• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

32nm question (going to get a I7 920 or 860) what to do?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Wrong. They are nehalem type cores.

they are Westmere, which is a die shrink of the Nehalem BUT what he said is true. these Clarkdale act like a Core 2 duo BUT with HT and Turbo. the 750 does not have HT
 
they are Westmere, which is a die shrink of the Nehalem BUT what he said is true. these Clarkdale act like a Core 2 duo BUT with HT and Turbo. the 750 does not have HT

Let me tweak that alittle. They outperform every C2D Except the E8xxx line.
 
after reading this, it is all i needed to read. The i3 5x0/i5 6xx's were aimed at a different market segment which you don't count in. If you don't see that, then that doesn't make other people dumb.

And that market segment is....less performance for more money? Way to go Intel, genious.
What can an I5 6xx do better than the 750? Or let me phrase it this way, in what application would a 600 series I5 be better and worth it to spend more money over the 750?

they are Westmere, which is a die shrink of the Nehalem BUT what he said is true. these Clarkdale act like a Core 2 duo BUT with HT and Turbo. the 750 does not have HT

How is an I3/I5 ANYTHING like core 2 duo? It's completely different architecture. Dedicated cache per core plus a common shared L3 cache is completely different than any core 2.
 
It's on the cheap end, a segment previously occupied by core2duo.

The 32nm stuff will get cheaper once there is more in production, right now it's still new and snazzy and hence, expensive.
Remember when 1156 i7's cost more then i7 920s?


EDIT:
IGP and power consumption are what it does better.
 
And that market segment is....less performance for more money? Way to go Intel, genious.
What can an I5 6xx do better than the 750? Or let me phrase it this way, in what application would a 600 series I5 be better and worth it to spend more money over the 750?



How is an I3/I5 ANYTHING like core 2 duo? It's completely different architecture. Dedicated cache per core plus a common shared L3 cache is completely different than any core 2.

Intel HAD to price the I5 clarkdale's like they did. If the I3's were under a 100 dollars and the I5's in the 100-200 range it would have priced amd out of the market.
 
Intel HAD to price the I5 clarkdale's like they did. If the I3's were under a 100 dollars and the I5's in the 100-200 range it would have priced amd out of the market.

That wouldn't exactly be bad for intel.
 
EDIT:
IGP and power consumption are what it does better.


I still don't get why intel put IGP on the CPU itself, and them even worse take the IMC through the IGP. Why didn't they do it like AMD and put IGP with the mobo chipset? It would have kept memory bandwidth higher.
 
A world without Amd would be bad for all of us.

Look at the current state of the Amd Dual's. They're Utter crap.

I agree, with no competition intel would raise prices a lot. But he said it wouldn't be bad for INTEL, not us.

Not if you compare price/price AMD/intel.

The Phenom II 550 is great bang for the buck, and will play any game. It overclocks decent, got mine to 3.9ghz. It's $100. The closest thing to $100 before the G6950 came out is the E7400 at $110. The Phenom II 550 is about the same performance as the 7400, and has much better memory bandwidth than any socket 775 chip.
Now, Phenom II 550 VS the G6950, probably again around the same performance perhaps a slight edge to the 6950 because of newer tech. BUT, the phenom II should STILL beat it in terms of memory performance though. If I had to choose between those two, I would go AMD.

If you had a $100 max budget for a CPU, the best choice would be AMD.
 
Last edited:
I7 is already fast, you want to help it encode faster get a SSD or two for raid-0 array.

Not that I'm contradicting you, but I've never heard of encoding being bottlenecked by HDD write slowness (assuming SSD write speed is even faster than his spinning HDD). I don't even understand how it would be helpful. Random access wouldn't be a factor would it? Maybe transcoding or MPEG2, but it doesn't make sense that H.264 encodes would be write limited (which I'm sure OP is doing).
 
I still don't get why intel put IGP on the CPU itself, and them even worse take the IMC through the IGP. Why didn't they do it like AMD and put IGP with the mobo chipset? It would have kept memory bandwidth higher.

Always experimenting new things.

If Intel's IGP was a success then you wouldn't be saying this.
 
Always experimenting new things.

If Intel's IGP was a success then you wouldn't be saying this.

? I'm quite sure the people at intel knew when they released it that memory performance was a good bit worse on the I3/I5's compared to lynnfields.

What you experiment, and what you release to the public for sale should be two different things!
 
Not that I'm contradicting you, but I've never heard of encoding being bottlenecked by HDD write slowness (assuming SSD write speed is even faster than his spinning HDD). I don't even understand how it would be helpful. Random access wouldn't be a factor would it? Maybe transcoding or MPEG2, but it doesn't make sense that H.264 encodes would be write limited (which I'm sure OP is doing).

well i partially based that off the fact that mechincal drives are a bottleneck in terms of Bandwidth and latencey. switching to a SSD should naturally improve encoding/trans-coding performance.

Always experimenting new things.

If Intel's IGP was a success then you wouldn't be saying this.

? I'm quite sure the people at intel knew when they released it that memory performance was a good bit worse on the I3/I5's compared to lynnfields.

What you experiment, and what you release to the public for sale should be two different things!

it isn't experimenting, if they wanted to experiment, they would have prototypes. which they do ahead of time, intel is just like amd/via. they are moving to a SOC, it is the way of the future. the reason we see IGP with cpu's, it simple. it is easier to tie both via DMI/QPI then have it all on one die. the yeilds would no doubt be so low that the prices would be even higher. it is easier to make just the CPU die then then IGP/IMC die/package. everything makes sense when you see their POV and where they are taking their CPUs for the future.
PRESS KIT - Intel® System on Chip (SoC)
 
Back