• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Have cpu with built in graphics come out yet ?

You will need to use the H55 or H57 motherboards.

You should see a good performance increase as these chips use hyperthreading.
 
MrBlobby said:
Huuuraayyaya do you have to get a special mobo ? and how do the chips compare to a 6400 Dual core ?
Click to expand...

To give you an idea, I've just rebuild the gf's machine from an E6400 to an i3-530. Previously it was incapable of playing 1080p x264 material without some stuttering. Now, it uses 25-30% CPU power to do so. Gives you some idea how much more grunt these things have. If you don't need a quad then the i3 processors are startling value for money.
 
Vertigo1 said:
To give you an idea, I've just rebuild the gf's machine from an E6400 to an i3-530. Previously it was incapable of playing 1080p x264 material without some stuttering. Now, it uses 25-30% CPU power to do so. Gives you some idea how much more grunt these things have. If you don't need a quad then the i3 processors are startling value for money.
Click to expand...

That machine must have had god awful graphics in it. Saying that changing to a i3 for e6400 made it possible to play HD is a bit misleading imo. A lot of that will be due to the graphics system, my e6420 plays 1080 just fine.
 
A HD5450 which is around £40 on OcUK would enable HD playback even on a system with a single core processor and only consumes something like 7W at load according to SPCR. If you don't need DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD then even a 9400GT which costs £32 would do the job.
 
Ok I've a 6400 Intel Processor with a 9600 graphics card, how the single chip compare. Suppose I should find a comparison processor website.
 
Vertigo1 said:
To give you an idea, I've just rebuild the gf's machine from an E6400 to an i3-530. Previously it was incapable of playing 1080p x264 material without some stuttering. Now, it uses 25-30% CPU power to do so. Gives you some idea how much more grunt these things have. If you don't need a quad then the i3 processors are startling value for money.
Click to expand...

Also I'd imagine that the integrated graphics on the cpu are far more capable than the old setup.

Most 'old' hardware can play it given the chance with some sort of external decoding - look at the atoms with the ion. Those cpus are lowly and yet they manage. Just get a graphics card to offload some of the work to :)
 
RS_Maverick said:
Is this going to mean the end of separate GPUs as we advance into multi-multi core architecture? I'd be quite sad to not have a special wee graphics card.
Click to expand...

The two are FAR from interchangeable... otherwise you could use CUDA or OpenCL to write code that used the GPU like a CPU and get a Radeon 5970 running your programs like a 3200 core processor. (though its very handy for scientific, image or financial analysis its not, currently, got many every day applications)

Which if it was the case we'd all be running Celerons backed up by 2 5970's and having a multi-core apps running thousands of times faster.

As it is the architecture is totally different and while GPGPU is very handy for SIMD style operations you wont be running an OS off of your graphics card or Crysis on your CPU any time soon ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom