Anand seems to have been able to OC much faster with an Asus board: 4,8GHz on the 661!
So there's enough room to play with these to make them the next big thing for cheap gaming rigs :D
I am all for the naming scheme of the chips being related to their relative performance levels.
However, the "Core" brand name followed by a number is confusing to the average high street consumer. Due to the fact that it can sound as if it implies a relation with the CPUs number of Cores. Example: Core i7 can mislead one to believe it may have 7 cores.
So it seems to me that the i3-530 is the neww E5200 in terms of price/performance. i5-750 retains the mid-range crown. Interesting reading and will be very interesting to see what happens to the market this week...
Originally Posted by Xtrafresh Anand seems to have been able to OC much faster with an Asus board: 4,8GHz on the 661!
So there's enough room to play with these to make them the next big thing for cheap gaming rigs :D
Yea we've seen special things from other 32nm products, but we're waiting on BIOS bugs on a few boards right now.
one thing not covered in the article is Mediacentre performance, are these capable of running a media centre (hardware playback etc.) i very much presume they are
Wow, the i3-530 is just... wow. That said, i'd love to see a GPU-less version of it... that would drop the power draw, and probably make if cooler (or does the GMA get no power at all when a dedicated GPU is used?)...
Originally Posted by yakyb one thing not covered in the article is Mediacentre performance, are these capable of running a media centre (hardware playback etc.) i very much presume they are
I've dropped in some extra information on page 2 about this and a few other details :)
Thanks for including the Q6600 :)
I can see now that he's going the way of the dodo :D I'll just O'c mine to 3.0ghz and let it stay there until Sandybridge, or Bulldozer.
It would be nice to see the Q9550 in the benchmarks, the Q6600 is getting a little old now and alot of people are thinking of getting the a faster S775 cpu instead of changing to a new mobo right now
Originally Posted by NickCPC Interesting article - but I noticed the i7-720QM/820QM mobile processors had been omitted from the comparison table?! Any reason??
Not omitted, just don't have a direct comparative. Mobile products don't really compare to desktops - it's an entirely different usage model because mobile CPUs come packaged within a full laptop.
So the i3-530 totally beats an E8400 on performance, for 1/3 less in price yet only gets 6/10 for performance and 8/10 for value? Both seem way off to me.
Also ... for tests with integrated GPUs please do a second set of power consumption tests without the additional GPU and with a much smaller (450W?) PSU to reflect the scenario that those of us not into gaming face. I've been using integrated GPUs since the Athlon 64 + ATI days and have never needed more - it's hard to judge the power figures when much of the reading is down to PSU inefficiency at tiny partial loads and GPU overhead.
Just read your comment and giggled ... i've got mine trained too. It's a while since mine bought me a Intel 80GB G2 SSD so I think I deserve another toy...
Great article! Those new CPUs seem to be pretty great. However, all this article reaaallly did was solidify my purchase of a i5-750. Maybe I missed it, but was the on chip GPU tested at all?
Oh yeah, and anyone else remember Intel's excuse of saying the hyperthreading feature was the only reason a CPU would be called an i7? What ever happened to that?
Someone seriously needs to get Intel a better cpu-naming-guy. If it were me:
i3 - 1156 budget CPUs, model numbers indicate performance
i5 - 1156 midrange CPUs, model numbers indicate performance
i7 - 1366 CPUs, model numbers indicate performance
To reduce confusion put something like "HT" in the title for ones that have hyperthreading instead of giving them the same name of CPUs that exist on entirely different sockets. Intel is either clearly trying to deliberately confuse the consumer into buying the the two useless lynnfield models by calling them i7s, or their naming schemes are under the command of some PR marketing robot.
Originally Posted by Xtrafresh Anand seems to have been able to OC much faster with an Asus board: 4,8GHz on the 661!
So there's enough room to play with these to make them the next big thing for cheap gaming rigs :D
They did get to about 6.5GHz, though not on air.
Well, I'd just drop some cash on a better cooler (Still using stock, plan on getting Xigmatek HDT-SD964 due to height issues.), OC my G0 Q6600 to 3.0GHz and wait for SandyBridge.
Originally Posted by NickCPC Interesting article - but I noticed the i7-720QM/820QM mobile processors had been omitted from the comparison table?! Any reason??
Not omitted, just don't have a direct comparative. Mobile products don't really compare to desktops - it's an entirely different usage model because mobile CPUs come packaged within a full laptop.
I'm talking about Page 3: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/01/04/intel-core-i5-661-core-i3-530-cpu-review/3
There is a "complete" list of all the new Core i-series (i3,i5,i7) which also includes mobile processors which are as yet unavailable. The Core i7 720QM/820QM are part of the Core i-series, and they are available now; surely they should have been included on the feature table?! (Sorry I didn't make which table I was referring to clear in my first post.)
you need to review the AMD athlon II X3 425/435. Its the gem in AMD's crown....if other review sites are to be believed. With current prices, the i5 platform sits too close to the 965 platform in terms of cost for a new build.
Originally Posted by NickCPC I'm talking about Page 3: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/01/04/intel-core-i5-661-core-i3-530-cpu-review/3
There is a "complete" list of all the new Core i-series (i3,i5,i7) which also includes mobile processors which are as yet unavailable. The Core i7 720QM/820QM are part of the Core i-series, and they are available now; surely they should have been included on the feature table?! (Sorry I didn't make which table I was referring to clear in my first post.)
Oh, yes, true to the table, I'll add them when I have time :)
Comments 1 to 25 of 50
ReplySo there's enough room to play with these to make them the next big thing for cheap gaming rigs :D
However, the "Core" brand name followed by a number is confusing to the average high street consumer. Due to the fact that it can sound as if it implies a relation with the CPUs number of Cores. Example: Core i7 can mislead one to believe it may have 7 cores.
Yea we've seen special things from other 32nm products, but we're waiting on BIOS bugs on a few boards right now.
I've dropped in some extra information on page 2 about this and a few other details :)
I can see now that he's going the way of the dodo :D I'll just O'c mine to 3.0ghz and let it stay there until Sandybridge, or Bulldozer.
Yet, a nice i5-750 wouldn't be too bad. Hmmmm... birthday on Feb 4. Where's my girlfriend again? Gotta call her. :)
+1
couldnt clarkdale i5's be all quads? :(
AMD needs another price cut. so does MSI's 790FX-GD70 :)
very interesting to see the q6600 dropping down the charts but i think its going to be the staple of many of the systems here for a while yet
Not omitted, just don't have a direct comparative. Mobile products don't really compare to desktops - it's an entirely different usage model because mobile CPUs come packaged within a full laptop.
Also ... for tests with integrated GPUs please do a second set of power consumption tests without the additional GPU and with a much smaller (450W?) PSU to reflect the scenario that those of us not into gaming face. I've been using integrated GPUs since the Athlon 64 + ATI days and have never needed more - it's hard to judge the power figures when much of the reading is down to PSU inefficiency at tiny partial loads and GPU overhead.
Otherwise, great write-up. Thanks
Just read your comment and giggled ... i've got mine trained too. It's a while since mine bought me a Intel 80GB G2 SSD so I think I deserve another toy...
Oh yeah, and anyone else remember Intel's excuse of saying the hyperthreading feature was the only reason a CPU would be called an i7? What ever happened to that?
Someone seriously needs to get Intel a better cpu-naming-guy. If it were me:
i3 - 1156 budget CPUs, model numbers indicate performance
i5 - 1156 midrange CPUs, model numbers indicate performance
i7 - 1366 CPUs, model numbers indicate performance
To reduce confusion put something like "HT" in the title for ones that have hyperthreading instead of giving them the same name of CPUs that exist on entirely different sockets. Intel is either clearly trying to deliberately confuse the consumer into buying the the two useless lynnfield models by calling them i7s, or their naming schemes are under the command of some PR marketing robot.
They did get to about 6.5GHz, though not on air.
Well, I'd just drop some cash on a better cooler (Still using stock, plan on getting Xigmatek HDT-SD964 due to height issues.), OC my G0 Q6600 to 3.0GHz and wait for SandyBridge.
I'm talking about Page 3: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/01/04/intel-core-i5-661-core-i3-530-cpu-review/3
There is a "complete" list of all the new Core i-series (i3,i5,i7) which also includes mobile processors which are as yet unavailable. The Core i7 720QM/820QM are part of the Core i-series, and they are available now; surely they should have been included on the feature table?! (Sorry I didn't make which table I was referring to clear in my first post.)
Oh, yes, true to the table, I'll add them when I have time :)
-
« Previous
-
1
-
2
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums