i5 (6300HQ) vs i7 (6700HQ) worth the $100 difference for people who use VM's?

Hey guys,
So I'm planning on getting the dell inspiron 7599. The difference between the i5 and i7 version is going to be roughly $100.

I realize that for most people i7 is a waste, but I might just not be one of these people since I primarily I will be using a VM.

Generally I will work with a single VM running (with ubuntu, with its GUI and not just the console). This means I will probably have a server running as well in the VM with an IDE open and possibly another IDE open in windows (the host machine), along with a browser and a dozen tabs in chrome.

Do the above requirements qualify for an i7? I'd rather not spend the extra $100 right now if I don't have to.

Thanks in advance.

 

Well the Skylake i5 is a quad-core chip, just without HT.

Will you be running more than four threads simultaneously? If so, get the i7. If not the i5 is fine.

 

Great rule of thumb right there. And a sensible suggestion to boot.

 

For running VM's I would do it for $100.

 

The good news, both processors have all the bits you want for VM'ing: Vt-x, Vt-d, and EPT (Vt-x).

The bad news is, only $100 more is a good deal, the raw price difference between the tray price of the CPU's is $128.

Check out the specs / comparison here, on ark.intel.com

http://ark.intel.com/compare/88967,88959

HT "cores" aren't like real cores, but they do help if you have lots of processes active, and it sounds like you will. If nothing else you may regret not getting the i7 during those times of heavy usage and you think it would be better if you had gotten the i7.

If you can configure in the 6820HK at the same price (same tray price), you will get a little bump in performance at stock speeds, but will be able to OC it 400mhz or so higher for free additional performance

http://ark.intel.com/compare/88969,88967,88959

The 6300 is 300mhz slower in Max Turbo than the 6700. The 6820HK is another 100mhz faster than the 6700 at Max Turbo, and can be tuned for 400mhz even faster performance - a total of 700mhz faster than the 6300.

Definitely get one of the faster 2 CPUs

 

Why is (almost) everyone so penny wise and dollar foolish?

For $100 more you get almost 36% more raw compute performance - each time you use that system and for as long as you own it (which will invariably allow you to own it longer... based on performance aspects alone).

For maybe an additional ~10% one time cost?

See:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2586&cmp[]=2632


Amortize that over the expected life cycle of the notebook and you're much further ahead to buy the best you can afford now.

Not only will the notebook be worth something (either to you or someone else that you sell/donate it to) in a few years, but you'll enjoy that productivity boost each time you use it in the meantime.

Make sure you max out the RAM also - it's an easy performance/multitasking boost and just as cheap as getting the faster cpu too. Getting a system with 16GB RAM or more is highly recommended going into 2016.

You can go ahead and save that $100 today. But your daily productivity will be up to 1/3 less from day one of ownership and will only get worse as time goes by. O/S's, programs and even browsers will always need more HP from the platform they run on (as time goes on)... buying less today means you'll need to buy sooner tomorrow (or; be less productive/efficient each time the lessor system is used).

Always buy what you can afford - but always buy as much computer as possible (CPU/RAM/STORAGE).

Doing anything else will, over the long run, cost you time or money and usually both.

EDIT:
BTW, the 'money' is not the cost to be concerned about. Time is what you can't re-stock.


Good luck.

 

Because not everybody will make use of that extra 36% compute performance.

In this case, using VMs might indeed benefit from the i7, and the 10% increased cost is well worth it over several years.

But some people do nothing more than a few light games and web browsing, for whom 36% extra performance in Chrome is not really worth that extra $100, because they won't even use their current CPU to its 100% maximum - ever.

So people ask, because they aren't sure.

 

Hey guys i am also wondering if the i7 is worth it over the i5. I do mostly Cad work, Rhino work, Maya (3d) work and gaming.
I am leaning toward the i5 cause the laptop setup with i7 is $300 more because of i7+ssd
what do u guys think? is the i5 enough? Not planning to do much rendering but 3d modeling

 

You have to start with a reference point; in your case, it's your current system. Open the Task Manager (Ctrl + Alt + Esc) and go about your work, check it every few minutes and see what the processor % utilization graph looks like. If it's spiking to 90 - 100% frequently, or staying above 50% for extended periods of time, you'll benefit from a faster processor. The computer shouldn't be continuously working that hard to handle your workload.

A processor that has twice the processing power might cut the CPU utilization for your tasks in half, non-scientifically speaking, so in the scenario above, your goal would be to find one twice as fast. You'll find a lot of debate around here as to which benchmark is best. If you have an old CPU, it may be difficult to find a direct comparison with one of the latest processors. Ideally the benchmarks would be simulating your tasks. The most demanding task I run is Photoshop, so I always look for Photoshop benchmarks.

Charles

 

Unless you will be buying a whole new system in less than ~18 months or so, the $300 extra cost i7 + SSD is the cheaper option in the long run.

Not only will you be able to put off upgrading to a new system at your leisure (when that time comes), rather than being forced into it because the system simply can't handle your workload in a few months time anymore. But each time you use the system (for yourself or for weekly/monthly maintenance tasks), you'll also be benefitting from the more powerful system.

With the last few generations of Intel platforms the benefits of using an i7 are not only much higher performance when you need it, but also the same efficiency or better when running light workloads too.

The one time cost difference will be soon forgotten (assuming you have the budget and means to do this without getting in debt for the better setup). The benefits of the better platform will live even beyond your ownership cycle and on into the second and third owner too.

 

Hi thx for respone. But I highly doubt that for most task the i7 is "33%" better. Maybe only for tasks like rendering etc? where the threads are used? Like in rendering, realflow etc.
I think the difference between i7 and i5 is not that much if u are doing tasks like gaming, photoshop?
Just want some clarification.

Thanks

 

I notice (and demand/appreciate) using an i7 for simple browsing and email (my outlook files are ~30GB). Let alone actually using it to do 'real work' with it (like PS, depending on the actual workflow - I do RAW).

33% is a minimum increase over an i5 (along with an SSD and at least 16GB RAM). An i5 based desktop is in a different league. But a notebook needs an i7 to even begin competing, performance wise. They simply start much lower on the performance/productivity scale than what desktop platforms are capable of.

To give you an idea of the differences; I can read a couple of thousand forum posts on a dozen different forums on an i7 in the time an i5 based notebook would let me browse, render and display just a little more than half of those sites. To say that an i7 is overkill is to say that a rocket is not needed to escape the earth's gravity.

I don't want to just run or fly. I want to hit hyper speed and for mere $$$ difference, I can.

 

Hi thx again ! Will reconsider. Also do u think a SSD is a must ? Thx

 

Hi thx again ! Will reconsider. Also do u think a SSD is a must ?
Thx

 

Get the i7 from the factory (now) with a regular hard drive. Save up for a bit to buy an SSD and add that when you can. The OEMs usually overcharge a lot for installed SSDs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

An SSD has been a 'must' since 2009 when Intel started offering them. And the reason?

Because nothing else will be able to leverage the other platform components' (once they've been maxed out) as much.

My reason? If you want to have the most balanced system possible, with the most 'availability' to do what you want to do with your PC, then an SSD of ~500GB or larger, OP'd by 33% or more, will give that balance to any newer platform you can install it on. Just like maxing out the RAM on a platform from day 1 of ownership (or as close to it as possible), having an SSD installed is a key to maximizing the 'you' time with the system. Rather than being a slave to the weekly, monthly and random updates, upgrades and other 'maintenance' work that all new systems need to continue to run optimally.

Even if your workflow is super 'light' in all other aspects, the maintenance aspect isn't. And, it is required for all PC users that run Windows. And choosing to buy a system in an unbalanced or 'crippled' state today is simply baffling to me.

In addition to the performance benefits an properly setup SSD can give (clean install of the O/S, 33% OP'd...), don't forget to account for the use in a mobile platform. With no moving parts, an SSD would 'win' on a notebook just for that reason alone vs. a spinning HDD platter that is more fragile than most would think.

As a matter of fact, it is not two days ago that I recommended an i5 IB platform with 8GB RAM and an SSD all powered by Win10 as a minimum configuration too - for a client that has a little 6 year old boy.

His main concerns? That it lasts more than two years for his son and that it continues to keep working past the first week.


Once you use an SSD for an extended period (a couple of days or a week is enough), you will not need to question whether or not an SSD is a must. Rather; you will see HDD's in mobile platforms as something from the prehistoric era of computing (and in the last half dozen years in the mobile space, that is exactly what they've grown up to become).

 

I disagree. I notice the difference, but it is not a big deal for me. A fast spinner is really good enough, and much cheaper. The only reason I have two 512GB SSDs in my laptop is because I can't put a mechanical hard drive in a mSata slot. I have Windows on one, Linux on the other, and a 2TB mechanical drive for storage. I took the 512GB SSD out of my secondary laptop and replaced it with a 1TB Hitachi drive because I needed more space. I honestly cannot say there is any lost productivity because of that decision. In April I built a small form factor gaming rig with top end hardware and fitted it with the two fastest mechanical desktop drives I could find, in RAID 1, while I have several recent 512GB SSDs in a drawer pretty much just collecting dust. The only place where I really admire SSDs is their sustained transfer rates. My slowest mechanical drive does 100MB/s while my slowest SSD does 300MB/s (even though it is SATA3) and my slowest USB flash drive does 150MB/s writes. The only things that drive me nuts with their slowness are SD and micro SD cards.

 

I can agree with a lot of your post.

Hitachi's are the only HDD's I would voluntarily put into my systems just a few short years ago (yeah; they're that good).

And productivity (as I've always stated) does not plummet with HDD's except for certain scenarios (using/updating/editing/creating databases, pdf's or other workflows which rely on such backend processes - like LR or financial software, for example).

But where HDD's fall flat on their face (vs. SSD's) is when doing updates and/or upgrades of the O/S or software that I use on a daily basis (and sometimes, these updates/upgrades happen two or more times in a single week for dozens of computers that I need to be working for me, instead).

Also, starting up (for systems that are regularly shut down) and increasing the battery life (for systems that are not pushed hard).



But to say it is not a big deal? Just for you.

And maybe it is because you are running an SSD and a HDD together too (I never recommend that - the whole system seems too slow like that to me).

 

...question: did i5s always come without hyperthreading?

 

I think they used to be two core four thread, and now some are offered with four cores but only four threads.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Until Skylake, mobile i5 always came with HT. They were basically desktop i3--dual-core w/HT--but with Turbo Boost. On desktop there were some dual-core w/HT i5 back in Westmere and Sandy Bridge days, but other than that, all desktop i5 are quad-core w/o HT. Now with Skylake, mobile finally gets what desktop had for years, a quad-core w/o HT.

 

So.. they're differentiating the product so a larger amount of normal users should want the i7 over the i5?

 

On the contrary. The mobile i5 is much more attractive to most users now that it's finally quad-core and cheaper than the i7. Hyper-Threading is still something with dubious real-world benefit at best.

 

Mm. I don't know. It's kind of essential to context-switching if there's no shared cache between the cores. But.. haven't read anything about these i5s performing any worse than you'd expect, so.. just curious about why they'd set it up like that.

 

Intel CPUs have shared L3 cache.

Because why pay $130 more for a feature (HT) that you might not need? There's a reason the i5 -K is consistently the bestselling model every gen. It's $100 cheaper and performs identically to the i7 in applications that don't utilize HT, e.g. majority of games. Laptop users have complained about the lack of true quad-core i5 CPUs on mobile that desktop has enjoyed for years, now we finally have parity. Good on you, Intel. About time.

 

Yeah, but it's always coherent.. copied and maintained towards the l2 cache. So... as far as I can tell... it's technically impossible to use this for microcode optimisation, or to benefit from shortened or collapsed assembly expressions, and so on.

...so it would happen something like this: you could imagine that a complex registry operation was collapsed into one line of assembly code (this actually happens very often), and then the result of this final operation is stored in l2 cache. All the processed content is copied to l3 cache, which then is available to main memory. So you can fetch the relevant computed result. And until the next context-change (new thread is serviced for a microsecond or so), the l1-cache contains the shortened expression, and can reuse it. But the shortened assembly code is unavailable to the other cores. And the moment you make any changes to the l3-cache, also to the current core.

But if it actually turns out that four cores with shared cache is faster in practice than two w/hyperthreading, that's kind of interesting. Because I've been wondering about exactly how specialized the operations have to be to cause HT to actually save processor cycles. In theory, it's easy to see a situation like that. But in practice, I kind of wonder if you need something like 50% instruction cache hits to break even on the processor diagram. Obviously it's useful on fewer cores. But with more free cores, does it make any difference at all.. you know...? It's... difficult for me to figure this out from code-examples, and intels software/hardware manual doesn't really go into it in any detail.

So if that i5 actually doesn't fall off the scale on performance in general, and perhaps uses less power since the cores are less active, things of that sort -- that is actually very interesting.

 

Where you been man. That's always been the case. More physical cores are better than HT. HT just improves utilization of the existing cores in optimized applications, it doesn't give you more cores.

It does not. Like I said, it performs indentically to i7 (at same clock speed) in applications that don't take advantage of HT. The heat, power, and die space savings from not having HT are minimal though.

 

For gaming the i5 is absolutely fine but for stuff like VMs or rendering I would always go with the i7. Then again, I pretty much always go with i7s.

 

Mm, no, I meant with a workload that would normally occupy two cores, distributed in some automatic way to four cores. If you have a way to fill four cores with the same finite amount of work as before, then obviously no amount of magic is going to compensate for that.

What I've been wondering about, but haven't been able to figure out, is what sort of code you would have to create to get above that 15% "expected" bonus HT seems to give you. Or, well, that it maybe turns out in the end that the benefit is actually extremely small on anything that isn't specially coded and compiled in a specific way as well..

 

Like I said, you can notice a benefit in anything that really taxes your CPU such as VMs, video rendering, etc.

 

Right - but why? Is it so uncommon that you run into some assembly reduction with reuse (like... fifteen lines of assembly is reduced to one line and it depends on just one update in a registry, so the reduction process can be reused) -- that we really don't normally see it? And that the reason why you see an effect in encodes and filter and layer rendering, is that the code puts so many identical commands in the cache, that you get an effect from just the variable declaration being reused? After all, the effect isn't as high as you would maybe expect, even in ideal conditions..

Because even if you feed a HT-processor dummy code with identical operations, you can still lock out potential reuse targets, and then flush them right after, and miss out on the entire thing.

So it's a bit like what you're really doing is only saving time during context switches with the variable declaration and data, for threads that switch extremely often, and never process enough data to flush the cache. That's.. kind of a curious thing, right?

Some sort of mutually exclusive high-level and low-level problem, it seems to me. That the better structured your code is on the high-level, and therefore faster, the less benefit you get from low-level optimisations. While the more bloated, automated and careless code you have, that therefore has variable performance problems, the more benefit you get from HT and so on.