Hi, what would be better, low Ghz and turbo boost or lots of Ghz and no Turbo boost

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i5-8400-vs-Intel-i5-8500-vs-Intel-i3-8100/3097vs3223vs3103

they are pretty close, what would be the best, in terms of being able to also run games that have 4 ghz ( seems many developers get a kick out of developing games that need lots of ghz , some ask for 3,0 or 3.6 ghz.

So what would be better since it needs at least 6 years to go ( maybe even 8 cause things are not getting cheaper)

Any of the i5's would do just fine.

I was able to obtain an i5 box for fairly cheap; I feel that's probably the better choice at this point since it's only a single generation behind.

I realize none of this is applicable, but you might want to look into off lease workstations and desktops from businesses. Great way to store a powerful (unflashy) computer at a low price.

You may want to check out this article which does some benchmarking and comparison between the i3-8100 and i5-8400 in terms of building a budget-minded PC:
http://minimalisticpc.com/blog/hardware/test-intel-core-i3-8100-i5-8400/

The i3 and i5 will perform very close to each other in many games. In situations where you're playing with minimal graphics demands and trying to push high frame rates, the i5 pulls ahead since the CPU will be the bottleneck in these situations. Otherwise, you'll typically be GPU-constrained -- in which case both CPUs should be able to keep up with a mid-range graphics card running at 1920x1080 resolution and medium to high graphics settings.

For more CPU-intensive tasks like video encoding and file compression, the i5 will have an advantage with its higher turbo speed, as well as it's two extra physical cores and slightly larger cache. You mentioned wanting to keep the system for 6 to 8 years -- the extra cores and cache may help a few years from now as well, as hardware demands increase.

I would go for the i5

Reason: what you are looking for is better performance. Clockspeed is related to performance but is not the only factor (for instance, if it is also important the physical cores, CPU Cache, etc.)

In general, i5 procesors have been designed to run more demanding applications than i3. So, in general, you should have a better performance with a i5 than with a i3.

Moreover, cpubenchmark is supposed to run some programs (benchmarks) to test the performance of a CPU. If you see the benchmark, i5 is better than i3. I do not know if there is a site with benchmarks related to games. But If you go there you would have a more realistic comparison for the kind of application you are going to use. (I suppose that you want the computer for games)

they all are same... 8100 has 4 cores which is sufficient. Depends if you are willing to pay extra for 10% more performance or there is a game which is bottlenecked by 4 cores; then 8400.

thanks for the reply, 1920x1080 medium to high graphics settings is fine, never gonna use or need it because:
old VGA 1024x768 default ( 85hz (or 75hz)

i'm considering this card:

GeForce® GTX 1050 Ti G1 Gaming 4G ( 4GB ram)
cause the same with only 2 GB might be insufficient, current GPU on win7 = 2 GB , so the 4GB might be better is only a few EU expensive


PC case of course with at least 2 large airfans, trying to geteeven 3,4 or maybe 5 fans( topfan might not fit) ( case will be crowded but cooling is needed.


check attachment ( gpu_vgamonitor.png) to see old current setup ( monitor and GPU)

Winddoze 10 will need at least 16 GB cause 8 is not gonna do the job ,and frustrations of having to use Windoze 10 is bad enough, ist become more like a Winfoes 10 :D
don't need ectra load stress :D
Good old win7 has 8 and it works like a charm. :D Well the main reason i need power is because too many 'unitygames' are burning rubber, or in this case burning the cpu, i mean i see many Unitygames claiming the min. req. is 1.6 and sometimes 2.6 ghz, without mentioning double or quad so i assume they refer to old single core, if not, they shoud start to inform users better and also tell if they used unity (so i can skip the games if i know that)

as for a few $ ( euros in my case but few $ more sounds better) more:

it is forced upon us, and me to get Windoze 10, so buying a new pc is not with a smile but with a meh, i have to get it or ... so its not that i really like the idea wasting precious money. Okay , thanks for the info, i also read other replies and they talked about the mhz like 3ghz or 2.x and a turbo...
since Windoze 10 is dumpware anyway i have no choice but to try and make the horrible experience as less horrible as possible.

Thanks for the suggestion, i heard and read about it.... if i remember correctly i never got anything boxed, usually it was all bagged :D
the bagged hardware saves extra $, and all my bagged ware worked a charm so far, so forking out more or less,$/euros to get evil Windoze 10 running is a waste of cash in my opinion. yes, thanks for the reply
mainly for gaming but... archiving (games ( backups) (rar/winzip will be very slow) , with the extra turbo boost it saves a nice amount of time , 99% of the games are old GOG games, no 3d, no fpp, no COD like games, i only need more power because of Windoze 10 and developers that only use ghz power like 2.6 , 3.5, 3.8. and even up, the good part is many also use Intel Core Duo E6600 or i5-2500 without mentioning specific ghz which is better.
Anyway imagine seeing a nice game, owning a brand new system and the games does not work cause it needs 4.6 or 4.8 ghz , and mine is 3 ghz BUT it has 4.1 turbo :D its all too complicated.

Thats why i prefer old stuff, GOG games the good old revived games until now they all work on my current win 7 system.

Radeon RX 570 is a better option over the GTX 1050 Ti, at the moment still being the best price-performance ratio GPU. If you're not in a big hurry, it would be better to wait a month or so, because some new cheaper mid-range GPUs are about to be launched soon.

Look in this thread too.There's a similar discussion.

thanks for the reply and info.

i know, i read some info, going for nvidia gtx card, cause the previous cards lasted pretty long, never had hardware failures, also intel above amd, never had hardware failure with intel, dont want to risk AMD.
Anyway , ineed vga compat. and the nvidea 1050 has it(converter is needed but they say it works)

CPUs aren't really that important for most games, my processors will be 9 yrs old this year and I still haven't seen a whole lot of noticeable bottlenecking (except in a few notoriously unoptimised games), Id say most recent 4-and more cores would be sufficient, if you want to be safe go with an i5.

I wouldn't buy a 1050Ti either, its not bad of course but there are faster alternatives at just a bit higher prices, personally I think its not worth it. And many modern games require more than 4GB of video ram for high settings, so id at least look for a 1060/1660Ti/2060 or RX 570/580.

A major exception to this rule is the Bohemia Interactive series ARMA, specifically ARMA 3. When they made that game, they consciously decided to made it CPU-dependent instead of being GPU-dependent for the graphics & gameplay. This is one reason it is one of the few games on steam which stresses that they recommend installing it to a SSD.


Also, @gamesfreak64, this might be of interest: https://www.game-debate.com/cpu/index.php?pid=2513&pid2=2510&compare=core-i5-8400-6-core-2-8ghz-vs-core-i3-8350k-4-core-4-00ghz

At least wait for the GTX 1650 to be launched. It's a 4GB card, but that might drop the prices for GTX 1060. You should really go for a GTX 1660 or the Ti version, which has the performance of a GTX 1070 in many games.

If you have the money, don't get a 4 GB VRAM card now. It's an obsolete investment if you plan to play some newish games in the near future.

Perhaps consider a Ryzen 5 2600X ?

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i5-8400-vs-Intel-i5-8500-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-2600X/3097vs3223vs3235

It's cheaper, plus it has hyperthreading & it comes with a decent stock cooler and can be overclocked.

thanks for the information...
Ryzen ? sounds familiar


(googled) ... " AMD Ryzen™ Desktop Processors | AMD " ....

AMD ... (◕︵◕) i stick to what i am used to since my p 100 mhz : Intel 4EVER :D
never had any hardware problems, compat. problems , driver problems or whatever