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

The Core I3 and it's Dominance over the C2D's

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Hey Zeus

New Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Location
Heaven
All Benchmarks Provided From AnAndTech I3/I5 Article and There Beta Bench. You guys ROCK

People were expecting too much from the "Clarkdale's" and intel's pricing of the I5 just made the flaws even more obvious. After reading the benchmarks i think everyone has focused alittle too much on the I5's when the real gem's are the I3's. Both coming in under 150 dollars and easily able to overclock past 4.3Ghz.

Benchmarks :

SYSMark 2007 Performance Overall :

E8600 : 210
540 : 204
E8500 : 201
530 : 197


E-Learning :

E8600 : 217
E8500 : 209
540 : 195
530 : 185

Video Creation :

540 : 220
530 : 213
E8600 : 211
E8500 : 209

Productivity :

E8600 : 216
E8500 : 203
540 : 201
530 : 195

3D :

540 : 202
530 : 194
E8600 : 194
E8500 : 185

After Round One :

E8600 - 3
540 - 2


Adobe Photoshop CS4 Performance :

540 : 24.2
530 : 25.2
E8600 : 26.2
E8500 : 27.3

DivX 8.5.3 with Xmpeg 5.0.3 :

540 : 52.1
530 : 53.9
E8600 : 54.5
E8500 : 56.9

x264 HD Video Encoding Performance :

540 : 52.6
530 : 51
E8600 : 43.4
E8500 : 41.7

2nd Pass :

540 : 14.3
530 : 13.7
E8600 : 11.3
E8500 : 10.8

Windows Media Encoder 9 x64 Advanced Profile :

540 : 36
530 : 37
E8600 : 42
E8500 : 44

After Round Two

540 : 8
E8600 : 3


3dsmax 9 - SPECapc 3dsmax CPU Rendering Test :

540 : 9.6
530 : 9.1
E8600 : 8.3
E8500 : 7.9

Cinebench R10 :

540 : 4176
E8600 : 4128
530 : 4018
E8500 : 3895

Cinebench R10 Multi :

540 : 9576
530 : 9428
E8600 : 7975
E8500 : 7596

POV-Ray 3.73 beta 23 Ray Tracing Performance :

540 : 1953
530 : 1863
E8600 : 1419
E8500 : 1351

Blender 2.48a :

540 : 64.6
530 : 66.8
E8600 : 78.2
E8500 : 81.1

After Round 3 :

540 : 13
E8600 : 3


PAR2 Multithreaded Archive Recovery Performance :

540 : 40.6
530 : 41.8
E8600 : 53.3
E8500 : N/A

WinRAR - Archive Creation :

540 : 123
530 : 133.8
E8600 : 134
E8500 : 135

Microsoft Excel 2007 :

E8600 : 28.7
540 : 30.3
E8500 : 31.3
530 : 31.8

Sony Vegas Pro 8: Blu-ray Disc Creation :

540 : 276.5
530 : 288
E8600 : 325.1
E8500 : 359.6

Sorenson Squeeze: FLV Creation :

540 : 178
530 : 195.8
E8600 : 230.3
E8500 : 243.0

After Round 4 :

540 : 17
E8600 : 4


Fallout 3 Game Performance :

E8600 : 89.1
E8500 : 88.0
540 : 79.2
530 : 78.4

Left 4 Dead :

E8600 : 123.9
E8500 : 120.8
540 : 116.6
530 : 110.9

Far Cry 2 Multithreaded Game Performance :

E8600 : 47.9
540 : 47.8
E8500 : 47.4
530 : 46.8

Crysis Warhead :

E8600 : 84.0
E8500 : 82.0
530 : 77.3
540 : 76.8

After 5th And Final Round :

540 : 17
E8600 : 8


Final Conclusion :

The numbers pretty much speak for themselves. In gaming the E8xxx series owns the I3's because of it's 6mb of L2 cache. If you have an E8500 and E8600 i see no reason for you to upgrade to the I3. If you have anything less then a E8xxx series and don't want to splurge on an I5 Quad. I highly suggest you order a 530. Why a 530? Cheaper and Highly Overclockable like it's brother the 540.

"My Logic Is Undeniable" :)
 
Last edited:

Rich'[ard]

Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Location
Melb, AUS
whoa, those are some nice numbers man.
i might look into one of these when i go for a chipset change - running on a granny core 2 duo e6400 these days
but the question is whether a dual core CPU is still worth it these days :shrug:
 

Brutal-Force

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
What you say is If <E8600 then i3, but how about i3 vs. i5? and i5 Dual w/HT vs i5 4 core....

I am just hoping that going with the i5 750 was the right thing to do. i7 is overkill, probably for the next two years unless your running a server or something. i3 is just a replacement for anything lower than a E8500. But it will be nice to have that upgrade option, but I just can't understand why anyone would go from a Dual core to a Dual Core w/HT instead of just going Quad Core.

I can see (Benchmarking) a difference of about 20-30% Q6600 Vs i5 750, but real world I notice just a little more snappiness. I more or less wanted i5 because I just couldn't see me paying 200 dollars for a 9550 when I could get a i5 for that... with the later option of an i7 if I "Had to have it". I have read that even i7 owners only see a minimal upgrade from Q9550 vs. i7 so in reality I figured a Q9550 vs i5 was an even swap, just on a newer platform.

I think Intel threw These what.... 10 new processors into the mix to confuse AMD.
 

bda1967

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2008
Location
Stow, Ohio
I like the variety of all this new hardware as there is something for everybody it seems. I had a hard time deciding on i5 or i7 when I upgraded, but in the end went with LGA1366. Overkill, yes but I'm happy with it and avoided the "I wish that I would have went with i7" regrets down the road. I'm one of those types that like having the newer technology even though I don't really need it.

I still want to build an i5 system and really like the variety that comes with LGA1156. It is the new workhorse for the Intel platform and offers a lot for the price. I would not ever go back to a dual core setup personally, but for the average PC user who just surfs the web and plays on-line facebook games, the i3's should be plenty for them. The dual core i5's seem to be the new gray area for PC gamers. We're back to the "Dual core vs Quad core" debate.
 
OP
Hey Zeus

Hey Zeus

New Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Location
Heaven
What you say is If <E8600 then i3, but how about i3 vs. i5? and i5 Dual w/HT vs i5 4 core....

I am just hoping that going with the i5 750 was the right thing to do. i7 is overkill, probably for the next two years unless your running a server or something. i3 is just a replacement for anything lower than a E8500. But it will be nice to have that upgrade option, but I just can't understand why anyone would go from a Dual core to a Dual Core w/HT instead of just going Quad Core.

I can see (Benchmarking) a difference of about 20-30% Q6600 Vs i5 750, but real world I notice just a little more snappiness. I more or less wanted i5 because I just couldn't see me paying 200 dollars for a 9550 when I could get a i5 for that... with the later option of an i7 if I "Had to have it". I have read that even i7 owners only see a minimal upgrade from Q9550 vs. i7 so in reality I figured a Q9550 vs i5 was an even swap, just on a newer platform.

I think Intel threw These what.... 10 new processors into the mix to confuse AMD.

I only used The I3's in this comparo. If i threw the 650 and 660 into it then the E8500/E8600 might have won a lot fewer tests. What i was trying to convey is that intel's new 148 dollar chip put a beatdown on Intel's former king of the hill that is almost double its price.

IMO the I5 is overpriced for what you get. So you get turbo but if you can overclock you just saved yourself 50 dollars to put towards a better video card
 

Brutal-Force

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
I am not trying to put down anything here. Definitely the i7 have plenty of people who want them. I am also in agreement that just having the i7 is not overkill, if not for the only reason... there is no better option.

I was only saying that with all of this new tech, you need a large Matrix to show where one processor might have an advantage over another. Since some people are "need specific". Some people can't neccessarily afford the best i7 system, so they go with the best they can afford, sometimes that is a deciding factor to either go with a C2D system or whether to go with a i-Series.
 

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
I pulled all the benchmarks from AnAndtech :)

I'll have 4Ghz and beyond benchmarks in a few hours :)
You really need to link the article to them or at least mention where you got it from. You straight pilfered this stuff dude and the verbiage you used later in this thread made it look like you tested it (at least to me it did)......
I only used The I3's in this comparo. If i threw the 650 and 660 into it then the E8500/E8600 might have won a lot fewer tests. What i was trying to convey is that intel's new 148 dollar chip put a beatdown on Intel's former king of the hill that is almost double its price.

Anand conveyed this (originally) not you. Im sorry to be a d0ch3nozzle here Zues but give credit to them with a link to the article. :)
 
OP
Hey Zeus

Hey Zeus

New Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Location
Heaven
You really need to link the article to them or at least mention where you got it from. You straight pilfered this stuff dude and the verbiage you used later in this thread made it look like you tested it (at least to me it did)......

Anand conveyed this (originally) not you. Im sorry to be a d0ch3nozzle here Zues but give credit to them with a link to the article. :)

I didn't pull it exactly from there article. I pulled the I3 and E8600 from the article and the E8500 from the beta bench ut i will credit them :)
 

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
Go to XS to look for that FA. I think it was in that same thread Gautam posted in the Lounge...

PS - I love that term. hehe!
 

Evilsizer

Senior Forum Spammer
Joined
Jun 6, 2002
You really need to link the article to them or at least mention where you got it from. You straight pilfered this stuff dude and the verbiage you used later in this thread made it look like you tested it (at least to me it did)......

Anand conveyed this (originally) not you. Im sorry to be a d0ch3nozzle here Zues but give credit to them with a link to the article. :)

X2
i thought this was stuff he tested... there is no telling the other that might have been different between the setups...


IMO i would be interesting to see a X48-DDR3 C2D vs dual core i3/i5-HT's. i feel like people never take me seriously when i tell them at cpu bound resolutions C2D will be better then i3/i5/i7's. the i3/i5/i7's all have 256kb L2 vs 1mb-6mb. L2 makes a huge difference at cpu bond resolutions... that is in reguard to gaming...

the other thing that bothers me is the low DMI speed for the dual core i3/i5's. i would have expected intel to stick with the 2GB/s DMI vs what it got (1GB/s). with ocing though the DMI speed will be increased(increasing bandwidth). Like i said in the benchmark thread i made (with no posts,might i add) i said when looking at the die. all i see is a shrunk down Core 2 with less cache. the memory controller is housed with the onboard video, not what i was expecting....
 

Ha-Nocri

Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
I must say that I expected a lot more from these new CPU's. i5-750 was a hit when it came out, but these just are not, at least not for my needs which is mostly gaming. I will go with i5-750, now it's decided. Can buy i7, but since I won't need that much multi-processing it is a waste of money in my case. And the system consumes less power then i7-920.
 

4GHZ_or_bust

Now 6GHz or Bust!
Joined
Aug 1, 2002
Location
Michigan
From the reviews I found with Google searches, i5 750 still beats i5 6** because 4 physical core seems to handle better than 2 HT cores on some CPU intensive tasks. After all if 2 physical cores are really busy, there may not be much room left for 2 virtual core to handle work load.

IMO unless you need an on CPU graphic chip, stick with i5 750 or any of the i3's. If you want 8 virtual core, socket 1366 is better in the long run as you also benefit from about 50% boost in memory bandwidth with tri channel support.