I3-550 vs I5-650 = same cpu?

[FatRakoon]

This is somehting that has just bugged me a little here.

I am playing about with an old PC I have and its got an I3 in it, and so I have a peek on the bay for a better CPU and I see an I5-650 for a nice price and I think I will go for that.

Anyway, I know they are both 3.2Ghz, however when I check it out deeper, I find that like the I3, it is in fact NOT a quad core, but a Dual core with HT.

Slightly miffed at this, I have a look at the rest of the differences, only to find that that they are 100% identical in every way!

So, what the hell?

Now, I found out a short while ago, that there are some I5;s that do this, and even more disgustingly, there are also some I7 CPUs that are like this too! - But only for Laptops... I thought!????

But there are also Desktop CPUs that do this too?

I am bloody disgusted at Intel for this. Perhaps just as annoyed at myself really, but I assumed that an I5 wouold be faster than an I3 that is the same family and the same GHZ value, but they are 100% identical and I certainly feel a little conned to be honest.

Saying that, I got the CPU for £11 delivered so I should be happy really, but Im not.

 

[FatRakoon]

Yes, mine is a dual core with HT so, I am glad that has been corected, although when I saw the email I was on my high horse abvout to makc that post down LOL

Yes, I have compared both these CPUs and they are absolutely 100% identical in every way, including all bench tests that I do, whether single or multi cores.

Had it been 2+HT against 4, the 4 Shouldhave won, no matter by how much, it should have won... These are simply no different at all.

i5 750 is the cheapest / mainstream 1156 quad.

There is a Xeon 3430 if you can find one for peanuts, work in most 1156 boards.

Oh I am sure there isd, but like I said, this is only a mess about PC... It is one of over a dozen of the mes about PCs that I have knocked up purely because I am bored.

Hell, I got a skylake just before xmas thats in the attic collecting dust. I also built up a 32Core Opteron Sever a couple ofmonths ago, purely to play with lots of cores and to compare it against some other PCs only to find that in 95% of everything that I have, even the Hex core machines are almost a waste of time because 4 cores seems to be the optimum number that is used, except for the very few apps that let you use more.
Hell, my main PC is still my AMD 8350 and Sabretooth 990FX and thats only cos I love big cats and I love AMD - thats mental. I am though bringing my old I7-970 out of retirement soon cos... Well, cos I want to!
So no, I wont be looking out for another CPU, it was as simply a quick blast on ebay and the I5 CPUs are floating around in their thousands and yes,m I saw the Xeons too, but this was just so cheap, I grabbed it, and like a Moaning git, that is what I am doing now... Simply moaning.

 

[FatRakoon]

Intel's ARK website clearly details every CPU's specifications. Even a child can look up a CPU and read whether it says 4 cores, or 2 cores with HT.

Nobody's fault but your own.

You are missing the point... The fact that it was dual core only got me slightly miffed... It was that the CPU was no different to the I3 I was hoping to replace it with?

Again, I fully accept that its all my own fault, and I keep saying that I dont really mind, but I do mind that it feels that intel are doing a little bit of a dirty when basically the I5 in this case, is simply a rebadged I3.

---

But again, while you can accept some over-lap, you would assume that an I5 with a higher number than an I3 wou;ld be a faster CPU in at least some way?

When the CPU is the exact same spec but just has a different name, then why?

What possible reason do intel have for making these particular CPUs dual core?

I dont for one second accept that its for power efficiency in a desktop machine... Battery life on a Laptop maybe so, but even then Im not entirely convinced.

Had the CPU a higher cache, then I can accept it on that point, but again, these 2 CPUs are 100% identical apart from one has a higher number on it and a higher price, but in every test, they are the same CPU.

I find it even more ironic that no one agreed with the principle of this at all.

Am I really that far out?

 

[FatRakoon]

The i5 denotes turbo, the i5 6XX has turbo. The i3 5XX doesn't. So it's not the exact same CPU. I'll be honest. I don't agree with it. But that's the distinction. i5 turbos, where the i3 doesn't.

Ah, ok, so thats fair enough then. Bit naughty I feel, but sure, I will go with that.

I will however say, that I have yet to see this "turbo" come into play.

I did see it the other week when I tried to upgrade an old I7 Laptop that was 1.6Ghz with a 2.6Ghz I5

I thought that the I5, being 2.6Ghz would give me a better response than the 1.6Ghz of the I7, however the I7 did turbo to something utterly mental like 3.2Ghz and in the end, the I7 still won out, even though it was close.

I suppose this is where the I3 and the I5 may play out then? but its even closer... i.e. I have not seen ANYTHING to suggest that this I5 is any quicker, turbo or not.

Again, the Intel Ark website makes looking at Intel specs stupidly easy (Something AMD should officially do).

I do know this, but, it was simply an impulse buy for a CPU that was just too cheap to say no to... Clearly I was even wrong on that LOL.