The Rest of Clarkdale: Intel's Pentium G6950 & Core i5 650/660/670 Reviewed
by Anand Lal Shimpi on March 24, 2010 4:00 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Integrated Graphics Performance
In our 890GX review I looked into integrated graphics performance of the entire Clarkdale lineup vs. AMD's chipset offerings. You can get a look at the full set of data here, but I'll also provide a quick summary here.
Intel's best case performance happens in our Dragon Age Origins benchmark:
Thanks to its 900MHz GPU clock the Core i5 661 does much better than AMD's integrated graphics. The rest of the Clarkdale lineup is basically on par, and the Pentium G6950 is a bit slower. Note that the G6950 is still over 50% faster than G45. That was just a terrible graphics core.
The worst case scenario for Intel's integrated graphics comes up in Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2:
Here even the Core i5 661 can't best AMD's 890GX. Intel's integrated graphics performance can range from much slower to competitive if not faster than AMD's depending on the game. Unfortunately in a couple of key titles Intel is much slower. Using GPU clock speed as a means to differentiate CPUs isn't a wise move if you're trying to build up your reputation for not having terrible graphics.
If you're not going to do any gaming and you're using the integrated graphics for Blu-ray playback, it's a much better story for Intel.
Under load the entire Clarkdale line is very conservative with power consumption.
Full Data in Bench & The Test
We're presenting an abridged set of benchmarks here in the review to avoid this turning into too much of a graph-fest. If you want to see data that you don't see here check out all of these CPUs and more than 100 others in Bench.
| Motherboard: | ASUS P7H57DV- EVO (Intel H57) Intel DX58SO (Intel X58) Intel DX48BT2 (Intel X48) Gigabyte GA-MA790FX-UD5P (AMD 790FX) |
| Chipset Drivers: | Intel 9.1.1.1015 (Intel) AMD Catalyst 8.12 |
| Hard Disk: | Intel X25-M SSD (80GB) |
| Memory: | Qimonda DDR3-1066 4 x 1GB (7-7-7-20) Corsair DDR3-1333 4 x 1GB (7-7-7-20) Patriot Viper DDR3-1333 2 x 2GB (7-7-7-20) |
| Video Card: | eVGA GeForce GTX 280 |
| Video Drivers: | NVIDIA ForceWare 180.43 (Vista64) NVIDIA ForceWare 178.24 (Vista32) |
| Desktop Resolution: | 1920 x 1200 |
| OS: | Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit (for SYSMark) Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
70 Comments
View All Comments
Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, March 24, 2010 - link
Fixed and fixed :)hyvonen - Wednesday, March 24, 2010 - link
Anand,Looks like i5-670 was dropped from idle power plot... Care to add it? :)
FlameDeer - Thursday, March 25, 2010 - link
Yes, i5-670 idle power is missing at http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">page 8.We can find the results as 73.1W at CPU Bench here:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?b=51&a...">http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?b=51&a...
But the results of i5-660 & Atom D510 are really missing at CPU Bench.
Example of Atom D510 vs Athlon II X2 255, which showing no results:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=110&...">http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=110&...
Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, March 25, 2010 - link
Fixed and fixed :)Intel's Atom D510 is now included in Bench :)
Do you believe there's a need for the i5-660 in Bench even though we have a 661 in there? They provide the same application performance and we have no integrated graphics tests in Bench.
Take care,
Anand
FlameDeer - Thursday, March 25, 2010 - link
Hi Anand, thanks for all the fixed. :)I agree with you about i5-660 & i5-661 both having same application performance (because no integrated graphics tests), they also having same price too.
Only power consumption will have some different, but i5-660 & i5-661 are using different OS & GPU here:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">i5-660 Power Consumption - Windows Vista + GeForce GTX 280
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">i5-661 Power Consumption - Windows 7 + Radeon HD 5870
If not taking much time, adding i5-660 data will make Bench even more complete & will definitely benefits readers who specifically choose 660 for some reasons.
You have really done a great job by building up this Bench function for all readers, with so much of hard works & efforts in running all the tests! Please help me remove my first reply at above which contain link code error to save the precious comments space here. Thanks & take care. :)
hyvonen - Friday, March 26, 2010 - link
Thanks for adding the i5-670 idle power here!This may be a bit too much to ask, but I would really like to see the i5-6xx series idle powers measured without the high-power graphics card.
Many HTPC rigs use in-package graphics to reduce heat generation and noise, and might get left on for extended periods of time... So idle power with integrated graphics only would be a useful metric.
FlameDeer - Thursday, March 25, 2010 - link
Yes, i5-670 idle power is missing at http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">page 8.We can find the results as 73.1W at CPU Bench here:
[L]http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?b=51&a...[/L]
But the results of i5-660 & Atom D510 are really missing at CPU Bench.
Example of Atom D510 vs Athlon II X2 255, which showing no results:
[L]http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=110&...[/L]
Kibbles - Wednesday, March 24, 2010 - link
"To paragraph a short, wise, green man"I think you meant paraphrase :)
Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, March 24, 2010 - link
haha woops! fixed :)Take care,
Anand
bombacan - Monday, April 5, 2010 - link
these cpus has vtd support, diffent from i3a and i5 750, i5 661.as far as i know vtd needs also mobo support. so youll need a Q chipset.
for general use i dont think these cpus are preferable to any 4 core att similar price
gpu on the cpu is bullshit (not the idea, but the gpus are and will be), get a i3 or i5 750 and a standalone cheap card. it is obvious that these cpus are made for companies etc.