Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question
Closed

Point of core i3?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Core
  • Pentium
Last response: in CPUs
December 22, 2009 4:35:58 AM

If you can get a great core 2 duo with at least 3.0ghz ala e8400, then whats the point when you canstill use the LGA 775 board? Is this SKU for the pentium 4 upgraders? I dont understand why one would buy an LGA1556 board and get a 2 core i3, yeah it has a few new features and more RAM can be used but so what.... Anyone still feel like this is useless?

More about : point core

a b à CPUs
December 22, 2009 4:50:59 AM

The core i3 has superior architecture....and hyperthreading. End of discussion.
Score
0

Best solution

a c 133 à CPUs
December 22, 2009 5:11:50 AM

Superior architecture= better performance per clock (GHz)
The point being for a low cost solution for the new socket platform with support for DDR3 memory. Also, lower power consumption for the performance.
Share
Related resources
a b à CPUs
December 22, 2009 5:18:11 AM

775 is old and finnished - the i3/i5 is to replace the low/mid range hardware, not so much to out-perform it but it does anyhow
Score
0
December 22, 2009 5:35:23 AM

If I would use your logic then it would be useless to use i5/i7 over C2Q for the same reasons as you dumped i3.

Not because it only have 2 cores doesn't mean it would be "useless". This is what they call innovation.
Score
0
a c 136 à CPUs
December 22, 2009 10:11:54 AM

775 end of life.

I3, better architecture, lower power, upgrade path, better cpu-ram interface, shall I go on ...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 22, 2009 11:50:14 AM

They are also making more 1156 boards, with the H55 specification. micoratx , I'm not sure of the details but I believe they are more budget oriented. So a complete package can be built cheaply. Leave no stone unturned for a person to choose AMD, lol.
Score
0
December 22, 2009 4:41:00 PM

Simply put, better tech and to make more money for Intel.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 22, 2009 4:59:06 PM

Being 32nm with the 45nm gpu, OEM's are gonna love them.
Score
0
December 26, 2009 11:58:59 PM

notty22 said:
They are also making more 1156 boards, with the H55 specification. micoratx , I'm not sure of the details but I believe they are more budget oriented. So a complete package can be built cheaply. Leave no stone unturned for a person to choose AMD, lol.



"To leav no stone unturned", as metaphorical as it sounds you have the best answer here.

I could not find the logic in upgrading from a e7500 2.8ghz c2d to a core i3, i guess these new 1156 chips are meant to be for new entry level 1156 buyers upgrading from a pentium3.4, 4 or dual core, or even first time buyers. Yes I obviously understand its newer technology like all the other obvious answers but in the grand scheme of things Intel just brought it out to "Leave no stone unturned for a person to choose AMD". Kill the x2's and the x3's while leaving the old school c2d to be old school beasts in their own right.

My logic however, were if it were in MY situation, I have basically eked out alot out of my 775board and processor, which I have already upgraded from an e4600, and 3 gpu's and would rather skip the whole 1156 core i3,i5, and pseudo i7 and get an X58 with all the new features like USB3.0 and sata 3 i
Score
0
December 27, 2009 12:11:32 AM

Continued since I got some weird message saying error. Guru Meditation?.....................

My logic however, were if it were in MY situation, I have basically eked out alot out of my 775board and processor, which I have already upgraded from an e4600, and 3 gpu's and would rather skip the whole 1156 core i3,i5, and pseudo i7 and get an X58 with all the new features like USB3.0 and sata 3 in a few months. I mean why not go for the full x16, X16, SLI or Crossfire? Even Tri SLI is possible with the more expensive boards. What I am saying, even in other threads is that there are boards that are sub $200-250 that are X58 and only $50-150 more the total package over a P55 board. Why not go for the whole nine yards and get that other GPU a few months later to upgrade instead of instantly.... the money you save in the meantime if you get a p55 is nothing compared to the "future" compatibility and technology invested in an X58 over a P55.

I know I will not get the hexacore chips in the next 3-5years but at least this board can handle that and is THAT much long term. Hench Intel left no stone unturned with the X58.... perhaps they will come out with another one with more features in between the launch of the 6core hips but at least we all know that the x58 can handle just that and much more.

This is just an opinion but I hope it can persuade some ppl to overlook the marketing standpoint of the P55, i3,i5, and the 1156 i7. If you are going to get an Intel cpu research first and know how long you will want to use you PC as a utility with utilitarian methods and just buy an X58 now or in a few months with full and updated features. The X58 will reach a broader market in the future as in 5 years from now, you can still look for parts for this board ans upgrade it well even with newer technology around at prices near the P55 which will be a dead end by then.
Score
0
December 28, 2009 2:20:16 AM

Quote:
Comparo with a Core I3 and a E7400

http://en.inpai.com.cn/doc/enshowcont.asp?id=7464&pagei...

Summary :

I3 Performance Advantage Over E7400 at stock clocks :

PCMark : 19%
WPrime : 64%
WinRar : 44%
264 Encoder : 37%
Cinebench R10 : 34%
HAWX : 33%
Street Fighter IV : 17%
LFD2 : 66%
MW2 : 13%

I want to see how it does against an E8500 but im impressed with its ass kicking of the E7400



Oh no doubt that it is a better and more efficient processor, obviously why would anything else be worse or on par 2-4years removed from the previous architecture(c2d).

I am just stating the "recommendations" from TOms that it is better to upgrade 2-3 CPU generations from your current line. That being said, I will get a core i7 even though it is a year older but is FAr more sophisticated and its board is also more "future proofed". The X58. So the jump from an LGA775 to a LGA1336 makes more sense in MY CASE.
Score
0
a c 211 à CPUs
December 28, 2009 2:51:37 AM

Thats like asking the point of a Athlon/Phenom II X2. Cheap and for the masses.
Score
0
December 28, 2009 3:17:07 AM

775 is old and finnished
said:
775 is old and finnished


you know that is racist.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 3:42:20 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Thats like asking the point of a Athlon/Phenom II X2. Cheap and for the masses.


I agree it (i3) looks quite good.
Score
0
December 29, 2009 3:39:53 AM

i7 looks great in an x58!
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 29, 2009 6:46:15 AM

I do not see these chips beating the AMD chips its supposed to be competing with.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 29, 2009 6:40:32 PM

It will all come down to the pricing and I doubt you will get an i3 for less than 140.00$ when the E7400 is still ridiculously priced at 120.00$....
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 29, 2009 9:05:50 PM

That doesn't make it a good idea...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 29, 2009 9:34:31 PM

Cooling isn't everything. Voltage alone can kill a CPU, even if it is running in a perfectly reasonable temperature range.

Heat accelerates the process, yes, but if Intel specifies that the 32nm chips should be run at 1.25V or below (this is just an example - I don't know what the actual spec is), then running them at 1.5V could significantly shorten their lifetime.
Score
0
January 19, 2010 12:23:43 AM

low cost solution, but i would still rather get a core2quad over this and eke out every last bit of that lga775 with ddr3... until the FINAL(updated with all current/new tech like usb3.0, ect) lga1336 board comes out....
Score
0
January 19, 2010 1:11:45 AM

Quote:
Comparo with a Core I3 and a E7400

http://en.inpai.com.cn/doc/enshowcont.asp?id=7464&pagei...

Summary :

I3 Performance Advantage Over E7400 at stock clocks :

PCMark : 19%
WPrime : 64%
WinRar : 44%
264 Encoder : 37%
Cinebench R10 : 34%
HAWX : 33%
Street Fighter IV : 17%
LFD2 : 66%
MW2 : 13%

I want to see how it does against an E8500 but im impressed with its ass kicking of the E7400


Well obviously intel is cheating here by using the "cripple C2D" function on their compiler. :sarcastic: 
Score
0
January 19, 2010 4:19:21 AM

2046499,29,62906 said:
Well obviously intel is cheating here by using the "cripple C2D" function on their compile?
how so?
Score
0
a c 211 à CPUs
January 19, 2010 4:37:59 AM

someguy7 said:
I do not see these chips beating the AMD chips its supposed to be competing with.


They will beat them performance wise. Price wise is another story. Then again with the H55 mobos hitting it should even the price/performance out a bit.

liquidsnake718 said:
2046499,29,62906 said:
Well obviously intel is cheating here by using the "cripple C2D" function on their compile?
how so?
said:


Its a joke since Intels compiler "cripples" AMD chips.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2010 6:20:27 AM

jimmysmitty said:
They will beat them performance wise. Price wise is another story. Then again with the H55 mobos hitting it should even the price/performance out a bit.



Its a joke since Intels compiler "cripples" AMD chips.



They are a joke at the current prices. Forget about AMD for now. The current prices on all the i5 dual cores is more then the i5 750 quad core. That is flat out ridiculous. If they gave you a FREE H55 board then it would even out the price/performance a bit. Even then I would not purchase one of those chips.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2010 6:23:02 AM

And I do realize we where talking about the i3 but even those are overpriced. Not as bad as the i5s but still are overpriced.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2010 1:43:36 PM

I think the i5 dualies are more of a rip-off than the i3's.... I can understand the pricepoint of the i3's, specially since they are 32nm and they overclock fairly well. But the 650/660/661 and 670 are plain useless at those prices. If they were low end quads then the price would be justifiable, but as dual cores I see no point...

A dual core more expensive than the 750??? Nuts IMO....Intel has got to the point that they do not want ANYONE overclocking...lol they want you to pay the ridiculous premium for a few extra Mhz....Ohh well....
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2010 5:27:21 PM

Quote:
:lol: 

Clarkdale is going to DESTROY the X3 chips.

On air boys......

http://img693.imageshack.us/img693/9711/screen018.jpg


Well you are comparing old tech vs. new tech... Wait till AMD gets their 32nm's out the door ;)  , then we can compare....
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2010 5:28:43 PM

qurious69ss said:
I looked at the Sunday ads this week and saw that Best buy, Staples, office max, etc. are all carrying several models of PC/laptops with i5/i3's in them and they are ranging in prices from $400 to $1000. The one that caught my attention was this dell inspirion laptop for $650  P4118:CL161747:SS1051895" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.staples.com/StaplesProductDisplay?langId=-1&... what do you guys think?


If you play games stay away from such notebooks. Get at least something with a dedicated GPU. If not then you are fine ;) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2010 5:52:47 PM

OvrClkr said:
Well you are comparing old tech vs. new tech... Wait till AMD gets their 32nm's out the door ;)  , then we can compare....

Considering AMD won't have 32nm out the door for another year, I'd say it's a perfectly fair comparison.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2010 6:53:56 PM

cjl said:
Considering AMD won't have 32nm out the door for another year, I'd say it's a perfectly fair comparison.


Not really, why not compare 45nm CPU's neck to neck? You cannot compare a CPU that is smaller, uses less power and does not produce much heat....

Don't get me wrong here, Intel is making superb CPU's, if the pricing was right I would give you the benefit of the doubt...

289.99$ for a dual core is just outrageous... Look at it this way, that dual core is more expensive than the i7 920, not much more I can say :lol: 
Score
0
January 22, 2010 9:44:51 PM

OvrClkr said:
Not really, why not compare 45nm CPU's neck to neck? You cannot compare a CPU that is smaller, uses less power and does not produce much heat....

Don't get me wrong here, Intel is making superb CPU's, if the pricing was right I would give you the benefit of the doubt...

289.99$ for a dual core is just outrageous... Look at it this way, that dual core is more expensive than the i7 920, not much more I can say :lol: 

I will second on that, I would never buy a 1156 chip that cost more than a 1336chip, esp not the i7920. What more an H55, its as if anyone will use the onboard gpu on that chip for gaming anyway...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2010 10:32:40 PM

OvrClkr said:
Not really, why not compare 45nm CPU's neck to neck? You cannot compare a CPU that is smaller, uses less power and does not produce much heat....

Don't get me wrong here, Intel is making superb CPU's, if the pricing was right I would give you the benefit of the doubt...

289.99$ for a dual core is just outrageous... Look at it this way, that dual core is more expensive than the i7 920, not much more I can say :lol: 

$289 is outrageous.

Compare based on pricing though, not based on technology. If I started making a new CPU on my 12mm process, with 82 transistors and speed comparable to an ancient calculator, and I sold it for $1000, you'd compare it to an i7-975. You wouldn't say "Oh, that's unfair - the i7 is made on a much more up to date process", you'd say "look, for the same price you can get this other, way better CPU". In my opinion, CPUs should always be compared based on price, power, performance, and features. The method used to get these factors is irrelevant (45 vs 32nm isn't one of these, it is a method to obtain these).
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2010 11:06:36 PM

liquidsnake718 said:
I will second on that, I would never buy a 1156 chip that cost more than a 1336chip, esp not the i7920. What more an H55, its as if anyone will use the onboard gpu on that chip for gaming anyway...

Theres a whole lineup of 1156 xeon's and they may get the 32nm quads first that everyone wants. The 32nm quad by either cpu maker is going to be the next big enthusiast cpu.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2010 11:13:48 PM

It is true that i3 is a far better solution than an LGA 775 dualcore, but it loses horribly when compared to AMD's current solutions in the same price range. All in all it is a business OEM chip that the system builder should basically ignore at this point.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2010 11:14:05 PM

cjl said:
$289 is outrageous.

Compare based on pricing though, not based on technology. If I started making a new CPU on my 12mm process, with 82 transistors and speed comparable to an ancient calculator, and I sold it for $1000, you'd compare it to an i7-975. You wouldn't say "Oh, that's unfair - the i7 is made on a much more up to date process", you'd say "look, for the same price you can get this other, way better CPU". In my opinion, CPUs should always be compared based on price, power, performance, and features. The method used to get these factors is irrelevant (45 vs 32nm isn't one of these, it is a method to obtain these).


Correct but you cannot justify a pricetag of 290.00$ just cause the CPU is factory clocked at 3.4Ghz, this CPU is clearly made for the un-educated and lazy or for a user that can care less. Look, like I said these CPU's are not bad chips, they are just overpriced even as 32nm. Its not like you will see a HUGE difference on your monthly electric bill, or shave off 20c in LOAD temps vs a 45nm. I have seen these dualies in action and im not impressed. The only thing that did catch my attention was the overclocking threshold, everything else is mediocre IMO....

Anyone have any benchmarks of these chips vs. anything AMD has to offer?



Score
0
January 30, 2010 1:56:54 AM

Any benches coming up to compare c2d, i3, i5, c2q, i7 ?
Score
0
April 6, 2010 3:21:15 AM

With the new article is it truly better to get it over a core 2 quad?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 6, 2010 4:11:19 PM

This topic has been closed by OvrClkr
Score
0