i5 2500k Overclock vs. i7 4710hq

Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by Coprhead66, Aug 12, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Coprhead66

    Coprhead66 Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Hey everyone,

    I'm currently selling my older desktop and buying a refurbished / open-box Alienware 15 or 17. I tend to play games like Archeage that are processor intensive, and I'd like to know how my overclocked desktop 4.1 GHz i5 2500k would compare to the i7 4710hq or the i7 5700 for gaming purposes...

    Thanks!
     
  2. D2 Ultima

    D2 Ultima Livestreaming Master

    Reputations:
    4,334
    Messages:
    11,801
    Likes Received:
    9,734
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Your i5 at 4.1GHz is stronger than a 4710HQ or 5700HQ can ever become.

    Assume the i7s (at full turbo) would act like your i5 chip would at ~3.6GHz.
     
  3. Coprhead66

    Coprhead66 Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Thank you.

    And crap!
     
  4. Tsunade_Hime

    Tsunade_Hime such bacon. wow

    Reputations:
    5,413
    Messages:
    10,722
    Likes Received:
    1,203
    Trophy Points:
    581
    You will always be handcuffed with a "laptop" unfortunately. Even laptops with desktop CPUs, you will be limited on chassis space/cooling, MXM cards that do lineup very well against desktop cards, but top the top tier ones as laptop power circuitry will be the limiting factor.
     
  5. octiceps

    octiceps Nimrod

    Reputations:
    3,146
    Messages:
    9,956
    Likes Received:
    4,193
    Trophy Points:
    431
    Considering a 2500K with adequate cooling can usually get darn close to 5 GHz, I doubt any current laptop CPU can match its gaming performance
     
  6. tilleroftheearth

    tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...

    Reputations:
    4,942
    Messages:
    12,321
    Likes Received:
    2,343
    Trophy Points:
    631
    Buying an older platform will be a step down in performance vs. your OC'd desktop from 2011.

    But raw cpu performance isn't all there is to a newer platform. There may be benefits that you don't anticipate yet.

    See:
    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=804&cmp[]=2243&cmp[]=2565

    The link above shows a couple of things that are interesting.
    • At a base clock speed of 800MHz less and 200MHz less at turbo, and at half the TDP, the Haswell based platform handily outperforms the SNB platform of yore.
    • At the same TDP, the latest i7 Skylake platform is ~80% faster than the i5 SNB you have and ~25% faster in single core performance too.
    • Both of these latest platforms are outperforming the i5 even though it has four physical cores and the newer ones have only two.
    • And these differences do not even begin to describe the capabilities of a system based on the very newest platforms.
    Yes, raw (cpu) performance may be lower. But I am betting that on a fully optimized and balanced setup, a current platform (especially Skylake, if you can wait that long) will give you similar performance or better vs. what you were used to on your DT setup. All with the best battery life (for the lighter tasks you'll use it for), lower heat and noise too.

    The i7-4710HQ may well be more than enough processor for your games (given a good enough gpu). It will be a downgrade in other workloads vs. your OC'd DT, but is still a very good move into a mobile platform.

    See:
    http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1123

    See:
    http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1123&page=13


    The above two links (esp. the second one) shows how little OC'ing makes in games. Just make sure the games tested are similar to the ones you play.

    Good luck.
     
  7. Dufus

    Dufus .

    Reputations:
    1,194
    Messages:
    1,336
    Likes Received:
    548
    Trophy Points:
    131
    Errr no. The newer ones in your link have 4C/8T vs the 4C/4T of the 2500K

    Here's with the i5-6600K which like the 2500K doesn't have HTT
    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=804&cmp[]=2243&cmp[]=2570

    So using passmark the 4710HQ is better than the latest 4C4T Skylake DT CPU.

    Normalizing the 2500K and 6600K as both are overclockable we get a whopping 14% increase in performance if they both overclock the same amount. If the 2500K overclocks better then even less.
     
  8. tilleroftheearth

    tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...

    Reputations:
    4,942
    Messages:
    12,321
    Likes Received:
    2,343
    Trophy Points:
    631
    Dufus, thanks for the correction (sorry, was too tired...). I don't know how I was confused there...

    The 4710HQ may be slightly better (when the 'score' is so close, lets just say equivalent) overall, but it is still ~14% faster in single thread performance.

    And even OC'd that performance difference will only grow. Overall, the better platform is still the latest one. At least from these preliminary numbers we're comparing.
     
  9. D2 Ultima

    D2 Ultima Livestreaming Master

    Reputations:
    4,334
    Messages:
    11,801
    Likes Received:
    9,734
    Trophy Points:
    931
    It's possible that RAM is the reason the 4710HQ passes the skylake chip. I would blame hyperthreading, however that should give the 4710HQ a larger increase. Skylake clock for clock should be something closer to a minimum of 30% over Sandy Bridge:
    SB = 100%
    IB = 110%
    HW = 110 * 1.07 = 117.7%
    BW = 117.7 * 1.05 = 123.585%
    SL = 123.585 * 1.05 = 129.77% (rounded to two decimals)
     
  10. octiceps

    octiceps Nimrod

    Reputations:
    3,146
    Messages:
    9,956
    Likes Received:
    4,193
    Trophy Points:
    431
    AnandTech found Skylake's average clock-for-clock improvement over Sandy Bridge was about 25%, so 30% is too high of a min
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page