The Clarkdale Review: Intel's Core i5 661, i3 540 & i3 530
by Anand Lal Shimpi on January 4, 2010 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
SYSMark 2007 Performance
Our journey starts with SYSMark 2007, the only all-encompassing performance suite in our review today. The idea here is simple: one benchmark to indicate the overall performance of your machine.
SYSMark performance is a strong point of the new Clarkdale family. The Core i5 661 is able to deliver overall performance roughly equivalent to the Core i7 860. If you aren't running heavily threaded code that can really stress all four cores of a Lynnfield or Phenom II, the Core i5 661 is going to perform very similarly.
The real winners however are the simulated Core i3 540 and 530. You give up Turbo Boost but you still maintain Hyper Threading, which delivers Phenom II X4 965 performance for $133. Obviously AMD will still win in most tasks that stress all four cores, but for the majority of users you'll actually have roughly the same performance out of an i3 530. Impressive.
These Clarkdale chips are also a significant performance improvement over the older Core 2 based products. The i3 530 looks to be around 17% faster than the Conroe based Core 2 Duo E6750. Even AMD's value quad-core chips can't compete here, but that's just because we're not really stressing all four threads.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
93 Comments
View All Comments
Marcin - Monday, January 4, 2010 - link
2D loadAnand Lal Shimpi - Monday, January 4, 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
yacoub - Monday, January 4, 2010 - link
Intel gives us this crap instead of 32nm P55.DrMrLordX - Monday, January 4, 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.
Spoelie - Monday, January 4, 2010 - link
First CPU-Z screenshot on the overclocking page shows CPU @ 1.3GHz, I don't think this is the correct shot?Rajinder Gill - Monday, January 4, 2010 - link
Speedstep and Turbo enbaled. The full load speed is 26X149 BCLK, so around 3874MHz..Spoelie - Monday, January 4, 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?
Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, January 4, 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
marc1000 - Monday, January 4, 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...Kjella - Monday, January 4, 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.