Download the Tom's Hardware App from the App Store
The reference for current tech news
Yes No

Conclusion

by

This article looked at the power consumption and efficiency of Intel’s new mainstream dual-core processors, the Core i3 and Core i5 for LGA 1156. All of them now integrate a new graphics unit called HD Graphics, regardless of whether you want it or use it. The graphics core delivers decent performance, but it certainly can’t beat any discrete graphics solution above the ultra-low budget level. The new processors are extremely strong when it comes to encrypting or decrypting AES (we’ll have another article dealing with this), but they also outperform both Core 2 Duo and today’s dual-core AMD offerings in every benchmark.

Processor and system power consumption have decreased significantly. Low power requirements that were only within range for high-efficiency, low-performance solutions can now be reached with mainstream components. Last but not least, Intel has again implemented Turbo Boost, which accelerates one or both cores to up to 3.73 GHz under peak load conditions (3.6 GHz in the case of our Core i5-661) as long as the speed boost fits into the processor’s thermal power envelope. The only weaknesses we found were that this principle doesn’t apply to graphics (save for mobile Core i5 solutions) and Intel’s pricing remains well above AMD’s offerings.

It almost seems like nothing can rain on Intel’s parade. The introduction of the Nehalem architecture with Core i7 on LGA 1366 secured the high-end for Intel. Core 2 Duo has been expensive but dominant in the mainstream, and the recently-introduced LGA 1156 platform will be taking care of today’s and future systems in between the budget and upper-mainstream. Intel’s new Core i5 and i3 processors must be a nightmare for AMD, which continues to lose ground in the mainstream. Intel dominates performance, and it clearly rules power efficiency now. The only factor left in AMD’s hand is price and effective value, but this won’t last forever without some major changes.

If anyone has good suggestions for AMD, now would be the time to make them. What do you think of efficiency? Where do you think AMD should improve to get back into the game?

Share:
6
Comments
Read more
X
Submit

Comments
Read the comments on the forums
reidd105 06/01/2010 07:44
Hide
-2+

I'm still trying to figure out why you're comparing a new $196 intel chip against sup $100 AMD offerings?

mikehunt80 06/01/2010 14:27
Hide
-0+

@ reidd105
The only answer I have now is to make Intel win on all fronts.

I spent time yesterday writing a comment, pointing out how in Anandtech's review of the Athlon 435, they found the 240e actually uses 10 watts more power versus the 605e. The 605e can be had for around $170 and might beat the i5-661 in some video and 3d rendering tasks.

I logged on this morning to check to see if anyone else had posted, to find that the link from the home page brings be here and the comments are missing. Below is a slightly different link to the older article.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/inte [...] 31772.html

Can someone from Toms please answer why this is going on?

Anonymous 09/01/2010 19:47
Hide
-0+

intels turbo boost + built in gpu + hyperthreading vs not oced black edition cpu + northbridge = unfair battle?

i5-661 - 200$
core 2 duo E8600 - 280$
H55 mobo ~ 100$

phenomII X2 550 - 100$
athlon x2 240e -

Anonymous 13/01/2010 19:20
Hide
-0+

QUOTE: "The Core i5-661 is a unique model from Intel with the family's fastest graphics clock. Its HD Graphics unit runs at 900 MHz, as opposed to the 733 MHz found on all other Core i3/i5 processors. Other than that, there are no differences between the models."

Actualy there are, see: http://download.intel.com/design/p [...] 322911.pdf page 16.
Beside the difference in graphics speed the 661 has none of the advanced hardware virtualisation technologies that the other i5's do have.
For some that might not make any difference but it might be something to keep in mind when choosing between the i5's

jacky89 14/01/2010 16:40
Hide
-0+

I don't understand how the performance of the Clarkdale is so much faster than the Wolfdales in this article but is about the same speed in clock for clock in other test articles such as the ones on anandtech and xbitlabs. Particularly look at the gaming fps. It is not consistent at all.

Best offers

Newsletters


OK