cores (including hyperthreads).

But the performance you see varies on the setup for example with matches - Quick Matches for instance (so for loaded but non-managed in leagues) it's are so fast anyway it gets to the point where it doesn't make that much more difference having more cores.

If you use detail level to set more stuff to full match you'll start seeing betters gains for more cores, but of course will still be slower than by just not having the league loaded, or having it at a low detail level.

Similar sort of thing with shortlisting the more / leagues players you have loaded the more benefits you can potentially see with more cores, however this is probably more than offset by the general slowdown from having more stuff loading as there's still a large portion of the game which is single threaded. 

In regards to best processors, as a general guide we tend to suggest using the following comparison site as a good gauge of the performance capabilities - https://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmark-List.2436.0.html 

Basic rule of thumb is the higher it is on the list, the better it is. You can edit it to show processors for desktops and also those that are considered 'archived' via the restriction options. 

Hope some of this is of use. 

 

 

Edited by Smurf
Link to post
Share on other sites

The speed difference in cores is negligible

What you are paying for is 8 cores over 6. More cores normally means an increased potential to multithread. I'm pretty sure FM does allow this but not sure how much

Additionally the speed of processing matched to number of playable leagues and size of player database will vary from person to person

FM aside given the speed difference between CPU cores is negligible I would go for the I7 on the base 8 cores running is better than 6 if you can afford it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MrPompey said:

The speed difference in cores is negligible

What you are paying for is 8 cores over 6. More cores normally means an increased potential to multithread. I'm pretty sure FM does allow this but not sure how much

Additionally the speed of processing matched to number of playable leagues and size of player database will vary from person to person

FM aside given the speed difference between CPU cores is negligible I would go for the I7 on the base 8 cores running is better than 6 if you can afford it. 

Perhaps you didn't read my posts? The difference for FM would be minor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, GerdMuller said:

I had an i5 and have an i7 now. For FM alone get the i5 , you really dont profit enough in this game to make it worthwhile to get the bigger CPU.

That's too ambigious - there's very different i5 processors and very different i7 processors. 

Some higher end i5 processors are better than some lower end i7 processors. 

And some low end i7 processors are better than some high end i5 processors. 

Without the model numbers we can't say one is better than the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get the highest single core performance , that being said, the i7 mostly profits in multicore environments so i thing a highly tacted i 5 still is the best bang for the buck for FM 19. Thats why i also would always take an intel chip because others seem to take the multicore approach over high tacts a lot. I basically learned mostly of this from you Smurf and in hindsight that what i learned ..its nice to have the i7 for games that profit a little like EU IV or Crusader Kings, but for FM alone the decision to get the cheeaper i5 with a fast as possible processor seems the best buy. Funny thing is a goog cooled gaming PC while normally designed for high end games seems a investment to provide a solid gaming experience. So for FM is way would be: i5, fast, cheap graphics card.

Edited by GerdMuller
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GerdMuller said:

Get the highest single core performance , that being said, the i7 mostly profits in multicore environments so i thing a highly tacted i 5 still is the best bang for the buck for FM 19. Thats why i also would always take an intel chip because others seem to take the multicore approach over high tacts a lot. I basically learned mostly of this from you Smurf and in hindsight that what i learned ..its nice to have the i7 for games that profit a little like EU IV or Crusader Kings, but for FM alone the decision to get the cheeaper i5 with a fast as possible processor seems the best buy. Funny thing is a goog cooled gaming PC while normally designed for high end games seems a investment to provide a solid gaming experience. So for FM is way would be: i5, fast, cheap graphics card.

I'm finding the i5 8300 H is often packed with the 1050 2gb or the 1050 4gb - and this is showing to be a bad pairing, the graphics card is too weak. 

You could go down one to the 970 or up to to the 1060. 

But it all comes down to budget.

 

i5 8300H Scenario

£569 with the Nvidia 1050/1050TI (£699)  - bottleneck

£999 Nvidia 1060 - optimal

That's quite a difference in price!

 

i7 8750H Scenario

£829 Nvidia 1050TI - bottleneck

£899 Nvidia 1060 - bottleneck

£1299 Nvidia 1070 - optimal

That's quite a difference in price!

Is the bottleneck going to be bothersome with FM - probably not!

 

That's why I recommend the 1050 or 1050TI to people on a budget. 

But the more you go up in spec the more expensive it becomes... and out of people's budgets.

 

There's always a compromise when on a budget!

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really interested how a graphics card could bottleneck FM,  for me its basically important to have fast processing of the databas and the week, graphics card should only matter for the game and if SI really needs a top graphic cards to process some stick figures its really bad programming. If have the 1050 ti and would be absolutely shocked if FM would use its resources so bad it could create a bottleneck and even then its "only " the 3D game, for me FM is mostly about processing the game itself. I have to admit i have played higher demanding game with it like NBA 2k19 on very good seetings and even then i dont see the graphics card as a bootle neck at all.

For me a 1050 graphics card begins to bottleneck maybe when you get into 4K and stuff or maybe  you want all options turned on on a shooter you never realize in gameplay anyway.

FM shouldnt be in this conversation AT ALL, so the first thing to not spend money on if you are mostly into FM is the grahics card, before that i would even invest into a CPU that isnt used to its full potential. That being said i do have the 1050ti and that still rather basic 3 d mode really does use the resources so bad you shouldnt go much lower, but then especially on a budget i would decide to go down with the graphics setting  a  bit in 3D , it snot like its a pretty game by todays standard anyway and have my resources concentrate on the game itself. I men id rather see a bit more clunky stick figures and stadiums than having to wait endlessly in the prcessing of the week and in every menu.

Edited by GerdMuller
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh ok, i concentrated on the bottleneck part, and this being asked for FM specifically. I can also say still the bottleneck seems neglectable for a normal gamer like me, even with more demanding games. On FM alone , a i7 is a bit of a waste but a great grahpic card even more from my experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GerdMuller said:

Ahh ok, i concentrated on the bottleneck part, and this being asked for FM specifically. I can also say still the bottleneck seems neglectable for a normal gamer like me, even with more demanding games. On FM alone , a i7 is a bit of a waste but a great grahpic card even more from my experience.

I agree and disagree. Depends on the budget. I'd rather someone have an i7 if it's in their budget, it's an overall better processor and gains in other areas outside of FM. I don't really care what budget someone has - as long as the best is found in that price range, is all that matters when I'm looking. 

And sometimes people ask about other games. If I can find something in their budget that gives best of both worlds - then why not.

We've had people with a budget as low as £200 and as high as £3000.

£200 is not enough and £3000 is way overkill. But there is really no 'goldilocks' zone.

But if their budget is £200, £400, £600, £800, £1000, £10,000! Then I just look in those price ranges for the best combo I can find.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, its complicated, but for FM alone i do have the impresson more and more that the goldilocks zone could be somewhere i5 and a 1050. From there of course bigger is always better , but there id go with an i7 before a investing in a  better GPU. Its basically what i narrowed it down know from having started with your tips and having to go through 3 new laptops from i5 to MSI i7 in a short mount of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/07/2019 at 14:09, Smurf said:

Perhaps you didn't read my posts? The difference for FM would be minor.

LOL Thats a strange remark to make as that is what I said ?? Ive suggested the i7 as the better choice subject to cost and budget as it has 2 more cores, perhaps you didnt read that bit ;) Ive no doubt most people playing FM have something else running

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MrPompey said:

LOL Thats a strange remark to make as that is what I said ?? Ive suggested the i7 as the better choice subject to cost and budget as it has 2 more cores, perhaps you didnt read that bit ;) Ive no doubt most people playing FM have something else running

 

I gave the explanation as explained to me by a member of the SI staff in regards to the gains in multicore and hyperthreading - it's all explained, if you had read it, and not having a go, you would have seen it and not said - 

Quote

What you are paying for is 8 cores over 6. More cores normally means an increased potential to multithread. I'm pretty sure FM does allow this but not sure how much

That's the part I referred to that perhaps you had not read. 

And blanket statements like and i7 is better than i5 are not good for the forum. Some i5s are better than some i7s and not all i7s are better than some i5's. 

You need the processor model number to know for sure.

 

I'm not having a go - I'm just trying to keep the information clear and concise.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, MrPompey said:

LOL - I never mentioned I7 is better I5 so please re-read. Dont feel that you own this thread, you don't

Let me re-clarify then - as you did imply it.

Quote

What you are paying for is 8 cores over 6. More cores normally means an increased potential to multithread. I'm pretty sure FM does allow this but not sure how much

<and later on> I would go for the I7 on the base 8 cores running is better than 6 if you can afford it. 

You were referencing i7.

This doesn't necearrily mean the i7 will automatically be better, or that having more cores is the better processor. 

In a laptop an i7 typically have slightly faster or similar clock speeds to an i5.

Some i7's, even though more cores are in the U-range (TDP 15W). Compared to some i5's who have a higher TDP.
In those cases, an i7 with more cores is not prevalent over an i5 with less cores which would have a higher clock speed and a higher TDP.

I do conceed - the i7 in most cases is better - but we need model numbers to compare. 

 

But as you said - "I would go for the I7 on the base 8 cores running is better than 6 if you can afford it. " 

That is a blanket statement - having more cores is not the be all and end all. 

I understand you were referencing the OP and their particular case - but at the end of the day - who reads a thread properly these days anyway?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you think I need YOU to reclarify what I was saying

The model numbers are mentioned by the OP so its very clear. What I clearly said was that in this case given the core difference between the 2 was negligible in this particular case the I7 is better than the I5 as it had 8 rather than 6 cores since speed difference of the cores is virtually the same. That was all

My last statement was very clearly referencing the i5 and i7 CPU's that the OP mentioned not ALL i5 and i7's, you even agree I was above .

Not sure why but you seem to be trying to cause a problem when there isnt one and going off an a tangent

Mod - Please close the thread as the OP has his answer and this stupid stuff is now off topic - Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, MrPompey said:

What makes you think I need YOU to reclarify what I was saying

Jeez, take a chill pill.

You asked me to re-read the post - and I re-read the posts and reclarified my comments, not yours.True this has run it's course. 

Please use the laptop thread created for this type of discussion.

 

Thanks

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL - I am very chilled thanks!

With regard to your comment "Please use the laptop thread created for this type of discussion." 

You need to address that to the OP

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎19‎/‎07‎/‎2019 at 14:07, MrPompey said:

Dont feel that you own this thread, you don't

 

On ‎19‎/‎07‎/‎2019 at 15:30, MrPompey said:

Mod - Please close the thread as the OP has his answer

The irony seems to be lost on you.  As you don't own the thread either, it's up to the OP (or a Mod).

On ‎19‎/‎07‎/‎2019 at 15:30, MrPompey said:

and this stupid stuff is now off topic - Thanks

Which you thoughtfully started with your "don't feel you own this thread" comment.  Nor is it necessary to drag it all up again 3 days later. 

If anyone wants to add something useful for the OP, do so.  But enough of the silly bickering and the constant need for off topic replies.  Pack it in :rolleyes:.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...