Intel i5 6XX and i3 5XX Reviews

[Xoulz]

99% of the people who Intel is targeting will not OC their CPU's..

The single most important question is how does Window7 rate these IGPs? Francois keeps trying to remind everyone not everyone games, but that is a moot concern, when in fact the biggest and largly forgotten aspect is the OS uses 3D graphics now. So, will Win7 enable Aero with these Intel chips?


Secondly, these IGP's do not beat AMD's Radeon HD 4200 which has DX10.1 & Shader 4.1 support...

[zalbard]

Let's explain the choice:

The mem controler is on the GFX side because the GFX parts need more Bandwitdh for texture sampling than the processor core need.
You all remember that I was saying that Desktop application do not use a lot of Bandwitdh, it is still true.
Placing the Mem controler is what gives you the best performance for the $s.
In the case of gaming, it does give a nice balance to the GFX part, allowing more texture sampling speed, with less latency too.

Thinks are more complicated than it seems from the outside world. With DDRIII attached, you get some serious boost.
Balancing the memory need of the platform is what matters.

If you overclock the memory sub system, you will figure out that this new IGP is faster than most low end graphic cards. Try and see

Yeah, to be honest, I see why you've chosen to do so, it makes sense.
The crippled CPU performance just bothers me more since I'm not so much interested in the GPU part to start with, and would rather see this chip as a great one for gaming (extremely high clock [= high performance] 2 core 4 threads should rock! dedicated gfx in this case) or single / dual thread benchmarking.
I suppose I just want the chip to do what it wasn't designed for, hehe.
Guess Gulftown is what I need.

If one is not planning to buy a dedicated gfx card then it really is a very good solution for the office work and occasional gaming, HTPC, etc.

[flippin_waffles]

Why does that even surprise you? Granted, most of your social circle may be entirely 3D gamers, but gamers represent a very, very small fraction of computer users.

Consider, a "big" selling game title is what.....1M units? And consider that 1M computers is a drop in the bucket compared to the tens, if not hundreds, of millions of computers in American households.

So, it really makes sense that hardcore gamers make up such a small fraction of all computer users out there.

I wonder then what percentage enthusiasts and overclockers make. If that's the target audience intel intends to milk with those ridiculous prices, i wonder how they plan to make any money. But even worse, if they are targeting those hundres of millions of computers in households, the only plausable reason they are able to, is because they are a monopoly.

[matose]

But 4200 also has side port like 785GM-E65??

That type of a mobo would out perform the Intel igp @ 733mhz most likely.

You're probably right but I compare Intel IGP with HD 4200 without SidePort because it is more correct like this.

Indeed, IGP's are very dependent about memory bandwidth. If I set the memory to 1600MHz (from 1333MHz default) I get a very nice gain in games !

[Xoulz]

You're probably right but I compare Intel IGP with HD 4200 without SidePort because it is more correct like this.

Indeed, IGP's are very dependent about memory bandwidth. If I set the memory to 1600MHz (from 1333MHz default) I get a very nice gain in games !

Why is it more correct? Please explain.

[Nedjo]

Nedjo, Why the hate? If one thing gets shot down (drivers) you just find another, Just the usual AMD fans that would never buy a Intel product complaning anyway.

gallag, what hate are you talking about?

did I've wrote anything in my post that reviewers out there didn't put in their reviews?

I'm awaiting benches in Dirt 2 and Wolfenstein with new drivers...

[kl0012]

The single most important question is how does Window7 rate these IGPs?

Here is a rating of mobile i5-540M:
http://hothardware.com/Articles/Inte...veiled/?page=5

[kl0012]

I wonder then what percentage enthusiasts and overclockers make. If that's the target audience intel intends to milk with those ridiculous prices, i wonder how they plan to make any money. But even worse, if they are targeting those hundres of millions of computers in households, the only plausable reason they are able to, is because they are a monopoly.

I wonder why you so nervous about Intel's pricing? Take it easy.

[tool_462]

I wonder why you so nervous about Intel's pricing? Take it easy.

Because when Intel is over-pricing chips in certain segments of the market it is under-handed monopoly tactics but when AMD is on top and doing the same it is good marketing strategy

[Nedjo]

You're probably right but I compare Intel IGP with HD 4200 without SidePort because it is more correct like this.

Indeed, IGP's are very dependent about memory bandwidth. If I set the memory to 1600MHz (from 1333MHz default) I get a very nice gain in games !

IMHO it's really up to reviewer choice how to present reviewed hardware. I'm sure that you'll make review with sideport at some point (perhaps with X4 635 that I hope you've received

There's significant difference with 785G + Sideport...



...in some titles, and small in another:



http://techreport.com/articles.x/18216/8


It really depend on the game engine architecture (texturing/shaders ratio)

[ajaidev]

U left this



Thanks for pointing it out and 785 + side port performs better than the Intel IGP, but the thing is Intel can also implement something similar.

[Nedjo]

U left this

point remains the same... some titles will benefit more, and some less from Sideport... it depends on the engine design, and reliance on texture streaming...

Thanks for pointing it out and 785 + side port performs better than the Intel IGP, but the thing is Intel can also implement something similar.

maybe, maybe not.... it depend on the memory controller nature... Sideport might look like trivial thing, but essentially is not.

what puzzles me is bigger consumption with H57? I'm curious what's the reason!?

[Oliverda]

Core i5-661 - $196

Funny pricing....

You can get an energy efficient quad-core Phenom II X4 905e for this price.

[Nedjo]

Core i5-661 - $196

Funny pricing....

You can get an energy efficient quad-core Phenom II X4 905e for this price.

or you can get only 30W "hotter" X4 945 for $30 less: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103696

and get your self DDR3-1600 HyperX stick: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820104133

[Monstru]

The mem controler is on the GFX side because the GFX parts need more Bandwitdh for texture sampling than the processor core need.
You all remember that I was saying that Desktop application do not use a lot of Bandwitdh, it is still true.
Placing the Mem controler is what gives you the best performance for the $s.
In the case of gaming, it does give a nice balance to the GFX part, allowing more texture sampling speed, with less latency too.

I can understand Intel's point of view and benefit from this move, but I do not understand what is the target audience for these chips withe the current parameters in place (price, other Intel family CPU's in the same price range, competition's offer in the same price range, etc). In other words, why would someone buy i661 instead of i750??? They are not cheaper, so "office PC on a chip" is not feasable, the IGP is not really that powerfull, so "multi-media HTPC on a chip" is also not feasable. For gaming it really does not matter what you use as long as you are playing >1680x1050 and you have max 2 years old CPU. For multimedia power users (render, encoding, etc) is not a good solution due to the number of cores...For hard-core overclockers this will only be a choice for Pi 1M, and maybe some PCMark 2k5, plus the porblem that only one MB manufacturer can solve the CB issue at this point. So in the end, who are the target buyers for this platform from Intel's point of view?

Don't get me wrong, I love prime at 4.7-5GHz on air, so I am not saying Clarkdale is bad or anything. It will have it's share of buyers for sure. But I want to understand Intel's point of view regarding this "move". I thought the beauty of the Nehalem architecture was it's flexibility, the possibility to add cores or threads, IMC or PCI-E controller, easily put 2 cpu's on one MB, etc. So why this move? Why getting out of that pattern and putting a 45nm G45 on steroids near the precious 32nm CPU???

[ajaidev]

I can understand Intel's point of view and benefit from this move, but I do not understand what is the target audience for these chips withe the current parameters in place (price, other Intel family CPU's in the same price range, competition's offer in the same price range, etc). In other words, why would someone buy i661 instead of i750??? They are not cheaper, so "office PC on a chip" is not feasable, the IGP is not really that powerfull, so "multi-media HTPC on a chip" is also not feasable. For gaming it really does not matter what you use as long as you are playing >1680x1050 and you have max 2 years old CPU. For multimedia power users (render, encoding, etc) is not a good solution due to the number of cores...For hard-core overclockers this will only be a choice for Pi 1M, and maybe some PCMark 2k5, plus the porblem that only one MB manufacturer can solve the CB issue at this point. So in the end, who are the target buyers for this platform from Intel's point of view?

Don't get me wrong, I love prime at 4.7-5GHz on air, so I am not saying Clarkdale is bad or anything. It will have it's share of buyers for sure. But I want to understand Intel's point of view regarding this "move". I thought the beauty of the Nehalem architecture was it's flexibility, the possibility to add cores or threads, IMC or PCI-E controller, easily put 2 cpu's on one MB, etc. So why this move? Why getting out of that pattern and putting a 45nm G45 on steroids near the precious 32nm CPU???

That is what i have been sayin ever since i got my hands on a i5 ES. Single Threaded performance is very very good tough.

Putting Memory and PCI-E controller within the CPU would enable a GPU less alternative to the present i3/i5's.

But i have been told that the 45nm process used for the memory and PCI-E controller actually saves money for Intel instead of putting it in with the CPU.

[Xoulz]

or you can get only 30W "hotter" X4 945 for $30 less: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103696

and get your self DDR3-1600 HyperX stick: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820104133

I know..

What system builder is going to use Intel? If you are not a tried & true gamer, then then IGP performance doesn't matter, just compatability... which Intel's new CPU comes up short VS the much cheaper AMD offerings..

[Monstru]

But i have been told that the 45nm process used for the memory and PCI-E controller actually saves money for Intel instead of putting it in with the CPU.

Bingo

But that still does not answer my question about the target buyers

[flippin_waffles]

Because when Intel is over-pricing chips in certain segments of the market it is under-handed monopoly tactics but when AMD is on top and doing the same it is good marketing strategy

Yeah, nice try tool. AMD has never had price control of the market. Ever. Yes, even when P4 was getting pounded into the pavement, they were still priced HIGHER. No big deal maybe intel didn't want to sell any... There's one problem though. They were still selling MILLIONS of them. So don't try to throw around the monopoly tactic in favor of intel, you'll fail every time.

[sdsdv10]

I've stopped reading the review articles, because my head hurts. What is the point of these CPU's again...?

I know it's been said many time before, but I guess I will say it again. The CPU's are designed for office PC's and the non-gamer. I work for a semi-big company and we probably have ~1000 PC's around our building. All that I have seen (~20-30) are intel based (late P4 Prescott's and C2D). This is exactly the market these are aimed at, not the "Xtreme" user. These are not aimed at the gamer, and gamers shouldn't really even be considering these as an option. Jeez, I can't believe you guys are even arguing about these things. The only ones here who will get a kick out of these are the hardcore benchers looking for 7+GHz. Everyone else has pretty of offerings from both Intel and AMD...

Edit: Just an addendum, and for the market these are set for they will sell in the millions (from HP, Dell, Acera, Asus, etc), it just won't be the majority of people here.

[ajaidev]

Bingo

But that still does not answer my question about the target buyers

Higher Med End previously held by E8xxx . But truth be told Intel is targeting anyone who thinks dual cores will be enough for the future which i think is a wrong idea.

Intel has priced the cpu's so high because of the speed and ppl get impressed with a dual core that has such a high speed given that most consumers think fast dual cores are better than a slower quad core.

The idea is Intel saves money but intros faster and faster cpu.

I know it's been said many time before, but I guess I will say it again. The CPU's are designed for office PC's and the non-gamer. I work for a semi-big company and we probably have ~1000 PC's around our building. All that I have seen (~20-30) are intel based (late P4 Prescott's and C2D). This is exactly the market these are aimed at, not the "Xtreme" user. These are not aimed at the gamer, and gamers shouldn't really even be considering these as an option. Jeez, I can't believe you guys are even arguing about these things. The only ones here who will get a kick out of these are the hardcore benchers looking for 7+GHz. Everyone else has pretty of offerings from both Intel and AMD...

Edit: Just an addendum, and for the market these are set for they will sell in the millions (from HP, Dell, Acera, Asus, etc), it just won't be the majority of people here.

Wrong these are in no way for offices something like a E5200 or E2200 or x2 240 is used in offices these are toooo expensive.

[kl0012]

Wrong these are in no way for offices something like a E5200 or E2200 or x2 240 is used in offices these are toooo expensive.

You may be wrong here. Don't look at CPU price, look at the system price. Clarkdale is exactly what a big OEMs need. Because of integrated design (less components, simple board design) and low power consumption (cheaper components) the final system price may be a bit low.

[ajaidev]

You may be wrong here. Don't look at CPU price, look at the system price. Clarkdale is exactly what a big OEMs need. Because of integrated design (less components, simple board design) and low power consumption (cheaper components) the final system price may be a bit low.

Around what price could the H55 be priced at ? Cheap P55 sell for $100 cheapest sell for $85. 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.

H55 has some cuts on the P55 but overall its not that faroff. I remember some tech site did a article on the P55 cost to build, same thing is written there.

[Wesker]

It seems that the usual AMD fans have managed to troll this thread...

I can understand Intel's point of view and benefit from this move, but I do not understand what is the target audience for these chips withe the current parameters in place (price, other Intel family CPU's in the same price range, competition's offer in the same price range, etc). In other words, why would someone buy i661 instead of i750??? They are not cheaper, so "office PC on a chip" is not feasable, the IGP is not really that powerfull, so "multi-media HTPC on a chip" is also not feasable. For gaming it really does not matter what you use as long as you are playing >1680x1050 and you have max 2 years old CPU. For multimedia power users (render, encoding, etc) is not a good solution due to the number of cores...For hard-core overclockers this will only be a choice for Pi 1M, and maybe some PCMark 2k5, plus the porblem that only one MB manufacturer can solve the CB issue at this point. So in the end, who are the target buyers for this platform from Intel's point of view?

Don't get me wrong, I love prime at 4.7-5GHz on air, so I am not saying Clarkdale is bad or anything. It will have it's share of buyers for sure. But I want to understand Intel's point of view regarding this "move". I thought the beauty of the Nehalem architecture was it's flexibility, the possibility to add cores or threads, IMC or PCI-E controller, easily put 2 cpu's on one MB, etc. So why this move? Why getting out of that pattern and putting a 45nm G45 on steroids near the precious 32nm CPU???

The Clarkdale Core i5's are massively overpriced, yes, but that's due to the fact that sometimes its performance is on par/faster than Lynnfield Core i5. Still, it should've been priced much lower, IMO.

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).

Pricing on H55 boards is still unclear at this point, but I expect them to hit the ~$100 mark, perhaps even less if manufacturers avoid putting unnecessary bells and whistles on the boards.

Yeah, nice try tool. AMD has never had price control of the market. Ever. Yes, even when P4 was getting pounded into the pavement, they were still priced HIGHER. No big deal maybe intel didn't want to sell any... There's one problem though. They were still selling MILLIONS of them. So don't try to throw around the monopoly tactic in favor of intel, you'll fail every time.

Wow, just wow.

[Nedjo]

You may be wrong here. Don't look at CPU price, look at the system price. Clarkdale is exactly what a big OEMs need. Because of integrated design (less components, simple board design) and low power consumption (cheaper components) the final system price may be a bit low.

care to point out to price of H55 and H57 mobos?