I'm curious what kind of system temps you guys saw with the OCd i5 750. I was already planning on getting that chip for my next system upgrade, but these numbers have settled, cemented and sealed the buy. If I can get a stable rig running at 4.15GHz, I would be in heaven.
Intel have already moved up to 32nm, while AMD's latest upcoming line of processors (Thuban, 6 core) is running on a 45nm.
AMD is falling behind further and further.
Can AMD pull through with some sort of magnificent release? Something in the dark working behind closed doors? Or are they down the road of "mediocre at best" for years to come?
I love Intel & AMD, without one you can't have the other (in a fair price range that is). I am a true AMD fan and always will be, at the same time I am definitely not afraid to admit they are getting beat pretty bad here, and the i5's are only making it harder for AMD to contend, thanks to i5's cheaper (than i7) prices.
I just find the battle between these 2 companies very interesting, and I love following this tale :-) AMD long ago made a choice to not go with hyper-threading and ever since they have been getting beat, the only thing AMD had going for them was their low prices + high clock speeds, but now with the Intels upcoming proccies, it seems that the edge in clock speeds AMD once had, is also going to be in question. AMD can make their processors only so much cheaper before it starts to hurt their income (it already has, and can only continue to worsen, actually.)
I'm really interested to see how AMD plan on contending with Intel in the near future to come. Their Thuban is nice in that it is backwards compatible with current gen mo-bo's, but the fact it needs 6 cores and a high clock to contend with Intel's older proccies, it just seems like they are falling far behind.
The OC table still shows the E8400 not the E7400, I read this earlier today & was a bit confused. I believe the E8400 would have been a better comparison.
Originally Posted by CozaMcCoza Intel Core i3-530 should surely be on overall at 7/10?
Value = 8, Performance = 6
(8 + 6) / 2 = 7
It doesn't work that way. The overall score is not an average - we have the score guide at the bottom of every page to relate exactly what each number represents.
Originally Posted by wuyanxu i thought it was:
i5 4 threads
i7 8 threads
until i got confused when 6-core is announced to be i7.
Nope. They use the new branding to communicate wether a customer is buying a high-end (i7), mainstream (i5) or value (i3) part. Then after that, they mess it up again by mixing all the ranges up and adding meaningless numbers, aswell as using the old C2D branding alongside it, and keeping the pentium, celeron and atom brands aswell.
To make absolutely sure that nobody buys the right processor, they added some suffixes to the mobile parts too.
I think they did a pretty good job. The standard in rebranding land was set pretty high by nVidia (now reVidia), but i'm not sure that nVidia is going to be able to take the rebranding crown back with their new Tesla/Fermi/GT300 launch. It's going to be exciting to see :)
X00 where 100 is the lowest CPU clock and 900 being the highest.
If you then have to introduce new ones later, you can use the old nVidia naming of X50 to "squeeze" them in.
You know I really dont care for Intel super glue technique to "beat" AMD to the market, at least AMD when they release something its actually what it says it is and isnt just two dies linked together, at least AMD is working on a true cpu and gpu in one die rather then intels super glue of a cpu and gpu. I dont remember but is the ATOM/GPU combo the same as their super glue version of the i3 or is it actually on one die?
Originally Posted by HourBeforeDawn You know I really dont care for Intel super glue technique to "beat" AMD to the market, at least AMD when they release something its actually what it says it is and isnt just two dies linked together, at least AMD is working on a true cpu and gpu in one die rather then intels super glue of a cpu and gpu. I dont remember but is the ATOM/GPU combo the same as their super glue version of the i3 or is it actually on one die?
It's one die, and it's not really a superglue approach since the memory controller and PCI-Express also sit on the 45nm die too. It's a time to market thing.
Originally Posted by Neogumbercules 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?
I was hoping for the same thing. I expect it to be horrendous, but I wanted to see if there is any hope at all for Intel in terms of graphics.
I'll be sticking with my Q6700 - it's more than powerful enough and still competes in my opinion. This test is not the only test and some show the Q6700 and quad core 2 duos performing brilliantly against core i5/i7. In the real world my overclocked q6700 still gets higher overrall scores than core i5/i7 in quite a few instances. I'm running windows 7 - 64 bit.
Why upgrade? when you already have a powerful chip. It's a waste of money and a waste of the planet's resources.
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi It's one die, and it's not really a superglue approach since the memory controller and PCI-Express also sit on the 45nm die too. It's a time to market thing.
Was that answer to the Atom with the built in gpu as from the pics ya that did look like one die or were you talking about the i3 because in that one pic it looked like the chip the guy was holding had two dies on it which is why I call it the superglue technique where as whenever AMD release something thats multi anything, its always been native and on a single die. Either way its still an interesting step and another way for Intel to control the market some more and what not.
there be no point in testing the onboard GPU as its going to be 16x faster then slow (this is from intel IGP charts), so now its faster then slow but still slow with DX10 support (no dx10.1 or dx11 be pointless thought)
ATI has had DX10.1 parts out for some time now, Nvidia stating that it does not car stance about DX10.1 or as much DX11 as well that be mostly due to the fact none of there cards have it (apart from the lame cards Nvida 240 or lower with DX10.1 that 47xx cards can beat and are cheaper to , re branded 8800gt>9800gt>GTX250>240 with an die shrink and slower clocks Quite sure its like that)
Enjoyed the article, nice to see 32nm parts appear on time, however am I the only one with quad-core apathy? Come on Intel, wont we supposed to have had 10+-core chips by now?
On the graphics side, how do you think the overclocked Q6600, would have faired against the i3 / i5 at a more GPU bottlenecked resolution, such as 1920 x 1200 with AA in a single GPU config?
The GMA HD chip is really only present for non-gaming applications – we'll explore these uses more in a later article now that we're all back in the office following our Christmas break.
Sometimes I wonder if people actually read the articles or just go to the comments to moan about "missing" parts...
Originally Posted by Geoff x The Core i3-530 is listed at £85 ex. VAT, not inc, at Overclockers.co.uk.
£100. Not tooo bad I suppose, but more than we'd have liked. It's only because supply will be low and demand high for new stuff that OCUK are scraping in their 40-50% margin.
The rest of that pricing looks pretty high too. Any chance of some direct comparisons/numbers with the i3-530 and the X2 550 BE? Seems to me that the AMD combo is £140 with Asus M4A785TD-V EVO for IGPU and core unlocking goodness. On OCUK prices the i3-530 is around £180 with the Gigabyte UD2. Perhaps a better upgrade path awaits the P55 board, but for right here, right now budget bang-per-buck, what wins?
Not sure how the 530 received a better value rating than the Athlon 620, particularly when factoring in Motherboard cost and the fact that the Athlon is easily overclocked. Cost is further exacerbated when one factors that the Athlon II x4 620 is capable of working with some older AM2 boards, thus not requiring a new MB or ddr3 memory upgrade. Furthermore, the 530 is still a dual-core, and lags behind (if only slightly) the athlon ii x4 in multi-threaded apps, which is made even more noticeable when the Athlon is overclocked. So, can someone elaborate on this?
Comments 26 to 50 of 50
ReplyValue = 8, Performance = 6
(8 + 6) / 2 = 7
AMD is falling behind further and further.
Can AMD pull through with some sort of magnificent release? Something in the dark working behind closed doors? Or are they down the road of "mediocre at best" for years to come?
I love Intel & AMD, without one you can't have the other (in a fair price range that is). I am a true AMD fan and always will be, at the same time I am definitely not afraid to admit they are getting beat pretty bad here, and the i5's are only making it harder for AMD to contend, thanks to i5's cheaper (than i7) prices.
I just find the battle between these 2 companies very interesting, and I love following this tale :-) AMD long ago made a choice to not go with hyper-threading and ever since they have been getting beat, the only thing AMD had going for them was their low prices + high clock speeds, but now with the Intels upcoming proccies, it seems that the edge in clock speeds AMD once had, is also going to be in question. AMD can make their processors only so much cheaper before it starts to hurt their income (it already has, and can only continue to worsen, actually.)
I'm really interested to see how AMD plan on contending with Intel in the near future to come. Their Thuban is nice in that it is backwards compatible with current gen mo-bo's, but the fact it needs 6 cores and a high clock to contend with Intel's older proccies, it just seems like they are falling far behind.
Come on AMD, I'm always rooting for you :-)
It doesn't work that way. The overall score is not an average - we have the score guide at the bottom of every page to relate exactly what each number represents.
i5 4 threads
i7 8 threads
until i got confused when 6-core is announced to be i7.
the 32nm looks promising, can't wait for an affordable i7 in 32nm.
To make absolutely sure that nobody buys the right processor, they added some suffixes to the mobile parts too.
I think they did a pretty good job. The standard in rebranding land was set pretty high by nVidia (now reVidia), but i'm not sure that nVidia is going to be able to take the rebranding crown back with their new Tesla/Fermi/GT300 launch. It's going to be exciting to see :)
Though I don't understand either why they don't just go back to a naming scheme that makes sense:
Core iX X00
i3 - dual core
i5 - quad core [no HT]
i7 - quad core [HT]
X00 where 100 is the lowest CPU clock and 900 being the highest.
If you then have to introduce new ones later, you can use the old nVidia naming of X50 to "squeeze" them in.
It's one die, and it's not really a superglue approach since the memory controller and PCI-Express also sit on the 45nm die too. It's a time to market thing.
I was hoping for the same thing. I expect it to be horrendous, but I wanted to see if there is any hope at all for Intel in terms of graphics.
Why upgrade? when you already have a powerful chip. It's a waste of money and a waste of the planet's resources.
Was that answer to the Atom with the built in gpu as from the pics ya that did look like one die or were you talking about the i3 because in that one pic it looked like the chip the guy was holding had two dies on it which is why I call it the superglue technique where as whenever AMD release something thats multi anything, its always been native and on a single die. Either way its still an interesting step and another way for Intel to control the market some more and what not.
Possibly the wrong site to post that comment ;)
(Although I'm still running socket 939! Shush...)
ATI has had DX10.1 parts out for some time now, Nvidia stating that it does not car stance about DX10.1 or as much DX11 as well that be mostly due to the fact none of there cards have it (apart from the lame cards Nvida 240 or lower with DX10.1 that 47xx cards can beat and are cheaper to , re branded 8800gt>9800gt>GTX250>240 with an die shrink and slower clocks Quite sure its like that)
On the graphics side, how do you think the overclocked Q6600, would have faired against the i3 / i5 at a more GPU bottlenecked resolution, such as 1920 x 1200 with AA in a single GPU config?
Sometimes I wonder if people actually read the articles or just go to the comments to moan about "missing" parts...
£100. Not tooo bad I suppose, but more than we'd have liked. It's only because supply will be low and demand high for new stuff that OCUK are scraping in their 40-50% margin.
Strange. ;)
-
« Previous
-
1
-
2
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums