First proper review of i3/i5 "Now with i3 2.8ghz vs x4 620 vs x3 425"

[ajaidev]

In September 2009 ,Intel launched the new LGA 1156 quad-core platform for high-end market, the LGA 1156 product which code-named Clarckdale (product models will include Core i3, Core i5 , Pentium 3 brands), as well as the new generation H55/H57 integrate platform only until recently being gradually revealed..."

http://en.hardspell.com/doc/enshowco...64&pageid=6359

It eats more but GMA is 10-40% more in performance....

i3 2.8ghz "No Turbo or HT" vs 2.6Ghz X4 620 vs 2.7ghz X3 425:

















The x3's are quite comparative IMO just as predicted but higher clocked i5's would sure give the x4's a run for their performance.

[zalbard]

What is NDA again?.. Somehow after Core i5 I'm not surprised.
And no overclocking results?! FAIL!

[Locke]

very nice. I like that i3 2.9 ghz @ $123. We need more stuff like this form a gaming perspective to lower cost and increase performance to beat the console market and make the pc market more attractive. and i believe that htpc is the prime path to do that.

[Hornet331]

Hmm up to 60% more performance with 20% more increase in consumption, its better performance/watt. But i somewhat would have hoped total power conumption would have also dropped.

[haylui]

very nice. I like that i3 2.9 ghz @ $123. We need more stuff like this form a gaming perspective to lower cost and increase performance to beat the console market and make the pc market more attractive. and i believe that htpc is the prime path to do that.

doubt that the motherboard price is going to be any lower than AMD 780G

[Manicdan]

the sad part is that while it is stronger, the power consumption was higher, going from 45nm to 32nm, i was expected a huge drop in power consumption

[Kurz]

the sad part is that while it is stronger, the power consumption was higher, going from 45nm to 32nm, i was expected a huge drop in power consumption

Ummm... they arent the same architecture.

[Sh1tyMcGee]

nice, i can see Intel gaining more market for the 1156 now that we have cheap good performing CPU's for gamers and HTPC

[initialised]

I've had one of these running 4.16GHz. Single core performance is similar to Lynnfield clock for clock, absolute performance was on a par with stock clocked (turboed) non HT Lynnfield. They work fine on existing P55 board (but no way to use the GPU obviously).

I like the idea of a console beater PC but you'll still need a discrete GPU capable of DX11 graphics at 1080p in next years games so basically 5770. Then you need a decent CPU to feed the GPU and dual core's just don't cut it for gaming any more. Add to that the cost of a decent HTPC chassis that both takes full sized cards and wouldn't look out of place in an audiophiles stack. And the argument falls flat. And you end up with something like Smooth Creations Media PC

[flippin_waffles]

the sad part is that while it is stronger, the power consumption was higher, going from 45nm to 32nm, i was expected a huge drop in power consumption

Yeah, it's dissapointing alright. I wonder if intel's 32nm process just isn't up to snuff.

[Hornet331]

Yeah, it's dissapointing alright. I wonder if intel's 32nm process just isn't up to snuff.

It seems you missed the i9 review. Intels 32nm is up to it, hell the process is quite good. (6core 32nm consumes the same as 45nm 4cores at the same frequenzy (3.06ghz))

Its the IGP with the integrated mem controller in 45nm that "kills" power consumption.

If intel would make just dualcore i3s without IGP it would be awesome.

[dasa]

power consumption could turn out to be a fair bit closer in other reviews
they used a ecs mb for the i3 and a intel mb for the e7400 and i can see no mention of any power save modes being used\tested
disabling ht should drop power use without affecting performance in most games and most of those who what 4 cores would be better of spending the extra ~$30 on i5 750
finally power consumption of both would drop if they used a more efficient lower wattage psu instead of the coolermaster 500w

[tool_462]

If intel would make just dualcore i3s without IGP it would be awesome.

Just don't use the IGP

I wonder how the IGP compares to the G45 in power usage. My chip is at 3.2ghz (stock voltage) and only loads 19w higher than it idles, theirs is 33w in Cinebench. But I'm not running the IGP, must be the difference somehow.

[Hornet331]

Just don't use the IGP

I wonder how the IGP compares to the G45 in power usage. My chip is at 3.2ghz (stock voltage) and only loads 19w higher than it idles, theirs is 33w in Cinebench. But I'm not running the IGP, must be the difference somehow.

But the mem controller is still on the IGP

[gumballguy]

Its not bad, but I must admit I also wanted a lower power part. I think its a case of waiting for a review with more details on power saving modes, as suggested earlier. I'm not that hopeful now, tho

[Nedjo]

nothing new in the field of driver support:

OpenGL



DirectX 9 (new title)

[saaya]

Its the IGP with the integrated mem controller in 45nm that "kills" power consumption.

If intel would make just dualcore i3s without IGP it would be awesome.

exactly... but they kicked out the imc of the cpu die, so its impossible for them to sell 32nm dualcore chips without the 45nm igp northbridge now... unless they redesign the whole thing... they probably thought in the consumer makret nobody cares about the added tdp and they can get away with it

i do have to say, they are probably right though... if it would be all in 32nm, then prices for 32nm chips would probably be 10$ higher while perf would be the same, and fab output would be lower so worse availability... i think this decision made sense overall... it sucks for enthusiasts though... AND for laptops... thats where the hot 45nm igp really really sucks...

[Manicdan]

Ummm... they arent the same architecture.

when looking at the power consumption on cinebench, 82W for 8800pts vs 69W for 6600pts. thats a pretty massive letdown.

[Kurz]

when looking at the power consumption on cinebench, 82W for 8800pts vs 69W for 6600pts. thats a pretty massive letdown.

Its not apples to apples.
The Mobo is different (Socket 1156 to 775).
It has 1MB more Cache (power eater right there)
The GPU may not have a decent power down structure (Since it shares the socket with the CPU).

Its only a 13 Watt difference.
If you were to compare a CPUs that share the same socket then yes you can call it a major let down.

Why would you care this a budget CPU for those who don't want a discrete Video card.

[Manicdan]

Its not apples to apples.
The Mobo is different (Socket 1156 to 775).
It has 1MB more Cache (power eater right there)
The GPU may not have a decent power down structure (Since it shares the socket with the CPU).

Its only a 13 Watt difference.
If you were to compare a CPUs that share the same socket then yes you can call it a major let down.

Why would you care this a budget CPU for those who don't want a discrete Video card.

its a major letdown that the average of the tests show only a small increase, a few are definitely taking good use of the SMT, but in general the performance increase is practically not much higher than the wattage increase to perform those tasks. they might aswell OC the old chip and then compare, it will be almost the same results

[ajaidev]

Ummm... they arent the same architecture.

That means that a higher clocked e7xxx/e8xxx can wip this bad boys arse using less/same power.

[gallag]

Seems like the AMDFAN squad are dissopointed in this, Would you guys have bought it anyway lol. It is funny how people always get the intended market wrong, If people are not complaning about netbooks not ripping and playing blu-ray disks they are complaning about systems with a dual core cpu with intergrated gpu designed for oem's to build cheap low end destops for home and office users not playing the latest games with eye candy. Its like complaning that your microwave will not wash your clothes.

Intel will sell millions of these chips, And the next most popular chip will be atom, But dont worry they will still sell chips that actually can do high end stuff like media encoding and gaming.

[dartaz]

Wow, the difference between i3 2.8GHz and E7400 is really massive. I expect i3 to be able to compete very well against Phenom II X3 and Athlon X4, while at same time consuming less power.

I wonder how Pentum G6950 without HT would perform against E7400

[ajaidev]

Seems like the AMDFAN squad are dissopointed in this, Would you guys have bought it anyway lol. It is funny how people always get the intended market wrong, If people are not complaning about netbooks not ripping and playing blu-ray disks they are complaning about systems with a dual core cpu with intergrated gpu designed for oem's to build cheap low end destops for home and office users not playing the latest games with eye candy. Its like complaning that your microwave will not wash your clothes.

Intel will sell millions of these chips, And the next most popular chip will be atom, But dont worry they will still sell chips that actually can do high end stuff like media encoding and gaming.

Thats not the point the point is rather that the new chips eat more for more performance now that also in a 32nm manufacturing process.

The i5 i have needs quite a bit of vcore for higher speed this is even more than the the worst E8400 i tested. This is because of the level of integration but higher vcore means close wall.

Better i3/i5's will surely come soon that is all people are saying. Thew overall platform decrease is not as much as expected.

[behrouz]

performance for game is slower than amd 785 or 790gx , i think everything except game is good.amd has ati so i don't expect to be faster than 785,
my computer : amd athlon x2 7850 and biostar ta790gx a2+ ,
i played call of duty : world at war and modern warfare 2 , fps was 48 on low and for medium it was 33. for higher setting fps is 22