CORE i3 - LETS GET CLOCKING

  • Thread starter Thread starter rjk
  • Start date Start date
Looks like the I3 bundle with H50 and a Sapphire ATI Radeon HD 5850 then.
I Was going to stick with AMD
Mild Gamer, web surfing and the odd photo shopping session, this should be ok :D

You haven't got any more price drops planned the 5850 have you lol
 
5850 wont be going down for a good while unfortunately.

Have a couple of these bundles pre-built now over the orders, get an order in and there is every chance you will have it arrive at your door on Tuesday. :)
 
HangTime said:
Actually some people looking for dual core systems as opposed to quad core do so because they are primarily concerned with performance in single-threaded applications (or those which benefit little from additional cores, such as gaming). This is why people bought the Core 2 Duo E8x00 range of chips, they offering very good gaming performance right up there with the Core 2 Quad range. And thus a Core i3 is still an attractive prospect if they are hitting very high clock speeds. I really can't see there being much that could live with a 4.5ghz i3 in that price bracket for non multi-threaded apps.

But regardless, the point I was making is that really these chips find themselves in a situation where the cost is quite expensive for a dual core system - new mobo, probably new RAM which is rising in price, and a ton just for the cpu. Yes they are very nippy as far as dualcore systems go but you aren't saving that much compared to i5 which is quadcore and isn't that far behind in clockspeed.
Click to expand...

Right, but I don't think you'll see much difference between ~4.2 i3 and lets say 3.8-4 PII or i5 even in single threaded apps. And as much as I was always holding tight with duals for gaming etc and where e8xxx series were great chips a year ago and even tho they're still now the times are changing and duals are a bit outdated now with 6-8 core CPUs on the schedule for 2011-2012.

So yeh, as much as I agree that you still don't need a quad for most apps/games the main question is - is it really worth going dual over quad right now when the clock isn't that much higher and price is the same.

So unless they drop the price from 100 to around 70quid or they will clock to 6ghz on air and therefore give a lot of increase in single threaded apps over current quads it's pretty much not worth buying.

~350 for slowest i3 bundle isn't really a budget setup when you can get PII 955 quad one for a tenner more. If it at least was the 1366 socket it would look more sensible as an upgrade path to i7/i9 in the future but like this it's just not worth it.
 
PhoenixUK said:
Right, but I don't think you'll see much difference between ~4.2 i3 and lets say 3.8-4 PII or i5 even in single threaded apps. And as much as I was always holding tight with duals for gaming etc and where e8xxx series were great chips a year ago and even tho they're still now the times are changing and duals are a bit outdated now with 6-8 core CPUs on the schedule for 2011-2012.

So yeh, as much as I agree that you still don't need a quad for most apps/games the main question is - is it really worth going dual over quad right now when the clock isn't that much higher and price is the same.

So unless they drop the price from 100 to around 70quid or they will clock to 6ghz on air and therefore give a lot of increase in single threaded apps over current quads it's pretty much not worth buying.

~350 for slowest i3 bundle isn't really a budget setup when you can get PII 955 quad one for a tenner more. If it at least was the 1366 socket it would look more sensible as an upgrade path to i7/i9 in the future but like this it's just not worth it.
Click to expand...

+1, it seems as though the chips have come in the wrong order, these should have been available on the lga1156 socket first, before i5 750 and the i7 860.
 
PhoenixUK said:
Right, but I don't think you'll see much difference between ~4.2 i3 and lets say 3.8-4 PII or i5 even in single threaded apps. And as much as I was always holding tight with duals for gaming etc and where e8xxx series were great chips a year ago and even tho they're still now the times are changing and duals are a bit outdated now with 6-8 core CPUs on the schedule for 2011-2012.

So yeh, as much as I agree that you still don't need a quad for most apps/games the main question is - is it really worth going dual over quad right now when the clock isn't that much higher and price is the same.

So unless they drop the price from 100 to around 70quid or they will clock to 6ghz on air and therefore give a lot of increase in single threaded apps over current quads it's pretty much not worth buying.

~350 for slowest i3 bundle isn't really a budget setup when you can get PII 955 quad one for a tenner more. If it at least was the 1366 socket it would look more sensible as an upgrade path to i7/i9 in the future but like this it's just not worth it.
Click to expand...

Slowest i3 bundle = only i3 bundle.

It all comes down to what you use your PC for, the i3 will be good for gaming for another 18 months - 24 months at these speeds as will the Phenom, but the i3 bundle is guaranteed performance right now for a fantastic price.

Dual core processors have been "on the way out" since the Q6600 came around yet Intel still have them on their roadmap for years to come, there is a demand and a place for them. Remmember games cannot be made to only run on i7 style quads, game developers have to program them in for what the majority of people have in their PC which for off the shelf gaming PCs will be dual core CPUs or low end quads.

Dual core is far from dead for gaming, especially not when it is offering performance on the levels the i3 can manage.
 
If you were building a new system, or even upgrading from say an early C2D setup then yes, this would probably be the way to go. On the other hand, people like me with a Q6600 that's running good clocks aren't gonna be tempted away, not when it's gonna cost upwards of £350 to slightly improve single thread performance.
These i3's remind me of the release of the E6300/6400 where they would clock like mad, and a bundle then cost pretty much the same as this new i3 bundle does. Only now, we're used to being able to push big overclocks out of our cpu's so it isn't quite as exciting as the old chips were. It almost feels like the big leaps in cpu design/performance is slowing. How much faster have we really gone in the last 2 years? Q6600 - almost all did 3.6 - some got 4ghz.. i7 - most do 4ghz, some 4.5.
Yes yes, it's not all about clock speeds i know but i'm just trying to say how the differences in new ranges of processers are becoming less and less, making it all the more difficult to justify an upgrade when you're seeing even less of a performance increase for your money.
For me 2009/2010 the best place to spend your money if you havn't already, GET AN SSD.
 
So how does one of these compare to a E8400? Roughly the same for performance? The i3 better for o/clocking because of the 32nm fabrication, the E8400 has more cache memory?
 
Depends on the game it seems. If you look here, the E8600 (faster than E8400) gets annihilated by the Core i3 in Dragon Age Orgins, is faster in WoW, and runs about the same in Batman:AA.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3704&p=13

Not overly convinced on those benchmarks though as the i5-750 is beating the i7-920 for some reason. Maybe due to different memory being used or something I guess?
 
Last edited:
Interesting. One of the things I have read a few times is that using a quad core will result in smoother game play but with not 'that' many games utilising a quad just yet I fail to see why it would make the experience smoother. Slicker when using the desktop and other apps yes.
With the i7 being out for some time I also can't but wonder why the Q9650 is still so expensive even though it is a great, great processor.

Since I can't get my Q6600 stable above 3.3 (and even that is debatable), a dual like this or an E**** would be a good move, still?

Sorry for going off at tangents, perhaps I am a little eccentric. :D
 
Personally I wouldn't ditch a [email protected] unless you get a good deal on i5/i7.

Moving to Core i3 would be a complete waste because you'd have to ditch your motherboard as well. E8x00... maybe but they are still pretty expensive for a dual core chip, it would be a bit of a sideways move.

One explanation for a quad giving smoother gameplay could be that it means background tasks don't intrude so much when playing the game, even if the game itself isn't really using more than 2 cores.
 
Good point HanTime. :)

I only tend to wince occasionally about the Q6600 peformance during online play since the guys with the very highly clocked E8400 - E8600's report silky smooth performance. I do get pretty good peformance myself, however, but online games involving more cpu input does make me want more. :D Of course, it can be the server, configs, many other issues etc in all fairness. I also wanted to raise the clock a little more to get the most out of my ram since it is very good ram but maybe I can still use that on my next build. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom