• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

i3-6100, good enough to stand against an i5-4460?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Vishera

Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
So I'm planning an upgrade to Skylake with my computer, just so I'm up to date somewhat with CPU architecture. The one snag I'm having is for the time being, I can only spend what I get out of selling my current Haswell rig. My current CPU is an i5-4460, and with the budget of what I make off of the central components of this computer (CPU, board, RAM, and a couple of hard drives), the furthest I can go right now is an i3-6100. I'm wondering if, given the new architecture, smaller lithography, and the fact it has hyperthreading, if the 6100 would still be able to keep up to pace at least fairly decently with my current CPU? This is both a luxury and work upgrade, I'll upgrade the GPU later on, but still a bit of a necessity on the work front.
 

wingman99

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
I would stay with the i5-4460 it has 4 cores, the i3-6100 has 2 cores + HT. There is no replacement for real cores.
 

Lochekey

Senior Pink Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2015
I agree with the guys above you will probably see worse performance with the i3 6100. The only place you will see slight gains is in single threaded applications due to the higher clock speed. Your L3 cache size will be cut in half though on the i3 so this will affect your performance as well.
 

Tír na nÓg

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2015
I'd sell the 4460, get a used 4690K and an hyper 212 HSF, overclock the CPU to 4.4/4.5GHz and call it a day.

You have a Z97 MoBo and should not have any issue taking the K Haswell to 4.4GHz. Same perf as a stock 6600K for less tha a $100 out of your pocket.
 

FX4

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2012
I would stay with the I5-4460, but then again I only upgrade every fourth or fifth generation and sometimes longer. I run my processors into the ground and I run them until they won't do something I need them to do. It's a losing battle if you want to stay with the latest and greatest architecture. CPUs are so fast today most users sitting down blindly at a machine can't tell one from the other without looking and doing some benchmark work. Unless you're doing intense mathematics, engineering work, high resolution 3D gaming, hard core 3D modeling, etc you are not going to really put a dent in a modern processor even a few generations old. I have not maxed out my Sandy Bridge I7 2600 on a normal work load to date and I do some crazy stuff with that system. I'm sitting here typing this on an old Yorkfield Q9650 quad core and it runs great.
 
Last edited: