Page 1:Four Ivy Bridge-Based Core i5 CPUs, Compared
Page 2:Lining Up The Contenders: Are There 95 W IVBs?
Page 3:Test Setup And Benchmarks
Page 4:Benchmark Results: PCMark 7
Page 5:Benchmark Results: SiSoft Sandra 2012
Page 6:Benchmark Results: Adobe CS 5.5 And Content Creation
Page 7:Benchmark Results: Productivity
Page 8:Benchmark Results: File Compression
Page 9:Benchmark Results: Media Encoding
Page 10:Benchmark Results: 3DMark 11
Page 11:Benchmark Results: 3DMark 11, Integrated Vs. Entry-Level Discrete
Page 12:Benchmark Results: Real-World Games
Page 13:Power Consumption And Max. Temperature
Page 15:Low-Power CPUs: Specific Applications Only
Low-Power CPUs: Specific Applications Only
We’ve seen Intel’s approach to low-power processors evolve over the past few years.
Back in ’09, the company was selling 65 W Core 2 Quads that delivered just as much speed as its 95 W models. We covered two of those chips in Core 2 Quad Gets Efficient: Enter The Q8200S And Q9550S.
Then, in 2010, Intel tried to get tricky. When we published Intel Core i5-750S: Since When Does The S Mean Slow?, the company unhappily tried to justify the existence of a low-power Lynnfield-based model to us. But it was charging an extra $60 for a Core i5 that ran slower than the non-S version, and only cut 12 W from the original i5-750’s TDP. That’s the very definition of paying more for less.
This time around, we’re again asked to accept low-power Core i5s with –S and –T suffixes that underperform the non-appended chips. But at least we’re not being assailed by higher prices on those same SKUs. The Core i5-3750T (45 W) and -3550S (65 W) are both listed as $205 products. The Core i5-3550 costs $205, while the Core i5-3570K is a $225 part.
In general, though, it’s smarter to spend an extra $20 on the unlocked K-series part that runs at higher clock rates, includes the more capable HD Graphics 4000 engine (with its correspondingly-faster Quick Sync feature), and even achieves superior energy efficiency at its stock frequency.
Why on earth would you want one of those low-power parts then? Only one reason: to cram the performance you do get from them into a smaller form factor. In some environments, a 77 W chip simply doesn’t work. Even though our average power numbers show all of these CPUs to be fairly close to each other, our load consumption results demonstrate that it’s possible to push higher-end Ivy Bridge CPUs all the way up to their thermal ceilings. By trimming voltage and frequency, Intel prevents the –S and –T models from dissipating as much heat, ideally increasing their utility in all-in-ones, HTPCs, and embedded applications.
If you’re not looking at a strict thermal limit, skip those parts altogether in favor of Intel’s Core i5-3570K. It only costs $20 bucks more and does a number of things better. The days when you could buy a lower-TDP Core 2 Quad that didn’t compromise performance are over. Today, Intel’s –S and –T SKUs are all about dipping in under power limits at the expense of speed. This time around, at least, those parts don’t add the insult of a higher price tag, too.
- Four Ivy Bridge-Based Core i5 CPUs, Compared
- Lining Up The Contenders: Are There 95 W IVBs?
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- Benchmark Results: PCMark 7
- Benchmark Results: SiSoft Sandra 2012
- Benchmark Results: Adobe CS 5.5 And Content Creation
- Benchmark Results: Productivity
- Benchmark Results: File Compression
- Benchmark Results: Media Encoding
- Benchmark Results: 3DMark 11
- Benchmark Results: 3DMark 11, Integrated Vs. Entry-Level Discrete
- Benchmark Results: Real-World Games
- Power Consumption And Max. Temperature
- Low-Power CPUs: Specific Applications Only