Intel finally has quad-threaded processors to compete with in the sub-$200 space that AMD has dominated for so long: the Clarkdale-based Core i3 and Core i5 CPUs. Notice we said quad-threaded. These are still dual-core parts with Hyper-Threading, yielding four logical cores. With its launch earlier in January, the company now offers a handful of viable value options for the LGA 1156 platform, with attractive scalability to higher-end Core i5 and Core i7 models.
AMD isn't taking this frontal assault on its turf sitting down, of course, and its retaliation strategy employs a sizable mix of clock speed bumps and reduced prices. The already-attractive price/performance ratio of the sub-$200 CPU market will most definitely take a turn for the better, and you, the enthusiast, win again.
In the midst of all of this new model chaos, we couldn't help but notice the Phenom II X2 555 Black Edition. At an aggressive 3.2 GHz, this is the fastest dual-core CPU that AMD has ever made, and the best part is that it boasts the same $100 price tag as its predecessor, the 550. Intel's counterpoint, the new Clarkdale-based Pentium G6950, is about $5 cheaper and has a slower clock rate of 2.8 GHz, but it does have the advantage of an efficient 32nm process and reportedly-unholy overclocking headroom.
So we couldn't help but wonder: which of these two entry-level offerings is the better bet? How does stock performance compare to a more expensive option, like the quad-core Core i5-750? And could either of these processors offer budget-busting performance if we overclock them, despite their dual-core "limits?"
We certainly slammed headfirst into a few surprises along the way (not all of them pleasant), and we didn't walk away innocent of a mistake or two. But before we dig into the dual-core battle, let's spend a little time looking at AMD's new processor portfolio.
- AMD's New CPU Portfolio And The New Phenom II X2 555
- The New AMD CPUs: Speed Bumps For Free
- Clash Of The $100 Dual-Core Titans
- How Not To Overclock A Clarkdale
- Test Systems And Benchmarks
- Benchmark Results: Synthetics
- Benchmark Results: Encoding/Productivity
- Benchmark Results: Gaming
- Power And Temperature Benchmarks
- Conclusion
We'll be comparing all the new sub-$200 CPUs in a separate article in a few weeks, stay tuned!
Are you referencing a graph not included in this article? The PCMark test describes a Core i5-750, and not a Core i7-750 as you mention in the quote above. Which is it?
Not saying the Intel chip is a bad product, either. I'm sure these teething problems will be ironed out just that for anyone with an AMD board and say, an aTI 700 series chipset I bet this chip would seem like a very tempting offer at the moment despite the large (and sometimes confusing), range of options.
It doesn't seem that long ago since we were breaking the 3GHz barrier, and still within the same range we're hitting 4GHz without breaking a sweat..sure, not all CPU's are the same but that has impressed me considering the components used.
I've personally chosen the quad-core route (Athlon II 620 'Deneb' core), because I want cheap and fast quad-core performance for heavy multi-tasking and video transcoding. There's always the potential to unlock certain memory and overclock to get even more performance.
For the follow up, I feel it would be best if the Intel chip is overclocked to the same as the AMD chip as this will provide the best comparison. Even if the Intel may OC by a further 200Mhz or so, I imagine 4Ghz may be the point where users feel most comfortable. May be.
Otherwise a nice article, and it's certainly nice to see focus on products other than very high end ones, which are out of the reach for many of us!