I know what hyper threading is, and I know of some examples as to when hyper threading is actually beneficial to the user of such a device. However, like myself, I do a bit of productivity work, but I tend to do quite a lot of coding, now would hyper threading help me out a lot with coding?
I should note that I mostly do coding and sometimes I mess around with virtual machines and stuff like that, but of course I don't use virtual machines to the point where I'd say it could justify me buying an i7 over an i5. The money isn't a big deal, I mean if it is pretty useful for the likes of me and will make a fair difference, then I'll consider purchasing an i7 over an i5, but if the performance difference is next to none, then I see no point in spending the extra money, I don't mind splashing out a lot for my set up because I'm sat here nearly every day, for long periods of time. However, I think it's fair to say that no one likes to just go out and waste money, I mean if the benefits would be next to none for the likes of me, then I'll just stick to a good ol' i5. Up until now, I've been using an i5 processor, but in my laptop, I have an i7 and it does appear to do certain tasks a bit faster, but that could just be down to the fact that it has a better SSD and what not.
So do you guys think that I should buy an i7 or an i5? - I know this is somewhat an opinion based question, but I'd like to hear what you guys have to say.
Yeah, I'd plan on using at least 16GB of RAM as I've managed to utilise 15 GB at my most that I've actually recorded and witnessed, and I tend to usually use way over 8GB when I've got a fair work load going on. I would've thought the i5 option would be fine, but from what I've been reading, it may be a good idea to invest into the i7 either way. I'm not a die hard gamer that needs that RGB look everywhere nor do I even like the idea of overclocking, I prefer system reliability more than system performance, provided it's not taken to the extreme level.
I think that the i7 would be justifiable from what I've been reading, but I'm still not 100% sure, I mean like you said:
Which I know you're right, but I wanna try and get an idea as to just how much more beneficial it would be for me to buy the i7 over the i5. I know I may have to provide a lot more information based on what I do on a day to day basis and what I do when it comes to work.
I've seen and read a few things on hyper threading and anyone please step in and correct me if I am wrong. Basically you have your 4 cores. Within those cores you have two threads. Each thread is kept full of whatever needs to be processed at the time. The Core still can only process one thread at a time but the i7 will just be faster since its next instruction set is right at the gate(so to speak) ready to be processed once the previous instruction gets done. The i5 and its 4 cores have to wait for the next instruction from RAM. Hope that makes sense and hope I am not way off base in my understanding of how this works.
I have a Freenas Rig running g3220 and 16gig of ram running 3 ubuntu VMS. One is Zoneminder capturing/processing video from 2 1080p poe camera, Gitlab on another vm, Unifi Controller on another and that processor idles at 25% load all the time. The G3220 is a 2 core no hyperthreading processor handling all that just fine.
As far I'm aware, you're 100% correct in what you're saying there, the i7 is only faster for things that can be executed very quickly (if I'm not mistaken). Other than that, I know that hyper threading has very little benefit, I mean if the i5 had more CPU power, then the i5 would without a doubt beat the i7 for value & performance, especially for the likes of me.
But at the same time, I know that I sometimes use all of the threads on my CPU, or at least I manage to somehow end up using around 99% of my CPU's power. I have a feeling that this may also be why my motherboard of CPU is being really weird recently, I plan on upgrading my hardware because I've currently got hardware faults. It's not just an impulsive purchase or anything like that, as I've said before now, I'm no hard core gamer, although I am a PC enthusiast.
More cores = smoother multitasking, higher frequency = faster system. Simple as that, always has been. With multicores as the defacto people these days think they need all those cores when in reality you can do perfectly fine with a dualcore. Then they hate because 'dual core is shit'. Then they hate even more because your cheap dualcore is faster than their 8 core.
I know about more cores is better and more frequencyis faster, I know how CPU's work to a basic enough level. But I'm not sure how useful hyperthreading is to me, I know it's also nowhere near the same as having 8 physical cores. I'm pretty sure that hyperthreading is only useful for managing tasks rather than executing tasks, so to speak.
And a quad core would be better than a dual core in my case. Trust me. I'm not looking to be doing stuff like browsing the web and doing fairly basic tasks, but rather some CPU heavy tasks. When I game, obviously that'll be GPU heavy, not sure if quad core would make a huge difference there. Especially something like the i3 6320 (I think that's the right course at least), it has 4 threads and operates athe 3.9 GHz, which is pretty damn decent for an i3.
i5. It is only if you intend executing long-running tests or an unreasonably demanding IDE that you would need a fast or 8-core CPU. As for virtual machines... if you won't run more than one at a time, you'll almost certainly do just fine with four logical cores. Two cores? I don't know - I have bad experience running VM:s on only two cores.
Hyperthreading might help you with running multiple processes, or processes with threads that tend to block/choke each other. I'd guess 4 logical cores should do the trick for you - either dual core with hyperthreading, or a quad core. 8 logical cores if you run a local server and/or never restart your desktop and the open programs.
And if you're sceptical about performance: ht reduces /single core/ performance by 1% or less, but you get much more out of in the real world. Ie doesn't make any sense for a home user to disable hyperthreading
I'm thinking of going with an i5 just to save myself some money, and to help keep temps down, as I've stated above, I may even consider going with a i5 6500, it's slightly less than the 6600, but as it has lower operating frequencies, I should experience lower temps too, am I right? ..... Provided the over all efficiency of the CPU is roughly the same.... I mean AMD CPU's tend to be less efficient, I'm not hating on AMD, but you gotta agree, AMD CPU's get much hotter?
I don't know. I've been an Intel boy for the past 10 years. But yeah, lower operating frequencies within the same CPU gen almost always mean lower temps. Also check out the wattage, it is also a good indicator of heat.
I use mostly passive cooling systems with silent fans, so I prefer stock-speed, average performance CPU:s with burst mode disabled to keep the temperatures steady.
I have been carefully looking at the different power consumption's, would you recommend the i5 6500 for a hybrid of performance and slight budget build? .... I mean I don't want the best bang for my buck, but I don't want to go all out and go nuts with spending more than needed.
I took a look at the CPU specs and noticed the only significant difference between 6500 and 6600 is base and turbo frequency. I think i5 6500 should be enough for the uses you have described.
Make sure you have plenty RAM for the VM and the IDE:s. 16GB should be good, as @sanfordvdev suggested.