i5 (6300HQ) vs i7 (6700HQ) worth the $100 difference for people who use VM's?

Hey guys,
So I'm planning on getting the dell inspiron 7599. The difference between the i5 and i7 version is going to be roughly $100.

I realize that for most people i7 is a waste, but I might just not be one of these people since I primarily I will be using a VM.

Generally I will work with a single VM running (with ubuntu, with its GUI and not just the console). This means I will probably have a server running as well in the VM with an IDE open and possibly another IDE open in windows (the host machine), along with a browser and a dozen tabs in chrome.

Do the above requirements qualify for an i7? I'd rather not spend the extra $100 right now if I don't have to.

Thanks in advance.

 

Well the Skylake i5 is a quad-core chip, just without HT.

Will you be running more than four threads simultaneously? If so, get the i7. If not the i5 is fine.

 

Great rule of thumb right there. And a sensible suggestion to boot.

 

For running VM's I would do it for $100.

 

The good news, both processors have all the bits you want for VM'ing: Vt-x, Vt-d, and EPT (Vt-x).

The bad news is, only $100 more is a good deal, the raw price difference between the tray price of the CPU's is $128.

Check out the specs / comparison here, on ark.intel.com

http://ark.intel.com/compare/88967,88959

HT "cores" aren't like real cores, but they do help if you have lots of processes active, and it sounds like you will. If nothing else you may regret not getting the i7 during those times of heavy usage and you think it would be better if you had gotten the i7.

If you can configure in the 6820HK at the same price (same tray price), you will get a little bump in performance at stock speeds, but will be able to OC it 400mhz or so higher for free additional performance

http://ark.intel.com/compare/88969,88967,88959

The 6300 is 300mhz slower in Max Turbo than the 6700. The 6820HK is another 100mhz faster than the 6700 at Max Turbo, and can be tuned for 400mhz even faster performance - a total of 700mhz faster than the 6300.

Definitely get one of the faster 2 CPUs

 

Why is (almost) everyone so penny wise and dollar foolish?

For $100 more you get almost 36% more raw compute performance - each time you use that system and for as long as you own it (which will invariably allow you to own it longer... based on performance aspects alone).

For maybe an additional ~10% one time cost?

See:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2586&cmp[]=2632


Amortize that over the expected life cycle of the notebook and you're much further ahead to buy the best you can afford now.

Not only will the notebook be worth something (either to you or someone else that you sell/donate it to) in a few years, but you'll enjoy that productivity boost each time you use it in the meantime.

Make sure you max out the RAM also - it's an easy performance/multitasking boost and just as cheap as getting the faster cpu too. Getting a system with 16GB RAM or more is highly recommended going into 2016.

You can go ahead and save that $100 today. But your daily productivity will be up to 1/3 less from day one of ownership and will only get worse as time goes by. O/S's, programs and even browsers will always need more HP from the platform they run on (as time goes on)... buying less today means you'll need to buy sooner tomorrow (or; be less productive/efficient each time the lessor system is used).

Always buy what you can afford - but always buy as much computer as possible (CPU/RAM/STORAGE).

Doing anything else will, over the long run, cost you time or money and usually both.

EDIT:
BTW, the 'money' is not the cost to be concerned about. Time is what you can't re-stock.


Good luck.

 

Because not everybody will make use of that extra 36% compute performance.

In this case, using VMs might indeed benefit from the i7, and the 10% increased cost is well worth it over several years.

But some people do nothing more than a few light games and web browsing, for whom 36% extra performance in Chrome is not really worth that extra $100, because they won't even use their current CPU to its 100% maximum - ever.

So people ask, because they aren't sure.

 

Hey guys i am also wondering if the i7 is worth it over the i5. I do mostly Cad work, Rhino work, Maya (3d) work and gaming.
I am leaning toward the i5 cause the laptop setup with i7 is $300 more because of i7+ssd
what do u guys think? is the i5 enough? Not planning to do much rendering but 3d modeling

 

You have to start with a reference point; in your case, it's your current system. Open the Task Manager (Ctrl + Alt + Esc) and go about your work, check it every few minutes and see what the processor % utilization graph looks like. If it's spiking to 90 - 100% frequently, or staying above 50% for extended periods of time, you'll benefit from a faster processor. The computer shouldn't be continuously working that hard to handle your workload.

A processor that has twice the processing power might cut the CPU utilization for your tasks in half, non-scientifically speaking, so in the scenario above, your goal would be to find one twice as fast. You'll find a lot of debate around here as to which benchmark is best. If you have an old CPU, it may be difficult to find a direct comparison with one of the latest processors. Ideally the benchmarks would be simulating your tasks. The most demanding task I run is Photoshop, so I always look for Photoshop benchmarks.

Charles

 

Unless you will be buying a whole new system in less than ~18 months or so, the $300 extra cost i7 + SSD is the cheaper option in the long run.

Not only will you be able to put off upgrading to a new system at your leisure (when that time comes), rather than being forced into it because the system simply can't handle your workload in a few months time anymore. But each time you use the system (for yourself or for weekly/monthly maintenance tasks), you'll also be benefitting from the more powerful system.

With the last few generations of Intel platforms the benefits of using an i7 are not only much higher performance when you need it, but also the same efficiency or better when running light workloads too.

The one time cost difference will be soon forgotten (assuming you have the budget and means to do this without getting in debt for the better setup). The benefits of the better platform will live even beyond your ownership cycle and on into the second and third owner too.