I5 with Sli or I7

My Laptop which is optimized for Word Processing with a i7 runs SWTOR on maximum settings at 30 fps. His build isn't that impressive at all.

It's not enough to quote a frame rate and graphics level without also saying what resolution you run at.

I run max settings at 2560x1440 on a GeForce 760 and an i5, while also driving three other monitors, and have no frame rate issues as far as I've noticed (just the normal server lag). Of the three systems here that people use for raiding in SWTOR, mine has the slowest CPU and GPU, but the highest resolution monitor (the others run at 1920x1080 with a second 1920x1080 monitor).

A less expensive system might do just as well, even at this resolution, but you would have to try it to find out.

If it is a laptop can you give us a link and if it is a desktop the show us a pc part picker build becuase I doubt a computer for 400$ could max all current games

Here:
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/kJ2dxr

Note, some prices online are too high I bought mine by going to the computer local were prices are lower and you can choose parts by negociating prices.

the mouse is alambric acktek mini mouse which you cant find in the site, also the gabinet is mini atx, the cooler was recommeded by the employees of the local I went.

Mine costed 400-500, the rest of the setup is similar to the link, converted from my local currency.

Although it sounds like the OP has decided on a laptop, I wanted to inform you on some misconceptions about the difference between i5's and i7's on laptops and desktops. The desktop i5 and i7 are both quad-core (the only difference being hyper-threading), but on the laptop side of Intel's CPUs the i7 is the quad-core and i5 is dual-core both with hyper-threading.

desktop/cores/HT
i3/2/yes
i5/4/no
i7/4/yes
mobile/cores/HT
i3/2/yes
i5/2/yes
i7/4/yes

Between the 2 laptops the OP was looking at the i5 is:
http://ark.intel.com/products/76348/...up-to-3_10-GHz
and the i7:
http://ark.intel.com/products/75117/...up-to-3_40-GHz

So, yes the i7 would be a better suited CPU for SWTOR.

Just googled the a10-7850k and in this review it shows that tomb raider at medium settings and 1080p was barely at 30 fps, so for some reason I doubt it can max any current game.

Im using it, not tried Tomb Raider but that game is optimized to play better on AMD 7850k like Battlefield 4 too, so I doubt the veracity of that article.

Im playing SWTOR all maxed out, did I say Battlefield 4 plays smootly enough in AMD to actually make a difference in the results you get in that game considering is a first person shooter a milisec can make a difference.

Um. SWTOR runs the bulk of its game code in a single thread, and often references up to 3 GB of RAM. That's a heavily memory dependent application. In fact, SWTOR runs a second process in order to expand the amount of addressable memory. Both the second process and the pipe used to communicate with the main process put a lot of strain on the CPU's memory subsystem. The Sandy Bridge and later Intel chips have notably better memory controllers, and this is one of the reasons why Intel chips outperform AMD chips on SWTOR.

I don't know where to start on that first statement. I expected it to be a joke, but...

Let me confirm for you that you can play SWTOR and listen to music at the same time on an Intel CPU. I do it quite often, actually. Of course, I've also been known to play SWTOR and run Linux in a Virtual Box VM at the same time... while playing music. And I normally have two browsers open (usually 8-20 tabs). And my development IDE is constantly running. And I have system monitors running. ... while I play SWTOR.

But that's not me bragging. That's what you should expect of a quad-core CPU. AMD chips can do that, too. I remember the days when gaming and playing MP3s would cause problems. That was 1997. Modern processors have no problems handling that load. At least... they shouldn't. I mean, my phone plays MP3s and browses the internet at the same time without problems.

You are right about cheaper-per-performance, at least for the upper levels of AMD chips. However, cost/performance ratios are only half of the discussion (actually, maybe less than half). Games don't run better because you got a deal on the chip. AMD chips are often more economical, but that doesn't make them fast. Analogy: Just because a Ford has better gas mileage than a Porche doesn't mean its a good choice for racing.

No, SWTOR is pretty balanced between CPU and GPU. Take a look at your processor utilization graphs while playing some time. SWTOR will load a single core of my i7 to about 80%. The other cores are generally unloaded, unless I have other background apps loading them. At the same time, it will be running my GPU at full capability. Now, just because SWTOR is only using 1 of 4 cores doesn't mean the game isn't CPU-bound. The bulk of its work is in a single thread within a single process. That single thread on that one core is responsible for the bulk of the game performance. That's why, when looking at which CPU to suggest for SWTOR, we look at the single-thread benchmarks. It doesn't matter what the other cores are doing, or even how many of them there are. All that matters is the question of How much work can a single core do in a period of time?

I'm sorry, but that's not terribly impressive. Most gamers are looking to hit 60fps, and the existence of a browser in the background shouldn't make any real difference. With my i7, I hit framerates of 50-60fps in warzones. If my framerate drops to 30fps, I start looking for problems with my PC.

Next, while I take issue with Tom's for some of their build preferences (eg: their love of water cooling and overclocked RAM), I think you need to think twice before claiming that you know more about CPU performance than they do.

I didn't say it was. The i5 is the bang-for-the-buck selection, and that implies that the bang needs to be sufficiently impressive. That guide is written for people intending to play current generation games with high performance standards. The i5 sits on the "corner" of the diminishing returns graph, ie: its at the point where paying more actually gets you a proportionate increase in performance; past that, you pay a premium for only minor gains. AMD chips have better cost-performance ratios, but they also have routinely lower performance ceilings. If you want the best performance from a game, AMD just can't get you there.

The budget gaming chip of choice is actually an i3, and that i3 still outperforms your 7850K, and only costs about $40 more.

Okay, let's get a little brutal here.

My i7-2600K from over three years ago outperforms your 7850K from January at stock speeds. An i3-2330 outperforms your 7850K. I'm not bragging, just pointing out the truth of the matter here. The 7850K is decent chip for gaming, but its no powerhouse, and it can't match Intel chips from even 2 generations ago.

Yes, the 7850K is cheaper than the other chips, but for gaming performance, the Intel chips are simply better. If you want to talk about budget builds, then we can start a thread for that. The OP wanted to know which of two laptops was better and if there were other options that had better performance for a similar price. The simple --and very unfortunate-- truth is that for SWTOR, AMD won't deliver the same performance that he can get from an Intel chip.

At the end of the day, the most common limiting factor on framerate in SWTOR is the CPU, not the GPU. Run a warzone, look at the utilization of your CPU cores, look at the memory throughput and see how often it correlates to framerate drops. GPUs matter, certainly, but in SWTOR it sets the level of detail you can play at. The framerate is much more likely to be affected by animation loads, texture manipulations, and the various particle effects. Those are dependent on the CPU, not the GPU.

Then you haven't played many recent games. There are games that challenge the very most powerful CPUs on the market, and the 7850K is not even close to them.

Don't get me wrong. I don't hate AMD. Quite the contrary. I want to like AMD. I think AMD does a lot of things the right way. I worry about the ethics displayed by Intel, and I think they designed their best chips when AMD forced them to actually work at it. At the same time, I'm not willing to let my appreciation for AMD skew my understanding of CPU operation and performance, and I won't force my opinions on AMD onto others. The sad truth is that current generation AMD chips cannot match the performance of Intel chips. AMD Is cheaper, and in some cases, you can use a cheaper CPU and still get good game performance. But in CPU-dependent games --and SWTOR, and virtually all MMOs are-- an Intel system will get you better performance than an AMD system of equivalent cost.

Hmm. How did I miss that? I thought I looked them up. I guess that's what I get for not just going to the ARK and trusting whatever Google found for me.

here is for you:

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/538..._i7-4770K.html
Source: cpu-world (Best source)

Not counting on future games which will be HSA enabled which is a reality because Xbox, PS4 main consoles for gaming are using AMD chips...

Anyway, for the rest by memory depandent I meant RAM, yes intel does a good job allocating memory on mem intensive programs, but SWTOR is graphic memoery depadant see the difference? its GPU!

Now back to AMD the chips have graphics cards (very good ones) inside. Something Intel doesnt, so AMD is aimed at casual/hardcore gamer, while intel is aimed at General market like offices, stores, labs did I say intel is like the Sith empire? yes! it minituarizes everything without are real result in performance, like i7 is minimal considering i5 performance even unoticiable unless you use benchmarks with most focusing on task per sec.

Amd wins now and in the future so buy AMD.