intel i3 or i5?

[shenistank]

I was wondering of cheaping out on i3 would be okay to play diablo 3 on medium/high or should I simply just get the i5, please let me know which one of these processors I should be considering.

Thanks alot.

[Chaboi]

I5, games (and specifically the expansion to d3) are demanding more threads from processors. If you want to be able to use this for longer, I advise getting a 4 core processor.

[Bowzer]

i5 2500k processor.

[Boi]

i5 2500k processor.

This is a good card, one of the highest rated on newegg.com currently.

[shenistank]

AMD A8-3870K 3.00 GHz Quad-Core APU w/ Integrated Radeon HD 6550D

Is this processor good? does it compare to the I5 or I3?

and if anyone could please show me a good build on cybergamingpc with a price range between650 to 750 with good enough specs that I would be able to play on high or medium that would be great
but I think my choices now are either an i3 with good videocard enough to play on high or a i5 with a decent video card to play on low and i dont know what I should choose please help !!

thanks again!

[Chaboi]

The a8 is great if you aren't gaming. Apus struggle, I'd get discrete graphics.

However, it helps if we know your budget/what you currently have.

[shenistank]

updated my post!

[jamesL]

tomshardware did a $600 build in December with a Intel Core i5-2400 and a Radeon HD 6870 1 GB
they also did a $650 build in March with a Intel Core i3-2120 and a Radeon HD 6950 1 GB

how do they compare ?
well it depends on what game you're playing and what resolution you're playing and what your game settings are

sometimes there is no difference at all,
sometimes the i3 with the better graphics card does better
sometimes the i5 with the weaker graphics card does better

here's battlefield 3 and starcraft 2
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ck,3159-9.html

you can see that with BF3 with medium quality game settings, the i3 with the good GPU does 7 fps better than the i5 with the cheaper GPU
however, if you change to high quality game settings, the fps for both drops about 30, an the i5 is on the verge of not playable, but the i3 is still 7fps higher and is still good

Starcraft 2 is the opposite, although both systems are playable, the i5 with the cheaper GPU does much better

and here's Dirt 3 and the Elder Scrolls 5
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...k,3159-10.html

the i3 with the better graphics blows the i5 away

all that aside, they still think the i5 with the cheaper graphics is the way to go

The Core i5-2400 maintains dominance over less expensive dual-core models like the Core i3-2120 we're using today, as well as the overclocked Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition from back in September of last year. With this budget, there is simply no touching the all-round potency delivered by a second-gen Core i5 and Radeon HD 6870.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...k,3159-17.html

but of course that is taking into account "non-gaming" applications
the i5 is just too much for the i3

but if we're talking ONLY gaming, then the i3 with a better GPU us slightly better than the i5 with the cheaper GPU

On average, today's stock platform outperforms last quarter's by 9% at 1680x1050 and 10% at 1920x1080. It comes out on top in five of the six titles, leading between 5-16% at 1680x1050 and 9-17% at 1920x1080. A lone defeat is suffered in StarCraft 2, where the lower-end CPU inhibits performance to the tune of 3% and 2%, respectively, at both of our important resolutions. That’s a fairly insignificant loss, though, when minimum frame rates didn't drop below a very-smooth 72 FPS. If you're not looking to tamper with overclocking, today's build certainly offers more raw potential for a better native-resolution gaming experience.

more of their summary

In reality, both builds offer solid gaming at 1680x1050 and 1920x1080.

Often, the difference between a Radeon HD 6870 and 6950 come down to the amount of anti-aliasing you can apply and still see playable performance.

Although we know how important a graphics card is for pushing high detail settings at native resolutions, we don't want to undermine the role a capable processor plays in games. The wrong CPU can artificially limit performance at low resolutions, and hold us back from seeing a GPU's maximum potential.

Today’s system (the i3 with 6950) accomplished its goal of providing a higher degree of raw muscle for 1920x1080-based gaming. How much you’d benefit from the decisions we made depends on the games you like to play, the resolutions you use, and the details settings you select. I'm a graphics fanatic, and always find a way to appreciate bigger and badder graphics subsystems.

Our test suite makes it clear that last quarter's $600 PC, with its Core i5-2400 processor, better serves the demands of a broader audience. Today's Core i3-2120 falls flat in demanding productivity applications.

the 650 build
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...lock,3159.html

the 600 build
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ming,3097.html

[shenistank]

would a radeon hd 7750 1gb be able to run d3 on high?

[jamesL]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ew,3107-7.html

its much, much better than the minimum x1950 Pro, and almost as good as the recommended 4870

but you have to say what resolution your monitor is