Benchmark Results: Synthetics
Sandra shows signficantly improved computing power for the Core i5-661 at 3.33 GHz, but this doesn’t necessarily reflect real-world applications. However, have a look at the encryption benchmark results, which are much accelerated on the new Clarkdale CPU.
This is one of the most amazing results. Thanks to Intel’s six additional instructions accelerating AES encryption and decryption, the performance boost is almost 12x when compared to the Core 2 Duo E8600. Keep in mind that we did not have to modify or update the benchmark to get these results.
The encryption score is similarly high, although SHA is not supported.
The increased memory bandwidth is most likely a result of the on-package memory controller (which, in turn, isn't as effective as Lynnfield's on-die memory controller).
PCMark Vantage also shows decent performance gains for the Core i5 versus the Core 2 Duo processor at the same nominal clock speed. Keep in mind that Core i5 takes advantage of its Turbo Boost feature, which lifts the CPU to a maximum of 3.60 GHz.
Latest CPU News
- 24/05 – Nvidia to Push Tablet Prices to $199 With Kai Platform
- 23/05 – AMD Backing Out of CPU Speed Wars Against Intel
- 22/05 – AMD Hitting The Casino Floor With Embedded R-Series
- 22/05 – Does Your AMD FX Platform BSOD with Steam? Read This.
- 20/05 – Intel To Support Cheap Ultrabooks With Low-Cost Celerons
Latest CPU reviews
- 24/05 – Overclocking Core i7-3770K: Learning To Live With Compromise
- 22/05 – Core i5-3570K, -3550, -3550S, And -3570T: Ivy Bridge Efficiency
- 15/05 – AMD A10-4600M Review: Mobile Trinity Gets Tested
- 14/05 – Core i7-3720QM: Ivy Bridge Makes Its Mark On Mobility
- 23/04 – Intel Core i7-3770K Review: A Small Step Up From Sandy Bridge
at the moment there is only one thing amd can do... cut prices a lot lol, but i think they already where expecting this... i think the next generation of CPU's is still gona be "dominated" by intel's offerings. but the one after that amd should start giving intel a run for its money, dont forget amd has been filling a financial hole for some time, but due to recent events, and because of very strong releases in the graphics department they have been that very steadly... give amd a little time...
One can only hope that Bulldozer turns out to be a MAJOR win for AMD...
I thought this article really missed the point comparing Intel's new $200 CPU against AMD's $95 part (regardless of core count). I read the bit about the Athlon 240e having the lowest power consumption vs the 3/4 core variants, which is only partially true according to the data in Anandtech's review of the Athlon 435.
At idle the 605e only looses 2.4 watts to the 240e, but at load the 605e runs a full 10.5 watts leaner than the 240e. The lower clock speed will likely be the reason, which would also result in lower single threaded performance, but at the same time the doubling of cores would improve well threaded apps such as video encoding.
When considering that the 605e comes in about $20 cheaper than the i5-661 (not including the board and more expensive DDR3), I think it borders on dishonest to not include the 605e in the comparison.
If you add the 605e into the picture then things are much less clear cut. Still a big win for Intel, but possibly not in all situations.
To maintain the journalistic integrity that have kept me reading Tom's for the last 13 years, you should always be looking to compare equally priced solutions. Whereas in my opinion, this article seemed to be tipped in Intel's favor.
I'd also question the use of a 785G when touting Intel's low power numbers, because in your own review you observed the Nvidia 8200 runs 10 watts leaner. With the 8200 equaling and beating the G45 in your 785G review in game performance I can't see why you didn't include it, other than to tip the scales in Intel's favor for MCE use.
Assuming that Intel abides by its latest agreements and terminates its predatory and monopolistic efforts aimed at destroying AMD's access to markets, AMD should have a chance at making a comeback. Their choice to go with a combined cpu/graphics package that pretty much dominates intel's onboard graphics offerings at substantially lower price points, appears to have been a good one. Until Intel comes up with a decent igp, opportunities for AMD will remain open-assuming the relevant watchdog governmental authorities keep a tight leash on Intel's unlawful predatory behaviors. One could argue that Intel's history in this regard reflects a deep seated fear of AMD's potential.
Not fair. You can't compare Amd's processors with doble-priced intel's ones.
Also, don't forget you are comparing apps that were compiled to be of generic use. In the open source world things are not that way since you can compile a given app to be optimized specifically for your cpu model. I get to handle quite some computers in my work, and realized that, if optimized, i usually find amd processors to be faster than intel ones.
I also agree that it is NOT FAIR to compare double priced intel processors with amd just because they are of different brands. Its like comparing the best car fiat has to offer, with the best car porsche has to offer... yeah... right...