POST A COMMENT

93 Comments

Back to Article

  • SydneyBlue120d - Tuesday, February 09, 2010 - link

    The Intel G9650 doesn't exist, what You're referring is Intel G6950
    http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=43230">http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=43230
    Reply
  • puterfx - Wednesday, February 03, 2010 - link

    I've been building systems since the late 90's, mostly for others, and I'm always the last to get a decent system so I decided it was about time for me. I'm running an e6600 on a 3 yr old Intel board w/ 2g of DDR2 RAM and was wondering about the differences between C 2 quad, i3-540, i5-750 or i7-820. I priced out 3 different setups with Gigabyte boards (EP45, H57 & P55 - USB3 ver.) combined with Q8400/9300/9400 on EP45, i3-540,i5-750 and i7-820 on the H57 & P55 and 4 Gb DDR3 RAM (Crucial, Geil, Kingston)so , basically, I had 9 combinations. Excluding the i7, the price range for these builds was about $429 - $487, and I could probably do better if I tried but I was amazed that they were that close (the i7 adds another $100 but not that much improvement in performance that I can see).

    Looking at your charts, I think I can justify going with the i5-750. I have a decent video card for the occassional gaming that works pretty good for me now (I'll apply the $100 from above to a better card later) but I do a lot of spreadsheets and some photoshop and autocad so I think I'll see a better improvement there.

    Thanks again for all your articles. Very well written, understandable and thorough.
    Reply
  • KingAlexander - Saturday, January 30, 2010 - link

    I too am puzzled by the i7 870 scoring so low on the World of Warcraft chart -- it stood out to me immediately when I first read the article. I was a little surprised to not see it mentioned.

    It was suggested in another comment that this was due to the game having an issue with hyperthreading, but if that was the case shouldn't the i7 920 also have scored significantly lower than it did?
    Reply
  • Bloodx - Monday, January 25, 2010 - link

    It should be noted that this new intel system does not work
    at 1080p/24 correct. The nvidia 9400 chipset works at 1080p/24.
    So i've traded audio for skipping.
    HTPC is no better off. Sad.
    Reply
  • geok1ng - Sunday, January 10, 2010 - link

    Previous Intel IGPs managed achieve less terrible numbers in game by cheating- they didn't render all the polygons and textures. So for good measure i require side by side screenshots of the "new, better, faster and cheaper" Intel IGP.

    The idea of an Intel IGP that simply isn't horrible is SOO strange that a true review would have to go the race: benchmarks, screenshots, minimum playable settings for various games and screenshots. Something the articles on HardOCP.
    Reply
  • snakyjake - Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - link

    Why isn't the i7-860 tested in the section "Windows 7 Application Performance"?

    Without the i7-860 in the Windows 7 test section, this review is pointless.
    Reply
  • NeBlackCat - Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - link

    I was hoping to build a new always-on home server around one of these. Power miserly IGP and idle operation (for when it's only firewalling and routing) but plenty of grunt in reserve for occasional video encoding, compiling and running virtual machines.

    Looks like they missed the mark for this application, and I couldn't even adopt now and wait for the real deal CPU later, as the socket is a dead end.

    IMHO only the HTPC crowd have a reason to be excited here, but there are lots of other (cheaper) ways to get low power 1080p too.
    Reply
  • ruetheday - Friday, January 08, 2010 - link

    Let's wait and see - There are products coming which will do gpu assisted transcoding that might shift things in Clarkdale's favor. Reply
  • bongbong - Tuesday, January 05, 2010 - link

    I know for a fact that the athlon II x3s and x4s have to overclock like crazy in games to reach the same performance delta as their phenom II x3 and x4 brethren
    (coz of the 6mb cache and many games are dependent on cache)
    Ive seen gaming benchmarks on anandtech where the x3 720 matched the x4 965 when they are both overclocked to 3.8ghz.
    I was able to buy an x3 720 for only a 110 usd recently.
    So why isnt it in the benchmark comparisons?


    Reply
  • JohnMD1022 - Tuesday, January 05, 2010 - link

    $150 from microcenter. Reply
  • Paladin1211 - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    On page 13, in WoW benchmark, the Core i5 750 outperforms the Core i7 870 by more than 30% (92.3 fps vs 70.6 fps). Anything wrong here? Reply
  • Crimson67 - Tuesday, January 05, 2010 - link

    WoW doesn't seem to like hyperthreading, it's the only explanation Reply
  • ereavis - Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - link

    is it using the hyperthread core on the 870 but a true core on the 750? That would certainly slow it down. If it's using a true core on both it should be better still. Reply
  • Dyzios - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    Remember NVIDIA Hybrid idea, to have two GPUs ? - one weak for 2D/light 3D graphics and powerful discrete GPU for gaming? Those CPU makes sense for this approach - however Radeon 5870 also has good point with optimized low idle power consumption. Maybe still there is point as even Radeon cannot go very low as GPU on-die. The only question is to have capability to switch HDMI output between on-die GPU and discrete.I wonder how this works currently - still needed to stick to DVI output from Radeon or can be combined? Reply
  • Zool - Tuesday, January 05, 2010 - link

    If the 40nm 5600 series cards will show the same improvments in power usage than the 5800 series than u can forget the intels GMA graphic.

    I think that for a 2D card/3D discret card u can buy a mobo with a dirty cheap intel GMA on it clocked much lower if u realy need.
    Reply
  • silverblue - Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - link

    The graphics comparison isn't exactly fair but in the end, it's not something AMD should be too worried about. The i5-661, with its 900MHz 45nm GPU, is being compared to the old 790GX's HD 3300 which operates at 700MHz on a 55nm process. I admit, in the benchmarks we're talking the best i5 vs. the best AMD has to offer, but considering...

    a) the relative performance of the i5-750 as compared to the PII X4 965 which is usually manifested as an advantage
    b) the fact that the 32nm i5s can increase their core speed by 133MHz and 266MHz thanks to Turbo depending on the number of active cores
    c) most games still aren't designed to take full advantage of multithreading so four cores may not yield a tangible performance increase

    ...then AMD's still in the lead for IGPs. If the 3300 had been clocked at 900MHz, would it have lost even one of the listed benchmarks? I'm not sure it would have. What's more, we're still talking a 55nm part; we all know of TSMC's issues with the 40nm process and AMD going fablress, so is it unreasonable to expect that AMD could move their IGP production en masse to 40nm with TSMC or 45nm with GlobalFoundries?

    In closing, it's a big step forward for Intel, however if AMD came out with a higher clocked 40/45nm IGP then, Sideport or not, new tech or not, AMD would be far ahead, at least on gaming terms. Sideport does very little for the performance of current AMD IGPs, anyway.

    I just wish AMD were able to release a Clarkdale competitor sooner rather than later.
    Reply
  • ruetheday - Friday, January 08, 2010 - link

    the IGP on Clarkdale isn't maxed out at 900Mhz; It too can be overclocked significantly. Here's an article on techgage showing an OC to 1133, for example.

    Remember that Intel is very conservative on binning parts to ensure no issues with reliability over time (compare vs nvidia mobile gpus).
    Reply
  • silverblue - Friday, January 08, 2010 - link

    Maybe so, however a 40/45nm AMD part could reach similar clockspeeds. I just don't think that, clock for clock, the new Intel IGP on the Clarkdale die is as powerful as anything AMD or nVidia can produce on the same scale. It's a good step forwards, just not the leadership that some may have been expecting. Reply
  • silverblue - Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - link

    Slight mistake... second best 32nm i5 that Intel has to offer. However, I doubt the performance increase over the 661 will be very noticable with the IGP; won't it be clocked the same in both? Reply
  • Zool - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    The irony is the biggest drawback of these cpu-s is the 45nm intel graphic on other die with the memmory controler. The die savings from 45nm vs 32nm are quite big.
    If they would make just 32nm dual core nehalem with memory controler on die it would be still much smaller(and only litle bigger than the clarkdale without imc) than the GMA die with memmory controler.
    The whole thing would be solved with everything as one on 32nm.
    I think plenty of people just wait for 32nm quad core nehalems without the useless GMA graphic.
    Actualy what is the cost of dirty cheap GMA in penryn based 3 package boards. Like 5-10 dolars ?
    Reply
  • rainman1986 - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    I'm puzzled by the results for this cpu, I'd have thought it would be close to the 920, but it was much slower than the i3 and i5.

    Did I miss something?
    Reply
  • rainman1986 - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    Sorry, not the 860, the 870 was slower (but the 860 would have been just a little slower than that!)

    Still, what gives?
    Reply
  • deruberhanyok - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    Possible responses:

    "I had no idea it had a retro mode!"

    "So these processors can run Ultima IX acceptably then?"

    "My eyes! The goggles, they do nothing!"

    "Intel HD graphics: bringing extreme video quality to 2001's hottest titles!"

    And so on.
    Reply
  • vol7ron - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    The Clarkdale Unencrypted score is shown, could you also display the Lynnfield Unencrypted score.

    To use the unencrypted Clarkdale as the control for Lynnfield doesn't seem right since there are differences between the two procs. It would make more sense to compare
    [Lynnfield Encrypted Score]/[Lynnfield Unencrypted Score] to [Clarkdale Encrypted Score]/[Clarkdale Unencrypted Score]

    Thanks,
    vol7ron
    Reply
  • SydneyBlue120d - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    Thanks a lot for the great review!

    When You'll be back from CES, I'd like to see a test of:

    - Pentium G9650 (the great absent for the corporate/office world);
    - Flash 10.1 and BR/MKV HTCP with integrated gfx;

    Thanks a lot :-)
    Reply
  • SydneyBlue120d - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    Forgot to ask:

    Is the integrated gfx DX 10 or 10.1? Will it support Direct2D?

    Thanks
    Reply
  • ruetheday - Friday, January 08, 2010 - link

    yes to DX10 and Direct2D Reply
  • vol7ron - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    Raja,

    Good article. I like how you re-addressed topics that you originally discussed on the opening page, with a more concise statement on the pages that followed. For instance, when talking about the memory on/off die. You gave a decent bit of info on page 1 and then a quick rememberance on page 2.

    --- More will come once I finish reading the artice :) ---

    vol7ron
    Reply
  • Rajinder Gill - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    Credit goes to Anand for this piece. I only chimed in on the OC side. :)

    regards
    Raja
    Reply
  • vol7ron - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    I noticed something fishy when it said thanks to Raja for the Mobo suggestion. I guess the article's author threw me off :)

    Great collaboration, regardless.
    Reply
  • Jamahl - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    If this is a sign of things to come from intels 32nm, AMD must be laughing their asses off.

    Every one of these cpu's is an overpriced piece of garbage.
    Reply
  • ereavis - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    Phenom II X2 550 should be on this list, it's the direct competitor to the i3 -- dual core with real cache. It beats the Athlon II X4 processors and the Athlon II X2 don't even belong. Reply
  • ereavis - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    blasted no edit function. The 550 is also about the same price point.

    Guess I didn't combine criticism with the fact that this review was exactly what I've been waiting for and very well written, I like the added IGP page as I'm sitting on a 785 IGP while discrete cards are in between releases. All of which may get passed on to my mom's dying Sempron if an I3 deal pops up.

    Also minor correction, the Phenom II 925 is an X4. Where are the release dates?
    Reply
  • SilentSin - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    I second your question to Intel about the pricing of the 32nm i5 chips...who the hell is going to buy that? The i3's are looking pretty sweet as an alternative to an AMD HTPC platform at that low price point, though. March should make for an interesting competition once AMD launches their new RD890G (4350 based) chipsets. I'm guessing those will thoroughly trounce the GMA part on these chips as well as having quite a few features that the Intel HD stuff can't do, but at least Intel put something up that isn't completely laughable for once. Reply
  • Cogman - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    x264 is NOT a codec. Let me repeat that, x264 is NOT a codec. It is an ENCODER. The video output from x264 is in the H.264 standard (or codec if you like).

    Saying that x264 is an alternative to H.264 is retarded. It isn't an alternative, it USES the H.264 standard. Its like trying to say that mySQL is an alternative to the Ansi SQL standard. It isn't an alternative, it is an implementation of it.
    Reply
  • puffpio - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    hahaha..that always gets on my nerves too!
    but you can take it as a compliment that x264's popularity is strong enough that people mistake it for h264..

    people make the same mistake with divx, kleenex, qtip, xerox, etc...
    Reply
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    My apologies for sounding like a fool :-) I've updated the text. I just meant that it was an alternative to closed source H.264 encoders but my phrasing was absolutely horrendous for that purpose.

    Thanks for pointing out the error :)

    Take care,
    Anand
    Reply
  • proneax - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    I would like to see you measure the power consumption on the DH55TC using the integrated graphics.

    Legitreviews shows Idle/Load of 49/99W for the 661 in that setup.
    Reply
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    Agreed - I'll do it as soon as I'm back in the office. Just gotta survive CES :)

    Take care,
    Anand
    Reply
  • medi01 - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    Dual core 3.3Ghz CPU + Radeon 5870 consuming only 110 watt at load??? Reply
  • Marcin - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    2D load Reply
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    The Radeon HD 5870 is quite power efficient if it's not running a 3D app. Our load tests were done using our x264 encoding benchmark to stress the CPU. That's why I used the 5870 as a companion in those benchmarks - makes overall system power consumption lower so we can better see differences between CPUs. Good job AMD :)

    Take care,
    Anand
    Reply
  • yacoub - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    Intel gives us this crap instead of 32nm P55. Reply
  • DrMrLordX - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    Can we see results on an i3 530 instead? Some people with ES chips are reporting that i3s are not good for much of anything over 4 ghz. Also, the vcore on your 4.8 ghz is pretty high, even with water cooling. I would not want to run an i3 at that vcore on a daily basis.

    The phase results are really interesting, but I have to wonder how well this chip scales given the memory speed limitations you run into at higher BCLK.
    Reply
  • Spoelie - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    First CPU-Z screenshot on the overclocking page shows CPU @ 1.3GHz, I don't think this is the correct shot? Reply
  • Rajinder Gill - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    Speedstep and Turbo enbaled. The full load speed is 26X149 BCLK, so around 3874MHz.. Reply
  • Spoelie - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    True, comment on gaming benchmarks:
    " the Core i3s are good gaming chips - especially when you consider how far you can overclock them. "

    But how would you know, not having any in-house?
    Reply
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    I've heard some very good initial results but I will be able to confirm when I get back from CES :)

    Take care,
    Anand
    Reply
  • marc1000 - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    Suddenly it all makes sense. Intel would never enable 1080p decoding on Atom D510 not because of technical issues, but simply because it would kill the market for i3 even before it was released. The HTPC market does not need the i3 brute-power, but this is the only platform that will have HDMI and 1080p. If Atom D510 could do 1080p and had HDMI output then the choice for a HTPC would be a no-brainer. And excuse me, but I already have a gaming rig, so all I want right now is a HTPC to play PC content on my TV. And I won't buy a core i3 to do that, but I would buy a decent Atom board if it had the required HDMI and 1080p... so, for me, no HTPC for now... Reply
  • Kjella - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    That is why the old Atom + ION exists, excellent setup with 1080p acceleration and HDMI out. If you don't want it, wait until AMD or VIA/nVidia manages to work something out. Reply
  • marc1000 - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    Indeed, I want an Atom+ION, but it has not yet come to public availability in Brazil. And Intel is killing ION with the new Atoms, so I believe I won't ever see a Atom+ION board here, because the stores will only launch only the "newer" Atom boards (that is, IF they even launch it...) Reply
  • efficientD - Saturday, January 09, 2010 - link

    The other problem with and atom setup is the low cost no L3 cache Athalons. With a decent 785G mainboard, you can get much better performance in only a slightly bigger package for about the same HTPC money. That is the direction I would go if I could build an HTPC right now. Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    The reason for high idle and in some way, high load power is due to the Asus board. Not only that, but the H57 chipset.

    The Intel H55 mobo will lower power consumption enough to get it below the i5 750 and i7 860.
    Reply
  • Kaleid - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    Would these be chips on would dare to overclock considering the foxconn socket problems that has been reported here @ anandtech? Reply
  • Zool - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    Its quite confusing now, with 9 desktop and 11 mobile i-xxx cores now. Not a single digit shows core numbers or the gpu on the new 32nm cpus.
    Actualy its a total mess now for a average user.
    Reply
  • marc1000 - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    I second your opinion!!! Perhaps Intel hired some marketing folks from Nvidia!!! =D Reply
  • Harry Lloyd - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    So which chip is responsible for HDMI Audio - the CPU, or the H5x chipset?
    Can we get HDMI audio support with a Lynnfield CPU?

    And one other thing - I assume we can use HDMI audio without haeving to use the integrated GPU (for display) when we have a PCI-E card?
    Reply
  • DigitalFreak - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    The GPU on the processor. Reply
  • Alberto - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    The main problem is the Motherboard, likely an early sample not much optimized. Both Xbit Lab and The Tech Report have found a lower idle system power consumption in the new Intel plataform versus the Lynnfield solution. Maybe This article needs of a fast update :-) Reply
  • Alberto - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    The italian site www.hwupgrade.it have discovered even better results. Over an Intel DH55TC motherboard this new cpu is IMPRESSIVE at idle.
    Intel seems right again.
    Reply
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    You're very right, it appears to be a side effect of the ASUS H57 board looking at everyone else's results. I'm out in Vegas at CES now but I'll run some numbers on Intel's H55 when I return this weekend.

    Take care,
    Anand
    Reply
  • plonk420 - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    this power consumption is a bit weird... i've actually done the same test

    pc power & cooling 750 watt
    i7-920, ex58-ud3r, 3x1 DDR3, hd5870, 2 hdds, 3 fans, HT on

    default voltage: 215 watts in p95 (122 watts idle, no powersave mode)
    undervolted 1.125v: 187 watts in p95 (121 watts idle, no powersave mode)

    default, 8600GT: 211 watts in p95 (116 watts idle, no powersave mode), 184 watts on "sane load" (distributed computing)
    1.125v, 8600GT: 183 watts in p95 (115 watts idle, no powersave mode), 164 watts on "sane load" (distributed computing)


    i7-860, ex-p55m-ud2, 4x1 DDR3, 5870, 2 hdds, 2 fans, HT on
    default voltage: (either i lost results, or i never tested them)
    undervolted 1.025v: 167 watts p95 (107 watts idle, 101 watts in power saver), 149 watts on enigma@home (8 instances)
    Reply
  • Spoelie - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    The Load Power Consumption on page 4 also raises questions.

    The Phenom system rises 90w to decode a x264 movie, while the clarkdale system only rises 20w. It seems to me that the clarkdale system had DXVA support on while the Phenom system had it off..

    Can someone check/confirm this?
    Reply
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    I was caught off guard by it too but DXVA was enabled. I'm currently out in Vegas for CES but when I return I'll give it another look in our Core i3 review. I've had issues with power consumption being stuck at unusually high levels on AMD boards in the past, but I couldn't get this one to shake in time.

    Take care,
    Anand
    Reply
  • MrAwax - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    HD Codec bitstreaming has been added in HDMI 1.3 specs at the receiver manufacturer request for no reason except that they did want to lose their market.

    Since HD codecs are LOSSLESS, decoding them in the player or in the receiver makes NO difference. And HDMI supports streaming of 8 uncompressed channels in LPCM @192kHz/24b since 1.0. So digitally, there is ZERO POINT ZERO difference. This is the reason it is useless. And this is the reason HDMI added 8 channels of high resolution audio so you won't need to upgrade your receiver !

    And this is stupid because bitstreaming is a LIMITATION of feature, not an added feature. BluRay norm supports in player audio mixing. A lot of discs are already supporting it. The player can mix sounds live on the main soundtrack. This is useful for adding dynamic menu sounds or director/actor commentary. In theory, the disc could even have a single music/fx soundtrack and dynamically mix voice to support multiple langage and save space on disc (voice is generally stereo, is not always present and reencoding every time the music/fx is a waste of storage). With HDMI bitstreaming, you can stream the main track only. Gone is the menu fx sound, gone is the bonus commentary and gone is the voice.

    Welcome to receiver manufacturer lobbying for USELESS and STUPID feature.

    PS: on the contrary, 8 channels hires LPCM is a great feature.
    Reply
  • salacious - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    Bitstreaming does have the disadvantages of loosing audio track mixing but it does offer something.
    If the decoding is done in the PC were are relying it to not to downsample to 48kHz/16bit which happens unless you have the correct combination of player and audio card. If the decoding is done in the PC you are relying that it decodes to the correct speaker and I have found that with a 7.1 speaker setups this is a complete mess.
    Also if you want to apply any receiver effects to the audio then over HDMI you tend to be limited. If the movie is 5.1 and it is EX encoded and you have a 6.1/7.1 speaker setup, then the usual solution is to apply this processing in the receiver but if you set your PC to 7.1 then it sends 2 blank audio channels and you can't apply EX processing. You have the same problem is you play back a surround encoded stereo track on a 5.1 speaker system, all that happens is that the audio is output from the left/right speakers and you are unable to apply pro-logic decoding to it.
    A solution would be for the PC to offer Pro-logic IIx and other types of decoding but as they don't then you need the receivers to do it which means bitsreaming.
    Reply
  • FlyTexas - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    ...Is this really needed?

    Ok, so more speed is good, I wouldn't turn it down... ...however anyone who uses computers in the office environment knows that CPUs have been "fast enough" for awhile now.

    We currently have a dozen Dell Vostro 200's with Pentium Dual Core 1.6ghz CPUs, and a dozen Dell Vostro 220's with Pentium Dual Core 2.4ghz CPUs in the office (among a few other oddball machines and the server).

    These computers run Office 2007, Adobe Acrobat 9, IE 8, etc. Some of them also run Quickbooks and a few other programs. None are used for video encoding, games, or anything that fancy.

    You know what? The difference between the 1.6ghz machines and the 2.4ghz machines isn't all that noticeable, once everything is up and running (they all have 2GB of RAM, running Windows XP Pro SP3). They all have the Intel GMA graphics, and for the office, they are all plenty fast.

    Why would our company upgrade to these new CPUs?

    The Pentium Dual Core CPUs were a nice jump over the Pentium 4 line. (we used to have all Pentium 4 machines back in 2006) This new line of CPUs doesn't seem like the same kind of improvement.
    Reply
  • tomaccogoats - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    I only look at new cpu's for gaming :p Reply
  • lowlight - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    You might notice a difference if they were running Windows 7 with 4GB of ram. Right now they are all a bit bottlenecked by the OS (poor multitasking performance) and low amount of RAM.

    But in general I agree with what you're saying.
    Reply
  • FlyTexas - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    I have Windows 7 installed on my computers at home, I haven't moved the office machines due to a lack of any good reason to do so.

    We have Windows 2003 R2 Small Business Server at work. Everyone is on user accounts on a domain. We have a hardware firewall running as well as the usual antivirus/spam/etc. stuff running.

    It all just works, I have no desire to rip it all apart, spend a lot of the company's money, to gain... well I'm not sure what we'd gain. If I can't think of a good reason to do it, I sure can't sell it to the boss.

    This isn't a knock against Microsoft, I personally love Windows 7, it is great for my home computer, but it doesn't do anything for the work computers. In a larger company, I can see the benefits of moving to it (and Server 2008), but we just don't have that large of a network (or budget).

    As a side note: You wouldn't have wanted to see the mess that was here when I got here, it was all running on a wireless linksys router on an unencrypted network. I managed to get the office wired with gigabit ethernet and turn off the wireless. Got a good server in place, setup a Dell account, and moved out most of the oddball machines (we did two lease purchases of machines, one for each dozen of the Vostros, got a heck of a deal on them too). Of course I sold this to the boss by saying that it would all last at least 5 years, and we're about 2 years into that 5 year plan. :)

    Maybe we'll just skip Windows 7 and move to 8 when it comes out.
    Reply
  • Taft12 - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    The parent's office PC's aren't bottlenecked by the OS - they're not bottlenecked PERIOD. They run modern productivity apps just fine and would gain little to no benefit from Core i3 (or Windows 7 for that matter). Reply
  • Paulman - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    Those office PC's you mentioned aren't bottlenecked by the 2GB of RAM. But I wouldn't say that they aren't bottlenecked, "period". What they ARE bottlenecked by is disk I/O, I'm sure. Throw in a good SSD and you would notice quite a bit of speed improvement, and probably a noticeable difference between the 1.6GHz and 2.4GHz machines.

    The most annoying thing to me whenever I'm using my PC is seeing and hearing my laptop HDD thrash around when launching an app or what not, because everything is held up as a result. Yes, I know it's a laptop HDD, but desktop drives are pretty slow, too.
    Reply
  • FlyTexas - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    SSDs are indeed fast, and make the whole computer feel "snappier"...

    However, these office machines never shut down (they hibernate overnight). IE8, Word, Excel, and Acrobat are always open and always stay open. Once loaded in memory, the hard drive is hardly used.

    I've looked at upgrading them to 3GB of RAM, but they aren't using what they have, so why bother? Most of them use right around 1GB of RAM most of the time.

    Could we put 40GB SSDs in? Sure, they are about $130 at Newegg right now... Not the end of the world, until you multiply that times 24 machines. Not a minor expense.
    Reply
  • FlyTexas - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    That is so true. This the first time in a long time that the computers have been "fast enough" for everything we use them for.

    There was a time in 1993/1994 that we were in this position, running DOS 6 and Windows 3.1 on 486DX2/66 machines, where the move to the DX4/100 or Pentium saw no benefit until Windows 95 came out. I worked in small shop back then, and we demoed a Pentium 66 machine, and saw zero benefit over the 486DX2/66 machines, other than it cost twice as much.

    Perhaps in 2002, the Athlon XP machines were "fast enough" for Windows XP and Office XP, that was a nice time as well in the business. A Pentium III 550mhz was my last personal Intel chip until 2006, when I got my first Core2Duo machine at home. I had to work with some Pentium 4s at work during that time, Intel really, REALLY dropped the ball with the Pentium 4, IMHO.

    Oh well... I've been doing this a long time, I still remember 5.25" floppy drives, with NO hard drive and those ugly green monitors with Hercules graphics... :)
    Reply
  • lowlight - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    But the 45nm package on Westmere doesn't just carry the GPU. They also moved the PCI-E controller and Memory controller there. I guess the "CPU" is still technically 32nm, but compared to Nehalem, half the "CPU" actually resides on a 45nm package on the chip...

    You can see a diagram in this Clarkdale review: http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-clarkdale-core-i...">http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-clarkdale-core-i...
    Reply
  • lowlight - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    Guess I should have read the whole review... You guys picked it up too! Not many others did though ;) Reply
  • ilnot1 - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    I swear I've scoured the pages but I don't see your Test System Setup Chart: how much RAM, which graphics card? If it is there and I missed it I wish you could delete posts. Reply
  • Spoelie - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    It's on page 6

    I'd like to know the setup of each memory benchmark on page 2. What memory speeds and settings were used for the latency and bandwidth numbers?
    Reply
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    All of the CPUs used DDR3-1333 running at 7-7-7-20 timings for that test. I used Everest 1909 (I believe, I'm about 2300 miles away from my testbed right now :-P) and CPU-Z's latency tool to grab the data.

    Take care,
    Anand
    Reply
  • toyota - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    I was looking for it too and its not there. Reply
  • yuhong - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    "The Clarkdale lineup is honestly made up of CPUs that are too expensive. The Core i5 670, 661/660 and 650 are all priced above $170 and aren’t worth the money. The problem is Lynnfield’s turbo mode gives you high enough clock speeds with two threads that there’s no need to consider a dual-core processor. You can buy a Core i5 750, have more cores than any of these Clarkdales and run at close enough to the same frequencies for $196."
    But then you have to pay extra for a discrete graphic card and not every application need the extra graphic power!
    Reply
  • Paulman - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    Wow, I was going to write about how you wouldn't have to buy a discrete graphics card if you went with a Core i5 750 because you could just choose a motherboard with an integrated graphics chip. But then I checked online and it seems that there aren't any P55-based boards with integrated graphics - wow! Wouldn't have believed it myself.

    However, Anand's point still stands when comparing the Clarkdale i5's to the Phenom II X4, for which you can get many boards with integrated graphics.
    Reply
  • Inkie - Sunday, January 10, 2010 - link

    "when comparing the Clarkdale i5's to the Phenom II X4, for which you can get many boards with integrated graphics"

    ...but Clarkdale already has integrated graphics.
    Reply
  • ssj4Gogeta - Friday, January 08, 2010 - link

    It's because P55 is a southbridge, not a northbridge. Reply
  • Taft12 - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    But then you have to pay extra for a discrete graphic card and not every application need the extra graphic power!

    Only if you don't already have any PCI-E x16 card. Is that true for a single reader of this site? And truly ANY PCI-E card will perform better than Intel's on-chip solution, even one 3 generations old.
    Reply
  • ereavis - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    so the price goes up another $30-$40. As to your question of truth, yes I spend 40 hours a week on an intel IGP dual core as it is, so do the other 1000 people in this building doing engineering work that's processor demanding but graphics independent. Reply
  • nubie - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    There are rafts of HP 8400 OEM pci-e cards on ebay right now for $15 (total, no shipping or tax), that should even accelerate your Flash 10.1 and video just fine.

    If you even need it that is, and it is clear that for many there is absolutely no use for more than the integrated graphics.
    Reply
  • oc3an - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    Hi Anand. Looks to me like something weird is up with your Everest benchmarks. Shouldn't the 24X multiplier have the faster scores?

    -Patrick
    Reply
  • Rajinder Gill - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    Hi Patrick,

    Fixed it, the images were reversed.

    Thanks!
    Raja

    Reply
  • maxfisher05 - Monday, January 04, 2010 - link

    Good Article Anand. I'm going to be building my first HTPC soon, but I want to be able to do some light gaming on it, and it doesn't look like the integrated graphics have come far enough yet. If the 661 was priced lower I would consider it, but for nearly the price of a 750 you are right in saying it makes no sense. 750 + 5750 discrete graphics for me please :)

    Will someone be posting an updated system buyers' guide soon?
    Reply
  • ssoussi - Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - link

    Check the Quick Reference Guide to Intel® HD Graphics on the official website:
    http://software.intel.com/fr-fr/articles/quick-ref...
    Reply
  • kumargupta9 - Wednesday, December 22, 2010 - link

    I was doing a research on i3 vs. i5 vs. i7.. found many articles which this one as the best. Also found the following also useful. http://binaryday.com/2010/12/09/intel-core-i3-vs-c... Reply
  • Hothead - Saturday, June 11, 2011 - link

    hey...
    i'm using dell N series system with 320 gb hard-disk,4GB Ram with grapic card nvidia 9500 GT installed but d problem started when i changed processor dual core to core 2 duo...& added 500 gb sata hard-disk...now my mother botherboard is crashed ...now i'm thinking 'bout i5 processor wid h55 mother board ...plz guide me...what should i do 2 upgrade my system so tht i can have a speedy pc with speed features & do support d games ...or don't ever again crash or something like tht...
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now