Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Intel Core i5-661: Clarkdale Rings The Death Knell Of Core 2

Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
January 4, 2010 3:15:11 AM

Well... I think that takes care of the dreaded "But can it play Crysis?" question regarding its GMA :D  :p  :p 
Score
10
January 4, 2010 3:20:32 AM

Video on page 1 not working ... "This is a private video..."
Score
-1
Related resources
January 4, 2010 3:20:53 AM

can i ask why you teased us at the end with the 4.5ghz OC but didn't include them in the benchmarks? =[ i'm guessing most of use at tom's like to OC... it could be the difference that gets us to buy the i5 661 over the phenom II
Score
0
January 4, 2010 3:21:31 AM

xc0mmiexVideo on page 1 not working ... "This is a private video..."


Fixed! Had to keep it private pre-launch :) 
Score
1
January 4, 2010 3:26:50 AM

I really like the improvements Larrabee brought about....not! I do like the fact they are making progress but they really need to skip ahead a few generations or buy out some other company to design a GPU for themselves.
Score
-1
January 4, 2010 3:27:15 AM

^ Many more reasons to buy AMD Phenoms II X4 in the mid-range segment...
Only drawback with the AMD CPUs is the power consumption, that I feel can be brought down with slight undervolting...
Score
14
January 4, 2010 3:27:18 AM

I'm looking to upgrade from my Athlon X2 @ 2.7GHz because I do more with the computer now than I did before - sometimes I'll play a game while my TV tuner is recording from my cable signal, and having more cores would help these multiple tasks run more smoothly.
I was waiting until the Clarkdale-based i5 launched, thinking it would be a quad-core that was more competitively priced against the Phenom II X4, but it looks like a Phenom II X4 is my only option to get more cores for less money.
The only good news coming out of this launch is that LGA1156 is not changing for the Clarkdale chips, so it looks to be the most future-proof platform to upgrade to, if one was so inclined. I'm personally going with a Phenom II since I can get one without changing motherboards. This is one of the more disappointing launches in the last year or so.
Score
11
January 4, 2010 3:27:56 AM

eklipz330can i ask why you teased us at the end with the 4.5ghz OC but didn't include them in the benchmarks? =[ i'm guessing most of use at tom's like to OC... it could be the difference that gets us to buy the i5 661 over the phenom II


We have another overclocking piece planned--I wanted to get a Core i3, at least, to include :) 
Score
4
January 4, 2010 3:30:59 AM

I would love to see what GTA IV would do do the dual cores in gaming! I do know that its a bear of a game on the CPU and it would truly show off if hyperthreading could actually make a major difference.
Score
3
January 4, 2010 4:26:12 AM

Great video once again! Thanks for this and the review itself. Very informative. I really liked the graph on the first page too :) 
Score
0
January 4, 2010 5:03:18 AM

good touch on the world of warcraft fraps. although not very playable on high settings is good to know what speeds it actualy gets
Score
0
January 4, 2010 5:11:37 AM

Would be nice to know if this thing can handle blue ray playback, as some of these would probably be sold as a HTPC. Ya, they put features for it, but does it play or not?

Last preview I read showed it doing fine in windowed mode, but blowing chunks at full screen playback, dropping to 15fps and lower.
Score
2
January 4, 2010 5:25:00 AM

Idle power in the 70s for an IGP-based system is a huge failure not a win, though using an 1100W PSU probably deserves a lot of the blame. Systems built on the 780G, 730i, G4x, etc. (similar to this test platform, but use a more appropriate PSU) idle in the 40s.
Score
3
January 4, 2010 6:22:34 AM

Nice dual....
E8500 was beaten badly...

Wud really like to see what these chips can do once overclocked.
Score
1
January 4, 2010 7:08:09 AM

Where are the H55 and H57 motherboards priced? So what if the processor is $200 if the motherboard is going to be another $200 on top of it, like P55. I'm not an AMD fanboi, but for less than $300, you can get excellent computing power. Platform cost is where AMD rules, currently.
Score
6
January 4, 2010 7:17:12 AM

Very meh at their price points with disappointing idle consumption. Intel is just biding time until AMD's 32 nm process is ready. No reason why they couldn't have a 4 GHz stock chip, load power proves it.

If you use a E8600 with integrated G45 graphics, I bet you that power consumption will be lower that the 661 (integrated). This GPU-on-package is all just a marketing ploy.

I really wish you had benchmarks for the low end chips though I doubt IT managers will be running out to replace their fleets of E7500's.
Score
0
January 4, 2010 7:22:51 AM

same as the p55 but less room for Gpu's.... and newer h55,h57 onboard gpu.... well I guess if you really want to get over all the unneeded jargon and you dont really have a budget just skip this and go X58..... regardless.... even if you have a little extra money to spare and you ARE on a budget, save on the 2nd GPU,monitor, or RAM and get an X58 now!

Score
-6
January 4, 2010 8:12:15 AM

I think there is a big mistake in the gaming benchmarks...

Wolfdale is a awesome gaming chip. Its a first to me that the Core 2 Quad is faster in Crysis and all the other games vs. Wolfdale...

Are you sure it was running at full speed?
Score
1
January 4, 2010 8:12:43 AM

I think there is a big mistake in the gaming benchmarks...

Wolfdale is a awesome gaming chip. Its a first to me that the Core 2 Quad is faster in Crysis and all the other games vs. Wolfdale...

Are you sure it was running at full speed?
Score
-6
January 4, 2010 8:20:16 AM

That Yorkfield is 2.66 GHz! No chance in hell it beats the E8500 in gaming...

I hope this is just a mistake...

E.g. in Crysis 1920 x 1200 with (breace yourself) 8x AA! No way in hell are these scores correct.

Did you test the E8500 with a slower video card?
Score
-6
January 4, 2010 8:23:45 AM

1100w... why not a 2000w psu or better 5000w. thanks again for making a mockery of the power consumption measurements! i think that the new i5 would do something like 50w idle and below 100w in load if you used the righ psu. i cannot understand why you use these grossly over sized psus are used when doing power measurements.
above from that i believe the new i5 is doing ok. it would make for a a very nice desktop or httpc. it has the performance and the power consumption. the vid part is not too potent but this was not a goal. the price is a little high. the mobos are a bit on the expensive side. i guess the amd lineup is very good and as somebody suggesed you can undervolt the amd cpus quite a lot. i'm using a antiquated :)  x2 4200+. at stock it's 1.1/1.35v (idle/load). i managed to bring it to 0.825/1.15 (idle/load) without much experiments. my point is that you can bring the amd cpus power consumption down quite a lot if you have the knowledge.
Score
3
January 4, 2010 8:25:06 AM

"...Core 2 Quad: sureā€”it still shows fairly well, and might make a reasonable upgrade..."

Reasonable? It performs almost identicallly well to the i5 750 in most benchmarks, add in the savings of not having to buy a new mobo & new ram & it is more than a reasonable decision to upgrade the cpu to a core2 quad. The negligible gaming perfomance increase doesn't justify the expenditure to move to lga 1156 with no 6-core upgrade path. 1336 with an eye to six cores maybe.
Score
9
January 4, 2010 9:12:39 AM

Thought the E8500 numbers were low as well so we re-run a number of the gaming tests to make sure--the scores checked out. I'll rebuild that system right now and double-check.

Update2: Fixed!
Score
1
January 4, 2010 10:55:14 AM

link to proper power measurements
the link points to another review that used a proper 400w power supply and did some measurements. 31w/79w (idle load) versus 77w/115w measured by thg. they did use a intel motherboard. guess this is enough of a difference to backup what i said about the 1100w psu. hope you will fix this in the reviews to come.
other than that i find the thg reviews very useful. keep up the good work!
Score
1
January 4, 2010 11:05:08 AM

re games not working on the IGP... a number of other review sites report Crysis, Left 4 Dead working just fine.
Score
-2
January 4, 2010 11:22:13 AM

roothedayre games not working on the IGP... a number of other review sites report Crysis, Left 4 Dead working just fine.


Left 4 Dead 2 "runs," but was missing a weapon texture intermittently. Then again, nobody is going to play at the resolutions/settings needed to get smooth performance from the on-package GPU...
Score
2
January 4, 2010 11:35:43 AM

What a waste of transistor count. This line of Intel processors are absolute joke. Who the hell needs Intel Crappola Graphic Chip on it? LGA1156 socket is absolutely dead platform and yet Intel will release joke dual core CPUs to milk the money from Customers. I say save yourself and get AM3 socket motherboard with Sub $99 Quad CPU, and again new 6 Core AMD will be available for AM3 socket which makes the platform 'future proof'. Intel 1366 platform is the only to get, but the prices for it are insane. I have to say that Intel made a huge fucking mess. P55, X58, H55, H57 with the so many over blown CPUs that is beyond commedy.

Score
2
January 4, 2010 1:38:03 PM

I don't see this release of processors being that successful. It is not more powerful than the Core i5 750 in most tests, and still costs the same. Cmon Intel, haven't you learned anything from the anti-competitive lawsuits? You think this is mainstream pricing! $200 for a CPU is fine for the gamer or enthusiast but what about mom and pop that just want a new machine without breaking the bank??
Score
0
January 4, 2010 2:10:04 PM

doomtomb said:
I don't see this release of processors being that successful. It is not more powerful than the Core i5 750 in most tests, and still costs the same. Cmon Intel, haven't you learned anything from the anti-competitive lawsuits? You think this is mainstream pricing! $200 for a CPU is fine for the gamer or enthusiast but what about mom and pop that just want a new machine without breaking the bank??


Aparently Intel did buy YOU didn't. If Intel sold these cheaply, it might be considered anti-competitive, especially if they were selling them near cost in an effort to undercut AMD. Intel's relatively high price HELPS AMD to sell more processors, so your argument is completely opposite of the facts.

If you like AMD, you'll want Intel to continue these moderately-high prices. If you hate AMD, you'll want Intel to lower its prices.
Score
-2
January 4, 2010 2:19:48 PM

Intel should used only LGA 1366 socket for complete line of CPUs, they could still make difference between 1366s boards by having 3, 2 or just 1 PCIE 16x, having different number of SATA ports to have mobo pricing from $150 to $350 based on what you need. Pack all damn CPUs into same socket, and do not make so many flavors of them.

Omg what a mess! Just another reason to switch to AMD which is being honest to Customers for years.
Score
0
January 4, 2010 2:29:38 PM

I was hoping for more from this GPU, oh well.
So, Intel, when can I see a heavily undervolted version with undervolted DDR3 800MHz and a 80GB x18-m in a 10" netbook?
cangeliniLeft 4 Dead 2 "runs," but was missing a weapon texture intermittently. Then again, nobody is going to play at the resolutions/settings needed to get smooth performance from the on-package GPU...

Yes, some people will.
The most hardcore gamers I know are running 5 year old rigs (L4D/CS:S being the top uses). Some people don't give a damn about minimum settings, they just want headshots. =D
As much as I like my 2 grand rig, once I get into the game, I don't notice the difference at all.
Score
-2
January 4, 2010 2:36:01 PM

Intel Integrated Graphic Controller barely can run Windows Aero. It's joke even for Home Theater purpose. Having said that, no Gamer will play Games using this. To me it's pointless to have it in CPU package. AMD offers much better CPUs for same price range. You can get Quad CPU for less then $100 speaking of which Phenom II 3.4 Black Edition for $185 owns complete Intel CPU line. It owns it in every possible way.
Score
1
January 4, 2010 2:36:08 PM

I don't know about this little dual core chip. I guess it has it's place in value systems. Since it gets beat out by the 965 I would also like to see how it compared to Athlon II X4s.
Score
2
January 4, 2010 2:51:14 PM

liquidsnake718same as the p55 but less room for Gpu's.... and newer h55,h57 onboard gpu.... well I guess if you really want to get over all the unneeded jargon and you dont really have a budget just skip this and go X58..... regardless.... even if you have a little extra money to spare and you ARE on a budget, save on the 2nd GPU,monitor, or RAM and get an X58 now!


Why are you so stuck on a X58 setup. As i said in the forums to you. An x58 is not right for everyone. And for someone on a budget, A h55/57 is better than x58.
Score
0
January 4, 2010 3:00:55 PM

@Animaniac

That is a function of the PC vs. Console sales at this time...

New games do not tax 5 year old game rigs, with few exceptions, because of the lack of horsepower on consoles.

Your friends with 5 year old rigs, don't have to play on minimum settings.

I have a buddy with am AMD Athlon x2 2.6ghz with 2GB of RAM and an X1950 video card and few games make him turn the details or resolution very low.

I think maybe you are mistaking people being happy with their mid resolution settings as being happy with no resolution settings.

I have been gaming since 1988 and I have a vast number of gamer friends and I have never heard a single one of them say they did not care about graphics performance.

If that were try we would still be playing doom and not doom 3, or COD and not BF2, etc., etc.

Most of these game genre updates mainly update the graphics engines and physics engines, and little else.
Score
0
January 4, 2010 3:02:52 PM

I can see the Clarksdale CPU's being very popular with name brand OEM's with their integrated graphics.
I wonder how the Core i5-661 would perform in FSX as a benchmark with a discrete graphics card.
Score
0
January 4, 2010 3:17:18 PM

Most branded PCs (which far outsell enthusiast parts) come with integrated graphics. If Intel can build a decent performing chip with decent (for desktop purposes) graphics that beats it's competitors for the same price, then they win. The real comparison here is not the new i5 vs AMD Phenom, both with HD5850 cards. A realistic comparison is an Intel complete platform (CPU, MB, Integrated graphics) vs an AMD platform with the same. OEMs look at their total price, reliability, power consumption (so they can use a cheaper power supply), big names (like "Quad-core inside" and "4GB RAM!!!") and crap like that. They want to spend the least amount of money to make the most.

People have heard for more than a year now that the Core i7 is the best so if they see an HP computer for $600 that says it has a Core i5, they think it must be almost as good for much less money. They don't understand that it's nowhere close because of it's weak graphics and slower memory bandwidth. It's all about the green stuff and these CPUs give computer makers another opportunity to cash in.
Score
0
January 4, 2010 3:18:03 PM

I want to see the test's redone, this time with it overclocked and no turbo.
Score
0
January 4, 2010 3:29:27 PM

dawolf74@AnimaniacThat is a function of the PC vs. Console sales at this time...New games do not tax 5 year old game rigs, with few exceptions, because of the lack of horsepower on consoles.Your friends with 5 year old rigs, don't have to play on minimum settings.I have a buddy with am AMD Athlon x2 2.6ghz with 2GB of RAM and an X1950 video card and few games make him turn the details or resolution very low.I think maybe you are mistaking people being happy with their mid resolution settings as being happy with no resolution settings.I have been gaming since 1988 and I have a vast number of gamer friends and I have never heard a single one of them say they did not care about graphics performance.If that were try we would still be playing doom and not doom 3, or COD and not BF2, etc., etc. Most of these game genre updates mainly update the graphics engines and physics engines, and little else.

They prefer PC gaming, and they don't give a damn what it looks like. Their rigs are enough for L4D at minimum settings only.
PC vs console gaming isn't only about the graphics.

I'm playing PSX games at the moment, and I'm loving it (on a PSP). Sure, I have dual 23" 2048x1152 monitors to play Crysis on, but games like Spyro are funner.

I wanted a 18.4" 1920x1200 laptop with a GTX 260m, but I'll do just fine with one of the mobile variants of these dual cors with their integrated GPU on a 14" playing games at a low resolution and settings.
All that matters in the end is the headshots. =D
Score
0
January 4, 2010 3:39:50 PM

Very Nice on 4.5 GHz with low power consumption.
Score
-4
January 4, 2010 3:42:22 PM

blackbyronVery Nice on 4.5 GHz with low power consumption.

Sorry, never mind about my post above, ignore it.
Score
-1
January 4, 2010 3:45:00 PM

what are the settings for the 7zip test? i.e. what dictionary size did you use?
Score
0
January 4, 2010 4:38:13 PM

Looks like I'll be sticking with my previous upgrade choice...
AMD Phenom X4 955 Black - Overclocked to 3.8GHz
(Best bang for the buck if you ask me!)
Score
1
January 4, 2010 4:38:40 PM

Good article.. I think I will roll with the i7 920..
Score
0
January 4, 2010 4:42:36 PM

Buying one of these platforms over AMD Phenom II, you must be an idiot.
Score
2
January 4, 2010 4:43:51 PM

Infact i'd rather get $200 x58 with i920 i7 CPU then any of this crap. As far as buying OEM computers, i really feel sorry about people who do actually buy them. It's not their fault, wish somebody could honestly point them to other direction and build computer for them.
Score
-1
January 4, 2010 4:59:01 PM

Computer_Lots The real comparison here is not the new i5 vs AMD Phenom, both with HD5850 cards. A realistic comparison is an Intel complete platform (CPU, MB, Integrated graphics) vs an AMD platform with the same.


I agree, would like to see an article with integrated solutions matched up. Even enthusiasts have dreams of HTPC's in their living rooms, and low cost is an obvious incentive. Like someone mentioned about bluray performance, If intel truly has an on-die htpc solution this would be great news for them, I think they are under served in that market.

Also looking forward to hearing more about i3. Did I understand correctly that Intel sent you one CPU (The i5 661)? This is not so much a launch as it is a "here take this and play with it and see what you can come up with."
Score
1
January 4, 2010 5:21:59 PM

Next time I'd like to see turbo boost disabled and the cpu's set at the same clock rates including the Q9550 would be nice too considering i5-750's higher motherboard cost pretty much offsets the higher cost of the Q9950 and is potentially a cheaper solution if reusing your current 775 motherboard and DDR2.
Score
0
January 4, 2010 5:22:25 PM

my hunch is right.

hd-quality gaming, 99% of it, still depends on the gpu, regardless of the cpu on the list. a 5fps delta is negligible.





Score
-3
!