Question for computer experts

[Left]

Do you think I will notice a non-gaming-related, real-world difference between a computer I owned a few years ago with an i7-2600, that I remember very well, and a computer with an i5-7600K?

 

[ewq1938]

Do you think I will notice a non-gaming-related, real-world difference between a computer I owned a few years ago with an i7-2600, that I remember very well, and a computer with an i5-7600K?

If the OS is clean there shouldn't be any real difference since normal computer tasks are fairly low tech types.

 

[Left]

If the OS is clean there shouldn't be any real difference since normal computer tasks are fairly low tech types.

I power use on a CPU level - I've been known to video edit, 3D render, etc.

Strangely enough, I'm not a power gamer, though.

 

[ewq1938]

I power use on a CPU level - I've been known to video edit, 3D render, etc.

Strangely enough, I'm not a power gamer, though.

Ok well that's different. You might see a difference since that's CPU hungry stuff.

 

[Left]

Yeah. The real question is, whether it will be a positive or negative difference.

The i5-7600K has superior per-CPU-thread performance.

While the i7-2600 has more CPU threads.

 

[ewq1938]

Only one way to find out.

 

[Left]

Only one way to find out.

I get my new computer in roughly 6 days.

I will let people know whether I think an i5-7600K, when paired with 8GB DDR4, a 7200RPM hard drive, and a clean Windows install, is satisfactory for a power user.

I think I can also tell which programs use the CPU, and which need the hard drive and use little CPU power. So no problems there.

 

[Wookiee]

According to Intel, the minimum i5-7600K speed is equal to the maximum i7-2600K speed, so for single core tasks you'll definitely notice a difference as it uses more CPU time. As for threads, they're both quad-core, the only difference is the i7 is hyper threaded (there's plenty of argument about how useful that really is compared to a dedicated core). For rendering you may notice a slight decrease (if by anything, a few minutes at worst for bigger tasks), but for everything else it will be noticeably faster.

 

[Left]

According to Intel, the minimum i5-7600K speed is equal to the maximum i7-2600K speed, so for single core tasks you'll definitely notice a difference as it uses more CPU time. As for threads, they're both quad-core, the only difference is the i7 is hyper threaded (there's plenty of argument about how useful that really is compared to a dedicated core). For rendering you may notice a slight decrease (if by anything, a few minutes at worst for bigger tasks), but for everything else it will be noticeably faster.

Also, um, the i5-7600K is 5 generations ahead in architecture or refreshes.

But it still has less threads.

Just thought if we were going to count MHz, we should also count that.

 

[timewerx]

I power use on a CPU level - I've been known to video edit, 3D render, etc.

Strangely enough, I'm not a power gamer, though.

These are not normal tasks on a computer though. Video editing and 3D rendering uses the same resources you'll find in plenty in gaming computers.

Like if you're using the Adobe Suite (Photoshop, Premiere, etc). They make heavy use of the GPU (Graphics card processor like Nvidia or Ati) these days.

So in those applications, using a gaming computer will make a huge difference over a non-gaming computer (especially computers running on the Intel graphics only).

 

[Left]

These are not normal tasks on a computer though. Video editing and 3D rendering uses the same resources you'll find in plenty in gaming computers.

Like if you're using the Adobe Suite (Photoshop, Premiere, etc). They make heavy use of the GPU (Graphics card processor like Nvidia or Ati) these days.

So in those applications, using a gaming computer will make a huge difference over a non-gaming computer (especially computers running on the Intel graphics only).

I disagree.

Every heavy task can work on the CPU that's not gaming related. But whether it can be ran off the GPU, completely depends on whether the program supports it.

Like, what if my favorite program doesn't?

 

[Sketcher]

When comparing CPUs, I look at software-specific benchmarks for the programs I am most concerned with running. If a resource-intensive program is not represented on a given benchmark, it's likely going to have a niche community that pays attention to what hardware works out best for it.

 

[Left]

When comparing CPUs, I look at software-specific benchmarks for the programs I am most concerned with running. If a resource-intensive program is not represented on a given benchmark, it's likely going to have a niche community that pays attention to what hardware works out best for it.

This post was actually useful to me. It reminded me to look up Blender performance. And based on some posts from awhile back I read, it seems like certain parts of Blender still run on 1 thread, unless they found a workaround.

 

[timewerx]

I disagree.

Every heavy task can work on the CPU that's not gaming related. But whether it can be ran off the GPU, completely depends on whether the program supports it.

Like, what if my favorite program doesn't?

Yea it can also depend on the programs you use.

I've used mostly Adobe for multimedia work and many of the programs contained in the suite can take advantage of the GPU (if the graphics card is compatible). In video editing, it is used to produce highly optimized HD video outputs (high quality at relatively small file size like for HD Youtube videos). It's a lot faster to do it with the GPU.