i3 vs x3 "Includes graphical tests"

[ajaidev]

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/9366/amdvsintel2.jpg

Recently,Most diyer will pay attention to Core i3,Intel will release this processor on January 7, 2010 . In our previous article
"DuoCore Evolution! Corei3 + H55 review" we have carried out fairly comprehensive introduction about Core i3 and H55 ,we also taken various aspects of performance test, so that we should have a clear impression.


http://en.hardspell.com/doc/enshowcont.asp?id=7479&pageid=6406

GMA is at 733mhz
HD4200 is at 500mhz

Spoiler its a blood bath in the graphics section of the review. As for CPU power the x3 is just a tad less powerful than the i3 in most tests but in specialized multi threaded apps like main concept H264 encode the x3 beats the i3.

Price will determine which cpu people will go for.

[initialised]

http://img.inpai.com.cn/article/2009/12/18/f9ca6b22-1d36-4f04-81c3-3d407e50519f.png

Single vs multi core score?

Scaling factor?

[Oliverda]

http://img.inpai.com.cn/article/2009/12/18/f9ca6b22-1d36-4f04-81c3-3d407e50519f.png

Single vs multi core score?

Scaling factor?

multi

[flippin_waffles]

Wow the intel platform get's hammered in almost every category. Looks like they don't need 32nm to compete after all. ;) I remember reading they were doomed because they weren't moving to a smaller node as fast as intel. I'm sure I read that somewhere once....

So in light of the above thrashing, why are some trying to push i3 over the x3 again?

[eric66]

thats what happens when somebody buys ati and other one tries to create there own cr.p :D

[initialised]

From the pricing I've seen the i3 540 will cost the same as Athlon II x4 which, based on this review will nail it. It would be interesting to pit I3 540 vs Phenom II x2 550 as that is also close in price.

[initialised]

multiYou misunderstand, what is the single CPU score and what is the scaling factor for the two CPUs i.e. which gets closest to linear scaling?

[Hornet331]

From the pricing I've seen the i3 540 will cost the same as Athlon II x4 which, based on this review will nail it. It would be interesting to pit I3 540 vs Phenom II x2 550 as that is also close in price.

Yeah same, would like to see how the 5xx and 6xx performe. Since basically they tested a thing between the 530 and the pentium G9650.

Will be interesstening to see what 500mhz more will yield.

[grimREEFER]

wait a minute, wasnt this the same intel chipset that supposedly beat out a 4350?

[informal]

Looks like the X3 is doing just fine against the i3.AMD now can nail it even better if they offer a BlackEd. Athlon X3.Combine the open multi with the possibility(a very good one) that it may unlock cores too(the 4th core that is),and the whole X3 lineup will become a preferred choice especially with IGP factored in equation.

[flippin_waffles]

Couldn't find it anywhere in the article, but does i3 support turbo boost, and if so I wonder if it was active here. Surely it isn't because a higher frequency i3 should be able to outperform the x3, at least in these tests? So it must not be a part of this chip due to TDP restraints thanks to the MCM'd graphics chip, or am I out in left field here? :D

[informal]

I think TB is active but they just didn't mention it. Could be wrong though.

[flippin_waffles]

I think TB is active but they just didn't mention it. Could be wrong though.

Hmm yeah I wonder. If so, that doesn't bode well for i3 at all.

[edit]

We have the answer below. :)

[ajaidev]

From the pricing I've seen the i3 540 will cost the same as Athlon II x4 which, based on this review will nail it. It would be interesting to pit I3 540 vs Phenom II x2 550 as that is also close in price.

the x2 550 is a dying breed with advances in the manufacturing process there will be limited quantities left. :(


You misunderstand, what is the single CPU score and what is the scaling factor for the two CPUs i.e. which gets closest to linear scaling?

i3 is closer to liner



wait a minute, wasnt this the same intel chipset that supposedly beat out a 4350?

I all-ready said in that thread that the GMA was OCed and those were not the real results at all this is stock.


Looks like the X3 is doing just fine against the i3.AMD now can nail it even better if they offer a BlackEd. Athlon X3.Combine the open multi with the possibility(a very good one) that it may unlock cores too(the 4th core that is),and the whole X3 lineup will become a preferred choice especially with IGP factored in equation.

+1

x3 vs i3 and x4 vs i5 :up::up::up:


Couldn't find it anywhere in the article, but does i3 support turbo boost, and if so I wonder if it was active here. Surely it isn't because a higher frequency i3 should be able to outperform the x3, at least in these tests? So it must not be a part of this chip due to TDP restraints thanks to the MCM'd graphics chip, or am I out in left field here? :D

i3 does not support turbo mode, it along with HT starts from i5 and the cheapest i5 is suppose to cost $195 :(

[Hornet331]

edit (forgot to look at the date)

anyways hope there will be more reviews that pop up soon.

[ajaidev]

pic updated.....

[Tech Dav]

there is no such a thing as I3 520

[initialised]

i3 does not support turbo mode, it along with HT starts from i5 and the cheapest i5 is suppose to cost $195 :(http://en.expreview.com/img/2009/08/20/CPUZ_Clarkdale.png
Not so, I have ES i3 540 & 530 and both are HT enabled (same as this one from Overclock.net). Which is why they scale better than C2D of PhII.

[flippin_waffles]

Yeah, I was wondering because that article says it has hyperthreading.

[zanzabar]

so that platform is the price as a 785 with a 9xx quad core from amd, but they only bench it against a neutered tri core with no l3 and the old chipset with no side port

[ajaidev]

http://en.expreview.com/img/2009/08/20/CPUZ_Clarkdale.png
Not so, I have ES i3 540 & 530 and both are HT enabled (same as this one from Overclock.net). Which is why they scale better than C2D of PhII.

Thanks for pointing that out, i was thinking the i3's were not suppose to have turbo or HT.

http://www.fudzilla.com/images/stories/2009/November/General%20News/intel_corei3_corei5_january_small.jpg

This was what i was thinking..

[Nedjo]

Thanks for pointing that out, i was thinking the i3's were not suppose to have turbo or HT.

http://www.fudzilla.com/images/stories/2009/November/General%20News/intel_corei3_corei5_january_small.jpg

This was what i was thinking..

wow! i3 and i5 prices are set against Phenom II X4 prices! :eek: that's what I call self confidence.... or perhaps self delusion...

[bladerash]

well.. the cpu's are faster in single/double threaded applications. Any more than that and they fall to x3 and x4.
The thing that suck most about the i3 and i5 are their IGP .. those are just 4500MHD. They just draw extra power and are worthless performers.

[ExodusC]

I was under the assumption i3 would perform much better. I'm not sure if I think it's a good thing or a bad thing that it performs the way it does.

[R101]

And on-die GPU is overclockable by.. raising fsb/multi/smth else?

From the list it seems that TDP is greatly dependable on GPU clocks, 3.46 GHz with 73W seems great!

[Spectrobozo]

it would be interesting to compare the performance of the I3 to a i5 with just 2 cores active, and using a external vga, just to see the difference of the IMC... (edit: I forgot about the half size l3, so not quite possible)

as for the test... well the i3 is quite strong, but it's a dual core, and the IGP is what you can expect from intel IGPs... about OC, you can OC the 785g to, it's running at 500mhz, I think this can run at 800-900mhz, it will give a nice boost to the HD4200.... also
anyway, AMD have strong options in these lower price segments... there are plenty of cheap 780-785g mbs and cheap athlon II x2/x3/x4.

some mbs with 785g have siderport, some don't, it's not clear what board they used in this test

[mAJORD]

For the time being I think these will be very strong Gaming performers for the $.. they have a lot of grunt on each core, and still have a decent amount of fas L3, something the Athlon's lack. Of course, as more games become able to make full use of more than two cores, they'll start to fall to weaker Tri/quad cores again.. HT won't really help too much in games I guess.

the IGP is pretty rubbish for a new product, but that's to be expected. At least it'll have good Aero performance, and can play HD

Problem is, AMD's older 780G chipset is just as capable, if not more capable in 3D app's, yet is last gen and gettting very cheap.. Not to mention 760G which despite not having HD acceleration, and clocked lower is a very worthy General use IGP, which probably still matches Clarkdale for 3D performance, and even cheaper again.

[naokaji]

So ehh I3 has trouble going against the x3 435, what will Intel do against the x4 925 which costs 50$ less than the cheapest I5? or the 99$ x4 620?

Sure, I7 will remain unbeaten until the 6 core versions of itself show up, but below that its looking really good for AMD at the moment.

[Sh1tyMcGee]

Wow the intel platform get's hammered in almost every category. Looks like they don't need 32nm to compete after all. ;) I remember reading they were doomed because they weren't moving to a smaller node as fast as intel. I'm sure I read that somewhere once....

So in light of the above thrashing, why are some trying to push i3 over the x3 again?

Im sure its a different story when coupled with an external graphics card.

[naokaji]

Im sure its a different story when coupled with an external graphics card.

Not if you compare what costs the same:

I3 530 vs. PII x3 720
I3 540 vs. PII x4 925

[Necetra]

Still such a pitiful IGP. Really wish they'd put real graphic oomph into integrated parts.

[Chumbucket843]

http://img.inpai.com.cn/article/2009/12/18/cf75887c-7fac-488b-ae50-2a5badb5b3ef.jpg
this is what happens when a computer has an intel GMD(graphics media deccelerator). still impressive on floating point heavy benches. winrar is a clear memory bound application so you wont see a speed up unless more cores are used.

[Humminn55]

So ehh I3 has trouble going against the x3 435, what will Intel do against the x4 925 which costs 50$ less than the cheapest I5?


Don't know what Intel will do, but I do know I pay $149 for i5 750 cpus, certainly not $50 more than the x4 925.....that'd be ridiculous price to pay that much for the i5 750 when you don't have to.

[naokaji]

^sorry, I just used newegg prices where its 199 atm.

[JohnZS]

Im sure its a different story when coupled with an external graphics card.

I agree.
Heck even a GT240 graphics card would make things look better. It's a shame Intel didn't put some LRB loving into their new IGP's as quite frankly speaking Intel IGP's are 1999 performance!

It's such a shame that the best CPU manufacturer in the world cannot couple up with a decentish GPU manufacturer like S3 or someone to do their IGP's for them!

John

[kl0012]

Something different here:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=pt-PT&ie=UTF-8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://www.pcpop.com/doc/0/475/475243.shtml&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1
Pentium G6950 exceeds both HD4350 and GT210 gpus?

[Spectrobozo]

Something different here:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=pt-PT&ie=UTF-8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://www.pcpop.com/doc/0/475/475243.shtml&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1
Pentium G6950 exceeds both HD4350 and GT210 gpus?

I think in this test the intel IGP is overclocked, they also tested in less games and I think they should try lower resolution for RE5...

[rozzyroz]

I just don't see any of these integrated options being viable for gaming... i mean for the price of a game, you could buy a video card that would smoke any one of these integrated solutions.

i think these are really meant for office environments... :shrug:

[JohnZS]

I just don't see any of these integrated options being viable for gaming... i mean for the price of a game, you could buy a video card that would smoke any one of these integrated solutions.

i think these are really meant for office environments... :shrug:

Exactly and Ironically in an office environment the I3 would be the better processor, but don't let the truth get in the way of an AMD victory over Intel ;)

John

[naokaji]

^the average office pc does not use such expensive hw as a I3, office pcs with I3s will only be purchased for a very strictly selected number of employees, its way too expensive for the masses.
S775 will continue to reign supreme in offices.

[zalbard]

So ehh I3 has trouble going against the x3 435, what will Intel do against the x4 925 which costs 50$ less than the cheapest I5? or the 99$ x4 620?
You guys are forgetting one thing.
Overclocking.
If someone wanted a quad core CPU [from Intel], they would get i7.
This is a dual core (although HT on should give 5-20% performance improvement). And it will overclock and perform damn well in those applications that don't really need 4 real cores.

[Hornet331]

^the average office pc does not use such expensive hw as a I3, office pcs with I3s will only be purchased for a very strictly selected number of employees, its way too expensive for the masses.
S775 will continue to reign supreme in offices.

i3s will replace entrance midrange segment (E7xxx) which is quite in the range for an office machine and the Pentium G9650 will replace the Pentium E6xxx seriers.

Its far from "to expensive" for the masses, the E7300 retailed for ~110€ and the i3s are already at th same range. Pentium G9650 is a bit off, though this might changes when it finally gets available.

Plus H55 mobos are a lot cheaper then the G45 boards where at launch.

[ajaidev]

Itel generally have OEM tie up deal and the office IT in charge would generally buy the cheapest possible PC config. possible to cut costs. This config offcourse has to have a v=certain baseline like c2d, dvd drive, 120gb hdd with 15" LCD now this can have e8600, 120gb 10xxxRPM 120gb HDD with 15" 15bit LCD or a E2140, 5400RPM 120gb hdd with 15" 8bit LCD, its more likely that the latter one would cost much less than the first one and in office work environment both can work quite well.

[Olivon]

You got i3 530 vs x4 620 Here (http://en.hardspell.com/doc/enshowcont.asp?id=7475&pageid=6387) ajaidev ;)

Great win from AMD :up:

[Hornet331]

You got i3 530 vs x4 620 Here (http://en.hardspell.com/doc/enshowcont.asp?id=7475&pageid=6387) ajaidev ;)

Great win from AMD :up:

I sure hope so, if a X4 would loose against a i3 there would be something seriously wrong. :p:

[flippin_waffles]

I just don't see any of these integrated options being viable for gaming... i mean for the price of a game, you could buy a video card that would smoke any one of these integrated solutions.

i think these are really meant for office environments... :shrug:

Well not according to intel themselves. It seems even they consider this crap mainstream gaming hardware. Unless of course their tactic is just to redefine what mainstream gaming consists of. But that would just be unethical and abuse of a monopoly position, and that doesn't sound like something intel would do. And let's not forget the games that wouldn't even render in the OP.

The fact of the matter is they could put hamsters in these things to draw pictures by hand, and a monopoly would be able to sell them, AND BE REWARDED FOR THEIR EFFORT. I wonder if people realize how easily stunts like this stagnates progress, and if they would welcome a future with no growth in graphics rendering and decline in games technology.

http://forums.vr-zone.com/news-around-the-web/528427-intel-next-gen-igp-coming-clarkdale-provides-great-mainstream-gaming.html

[flippin_waffles]

I sure hope so, if a X4 would loose against a i3 there would be something seriously wrong. :p:

Then why does it cost more?

[Manicdan]

wheres the power consumption comparison?

[dasa]

Then why does it cost more?

well the fact that i3 should flog x4 620 in single or dual threaded programs could be one reason the other would be that its intel...
the x4 620 is a great value quad quad core cpu but it is cheap for a reason

[flippin_waffles]

well the fact that i3 should flog x4 620 in single or dual threaded programs could be one reason the other would be that its intel...


oh no you don't! :D So now we are going to selectively pick programs, or use a best case scenario method for the i3 only? The fact of the matter is, the i3 is the one getting flogged and it has a substantial clock speed advantage at that.

That's a ridiculous argument. I could say the same thing except like this: "the x4 should flog an i3 in dual threaded or multithreaded programs". Same argument, different result.

[edit]
And besides, I thought intel's design methodology was to use hyperthreading to help in mulithreaded programs.


the x4 620 is a great value quad quad core cpu but it is cheap for a reason

I am sorry, but I have to laugh here. Again, the i3 get's it's a$$ handed to it, and you still feel it's justified to charge more for it? Maybe in intel marketing land it should be, but not in the real world. "it's cheap for a reason" give me a freakin break. lol you use words like "it should be better", and yet the x4 "IS" better but needs to be cheaper because it's not intel? i thought the monopoly abuse was supposed to end??

[informal]

Plus in games,with the rather strongish GPU as RV770 (4870 used in that test), the difference between i3 32nm based Nehalem and lil 45nm Propus with no L3 is minuscule to zero. Not to mention apps. that are multithread oriented(practical stuff) in which the X4 kills i3 which runs even at higher clocks and has L3 advantage. Shows that real cores matter,a lot,with or without cache to help out.

[dasa]

i think you misunderstood im not saying the i3 is better than the 620 im saying they are not relay comparable they both have there strengths and weaknesses that would make each more suitable at different tasks

phenom II 550 is more in line with i3 it performs better than 620 in single and dual threaded tasks and like the 620 its almost half the price of i3
i5 750 is now $200 in aus which is much the same price as i3

[mAJORD]

as i briefly pointed out earlier, I think it shows the same thing we've seen for a little while now in reviews. MT performance wins every time now in the current software landscape.. especially reviews which use a lot of "benchmark software"

Review these CPU's, and Core i7 on apps from a 5years ago and see a different scenario.


* Core i7 would be a complete waste of money for nearly everyone.
* Core i3 /i5 clarkdale would own everything (including i7!)

So basically, single threaded performance is pretty quickly meaning less and less. The fact is, some games aside, those areas where single threaded punch matters are far and few between..

1. Windows itself runs wonderfully on anything you can buy now.. there's simply no difference to be told between an Athlon II X2, and a core i7 when shooting around windows.

2. The games and applications that don't utilise 2+ cores are getting older by the minute, and as such, run at high enough 'speed' (since their complexity is low, being coded in a time of lesser CPU's) to not matter on even a comparitivly low frequency/low IPC CPU.

Basically, any advances in software technology from now are almost always going to involve the use of more threads.

I think the fact Llano is a quad core is a good indication of that trend.. that's obviously going to be the smallest number of cores on a die AMD will offer by the end of next year. I think Intels decision to make Clarkdale a Dual core is a matter of timing.. It's less clear cut at this current point in time than it will be by the itme AMD go 32nm.

[dasa]

unfortunately a lot of those single\dual threaded games struggle to stay over 30fps so need the extra cpu speed more than any multi-threaded game which normally run over 60fps just fine since most of them are console ports or strategy games

[flippin_waffles]

I think what it boils down to, is that intel can't make an affordable budget quad core, so they have to make due with what they have, and market a dual core as a good budget alternative. The fact of the matter is though, that a $100 quad core is much more useful and a much better value than a dual core + 2 fake cores. There really is no useful software than can't run better on a quad core, especially when it's 30-$40 cheaper (as the review illustrates). If intel could make a cheap quad core, and make it fit into their business model they would. They obviously can't make one and have it compete, so this is the best they can come up with. Of course it helps that they can sell it for more money simply because they are a monopoly, but as the review proves it doesn't mean it has to be a better value.

[rozzyroz]

Well not according to intel themselves. It seems even they consider this crap mainstream gaming hardware. http://forums.vr-zone.com/news-around-the-web/528427-intel-next-gen-igp-coming-clarkdale-provides-great-mainstream-gaming.html

there is no integrated graphic solution that is able to play games in the sense that most of us here consider worthy... don't get me wrong, i would love to see an awsome integrated solution that would play all of the new releases at well over 30fps, but as it stands right now, i don't see that happening any time soon.

i3 may have the ability to play some games at respectable resolutions, and intel may use that fact for marketing and such, but in the end it's still not designed to replace a dedicated graphics card. you can get by with WoW and sims3 and such, but if you bring out any hardcore game, it's going to fail.... along with every other integrated solution.

I think we need to focus on system power consumption and office related benchmarks when dealing with integrated graphics (until someone decides to release a real integrated GPU designed to play games).

[Manicdan]

there is no integrated graphic solution that is able to play games in the sense that most of us here consider worthy... don't get me wrong, i would love to see an awsome integrated solution that would play all of the new releases at well over 30fps, but as it stands right now, i don't see that happening any time soon.

i3 may have the ability to play some games at respectable resolutions, and intel may use that fact for marketing and such, but in the end it's still not designed to replace a dedicated graphics card. you can get by with WoW and sims3 and such, but if you bring out any hardcore game, it's going to fail.... along with every other integrated solution.

I think we need to focus on system power consumption and office related benchmarks when dealing with integrated graphics (until someone decides to release a real integrated GPU designed to play games).

Llano should do that pretty well

[ajaidev]

You got i3 530 vs x4 620 Here (http://en.hardspell.com/doc/enshowcont.asp?id=7475&pageid=6387) ajaidev ;)

Great win from AMD :up:

+1 thanks for the heads up....


I am very surprised that the x4 620 made such a hard case for it self in discreet games. Generally the x4 620 is not all that good given the lack of L3, well if the game scores are true the Phenom II's will totallygive the i3's/i5's a run for their money because the Phenom II's perform much better than the Athlon II's in any game.

Possibilities in price to price comparisons :

x3 720 vs i3 530/540
x4 955 C3 vs i5 650
x4 965 C3 vs i5 660

These are based on the possible new prices here (http://img.donanimhaber.com/images/haber/intel_17ocak_fiyatindirimi_dh_fx57.jpg) ad here (http://img.donanimhaber.com/images/haber/intel_17ocak_fiyatindirimi2_dh_fx57.jpg) dont know if they are retail or wholesale.

[Hornet331]

I think what it boils down to, is that intel can't make an affordable budget quad core, so they have to make due with what they have, and market a dual core as a good budget alternative. The fact of the matter is though, that a $100 quad core is much more useful and a much better value than a dual core + 2 fake cores. There really is no useful software than can't run better on a quad core, especially when it's 30-$40 cheaper (as the review illustrates). If intel could make a cheap quad core, and make it fit into their business model they would. They obviously can't make one and have it compete, so this is the best they can come up with. Of course it helps that they can sell it for more money simply because they are a monopoly, but as the review proves it doesn't mean it has to be a better value.

Funny when people accuse other people for "crystal balling" and then do the same.
Do you really think amds enjoys it, that they have gross margins in the high 30s, while intel has high 50s?

I wonder what prices we would have if intel also would sacrifice 20% of there gross margin. ;)

[JohnZS]

there is no integrated graphic solution that is able to play games in the sense that most of us here consider worthy... don't get me wrong, i would love to see an awsome integrated solution that would play all of the new releases at well over 30fps, but as it stands right now, i don't see that happening any time soon.

i3 may have the ability to play some games at respectable resolutions, and intel may use that fact for marketing and such, but in the end it's still not designed to replace a dedicated graphics card. you can get by with WoW and sims3 and such, but if you bring out any hardcore game, it's going to fail.... along with every other integrated solution.

I think we need to focus on system power consumption and office related benchmarks when dealing with integrated graphics (until someone decides to release a real integrated GPU designed to play games).

Exactly
Yet because AMD assimilated ATi who are capable of manufacturing decent GPU's... actually I will rephrase that, ATi are more than capable of manufacturing excellent GPU's, it can twist these sorts of benchmarks in favour of the AMD CPU, when in fact it is the ATi IGP which is bringing the win.

Intel have NO graphics pedigree, (yes I am aware of the Intel i740, but seriously it wasn't that great). If some review had an apples to apples comparison of an i3 Vs the Budget AMD solution with both GPU's using the same graphics card (for example HD4600 series or an nVidia GT220?) I think the Intel i3 would win.

John

[mAJORD]

So because AMD aquired Ati, and intel hasnt' aquired anyone it's unfair?

:rolleyes:

It's not the IGP that's bringing the win.. the last review linked demonstrated that a weaker quad core outperforms a more expensive dual core i3 in current benchmarks. With a discrete video card.

It even showed higher gaming performance, which i'm dubious of myself. So won't take that as fact.

[Hornet331]

*snip*

meh pretty moot point. Intel on there hand, could long ago have licenced a third party graphics chipset and get much better performance. Like they did with the US15W which is using a PowerVR Core.

@majord

I don't think what you see there is that dubious at all, it strongly depends on how much use the game is making out of multiple cores. Most games still rely on 2 core, but the number on games that make use of more cores is raising very quickly. (e.g. all unreal engien based games) and most that started developing the past year.

Imho i3/i5 will be the last dualcores we see for lower midend desktop segment. Lowend will still remain on dualcores but thats to be expected, since there are still singlecore solutions out there.

[mAJORD]

meh pretty moot point. Intel on there hand, could long ago have licenced a third party graphics chipset and get much better performance. Like they did with the US15W which is using a PowerVR Core.

@majord

I don't think what you see there is that dubious at all, it strongly depends on how much use the game is making out of multiple cores. Most games still rely on 2 core, but the number on games that make use of more cores is raising very quickly. (e.g. all unreal engien based games) and most that started developing the past year.

Imho i3/i5 will be the last dualcores we see for lower midend desktop segment. Lowend will still remain on dualcores but thats to be expected, since there are still singlecore solutions out there.

Sure I agree, but I don't think a lower clocked Athlon II X4 with its lack of L3 would be a match still even in well threaded games.. Maybe at equal or higher clockspeeds it would. I guess we'll see with more reliable review sources.

It would also depend on memory choice. They (Athlon II) should respond better to higher performance DDR3 (espeically lower latency )

[flippin_waffles]

The results speak for themselves. And what the results show is that it is senseless to pick an i3 (with or without HT even!) over an x3 or an x4, especially given the price discrepancy. It makes no sense, unless of course you are a die hard intel fan and supporter, or maybe an employee of some form or another. The fact that intel can charge more for less is a real slap in the face to consumers.

[naokaji]

If some review had an apples to apples comparison of an i3 Vs the Budget AMD solution with both GPU's using the same graphics card (for example HD4600 series or an nVidia GT220?) I think the Intel i3 would win.

You don't have to compare it to the amd budget chips though as you can get full blown PHII tri and quadcores for the price of I3 and on top of that you have some s775 quadcores in the same price range as well.

From a price point of view its:
cut down c2d vs. cut down PHII
s775 quads vs. I3 / I5 vs PHII

I just don't see I3 as a attractive chip due to the very heavy competition from both Amd and Intel themself in the low end / mid range market.

[JohnZS]

So because AMD aquired Ati, and intel hasnt' aquired anyone it's unfair?

:rolleyes:



It's only unfair... well twisted in gaming tests, IMHO all CPU reviews should use the same graphics card otherwise you are not really reviewing the CPU are you. (IMHO this is more of a "platform" review, and we all know that AMD has a jolly good platform with their ATi integrated Graphics chips.)

I still say that an i3 is much better than an X3, however a X4 quadcore should in most cases if not all be better.
EDIT
With regards to pricing I cannot comment as the i3 is not out in the UK, but what I can tell you is that the i5 is the same price as the Phenom II 945 and we all know the i5 is better :)

John

[Nedjo]

You got i3 530 vs x4 620 Here (http://en.hardspell.com/doc/enshowcont.asp?id=7475&pageid=6387) ajaidev ;)

Great win from AMD :up:
hmmm it would be more appropriate to use X4 630... but than again if you consider pricing of the i3 530, Phenom II X4 makes even more sense...

[JohnZS]

I have just managed to find that the i3 540 is going to be £5 less than the AMD Athlon II X4 Quad Core 630 with the i3 retailing @ £94 and the X4 retailing @ £99

I would say that if prices remain the same the X4 would be the better buy, HOWEVER we all know the stock and demand equation will dictate that the i3 will drop to around the £85 mark...perhaps even less
John

[saaya]

so clocking the igp 30% higher results in a tdp boost of at least 14W? ouch!
and the fastest 32nm chip will cost 300$ and actually have a slower igp than the second fastest chip that costs almost 100$ less? those prices are really messed up :confused:

[Hornet331]

I have just managed to find that the i3 540 is going to be £5 less than the AMD Athlon II X4 Quad Core 630 with the i3 retailing @ £94 and the X4 retailing @ £99

I would say that if prices remain the same the X4 would be the better buy, HOWEVER we all know the stock and demand equation will dictate that the i3 will drop to around the £85 mark...perhaps even less
John

Duno if they will come down that much, the i3s who are intended to replace the E7xxx are already nearly the same price.

A E7500 is ~90€ while its replacement the i3 530 is ~105€ same for the E7600vs 540 -> 105€ vs 125€

But time will tell where the prices will be in a few months :p:

[Manicdan]

wheres a clean 32nm chip that has incredible perf per watt ratio? is intel trying to kill this node with these sucky igps in these nice cpus?

[DeathReborn]

Exactly
Yet because AMD assimilated ATi who are capable of manufacturing decent GPU's... actually I will rephrase that, ATi are more than capable of manufacturing excellent GPU's, it can twist these sorts of benchmarks in favour of the AMD CPU, when in fact it is the ATi IGP which is bringing the win.

Intel have NO graphics pedigree, (yes I am aware of the Intel i740, but seriously it wasn't that great). If some review had an apples to apples comparison of an i3 Vs the Budget AMD solution with both GPU's using the same graphics card (for example HD4600 series or an nVidia GT220?) I think the Intel i3 would win.

John

Intel sells more graphics chips than AMD does by a long way. It's only unfair that Intel has had such a lead for so long and still can't make a decent chip, let alone drivers for that chip. Intel could have bought out ny number of GPU makers in the past (including 3dfx & nVidia) but chose not to, shooting themselves in the foot instead of putting the people responsible for GMA out of their misery.

[flippin_waffles]

But the moral of the story is that intel apparantley doesn't have to have a good igp. The competition from either NV or AMD has parts that are far and away better than anything intel can produce. They can get away with underpowered and underperforming hardware though, being a monopoly (hopefully that will now change, but they still seem to deny any wrong doing so only time will tell). And they are holding back and hamstringing the industry in the process, since they have the vast majority of marketshare. Anyway, it appears that AMD still has an excellent alternative to an i3 with either an x3 or an x4. Price/performance, AMD wins hands down. So I guess if some people want to try and convince others to purchase a less performing part for more money, it's on their conscience.. :D

[qurious63ss]

The results speak for themselves. And what the results show is that it is senseless to pick an i3 (with or without HT even!) over an x3 or an x4, especially given the price discrepancy. It makes no sense, unless of course you are a die hard intel fan and supporter, or maybe an employee of some form or another. The fact that intel can charge more for less is a real slap in the face to consumers.

Most consumers wont buy an i3 or an x3,x4. They will buy a product that has the chips in them. The fact that intel can charge more is because the end product from the OEMs is for whatever reason more desirable to the consumer so they can charge more for the end product and intel can charge the OEMs accrodingly as well. Its a free market and the consumer is free to buy what they want.

[qurious63ss]

But the moral of the story is that intel apparantley doesn't have to have a good igp. The competition from either NV or AMD has parts that are far and away better than anything intel can produce. They can get away with underpowered and underperforming hardware though, being a monopoly (hopefully that will now change, but they still seem to deny any wrong doing so only time will tell). And they are holding back and hamstringing the industry in the process, since they have the vast majority of marketshare. Anyway, it appears that AMD still has an excellent alternative to an i3 with either an x3 or an x4. Price/performance, AMD wins hands down. So I guess if some people want to try and convince others to purchase a less performing part for more money, it's on their conscience.. :D

Good igp for what? Gaming? Less performance at what gaming? Holding back performance? Amd just recently stopped using k8 for mobile and seem to push the mobile chips to the end of a cyle. Do they believe that it is more important to have a good igp instead of a good cpu? The screen will look pretty but everything else will trail and in the end the OEMs are the ones that decide what to charge a complete product which is what a consumer really buys.

[flippin_waffles]

Good igp for what? Gaming? Less performance at what gaming? Holding back performance? Amd just recently stopped using k8 for mobile and seem to push the mobile chips to the end of a cyle. Do they believe that it is more important to have a good igp instead of a good cpu? The screen will look pretty but everything else will trail and in the end the OEMs are the ones that decide what to charge a complete product which is what a consumer really buys.

I find it curious that there is all this talk about igp's being good enough. Is it because intel doesn't have anything in the realm of close to competing. They just push out whatever they have, and know that their market dominance is enough to sell it, regardless of how underwhelming it is. It's a strange shift in marketing that seems to have started around the time of the Wannabee disaster. But alright, to your point why is the cpu more important than the igp? Doesn't any modern cpu deliver a more than acceptable experience regardless of it's maker? Unfortunately you can't say that about graphics, where intel utterly lacks. Oh well though, as long as people keep defending the decisions they make, it looks like they'll continue on as is. Just as well, it looks like they just don't have what it takes to make an acceptable gpu.

[flippin_waffles]

And we're not even taking into consideration the next gen igp's in the near future with dx11 capabilities. What's intel going to do then when there is a clear and distinct advantage with the gpu compute power, and that advantage won't be able to be 'marketed away' like it is now.

http://www.tgdaily.com/games-and-entertainment-features/45223-amd-outlines-the-future-of-gaming

[qurious63ss]

I find it qurious that there is all this talk about igp's being good enough. Is it because intel doesn't have anything in the realm of close to competing. They just push out whatever they have, and know that their market dominance is enough to sell it, regardless of how underwhelming it is. It's a strange shift in marketing that seems to have started around the time of the Wannabee disaster. But alright, to your point why is the cpu more important than the igp? Doesn't any modern cpu deliver a more than acceptable experience regardless of it's maker? Unfortunately you can't say that about graphics, where intel utterly lacks. Oh well though, as long as people keep defending the decisions they make, it looks like they'll continue on as is. Just as well, it looks like they just don't have what it takes to make an acceptable gpu.

Acceptable experience is a matter of opinion. To you "any modern" cpu is acceptable to others it may not be. Same goes for igp.

[Manicdan]

i think its intels crappy IGPs that have held back a good clean OS feeling for so long. so many people who hated vista on laptops due to simply being too weak.

[qurious63ss]

What's intel going to do then when there is a clear and distinct advantage with the gpu compute power

http://www.tgdaily.com/games-and-entertainment-features/45223-amd-outlines-the-future-of-gaming

When the time comes then we will talk about it, but for now igp is for igp.

[qurious63ss]

i think its intels crappy IGPs that have held back a good clean OS feeling for so long. so many people who hated vista on laptops due to simply being too weak.

Yeah that's the reason people hate vista:rolleyes:.

[qurious63ss]

Intel sells more graphics chips than AMD does by a long way. It's only unfair that Intel has had such a lead for so long and still can't make a decent chip, let alone drivers for that chip. Intel could have bought out ny number of GPU makers in the past (including 3dfx & nVidia) but chose not to, shooting themselves in the foot instead of putting the people responsible for GMA out of their misery.

People forget that the majority of computers, desktop/laptop are sold by OEMs (HP, Dell, etc.) to business like law firms, banks, as well as gov agencies. The OEMs for some crazy reason like to sell these computers with IGPs and this is the reason that Intel sells so many graphic chips. Now I'm sure you can ask your boss to get you a better computer with a better igp or better yet discreet graphics so you can play crysis in between meetings. :)

[flippin_waffles]

When the time comes then we will talk about it, but for now igp is for igp.

Yep, unless intel can't come up with anything in hardware and has to get the requirments lowered again ala vista and dx10, so their $h1t can be used by everyone. Meanwhile the rest of the industry spends the money to design hardware that actually works and gets kicked in the nuts for it.

[Clairvoyant129]

Yep, unless intel can't come up with anything in hardware and has to get the requirments lowered again ala vista and dx10, so their $h1t can be used by everyone. Meanwhile the rest of the industry spends the money to design hardware that actually works and gets kicked in the nuts for it.

Intel hardware is ****? Since when?

I'm sure your underperforming CPU + IGP combo is going well for you.:ROTF:

[informal]

Intel hardware is ****? Since when?

I'm sure your underperforming CPU + IGP combo is going well for you.:ROTF:

Underperforming? Yeah,Athlon X3 can keep up with i3,while Athlon X4 destroys it(both have no L3 btw). Radeon 4200 is actually able to display every game properly and at least run it,while intel media decelerator TM is having trouble even running and rendering some DX games properly. Intel first has to make a proper driver for the decelerator and improve the decelerator technology before we can call it decent for its purpose.

[qurious63ss]

Underperforming? Yeah,Athlon X3 can keep up with i3,while Athlon X4 destroys it(both have no L3 btw). Radeon 4200 is actually able to display every game properly and at least run it,while intel media decelerator TM is having trouble even running and rendering some DX games properly. Intel first has to make a proper driver for the decelerator and improve the decelerator technology before we can call it decent for its purpose.

Let's wait for some further testing before we say who destroyed who. ;)

[qurious63ss]

Yep, unless intel can't come up with anything in hardware and has to get the requirments lowered again ala vista and dx10, so their $h1t can be used by everyone. Meanwhile the rest of the industry spends the money to design hardware that actually works and gets kicked in the nuts for it.

See post #81.:)

[informal]

qurious63ss use edit function please ;).

[gallag]

Looking like a good win for AMD for people wanting to game on igp, will wate and see what drivers can do for the platform. Why is this place starting to sound like the AMDzone, Is this a planned thing? Look at flipping waffles posts, Just filled with hate and double standers, At least performance matters again in another section of computing, igp gaming is now on the important list and anything Intel wins at is stupid and pointless lol.

[Hornet331]

Looking like a good win for AMD for people wanting to game on igp, will wate and see what drivers can do for the platform. Why is this place starting to sound like the AMDzone, Is this a planned thing? Look at flipping waffles posts, Just filled with hate and double standers, At least performance matters again in another section of computing, igp gaming is now on the important list and anything Intel wins at is stupid and pointless lol.

IGP gaming was the holy grail since the release of the 780g... for some people. :p:

Other had/still have the opinion that you get, for the price of one game (50€), 2-3 times the performance of a igp. ;)

[marten_larsson]

IGP gaming was the holy grail since the release of the 780g... for some people. :p:

Other had/still have the opinion that you get, for the price of one game (50€), 2-3 times the performance of a igp. ;)

That's true but with a GPU in that price category, the difference in performance with different CPUs is insignificant anyway.

[flippin_waffles]

Looking like a good win for AMD for people wanting to game on igp, will wate and see what drivers can do for the platform. Why is this place starting to sound like the AMDzone, Is this a planned thing? Look at flipping waffles posts, Just filled with hate and double standers, At least performance matters again in another section of computing, igp gaming is now on the important list and anything Intel wins at is stupid and pointless lol.

So let me get this straight. IGP performance doesn't matter until intel has something that can compete? What about intel advertising their igp as a gaiming chip? Do you have any problem with that (i highly doubt it, i'm sure you'll come up with something in their defense! :D). Do you really think those kinds of claims are doing PC gaming one bit of good?

Honestly, you are going around in circles so fast, you are going to catch your own tail. I never said, nor do I feel, that "gaming is now on the important list and anything Intel wins at is stupid and pointless lol". But, I do think igp performance is equally as important as budget cpu performance. ;) Obviously you can't feel that way and swear allegance to intel at the same time! :p:

[MrMojoZ]

Looking like a good win for AMD for people wanting to game on igp, will wate and see what drivers can do for the platform. Why is this place starting to sound like the AMDzone, Is this a planned thing? Look at flipping waffles posts, Just filled with hate and double standers, At least performance matters again in another section of computing, igp gaming is now on the important list and anything Intel wins at is stupid and pointless lol.

Well I see the hate and double standards here, but not in flippin's posts.

[Tao~]

Dont bash Intel - just contemplate whether faster IGPs are needed or not.
Intel doesnt make a better IGP because it feels the gain it will make by capturing that *extra* low-end (aka low margin) market isnt worth the effort , and hence the indifference.

And it seems staying that way. H55 is faster than G45 thats a bonus IMHO. IF AMD were to take some of the actual IGP market, they need to make a ULV- 785G not a 60 or 80 shader HD5200 ;)

Those minuscule breed of IGP gamers needn't bother.

[zanzabar]

igps need some power, when u had the last gen intel one and it couldent run aero there was a problem. but main stream and casual games are tailored to the intel IGP it will be way better for every1 if we get some better stuff.

and the new amd one for the hd5 on the 8xx chipsets should have the same power as an xbox 360 and more than a ps3 graphics wise that will be a huge jump if its standardized for more 3d accelerated content

[Chumbucket843]

Underperforming? Yeah,Athlon X3 can keep up with i3,while Athlon X4 destroys it(both have no L3 btw). Radeon 4200 is actually able to display every game properly and at least run it,while intel media decelerator TM is having trouble even running and rendering some DX games properly. Intel first has to make a proper driver for the decelerator and improve the decelerator technology before we can call it decent for its purpose.
i already trademarked that.:mad::D

People forget that the majority of computers, desktop/laptop are sold by OEMs (HP, Dell, etc.) to business like law firms, banks, as well as gov agencies. The OEMs for some crazy reason like to sell these computers with IGPs and this is the reason that Intel sells so many graphic chips. Now I'm sure you can ask your boss to get you a better computer with a better igp or better yet discreet graphics so you can play crysis in between meetings. :)

intel sells igp's in bundles with their chipsets and cpu's so the competition is non-existent. now that we have low power mobile devices efficiency matters and intels mulitmedia performance is horrible compared to nvidia/ATi. if you were looking for a portable device that could play HD video or flash content (i.e. youtube or flash games) buying intel would be a dumb choice.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-ion-atom,2153.html
http://media.bestofmicro.com/T/H/177317/original/3d_mark_06.png
nvidia ion with lower power consumption beats GMD by a factor of almost 10.:clap:

[jakefalcons]

People are forgetting that integrated graphics chips aren't only used for gaming, but are starting to become an integral part used for varius tasks. With fpu loads starting to get offloaded intels igps cant compete take a look at the ion platform for atom they need an nvidia gpu just to be able to watch hd video. I like how alot of people on here take offense to anyone saying that intel needs to make their igps better. Intel is caught in a bad situation right now with ftc charges against it and amd acquiring ati i think intel is in for a tough fight. I hope intel wont have its hands tied too much by the ftc. The more effective intel is at countering amds platforms the better for us consumers :up:

[Hornet331]

People are forgetting that integrated graphics chips aren't only used for gaming, but are starting to become an integral part used for varius tasks. With fpu loads starting to get offloaded intels igps cant compete take a look at the ion platform for atom they need an nvidia gpu just to be able to watch hd video. I like how alot of people on here take offense to anyone saying that intel needs to make their igps better. Intel is caught in a bad situation right now with ftc charges against it and amd acquiring ati i think intel is in for a tough fight. I hope intel wont have its hands tied too much by the ftc. The more effective intel is at countering amds platforms the better for us consumers :up:

Every intel igp since the X3000 is capable of accelerating hd videos, but since intel bases its atom igps on a igps thats neraly half a decade old its there problem.

Whats also quite interestening, i keep heraing how gpgpu is the big thing... for the past 2 and a half years now. :p

The best thing we got now for consumers is video encoding (which still sucks option wise) and partially accelerated photoshop (for some filters).

GPGPU apps have its place, and im actually looking forward to it (for scientific and engineering purposes). But for consumers it will still take quite a few years.

[BababooeyHTJ]

igps need some power, when u had the last gen intel one and it couldent run aero there was a problem. but main stream and casual games are tailored to the intel IGP it will be way better for every1 if we get some better stuff.

and the new amd one for the hd5 on the 8xx chipsets should have the same power as an xbox 360 and more than a ps3 graphics wise that will be a huge jump if its standardized for more 3d accelerated content

I have a 2ghz Yonah with a 945gm that runs Aero with no problems, since long before sp1. Even runs some games that I was surprised that would run at all.

Don't get me wrong I would like more power but it's fine for what I need it for and not bad for a three year old igp.

Also, I would like to see more though testing before some people here say that Athlon x4 destroys i3.

[zanzabar]

the athlon x4 is about the same as a low cashe conro clock for clock, the i3 is also about the same as that clock for clock, the i3 has 4 threads on 2 cores and is clocked lower. its also going to priced the same as the phenom2 and that will kill it.


for the IGP ive used alot of q66 on the g/q35 and they are unacceptable for aero and especially win tab and aero UAC, they work but they are fine for transparency but the actual functions other than the basic UI are to slow, but the NV and amd dx10 IGPs (the last gen or 2) all work just as well as a real gpu, and even the really old via/s3 igp for the socket 775 worked fine and much better than the intel

[BababooeyHTJ]

the athlon x4 is about the same as a low cashe conro clock for clock, the i3 is also about the same as that clock for clock, the i3 has 4 threads on 2 cores and is clocked lower. its also going to priced the same as the phenom2 and that will kill it.


for the IGP ive used alot of q66 on the g/q35 and they are unacceptable for aero and especially win tab and aero UAC, they work but they are fine for transparency but the actual functions other than the basic UI are to slow, but the NV and amd dx10 IGPs (the last gen or 2) all work just as well as a real gpu, and even the really old via/s3 igp for the socket 775 worked fine and much better than the intel

I agree, I don't understand Intel's pricing. Last time that I looked an e8400 was only $20 less than a 965BE. Intel has nothing to compete at the mainstream level and to be honest the fact that their igp hasn't really evolved since I picked up my laptop is pretty sad. This is where I think Intel really shot themselves in the foot with barring Nvidia from making 1156 chipsets. That said I still want to see more i3 testing bofore I make an unanimous decisions on sheer performance, for the price is another story AMD has them there.

[Hornet331]

I agree, I don't understand Intel's pricing. Last time that I looked an e8400 was only $20 less than a 965BE. Intel has nothing to compete at the mainstream level and to be honest the fact that their igp hasn't really evolved since I picked up my laptop is pretty sad. This is where I think Intel really shot themselves in the foot with barring Nvidia from making 1156 chipsets. That said I still want to see more i3 testing bofore I make an unanimous decisions on sheer performance, for the price is another story AMD has them there.

Well its not quite intels fault, amds price slashes are just insane (imho) the E8400 was introdoced back in 2007 with ~175€ and now sells for 130€.

The P2 955 X4 on the other hand retailed for 250€ in April 2009 and now sells for 130€ only 9 months later... :eek:

Thats some serious drop in prices on the side of amd...

[kl0012]

As I remember, AMD has accused Intel of selling chips at too low prices. I doubt that AMD does not do the same thing. Besides, I do not understand this "irreconcilable" stand of AMD fanbois about Intel's pricing policies. Further price cuts Intel can completely kill a CPU design unit of AMD.

[xdan]

I remember, AMD has accused Intel of selling chips at too low prices. I doubt that AMD does not do the same thing. Besides, I do not understand this "irreconcilable" stand of AMD fanbois about Intel's pricing policies. Further price cuts Intel can completely kill a CPU design unit of AMD :up:
Yeh in deed , imagine just Pentium G9650 to be realease at 70$, i3 530 at 90$(instead of 124$- 25% price cut) and the 540 at 110$...And to complete a price cut of i5 750 from 199$-169$...it would blow Amd every segment ...
I expect the Pentium G9650 to beat X2 2XX all, X3 will be equal..

[marten_larsson]

As I remember, AMD has accused Intel of selling chips at too low prices. I doubt that AMD does not do the same thing. Besides, I do not understand this "irreconcilable" stand of AMD fanbois about Intel's pricing policies. Further price cuts Intel can completely kill a CPU design unit of AMD.

Well, the complaint wasn't about the retail pricing of the CPUs but rather the way Intel sold CPUs to OEMs with discounts that forced the OEMs to delay or not sell AMD chips at all. This shouldn't be news to anyone who posts more than 50 posts per quarter.

[kl0012]

Well, the complaint wasn't about the retail pricing of the CPUs but rather the way Intel sold CPUs to OEMs with discounts that forced the OEMs to delay or not sell AMD chips at all. This shouldn't be news to anyone who posts more than 50 posts per quarter.
This was one but not the only charge point. Another point was "selling cpus to oem at low cost to gain market share" (paragraph 69,70)
http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/Courses/StratTech09/Lectures/Antitrust07/Recommended/AMD%20Complaint%20vs%20Intel%202005.pdf
Do you understand that "selling chips at low cost" and "forcing oems not to buy AMD chips" are different things?

[BababooeyHTJ]

Well its not quite intels fault, amds price slashes are just insane (imho) the E8400 was introdoced back in 2007 with ~175€ and now sells for 130€.

The P2 955 X4 on the other hand retailed for 250€ in April 2009 and now sells for 130€ only 9 months later... :eek:

Thats some serious drop in prices on the side of amd...

Thats only a 25% drop in price in well over a two year time period. Compared to most other components especially video cards thats pretty small.


:up:
Yeh in deed , imagine just Pentium G9650 to be realease at 70$, i3 530 at 90$(instead of 124$- 25% price cut) and the 540 at 110$...And to complete a price cut of i5 750 from 199$-169$...it would blow Amd every segment ...
I expect the Pentium G9650 to beat X2 2XX all, X3 will be equal..

Until you factor in the price of the chipset. I though i5/i3 was supposed to be a mainstream/budget segment. Most P55 boards are pretty expensive all things considered.

[Hornet331]

Thats only a 25% drop in price in well over a two year time period. Compared to most other components especially video cards thats pretty small.



Yup and that speaks volumes about how much money people are willing to pay for intel hardware.

[BababooeyHTJ]

Yup and that speaks volumes about how much money people are willing to pay for intel hardware.

Yup and how much AMD needs to invest into some marketing.

[flippin_waffles]

Yup and that speaks volumes about how much money people are willing to pay for intel hardware.

Let's not forget the main reason people were buying intel hardware over AMD hardware for at least the last decade. Hint: it has something to do with the EU, Korea, Japan and now the FTC. Pretty hard to buy something that isn't there. ;) But this thread isn't about their illegal consumer abuse, so I digress. :D