How much speed would I gain by upgrading? (Intel i5 1st gen vs i5 8th gen)

[Brian Lund]

Hi all, I'm thinking about upgrading my system, but I'm not really sure if it's worth it.

I mainly use my PC for gaming and occasionally photo editing. For gaming I am actually quite happy, but for photo editing, for example merging panoramas I find that often I have to wait a minute or two for the operation to finish.

I have found a Youtube video comparing my CPU (almost 9 year old) vs the most recent i5 and there wasn't really a lot of performance difference (with the same graphics card). But since gaming is more graphics intense and I imagine photo editing is more CPU intense there might be more of a difference in that aspect?

I currently have an i5-750 (1st gen), it's a quad core 2,66 GHz CPU and I have 8 GB RAM and SSD's for OS and programs (but my images are stored on HDD because of the size).

How much faster would for example a panorama merge be if I switch to for example the i5-8400 with 16 GB RAM? (Leaving GPU and SSD/HDD the same)

 

[Mystery member]

Hi all, I'm thinking about upgrading my system, but I'm not really sure if it's worth it.

I mainly use my PC for gaming and occasionally photo editing. For gaming I am actually quite happy, but for photo editing, for example merging panoramas I find that often I have to wait a minute or two for the operation to finish.

I have found a Youtube video comparing my CPU (almost 9 year old) vs the most recent i5 and there wasn't really a lot of performance difference (with the same graphics card). But since gaming is more graphics intense and I imagine photo editing is more CPU intense there might be more of a difference in that aspect?

I currently have an i5-750 (1st gen), it's a quad core 2,66 GHz CPU and I have 8 GB RAM and SSD's for OS and programs (but my images are stored on HDD because of the size).

How much faster would for example a panorama merge be if I switch to for example the i5-8400 with 16 GB RAM? (Leaving GPU and SSD/HDD the same.

This will give you an idea of the difference. Seems to be about 50% improvement overall.

Comparison

- Hardly worthwhile considering the cost. Think about an i7 instead.

 

[edispics]

Hi all, I'm thinking about upgrading my system, but I'm not really sure if it's worth it.

I mainly use my PC for gaming and occasionally photo editing. For gaming I am actually quite happy, but for photo editing, for example merging panoramas I find that often I have to wait a minute or two for the operation to finish.

I have found a Youtube video comparing my CPU (almost 9 year old) vs the most recent i5 and there wasn't really a lot of performance difference (with the same graphics card). But since gaming is more graphics intense and I imagine photo editing is more CPU intense there might be more of a difference in that aspect?

I currently have an i5-750 (1st gen), it's a quad core 2,66 GHz CPU and I have 8 GB RAM and SSD's for OS and programs (but my images are stored on HDD because of the size).

How much faster would for example a panorama merge be if I switch to for example the i5-8400 with 16 GB RAM? (Leaving GPU and SSD/HDD the same.

This will give you an idea of the difference. Seems to be about 50% improvement overall.

Comparison

- Hardly worthwhile considering the cost. Think about an i7 instead.

I7 won't buy the OP much compared to I5, especially with respect to panorama merge - check out these benchmarks:

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...ormance-Core-i7-8700K-i5-8600K-i3-8350K-1057/

 

[Brian Lund]

This will give you an idea of the difference. Seems to be about 50% improvement overall.

Comparison

- Hardly worthwhile considering the cost. Think about an i7 instead.

I7 won't buy the OP much compared to I5, especially with respect to panorama merge - check out these benchmarks:

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...ormance-Core-i7-8700K-i5-8600K-i3-8350K-1057/

Thanks to both of you, it was exactly something like this I was looking for...

Doesn't look like too much of an incentive to upgrade just yet, looks like I may as well wait another generation or two until I upgrade! (Or wait until something dies)

 

[wklee]

You might also want to consider the impact Spectre/Meltdown has on your 1st gen i5. I have a 3rd gen i7 and Spectre/Meltdown has degraded the CPU's performance. No solution in sight, for me.

 

[Brian Lund]

You might also want to consider the impact Spectre/Meltdown has on your 1st gen i5. I have a 3rd gen i7 and Spectre/Meltdown has degraded the CPU's performance. No solution in sight, for me.

I haven't noticed any impact, it doesn't mean it isn't there though.

But it might be another reason to wait for gen 9 or 10, until they fixed it in hardware.

 

[wklee]

You might also want to consider the impact Spectre/Meltdown has on your 1st gen i5. I have a 3rd gen i7 and Spectre/Meltdown has degraded the CPU's performance. No solution in sight, for me.

I haven't noticed any impact, it doesn't mean it isn't there though.

But it might be another reason to wait for gen 9 or 10, until they fixed it in hardware.

 

[Morris0]

Hi all, I'm thinking about upgrading my system, but I'm not really sure if it's worth it.

I mainly use my PC for gaming and occasionally photo editing. For gaming I am actually quite happy, but for photo editing, for example merging panoramas I find that often I have to wait a minute or two for the operation to finish.

I have found a Youtube video comparing my CPU (almost 9 year old) vs the most recent i5 and there wasn't really a lot of performance difference (with the same graphics card). But since gaming is more graphics intense and I imagine photo editing is more CPU intense there might be more of a difference in that aspect?

I currently have an i5-750 (1st gen), it's a quad core 2,66 GHz CPU and I have 8 GB RAM and SSD's for OS and programs (but my images are stored on HDD because of the size).

How much faster would for example a panorama merge be if I switch to for example the i5-8400 with 16 GB RAM? (Leaving GPU and SSD/HDD the same)

 

[BlueRay2]

Hi all, I'm thinking about upgrading my system, but I'm not really sure if it's worth it.

I mainly use my PC for gaming and occasionally photo editing. For gaming I am actually quite happy, but for photo editing, for example merging panoramas I find that often I have to wait a minute or two for the operation to finish.

I have found a Youtube video comparing my CPU (almost 9 year old) vs the most recent i5 and there wasn't really a lot of performance difference (with the same graphics card). But since gaming is more graphics intense and I imagine photo editing is more CPU intense there might be more of a difference in that aspect?

I currently have an i5-750 (1st gen), it's a quad core 2,66 GHz CPU and I have 8 GB RAM and SSD's for OS and programs (but my images are stored on HDD because of the size).

How much faster would for example a panorama merge be if I switch to for example the i5-8400 with 16 GB RAM? (Leaving GPU and SSD/HDD the same)

 

[plain text]

Here's another comparison -

Loading…

www.cpubenchmark.net

I found going from 8 to 16GB made a large differece btw

 

[sygnus21]

Doesn't look like too much of an incentive to upgrade just yet, looks like I may as well wait another generation or two until I upgrade! (Or wait until something dies)

While some are focused on raw CPU speed, you might also consider that newer CPU’s and motherboards bring with them new tech and better performance over the old.

The newer motherboards have for example native USB 3.1 / Thunderbolt; faster/more PCI lanes, support for faster GPU's, native NVMe (m.2) support, faster RAM, just to name a few.

Then there's the enhanced instruction sets newer chips bring - example the newer chips can handle better video playback and multimedia functions older chips simply can't handle.

So, while the "newer processor" may not necessarily be any faster raw speed wise, they bring with them, along with the motherboard tech, a whole new wealth of performance, features, and efficiency, older chips and boards simply lack. Those alone make for a better, faster PC.

Now some people will argue they don't need these things, but these are the same people who aren't upgrading their PC's.

Bottom line is "raw" speed is not the only factor to consider. My i7-7700K isn't necessarily blowing my first gen i7-920 away speed wise, but tech wise, my Z270 motherboard housing my i7-7700K is light years ahead of my X-58 motherboard housing my i7-920. That ultimately means a faster better PC.

My two cents.

 

[BlueRay2]

Doesn't look like too much of an incentive to upgrade just yet, looks like I may as well wait another generation or two until I upgrade! (Or wait until something dies)

While some are focused on raw CPU speed, you might also consider that newer CPU’s and motherboards bring with them new tech and better performance over the old.

The newer motherboards have for example native USB 3.1 / Thunderbolt; faster/more PCI lanes, support for faster GPU's, native NVMe (m.2) support, faster RAM, just to name a few.

Then there's the enhanced instruction sets newer chips bring - example the newer chips can handle better video playback and multimedia functions older chips simply can't handle.

So, while the "newer processor" may not necessarily be any faster raw speed wise, they bring with them, along with the motherboard tech, a whole new wealth of performance, features, and efficiency, older chips and boards simply lack. Those alone make for a better, faster PC.

Now some people will argue they don't need these things, but these are the same people who aren't upgrading their PC's.

Bottom line is "raw" speed is not the only factor to consider. My i7-7700K isn't necessarily blowing my first gen i7-920 away speed wise, but tech wise, my Z270 motherboard housing my i7-7700K is light years ahead of my X-58 motherboard housing my i7-920. That ultimately means a faster better PC.

My two cents.

i concur with your POV, most people are hang up about faster CPUs while ignoring the supporting technologies ;-)

 

[tkbslc]

Hi all, I'm thinking about upgrading my system, but I'm not really sure if it's worth it.

I mainly use my PC for gaming and occasionally photo editing. For gaming I am actually quite happy, but for photo editing, for example merging panoramas I find that often I have to wait a minute or two for the operation to finish.

I have found a Youtube video comparing my CPU (almost 9 year old) vs the most recent i5 and there wasn't really a lot of performance difference (with the same graphics card). But since gaming is more graphics intense and I imagine photo editing is more CPU intense there might be more of a difference in that aspect?

I currently have an i5-750 (1st gen), it's a quad core 2,66 GHz CPU and I have 8 GB RAM and SSD's for OS and programs (but my images are stored on HDD because of the size).

How much faster would for example a panorama merge be if I switch to for example the i5-8400 with 16 GB RAM? (Leaving GPU and SSD/HDD the same.

This will give you an idea of the difference. Seems to be about 50% improvement overall.

Comparison

- Hardly worthwhile considering the cost. Think about an i7 instead.

Where do you get 50%? The heading right at the start of the benchmarks says "102% average user bench"

Geekbench shows 100% increase for single core and 200% increase for multi-core.

Passmark shows 100% increase for single core and 300% increase for multi-core.

I would expect a massive increase

 

[Mystery member]

Hi all, I'm thinking about upgrading my system, but I'm not really sure if it's worth it.

I mainly use my PC for gaming and occasionally photo editing. For gaming I am actually quite happy, but for photo editing, for example merging panoramas I find that often I have to wait a minute or two for the operation to finish.

I have found a Youtube video comparing my CPU (almost 9 year old) vs the most recent i5 and there wasn't really a lot of performance difference (with the same graphics card). But since gaming is more graphics intense and I imagine photo editing is more CPU intense there might be more of a difference in that aspect?

I currently have an i5-750 (1st gen), it's a quad core 2,66 GHz CPU and I have 8 GB RAM and SSD's for OS and programs (but my images are stored on HDD because of the size).

How much faster would for example a panorama merge be if I switch to for example the i5-8400 with 16 GB RAM? (Leaving GPU and SSD/HDD the same.

This will give you an idea of the difference. Seems to be about 50% improvement overall.

Comparison

- Hardly worthwhile considering the cost. Think about an i7 instead.

Where do you get 50%? The heading right at the start of the benchmarks says "102% average user bench".

I would expect a massive increase

"What I really meant to say was..."

I was looking at the single core results (+65%), and being conservative.

Others don't anticipate anything like a "massive" improvement for the OP's applications.

Like I originally said, given the expense of a while new system, the obvious choice would be an i7 of some sort, and someone else suggested the same.

 

[tkbslc]

Hi all, I'm thinking about upgrading my system, but I'm not really sure if it's worth it.

I mainly use my PC for gaming and occasionally photo editing. For gaming I am actually quite happy, but for photo editing, for example merging panoramas I find that often I have to wait a minute or two for the operation to finish.

I have found a Youtube video comparing my CPU (almost 9 year old) vs the most recent i5 and there wasn't really a lot of performance difference (with the same graphics card). But since gaming is more graphics intense and I imagine photo editing is more CPU intense there might be more of a difference in that aspect?

I currently have an i5-750 (1st gen), it's a quad core 2,66 GHz CPU and I have 8 GB RAM and SSD's for OS and programs (but my images are stored on HDD because of the size).

How much faster would for example a panorama merge be if I switch to for example the i5-8400 with 16 GB RAM? (Leaving GPU and SSD/HDD the same.

This will give you an idea of the difference. Seems to be about 50% improvement overall.

Comparison

- Hardly worthwhile considering the cost. Think about an i7 instead.

Where do you get 50%? The heading right at the start of the benchmarks says "102% average user bench".

I would expect a massive increase

"What I really meant to say was..."

I was looking at the single core results (+65%), and being conservative.

Others don't anticipate anything like a "massive" improvement for the OP's applications.

They've probably not used a first gen i5 recently. They are ancient tech. Even the Sandy Bridge (2nd gen) feels like a huge improvement.

Like I originally said, given the expense of a while new system, the obvious choice would be an i7 of some sort, and someone else suggested the same.

Okay, sure. But saying i7 is a bigger upgrade doesn't mean i5 is not a huge upgrade, too.

 

[kelpdiver]

I currently have an i5-750 (1st gen), it's a quad core 2,66 GHz CPU and I have 8 GB RAM and SSD's for OS and programs (but my images are stored on HDD because of the size).

Sandy Bridge (next gen after your Nahalem cpu) was the big break thru for intel in a time where AMD had them on the ropes (well, would have in a competitive industry with sufficient manufacturing capacity. )

SB cpus overclocked so well that people really struggled to find a reason to replace them until intel started selling hex cores cheaper.

A newer system will get you faster on board SSD speeds (unless you're using a PCI card for this), and usb3.

The Meltdown bugs entail a more severe penalty with newer cpus. On ones this old, you probably won't see fixes at all. The actual consequence of that may not be terrible. Or maybe just don't do financial stuff on it.

 

[Mystery member]

This will give you an idea of the difference. Seems to be about 50% improvement overall.

Comparison

- Hardly worthwhile considering the cost. Think about an i7 instead.

I7 won't buy the OP much compared to I5, especially with respect to panorama merge - check out these benchmarks:

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...ormance-Core-i7-8700K-i5-8600K-i3-8350K-1057/

Thanks to both of you, it was exactly something like this I was looking for...

Doesn't look like too much of an incentive to upgrade just yet, looks like I may as well wait another generation or two until I upgrade! (Or wait until something dies).

I'm assuming that your "upgrade" will be a complete new system, and the extra cost of some flavour of i7 CPU shouldn't be an issue when the time comes.

I usually upgrade when the likely improvement is about 100% (i.e. double the speed) without breaking the bank. This usually means getting a computer a few steps back from the cutting edge. Reliability and value for money is the key factor for me.

I was building and selling computers in the 90s and 00s, so I always had a few "demo" machines sitting around, and I kept the best of these for a year or two. More recently, I put together quite a nice Core2 Duo computer that lasted for 10 years before I decided that it was time for an upgrade. The upgrade to an i7 7500U gave about a 200% increase in performance which was nice, if not earth-shattering.

 

[wklee]

I confused the iteration in an earlier post by saying it was 3rd Gen when it should have been 2nd Gen.

--
Never buy version 1.0 of anything.
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
Joni Mitchell's Big Yellow Taxi

 

[Robert Zanatta]

The 8400 will be a lot faster. If you can afford a bit more, you could get the 8700K which will be two to four times faster in terms of processing power. It would be quite noticeable with an application like Lightroom.

 

[tkbslc]

The 8400 will be a lot faster. If you can afford a bit more, you could get the 8700K which will be two to four times faster in terms of processing power. It would be quite noticeable with an application like Lightroom.

Just to be clear, the 8700K is not 2-4 times faster than the i5-8400, but it will be vs the old i5-750.