Printable View
The P55 and H55 chips in 1000 unit quanitites are both $40 each. However H55 motherboards should be cheaper to produce with perhaps fewer PCB layers, less VRM's, only a single PCIE x16 slot (no need for lane switchers) and etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
Don't look at the retail MB price. Especialy when it is new on the market. Two chip design is much cheaper to create and manufacture.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
Clarkdale is more complicated inside, but to the external world it isn't complicated more then, for example, G31 chipset. Also big OEMs dont care to much about quality, unfortunately.Quote:
Less components on mobo does not mean the system will cost less, Clarkdale is very much more complicated than the run of the mill Phenom II or any C2D. In such a system quantity does not matter as much as quality.
Less then 100€ (incl. 20% VAT) and already cheaper then the G45 Mobos when they were introduced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
The MSI-H55M-E33 is already below 80€ and is quite feature packed.
Looks good for a HTPC combined with a i3-530 you can get away below 180€ :cool:
Same money i spent 2 years sgo on my E5200 and P43 mobo with discrete card (HD2400 pro).
Well, Intel is very aware of the power of their own CPU's no? Then why launch something in the same price range with i750? That puzzles me. We have LGA 1366, we have LGA 1156, we will have Gulftowns. Heck, give us some 32nm quads and some cheapo 32nm dual-cores with no IGP and everybody would die to get one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesker
That is true, i3 is indeed appealing, and the part about i3 vs Phenom II X4 is just....well...let's admit it, it is completly delicious, it is the icing on the cake so to speak :DQuote:
But the Core i3's look to be a great bargain for anyone wanting to run a cheap HTPC or general office PC. You don't lose HyperThreading, you have a fairly high clock speed (~3.00GHz) and they're priced quite well. They even manage to outperform the Phenom II X4's in some benchmark, while they generally outperform the Athlon II X4 (except in 3D rendering).
Let's see:
H57:
ASUS P7H57D-V Evo between 167,3 and 189,9 EUR - http://geizhals.at/a486951.html
H55:
ASRock H55DE3 between 96 and 104 EUR - http://geizhals.at/a491384.html
ASRock H55M Pro between 89 and 99 EUR - http://geizhals.at/a491392.html
ASRock H55M between 81 and 91 EUR - http://geizhals.at/a491393.html
ASUS P7H55-M Pro - 102.9 EUR - http://geizhals.at/a486949.html
Biostar TH55 XE - 94.9 EUR - http://geizhals.at/a489866.html
MSI H55M-E33 - between 78.7 and 130.9 EUR - http://geizhals.at/a487979.html
AMD 785G
ASRock M3A785GM-LE/128M (128 MB DDR3 sideport) - between 62.9 and 69.9 EUR - http://geizhals.at/a482241.html
ASRock M3A785GMH/128M (128 MB DDR3 SidePort) - between 66.2 - 77.9 EUR - http://geizhals.at/a450811.html
[ATX] ASRock M3A785GXH/128M (128 MB DDR3 SidePort) + CrossFireX - between 75 and 90 EUR - http://geizhals.at/a450814.html
ASUS M4A785T-M - between 69.3 and 111.9 EUR - http://geizhals.at/a459249.html
ASUS M4A785TD-M EVO (128 MB SidePort) - 71.9 and 120.9 EUR - http://geizhals.at/a447174.html
[ATX] ASUS M4A785TD-V EVO (128 MB DDR3 SidePort) - between 74.9 and 105.6 EUR - http://geizhals.at/a447175.html
Gigabyte GA-MA785GMT-UD2H - between 75.1 and 133.9 EUR - http://geizhals.at/a448155.html
[ATX] Gigabyte GA-MA785GT-UD3H (CrossFireX) - between 78.2 and 109.9 EUR - http://geizhals.at/a448154.html
MSI 785GM-E65 (128 MB SidePort) - between 82.9 and 132.9 EUR - http://geizhals.at/a449745.html
[ATX] MSI 785G-E53 - between 79.5 and 125.9 EUR - http://geizhals.at/a464203.html
MSI 785GM-E51 - between 64.9 and 101.9 EUR - http://geizhals.at/a449743.html
Sapphire PURE PI-AM3RS785G - between 59.9 and 84.1 EUR - http://geizhals.at/a459400.html
Elitegroup A785GM-M - between 69.9 and 83.3 EUR - http://geizhals.at/a450271.html
Biostar TA785G3 (128 MB DDR2 SidePort) - between 61.8 and 61.9 EUR - http://geizhals.at/a493305.html
DFI LANparty BI 785G-M35 - 89.9 EUR - http://geizhals.at/a473376.html
The only boards that come close feature wise, are the, ASUS M4A785T-M/TD-M EVO and the Elitegroup A785GM-M and the MSI H55 board is only 8€ more expencive and there is still some potential for a lower price.
Also the AMD boards currently lack some features i would miss on a HTPC, bitstreaming over HDMI as example. :)
these clarkdales looks like conroe on steroids(HTT, turbo-boost, QPI instead of FSB) to me.
Like intel has nothing to improve performance per core/thread and trying to sell new cpus making them look better with "steroids"
IMHO.
Ahem.. you know that Nehalem is faster clock/clock then C2... :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by netkas
You might want to re-read the reviews, the performance is better ish, but more importantly, the power consumption is way down.Quote:
Originally Posted by netkas
Just remember folks, these are the chips that will be in all your business computers in a few years, not in your high-powered gaming rig.
xbitlabs have the G9650 in their tests, clarkdale without HT/turbo at 2.8ghz looked very unimpressive, even against the pentium e6500 (wolfdale 2m at 2.93ghz) :(
Dell, HP, Gateway, etc don't buy retail boards, they design and have OEM's build them for them, and as well quoted above they cut specs and/or quality to the bone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
At least according to this roadmap, these CPU's are the bottom tier mainstream desktop chip. I don't know about other companies, but that is what our IT department specs out (they used to do the Value tier CPU, but burned by poor CPU performance, not IGP).
http://images.hardware.info/news/int...dmap-09-10.jpg
Sure I might be wrong, but I think these are exact going after coporate office, home office and basic internet desktops, where graphic performance (outside of displaying the screen) won't make any difference at all.
I dont see a problem there, despit its 5% lower clock its usually 3-6% faster then the e6500 with some cases beeing 3% slower... with some rare cases (where the memory subsystem comes into play up to 10% slower).Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectrobozo
Plus it needs less power then the P E6500.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectrobozo
Crysis WARHEAD:
Pentium G9650 - 67,24 fps
Pentium E6500 - 66,93 fps
Far Cry 2:
Pentium G9650 - 65,89 fps
Pentium E6500 - 66,86 fps
Resident Evil 5
Pentium G9650 - 48,9 fps
Pentium E6500 - 48,2 fps
HAWX
Pentium G9650 - 97 fps
Pentium E6500 - 100 fps
Left 4 Dead 2
Pentium G9650 - 103.95 fps
Pentium E6500 - 104.51 fps
Dirt 2:
Pentium G9650 - 59,4 fps
Pentium E6500 - 58,9 fps
iTunes 9 Encoding (less is better)
Pentium G9650 - 101 sec
Pentium E6500 - 98 sec
Acoustica Mixcraft
Pentium G9650 - 133 sec
Pentium E6500 - 135 sec
x264 fps (more is better)
Pentium G9650 - 9.87 fps
Pentium E6500 - 9.81 fps
Cyberlink MediaShow 5 (less is better)
Pentium G9650 - 278 sec
Pentium E6500 - 293 sec
Premiere Pro CS4 (less is better)
Pentium G9650 - 815 sec
Pentium E6500 - 293 sec
and so on... pattern is similar... and difference between old and new Pentium is really small. Unfortunately no one used Core 2 Due E7400 that would give much better picture 'cos of the cache
i looked over all the previews, but I'm still left with this debate:
what will consume less power in idle: s775 E5200 + G41 IGP configuration or new Pentim G6950 and its IGP?
If someone can deduct this please help or post a link!
You know that that i3 is intended to replace the E7xxx seriers, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
E7600 ~100€ = i3 530 and thanks to HT its faster in MT apps then a E8600 which still retails for 230€.
You might to check over in the AVS HTPC forums: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=26Quote:
Originally Posted by XS Janus
A suspect this question might be answered over there quite soon
Or you can get an XBOX 360 for $199 that will blow both the intel and amd for video games. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
Because an IGP with dedicated memory cannot compare with one with shared memory. The dedicated memory is much faster and it's optimized for working with shaders and textures. So I prefer to compare apples to apples ;)!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoulz
I did review the 790GX and I like it because it's very interesting and tweakable for a IGP. I didn't even know that X4 635 exists, thx for telling me :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
Great chips,great power consumption.Horrid pricing.
Somebody earlier pointed that these clarkdales are pointed at office computers.And that oems build they own mobos.
Yeah.They do.But its still cheaper to build am2+/am3/775 mobo for them then H55.
No office computer needs this much power,not at that price.
Workstation computers need more power,and they will get that with i750 or phenom 965.
I hoper for ulvs with arrendale ,for really low power consumption and higher performance due to the included 45nm igp.Didnt happen either, they are bit more powerful however no more battery life with teh ones premiered today.Shame too.
Normal gaming people with some kind of knowledge wont get them either, power consumption wont matter that much, they can get intel or amd quad/tri ,overclock them and get much more power.
Im not a AMD fanboy, i build computers for a living and most people wants something good enough and cheap enough.It mostly boils down to amd for me.However the Intel systems i build are not that much more pricey and more sensible then this.
we're not talking about price replacement... we were talking about level of performance gains that Dual Core Nehalem w/o HT & Turbo brings over Core 2 Duo!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
My point is that best possible scenario would be E7400 @ 1333MHz QPB (E8300 is no go 'cos of 6Mb L2)
every approach has it's values! my favorite is price-by-price ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by matose
so you've missed this thread: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=242455Quote:
I did review the 790GX and I like it because it's very interesting and tweakable for a IGP. I didn't even know that X4 635 exists, thx for telling me :D
;)
The same cpu with AMD brand on it and it's a must have, that's right Nedjo, no ? :D
errr... I didn't understand that?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
:shrug:
anyhow I've expressed my own choice of comparison, but sometimes that's not possible:
Core i5 650 - 180 EUR: http://geizhals.at/a451549.html
Phenom II X4 945 "C3" - 130 EUR: http://geizhals.at/a486332.html
I honestly can't see why would anyone spend money on i5?
As do I, G9650 is the replacemnt for the P E6x00 and i3 5xx are the replacement for the E7x00 as the i5 6xx are the replacment for the E8600 duals and Q8xxx quadcores.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
Why do you think they have similar prices in the first place. :p:
edit:
seems you insist that intel has to price its cpus accordingly to amd, but they dont do that. They just populate there price brackets for the different segments by replacing old models with new owns. They did this pretty much for ever. When ever a new or faster cpu comes out, it takes the top price bracket in that segment and all the others move down one bracket or get phased out (while remaining in the same price bracket).
A little overboard? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Wesker
[edit]
Well I gotta add this. :D It looks now like this will unquestionably be the year of Llano no matter what time of the year it's released!
Yeah, but where can you buy a 785G and not have sideport ..? Thus wouldn't apples to apples be with it enabled?Quote:
Originally Posted by matose
Just us when and where AMD Thuban is coming. now.
What I want to know is if there is going to be something like a hybrid SLI for this?
I travel a lot, and like to game. So I got a laptop now with a decent GPU but the battery life is horrible for when I actually use it for work.
If there was a hybrid SLI, or just some way to disable the power hungry GPU then I would be so down for upgrading to a new laptop with one of these.
I think people seem to be entirely forgetting about the notebook sector.
i5 desktop might not be great but the notebook reviews are glowing.
http://www.mobileedgeblog.com/2009/0...tops-sales-up/
80 percent of retail US PC's solds are laptops and that number is growing. Penryn already beat AMD mobiles parts by 30 percent and have much better matter life. Add on top arrandales beat penryn by 20-50 percent and has the same battery life, AMD is seriously going to take a pounding. i7 notebooks were never really a threat for AMD, however i5 and i3 is essentially game over for AMD mobile market. AMD has the worst mobile marketing department so it can only drop AMD notebook down to netbook pricing levels to control the damage.
The sad thing is a mobile phenom II architecture is a generation behind to keep up with arrandale(and it isn't even out yet) and and it's going to be the only product AMD can release for a while. AMD needs a mobile breakthrough fast.
Or they should just not bother with mobile for now.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
As i said the mobile i5's/i3's make a lot of sense. The added modes such as the GPU turbo is very useful and since its a laptop the igp will be used 100% and a nvidia GPU with switching ability would be sweet.
Its faster than C2D's and the Phenom II mobiles that are suppose to come will come later in May, 2010 and in those the dual core AMD's will be not much of a match, but the quads are quite lethal, if priced right a Phenom II N920 would perform quite well and come in as a cheap mobile quad
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/news/...hips_specs.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aberration
That would be the biggest mistake they could make. Desktop processors is a shrinking market. AMD needs Revenue growth potential and it cannot abandon the mobile market.
Part of AMD eroding revenue has been because of the surge in notebook sales and declining desktop sales. AMD has typically been inferior to Intel in the mobile battery life, particularly after centrino. AMD needs to play catchup bigtime.
The Gigabyte MA785GT-UD3H I tested didn't have SidePort onboard :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoulz
The G6950 should consume less power if the motherboard is energy efficient.Quote:
Originally Posted by XS Janus
Sorry, I can't remember the link, but a low spec motherboard (like an Intel built board) that's energy efficient should consume less than most Core 2 + G41/G45 combos.
I want confirmation that i3+H55 can do 6-8 LPCM over HDMI it may turn into a very good HTPC box for me.
The fit-PC2i i pre ordered may just get canned who knows, but my AV receiver is old does not support Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD the only thing it supports is 6ch LPCM over HDMI. Now i know both DTS-HD and Dolby TrueHD can be sent as 6ch channel linear PCM but in that case they use the receiver's DAC extensively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
7G here you go
Thanks Nickshih
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=928132
Interesting! Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by matose
I'm sure you'll have something to show us, too, Andre. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreYang
That's a great result, though! :up:
thanks for that! I'll keep an eye on that:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by sdsdv10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
That's for the quad Athlons,the dc are even smaller:
CPU Type DualCore AMD Athlon II X2 250, 3360 MHz (14 x 240) CPU Alias Regor
CPU Physical Info
Package Type 938 Pin uOPGA
Package Size 4.00 cm x 4.00 cm
Transistors 234 million
Process Technology 45 nm, CMOS, Cu, Low-K, DSL SOI, Immersion Lithography
Die Size 118 mm2
I/O Voltage 1.2 V + 2.5 V
yeah but regor is no match for i3, heck i think it even will have problems with the G9650, cause it fights the Pentium E5xxx/E6xxx series.Quote:
Originally Posted by SocketMan
Regor is more versatile: DDR2/DDR3,can run in any mobo with up to 4 gpus,cheaper and probably runs a lot cooler then i3.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
I doubt it.. even for battery life. You can check THG review and see...:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by SocketMan
I knew this but as it stand Regor is not a good match, the Athlon II x2 255 @ 3.10 GHz may come close to the performance of the G9650 but cant touch others.Quote:
Originally Posted by SocketMan
Most Athlon X4's are at the same price they were when they were launched and i have heard the x4 620 sells quite well in OEM form.
The total die area for the i5 of 81mm2 is relatively more expensive to make than say 81mm2 in 45nm simply because of the added complexities not only that the use of High K also adds a bit in the price.
A $100 Athlon quad can quite successfully take on a $200 i5 in some tests so its quite a good offensive by AMD IMO.
Have to take into account yields as well. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
However the i3 and i5 outperformed the $100 Athlons in gaming performance which many buyers who plays games look at.:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
That’s a good thing but in most part irrelevant because that isn’t the market or intended purpose of the series, besides in the % of gamers that already is small, the ones that would look at this line of CPUs to buy is even smaller, so I guess the fact is pretty irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostbuster
Eh? You gone off the charts comparing CPUs that are in different price ranges.. :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
For gaming CPU pricing wise they have to compete with Core i3 530 and Core i3 540 which happens to be in that range, anywhere from $125 to $145. The 925 will have to compete with i3 540, both of which trade blows in that chart. :up:
For performance CPU overall, who wants to look at the slower Athlon II X4s? :shrug: For mission critical stuff where time is important, nobody would pick those. That would be the domain of i5 750 and PII X4 965, both of which are competing. You get what you pay for...:yepp:
oh come on... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by raju
even if you claim clarks will beat blooms in most benches, which i dont see happening, you know very well that there are 32nm 1366 chips inbound that will blow clarks away, and the quads wont even be expensive...
the "as if youd do a better job" is 100% in your head... so theres nothing i can do about that. about criticizing a lot, its not personal... and you dont need to be a cook to tell a good dish from a bad one.Quote:
Originally Posted by raju
i guess you meant that clarks will be competitive in 05... i dont think so, but i can understand why youd say that...
its funny how the previous chipset cycles are now shifted to the cpus...
we had the 975x and then 965P cycle thing for a long time with chipsets, and now that its all integrated, its all happening with cpus and the entire platform... 1366 is kinda like the 975x of cpus/platforms while 1156 is the P965 of cpus/platforms.
i wonder if this will go away when the imc is integrated for the mainstream cpus as well...
Hi.
Hey mate thanks for sharing this review.
Its really helpful.
Because there are way much more that play games than people who use 3d renderingQuote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
GoodQuote:
Other than that Microsoft Excel always favors Intel, Sonar is single threaded. The Benchs that matter from all those you have posted are:
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/c...5346/21153.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/c...5346/21133.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/c...5346/21167.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/c...5346/21162.png
Not to mention that Core i3 consume less power and have much Bitlocker Performance because of the new AES instruction, which I didn't mention
1- the 7-zip bechmarks you posted is a not real world benchmarkQuote:
In real world Core i3 530 outperformed Athlon X4 630 in 7-zip
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/c...5346/21133.png
2- Not many people do 3d rendering
3- In video encoding, the Athlon X4 630 performed better. Video encoding might be important, but personally I would rather have better gaming and winrar performance than better video encoding.
And sorry for my late respond