[SOLVED] At the same PCmark score, is an i5 better than an i7?
Linux - HardwareThis forum is for Hardware issues.
Having trouble installing a piece of hardware? Want to know if that peripheral is compatible with Linux?
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
At the same PCmark score, is an i5 better than an i7?
In benchmark comparisons it often turns out that an intel i7 cpu has about the same score as an i5. Does this mean the i5 is better than the i7 for most people because most people are running single-threaded applications anyway?
For the purposes of running 3-4 VM's at the same time, each running a browser looking at a heavy site or a video viewer, which is better?
You need cores either real or fake for multiple VM's you also need virtualization support which is not available in all i5's. I personally went with an E3 Xeon (E3-1265L) they are price competitive and have all the features. If you're looking at K SKU's none have virtualization support. If you're doing a new build have a look at AMD
No the i5 is 4 cores 4 threads and the i7 is 4 cores and 8 threads which the computer see's as 8 cores. When you set you VM's up you can give each more cores because you have more
If only 3-4 VM's are run at a time and an i5 is found with virtualization support? Won't each VM run faster than on an i7 with the same pcmark score?
If you run 4 VMs an a four core machine those 4 VMs have to compete more with the host OS about CPU time as when you run the same workload on a CPU with 4 cores and hyperthreading. Also, if both CPUs have about the same PCMark score (which is a bad benchmark per se, IMHO), why should the i5 suddenly be faster?
Is it accurate that PCmark puts a high load on all cores and tells you the total operations per second by adding the operations of core 1 plus the ops of core 2 plus core 3 etc? So if the sum of an i7 is the same as the sum of an i5, individual cores would be slower in the cpu with the most cores, ie the i7?
This matters because most people are only stressing one core as most loads are single-threaded loads. The process viewer in windows confirms this, it never hits the max in an i7-3770T with a single application but hardly reaches 10% or so. Unless you encode video with a multi-threaded codec, this was the only way I could get it to 100%.
Was going to allocate one core per VM and leave a core for the host. Tried giving the VM's plenty of cores on an i7-3770T (it allowed up to 12 or 16 if I remember well) but the VMs slowed down. What should be the optimum number of cores per VM if only 3 VM's are required?
By the way, cpu's are being compared for laptops as I want to buy one, not sure a xeon is available in a laptop.
Is it accurate that PCmark puts a high load on all cores and threads and tells you the total operations per second by adding the operations of core 1 plus the ops of core 2 plus core 3 etc? So if the sum of an i7 is the same as the sum of an i5, individual cores would be slower in the cpu with the more cores, ie the i7?
No, PCMark runs several workloads of typical Windows software (mostly Adobe and Microsoft) together with a few synthetic benchmarks, give any of them a score and uses those scores to calculate a general score.
i5 is better value than i7, but not better performance. I have an i5 because I don't think the extra performance and hyper-threading is worth $100 more. In most applications (not highly threaded) there won't be much of a difference.
Pretty much, you get what you pay for. If the core i7 costs more, it is better.
Your use and apps would decide if the extra money is worth it. Some features like VM support may not be easily found in common tests. If you are just watching Hulu then I'd think the core i3 would be fine.
No, they use some arbitrary rules to determine the end result from the results of the single tests. On the Wikipedia page for PCMark you can find a brief description of those test, but I guess the rules to determine the end result are secret.
What's a better benchmark then, that is relevant when you want to run 3 or 4 VM's, and one that has many cpu's tested and published online for comparison?
I don't know of benchmarks using VMs, but if total CPU power is your concern benchmarks like the multithreading part of CineBench (rendering 3D scenes) or wprime (calculating large prime numbers) come to my mind. If they really are relevant for you is something I can't say, the only reliable benchmark would be to test your workload on both CPUs.
From a different perspective, assuming that you are paid to do the research for building that machine, the costs of your research time now should have excelled the extra costs for the i7.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.