Hardware Core i3 and i5 memory performance

We tested Intel's latest Clarkdale CPU and found some interesting results about its memory performance. Does Core i3 and Core i5 have a problem? Have we really moved on from Core 2's front side bus model? We look at the tweaks and tradeoffs the design makes.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/01/27/core-i3-and-i5-memory-performance/1

 

Yep looks about right, saw this on anandtech, would it really be that much more expensive to use the same controller as Lynnfield?

 

But it would really be less good for their sales if the lower ended product performs similarly.

 

Can i ask where is an i3 cpu in those benchmarks? :/ The title says "Core i3 and i5 memory performance", but I didn't saw any i3 cpu

 

The only difference between i3 and i5 is the lack of TurboBoost - which we disabled anyway to provide a consistent CPU performance across the board. Both i3 and i5 Clarkdale CPUs have the exact same physical properties.

 

You might want to make that your first paragraph to clear any potential confusion.

 

guess this is the annoyance Bindi was tweeting about.

guess i5 750 is still the best value-for-money.

 

Done

 

Lynnfield had the memory controller on the same die as the processors. I'm sure that Intel would have preferred to have the 2 cores, the memory controller, and the GPU all on the same die (this is what Sandybridge will have, IIRC), but instead they currently have two dies as shown on page 3 (similar to how they did the first quad core processors... 2x dual cores stuck together). It wasn't really an option for them to "use the same controller" for the i3/i5 without putting everything in one die, which takes more R&D and I assume is worse as far as yields - all of which add to the cost of the chips. This current approach was the fastest and least risk, and fortunately did not affect performance drastically. I look forward to Sandybridge, when we'll see how well these chips can perform with on die memory controllers.

 

To me these new intel cpu's aren't... exciting... The only one that has some interest is the i5 750...
Thanks for explaining that thing about the TurboBost...
I thought that the i3 were only dual-cores, but had TurboBoost.

This intel scheme of the i3, i5is really bad, with lots of differences... the threads, the turboboost... it's rather confusing :/ Even the i7 860 that is socket 1156, instead of beeing in the socket 1366... Intel please rename that cpu to a i5 at least we know that i3 and i5 are 1156 and i7 are 1366

 

Now, for a first time, that made sense, using i7 only to 1366 and i3 and i5 to 1156. Although the nomenclature is still a little blurry, that would help somehow to distinguish every core.

 

to be honest, i know the tests proved to show latency as an issue, but are the consumers of the i3 products really that bothered? After all your own custompc/bit-tech tests clearly show that in terms of real world performance and on the eye, even the i3 530 (i think it was 530) was faster than the Q6600, that was once crowned as the Gladiator of chips.
So other than it skimping out costs to cut the costs to the consumer, which seems logical, especially in the times of peering out of the recession, they created an all in one chip, which should mean theoretically a cheaper build; they also made them fast for the applications and users likely to be taking advantage of them, no?
As you said, they paved their own path for improvement on these set of i3/i5 clarkdale products for the future... but for now, there awesome, cheap, and set to be the new chip of the old blocks.

 

To be honest with you. I actually understand the seemingly confusing names of the CPUs. The numbers overlap because the CPUs overlap each other with regards to the specification of number of cores, core architecture, TurboBoost, HyperThreading and clock frequencies.

To make it more simple to understand... FORGET THE NAMES of the CPU until you are going to BUY IT!

The confusing names all lead us to pay attention to the actual specification details. Because the names don't seem to mean anything I have had to pay attention to all the reviews and bench tests and I now know which processors have a GPU core, which have HT, which have TurboBoost (we can't be writing that certain processors have TB... lol) and also the stock clock frequencies, with regards to their price point in the market.

Using ONLY the specifications (NOT the names) I base which CPU to go for. Only then do I look at the name and then I buy that CPU.

P.S. I use the same arguement with regards to nVidia's and ATi's naming policies.

 

I didn't understand a word of that >.> I see why you don't do memory tests now

or something like that.

Any chance of a dumbed down thing on memory? Is latancy as important as frequency?

 

is this somehow surprising, these are a new architecture of mid and low end cpus. OF COURSE THEY WILL CUT CORNERS TO LOWER COST.

and it seems they've done their homework and outside of synthetic benchmarks, practical performance hasn't taken a huge hit and it's better than the products it's replacing at relative release prices.

no one gets excited when ford releases a new Taurus or focus. innovation is always kinda stagnant on low end products.