PDA

View Full Version : Haswell i3-4340 review


Magic Carpet
09-03-2013, 08:49 AM
Conclusion

Let's start with the good:


Series processors Intel Core i3, based on the architecture Haswell, endowed with a good graphic part, the performance of which corresponds to the Core i5.
Power dual-core Intel Core i3-4340 is similar to the appetite Core i3 2xxx, although still higher than the i3 3xxx;


2D performance is optimized by internal changes in the processor and the new regulations, under which finally debugged program. As a result, the dual-core i3-4340 solution is often a potential challenger i5 3xxx last line.
It is impossible not to note the negative side:


Increased demands on the cooling system and power supply. Formally, the new processors is teplopaket previous models the CPU, but in fact they are heated and stronger, and consume more electricity;


There is absolutely no overclocking, unless you consider overclocking of RAM and a graphics core;


The high cost of the competition, the same AMD A10-6800K is 20% slower than in 2D, but at the same 20% faster in games. In addition, the latter is easily possible to disperse;


Cost of new dual-core Intel solutions is higher than those of competitors, and the need to not only buy a new CPU, but also to replace the motherboard.

Source (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overclockers.ru%2Flab%2F55795%2 FHaswell_teper_dvuhyadernyj_Obzor_i_testirovanie_I ntel_Core_i3-4340.html).

Arkaign
09-03-2013, 09:07 AM
So i3 is still a failure, just a different kind of failure now? Yay.

I would hope that nobody seriously uses any Intel CPU for any kind of primary gaming off the IGP. They've improved just insanely over the years, but even better IGPs like the A10 still suck for gaming. The only possibility I can see for their viability is in cheap laptops. Desktop will always be better served by something like an Athlon X4 FM2 w/7750 for gaming, to a massive degree. Even a used 2500k + 650ti Boost would be infinitely better than any IGP on earth.

Now for casual angry-birds type gamers, or someone whose only game they play is ancient (CS:S, DOTA, Diablo 2, whatever), sure. But anything modern, BF3, BF4, Crysis 3, Witcher 3 coming soon, etc, hahaha : no.

SPBHM
09-03-2013, 09:26 AM
4130 review here
http://www.inpai.com.cn/doc/hard/198653.htm

but yes... CPU performance gain is not to amazing, and power usage is higher than IB.

frozentundra123456
09-03-2013, 09:54 AM
So i3 is still a failure, just a different kind of failure now? Yay.

I would hope that nobody seriously uses any Intel CPU for any kind of primary gaming off the IGP. They've improved just insanely over the years, but even better IGPs like the A10 still suck for gaming. The only possibility I can see for their viability is in cheap laptops. Desktop will always be better served by something like an Athlon X4 FM2 w/7750 for gaming, to a massive degree. Even a used 2500k + 650ti Boost would be infinitely better than any IGP on earth.

Now for casual angry-birds type gamers, or someone whose only game they play is ancient (CS:S, DOTA, Diablo 2, whatever), sure. But anything modern, BF3, BF4, Crysis 3, Witcher 3 coming soon, etc, hahaha : no.

Yea, i3 is probably the least well placed intel processor. Too close in price to the i5 if you want good performance, and a cheaper pentium is good enough if you want just a basic box.

I actually thought the igp would be closer to the A10, but I was expecting the HD4600 with 20 units. But you are right, something like the Athlon x4 with a HD7750 is still far superior to either igp for desktop gaming at nearly the same cost.

DigDog
09-03-2013, 10:01 AM
remember that the competition, the 6800k, requires either a second, earlier AMD chip to flash the mobo with, or a top-tier mobo, as AM3 mobos do not support it out of the box (unless you're spending $100 on the board from the go, which kinda kills the whole "cheap and cheerful" thing)

blckgrffn
09-03-2013, 10:09 AM
remember that the competition, the 6800k, requires either a second, earlier AMD chip to flash the mobo with, or a top-tier mobo, as AM3 mobos do not support it out of the box (unless you're spending $100 on the board from the go, which kinda kills the whole "cheap and cheerful" thing)

You mean FM2? Or FM2+?

I would think new motherboards you buy now should have firmware support for these CPU's baked in, depending on how much inventory a vendor was carrying.

I don't think too many people were saying that when the IVB i3's came out (ie, watch out, you'll need to flash an older but compatible LGA1055 board) - it seems like a weak argument.

inf64
09-03-2013, 10:24 AM
I'd say all FM2/FM2+ boards on the market support 6800K out of the box. I would like to see one example of FM2 board that has no official BIOS CPU support for this model.
FM2/FM2+ is a new platform and there is no transition like there was between AM3 and AM3+.

sm625
09-03-2013, 10:32 AM
Half the die is wasted on a gpu that is pretty much useless. Why cant they just make a really cheap small quad core with no gpu. How much would it really cost to produce a completely new quad core die with no gpu, and maybe even a smaller cache? It's not really a redesign of anything, so I'm thinking the cost would be pretty reasonable. And profitable. Who here would not pay $149 for a tiny i5 die with no gpu? Any pc gamer would call that the sweet spot and its a money maker for intel because its such a small die.

As it stands right now the best thing to do is buy a used 2500K and overclock it. There is nothing better in that price bracket. This isnt right because you'd think an i3 two generations newer would be faster, but its not.

insertcarehere
09-03-2013, 10:36 AM
Half the die is wasted on a gpu that is pretty much useless. Why cant they just make a really cheap small quad core with no gpu. How much would it really cost to produce a completely new quad core die with no gpu, and maybe even a smaller cache? It's not really a redesign of anything, so I'm thinking the cost would be pretty reasonable. And profitable. Who here would not pay $149 for a tiny i5 die with no gpu? Any pc gamer would call that the sweet spot and its a money maker for intel because its such a small die.

As it stands right now the best thing to do is buy a used 2500K and overclock it. There is nothing better in that price bracket. This isnt right because you'd think an i3 two generations newer would be faster, but its not.

That die would be pretty useless for a laptop, given what Intel wants to do, although I can't imagine why Intel wouldn't put out binned igp-disabled parts for relatively cheap prices instead.

BallaTheFeared
09-03-2013, 10:58 AM
So it's the same iGPU as the i5 and i7, does it have unlimited multipliers?

Haswell IMC is stupid strong, combined with a 1.75/1.8GHz iGPU with the same units as the i5/i7 and this would really put a lot of pressure on AMDs APU lineup.

Then again barely anyone overclocks >.<

Insert_Nickname
09-03-2013, 11:00 AM
I'll also point out that according to the ark, Haswell i3's don't support AVX2. Pentiums don't even have support for regular AVX. What is that all about Intel, my old 920 had SSE4.2 support and that's a 5 year old chip (a high end one, but still...). Why should programmers bother implementing AVX, when the lowest common denominator for Haswell is still SSE4.2?

crashtech
09-03-2013, 11:09 AM
Still looking for a good-enough SFF replacement for the wife's desktop. This might be a contender, we'll have to see some more benchmarks. I was considering also the A10-6700, but really can't trust it to stay within the thermal limits of a small enclosure without more data.

NTMBK
09-03-2013, 11:11 AM
I'll also point out that according to the ark, Haswell i3's don't support AVX2. Pentiums don't even have support for regular AVX. What is that all about Intel, my old 920 had SSE4.2 support and that's a 5 year old chip (a high end one, but still...). Why should programmers bother implementing AVX, when the lowest common denominator for Haswell is still SSE4.2?

Okay wow, what the hell Intel?

Arkaign
09-03-2013, 11:19 AM
Still looking for a good-enough SFF replacement for the wife's desktop. This might be a contender, we'll have to see some more benchmarks. I was considering also the A10-6700, but really can't trust it to stay within the thermal limits of a small enclosure without more data.

Half-height 6570 + X4-750k?

NTMBK
09-03-2013, 11:44 AM
Half-height 6570 + X4-750k?

Isn't the 6800K on its own roughly equal to a 6570? If you're going for a dGPU, I'd recommend a minimum of a half-height 7750.

EDIT: Although if your wife doesn't play games, just go for the integrated graphics.

crashtech
09-03-2013, 11:57 AM
She does some light gaming. Her desktop right now is a Xeon E5440 + HD 6670. The X4-750K is, sadly, very close to parity with that six year old Intel CPU. I think we can go backwards a little on 3D performance if necessary, but I want the CPU to be an upgrade, not a sidegrade.

NTMBK
09-03-2013, 12:01 PM
She does some light gaming. Her desktop right now is a Xeon E5440 + HD 6670. The X4-750K is, sadly, very close to parity with that six year old Intel CPU. I think we can go backwards a little on 3D performance if necessary, but I want the CPU to be an upgrade, not a sidegrade.

The ZBox ID90 is fairly unbeatable for CPU performance in a compact PC, but the GPU is only HD4000.

AtenRa
09-03-2013, 01:20 PM
Still looking for a good-enough SFF replacement for the wife's desktop. This might be a contender, we'll have to see some more benchmarks. I was considering also the A10-6700, but really can't trust it to stay within the thermal limits of a small enclosure without more data.

I have tested the A10-5800K inside a small itx case with 200W PSU using the default Heat-Sink Fan. It was fine, no probs at all, A10-6700 will even have lower power usage and lower thermals.

Subyman
09-03-2013, 01:29 PM
I never understood the price of the i3's. $40 more gets you a quad, $60 less gets you 80% of the performance.

crashtech
09-03-2013, 02:27 PM
I have tested the A10-5800K inside a small itx case with 200W PSU using the default Heat-Sink Fan. It was fine, no probs at all, A10-6700 will even have lower power usage and lower thermals.
I appreciate the anecdote, and while I believe the A10 to be a good all-around solution for this scenario, hard thermal data will be requisite to want to wedge an A10 into a mini-ITX enclosure.

Insert_Nickname
09-03-2013, 02:33 PM
Okay wow, what the hell Intel?

My thoughts exactly... :colbert:

Isn't the 6800K on its own roughly equal to a 6570? If you're going for a dGPU, I'd recommend a minimum of a half-height 7750.

With 2133MHz memory, its about equal (slightly faster) then a HD6670. Problem is that 2133/2400MHz memory gets expensive real quick and for roughly the same money as a 6800K+2133MHz memory you can get a 750K+HD7750 that's somewhere around twice the performance.

At least that's the situation here. Don't know about the US...

CHADBOGA
09-03-2013, 03:20 PM
I never understood the price of the i3's. $40 more gets you a quad, $60 less gets you 80% of the performance.

Agree.

Looking through Intel's pricing, if I need a basic computer as a HTPC, then I would get a 3Ghzish Pentium, and if I wanted more processing power, I'd get something like a 3570K/4670K and overclock it a bit.

Pretty much everything else is a very hard sell to me.

crashtech
09-03-2013, 04:02 PM
Agree.

Looking through Intel's pricing, if I need a basic computer as a HTPC, then I would get a 3Ghzish Pentium, and if I wanted more processing power, I'd get something like a 3570K/4670K and overclock it a bit.

Pretty much everything else is a very hard sell to me.

You guys might be underestimating the real-world performance of the i3. Take a second look at many game benchmarks where it is hanging in there just below all the Intel quads, and beating the standard dual cores by huge margins. I didn't have any trouble gaming with an i3-3220 temporarily. You yourself have proclaimed the importance of single-threaded performance, i3 has that down, along with decent multi-threaded on par with i5 up to 3 or 4 threads, depending on the load.

I'd bet an Ivy i3 would be right by that 2500K.

http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/Saints%20Row%20IV/test/sr4%20proz.jpg

Arkaign
09-04-2013, 12:58 AM
In that bench perhaps. But looking at those numbers, apparently it doesn't scale with cores whatsoever (much like Skyrim in fact). Games that use 4 cores and beyond will divebomb on an i3 (BF3/BF4/yadda yadda), and that will mean Ivy i3 falling far far behind 2500K even at stock (and 2500K overclock like absolute monsters).

It's not that they're bad per se, but not a wise purchase circa 2013.

Ieat
09-04-2013, 02:04 AM
You guys might be underestimating the real-world performance of the i3. Take a second look at many game benchmarks where it is hanging in there just below all the Intel quads, and beating the standard dual cores by huge margins. I didn't have any trouble gaming with an i3-3220 temporarily. You yourself have proclaimed the importance of single-threaded performance, i3 has that down, along with decent multi-threaded on par with i5 up to 3 or 4 threads, depending on the load.

I'd bet an Ivy i3 would be right by that 2500K.

http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/Saints%20Row%20IV/test/sr4%20proz.jpg

The problem is Intel refuses to sell an unlocked i3. I'm not sure why they have continued to leave a black hole in the $140 to 180 segment but there it is. If they sold an i3 K ed. at $150 to $160 I'm sure it would be a popular budget gaming performer. Especially since all chips are now locked down completely besides k/x chips. As it stands now a $35 used i3 530 clocked to 4.4 to 4.6ghz will still likely perform similar to a current gen i3.

SPBHM
09-04-2013, 02:06 AM
In that bench perhaps. But looking at those numbers, apparently it doesn't scale with cores whatsoever (much like Skyrim in fact). Games that use 4 cores and beyond will divebomb on an i3 (BF3/BF4/yadda yadda), and that will mean Ivy i3 falling far far behind 2500K even at stock (and 2500K overclock like absolute monsters).

It's not that they're bad per se, but not a wise purchase circa 2013.

if you compare the PII X2 with the X4 on the bottom of the graphic, the difference goes beyond what we could expect from clock difference alone (3% higher clock with 20% higher performance?), not a massive gain, but keep in mind i3s also have half the l3 cache, PII X2-X4 have the same l3 cache.


but... I agree with the other post,
please Intel release some unlocked i3s!

ElFenix
09-04-2013, 02:12 AM
You guys might be underestimating the real-world performance of the i3. Take a second look at many game benchmarks where it is hanging in there just below all the Intel quads, and beating the standard dual cores by huge margins. I didn't have any trouble gaming with an i3-3220 temporarily. You yourself have proclaimed the importance of single-threaded performance, i3 has that down, along with decent multi-threaded on par with i5 up to 3 or 4 threads, depending on the load.

I'd bet an Ivy i3 would be right by that 2500K.


i'd like to see an overclocked clarkdale vs. whatever this is (haswell 2C?)

StrangerGuy
09-04-2013, 02:25 AM
In that bench perhaps. But looking at those numbers, apparently it doesn't scale with cores whatsoever (much like Skyrim in fact). Games that use 4 cores and beyond will divebomb on an i3 (BF3/BF4/yadda yadda), and that will mean Ivy i3 falling far far behind 2500K even at stock (and 2500K overclock like absolute monsters).

It's not that they're bad per se, but not a wise purchase circa 2013.

Exactly. $50 Celerons and $200 unlocked quads with nothing in between that make sense.

escrow4
09-04-2013, 02:45 AM
Exactly. $50 Celerons and $200 unlocked quads with nothing in between that make sense.

The FX 6300 for $120 . . . . :whiste:

Arkaign
09-04-2013, 02:49 AM
The FX 6300 for $120 . . . . :whiste:

Well there ya go! This is the area where AMD still has some real merit. Now if only they'd offer the FX 6300 on the FM2 platform, AM3 is sooooooooo dated now. (and I own an AM3+ setup, lol).

StrangerGuy
09-04-2013, 02:55 AM
The FX 6300 for $120 . . . . :whiste:

I'm talking about Intel's lineup, duh.

Arkaign
09-04-2013, 02:58 AM
I'm talking about Intel's lineup, duh.

Hehe yeah. I wonder if it's purely due to Intel knowing that most of their gaming enthusiast crowd (our little minority) will just pony up the bucks for a K-series quad most of the time anyway? I know I've done so myself multiple times now.

I'd hazard a guess that they think that they'd needlessly cannibalize 4670K/4770K sales with a hypothetical i3-4370K.

WhoBeDaPlaya
09-04-2013, 02:58 AM
Exactly. $50 Celerons and $200 unlocked quads with nothing in between that make sense.
This, especially when you have a cheap source of Celerons / Pentiums (eg. $35 - G1610 and $60 - G2030 at MicroCenter) or pretty dang nice incentives on the K SKUs (-$40 off motherboard, discounts off other components).

SammichPG
09-04-2013, 04:14 AM
I'll also point out that according to the ark, Haswell i3's don't support AVX2. Pentiums don't even have support for regular AVX. What is that all about Intel, my old 920 had SSE4.2 support and that's a 5 year old chip (a high end one, but still...). Why should programmers bother implementing AVX, when the lowest common denominator for Haswell is still SSE4.2?

Not a big deal, the AMD cpus support avx but try running a program compiled with ICC and it doesn't matter anyway. You're back to running x87 instructions! Not sure why amd doesn't unlock the cpu vendor id and/or release a utility to modify it, they're leaving 10-15% performance on the table (or even more in some cases).

Insert_Nickname
09-04-2013, 06:52 AM
Not a big deal, the AMD cpus support avx but try running a program compiled with ICC and it doesn't matter anyway. You're back to running x87 instructions! Not sure why amd doesn't unlock the cpu vendor id and/or release a utility to modify it, they're leaving 10-15% performance on the table (or even more in some cases).

Not necessarily. If you're compiling for 64bit then SSE2 support is mandatory.

But that's not the point. Using artificial feature limitations quite simply sucks.

SPBHM
09-04-2013, 06:53 AM
Half the die is wasted on a gpu that is pretty much useless. Why cant they just make a really cheap small quad core with no gpu. How much would it really cost to produce a completely new quad core die with no gpu, and maybe even a smaller cache? It's not really a redesign of anything, so I'm thinking the cost would be pretty reasonable. And profitable. Who here would not pay $149 for a tiny i5 die with no gpu? Any pc gamer would call that the sweet spot and its a money maker for intel because its such a small die.


they probably could sell current i5s for $149 keeping a good profit margin?

but selling a $149 quad core CPU would mean less $200 quad cores sold, which lowers their profit...

anyway,
Intel seem to have a quad core + Gt1 die!?

I haven't seen it so far (even the 4430 uses GT2)

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/pcw/docs/613/951/6.jpg
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpc.watch.impress.co.jp%2Fdocs%2Fcol umn%2Fkaigai%2F20130904_613951.html

I love the GT3 dual core... a big GPU with bonus x86 cores :biggrin:


i'd like to see an overclocked clarkdale vs. whatever this is (haswell 2C?)


CB 11.5

I3 4340 3600MHz 3.94 points
i3 540 4770MHz 3.89 points
i3 4130 3400MHz 3.73 points

ShintaiDK
09-04-2013, 07:38 AM
Looks like speculation. pc.watch is not exactly reliable.

daveybrat
09-04-2013, 07:51 AM
How about the new G3220 Pentium Haswell?

Intel Pentium G3220 Haswell 3.0GHz LGA 1150 54W Dual-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics BX80646G3220

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819116950 (http://redirect.anandtech.com/r?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newegg.com%2FProduct%2FProd uct.aspx%3FItem%3DN82E16819116950&user=u00000687)

NTMBK
09-04-2013, 07:52 AM
anyway,
Intel seem to have a quad core + Gt1 die!?

I haven't seen it so far (even the 4430 uses GT2)


It's probably used in their Xeon E3s - quite a lot of them have their IGP completely disabled, and supposedly the E3-1265L v3 has a 6EU IGP. (According to Wikipedia :hmm: )

CHADBOGA
09-04-2013, 08:28 AM
How about the new G3220 Pentium Haswell?

Intel Pentium G3220 Haswell 3.0GHz LGA 1150 54W Dual-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics BX80646G3220

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819116950 (http://redirect.anandtech.com/r?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newegg.com%2FProduct%2FProd uct.aspx%3FItem%3DN82E16819116950&user=u00000687)

I have bought this for a friend's HTPC.

When I have it up and running, I'll do some benchmarks on it. :)

BSim500
09-04-2013, 08:55 AM
Arkaign - "So i3 is still a failure, just a different kind of failure now? Yay"I'd say the Haswell i3 is now an even bigger failure. It's barely 5% faster at same clock vs Ivy (4130 vs 3240 both at 3.4GHz) yet the power consumption is up 24-27%! :thumbsdown:

From Chinese review link:-
i3-3240 = 42w idle / 77w load
i3-4130 = 42w idle / 95w load

And from the Russian review link:-
i3-2125 = 79w idle / 113w load
i3-3220 = 66w idle / 92w load
i3-4340 = 64w idle / 117w load

The Haswell i3 load power figures are approaching some low-end 22nm Ivy Bridge i5's (i5-3350P (OC-able to 3.7GHz), or a "good" i5-3470 (OC-able to 4.0GHz) with Turbo Boost & Multi-core enhancement), and has virtually wiped out the efficiency gain the 22nm process Ivy chips had over the Sandy's, pretty much killing off the chip in HTPC's / silent-rigs as an "upgrade" to the Ivy i3's.

Arkaign - "I would hope that nobody seriously uses any Intel CPU for any kind of primary gaming off the IGP"Agree 100%. From above link:-

Unigine Heaven:-
HD7750 = 27min / 47avg
i3-4340 = 14min / 21avg
i3-3200 = 8min / 15avg

7750 is basically a "lower-mid" end card these days. To those who spend a lot on CPU's but say "79 bucks is still too expensive" - you can get a cheap 2nd-hand 5770 card (or nvidia equiv) on Ebay for sometimes half that (I saw one go for 37 bucks - perfect working order) - the cost of one single release day AAA game - that's still twice as fast with AA enabled as the fastest iGPU's are with AA disabled, and without having to use 2002-era sub 1280x1024 non-native resolutions...

About time the "iGPU p*ssing contest" refocussed on CPU power. Those who run basic work boxes (Office + web browser) / only watch video / play light 2D flash games won't gain much beyond a Pentium, and desktop gamers with discrete cards (ie, +90% of them) won't gain a thing either. Intel need to stop releasing silly 1-5% boost "tocks" and AMD need to seriously take advantage of this slip-up, significantly get their power consumption down and refocus on getting back into the mid-range market with "blow for blow" competition, just like the "old days".

SPBHM
09-04-2013, 09:12 AM
considering the amount of work they did on the platform level to lower the idle power usage, I'm quite impressed by the numbers we've seen so far, which are showing no improvement at all compared to IB.

Magic Carpet
09-04-2013, 09:23 AM
How about the new G3220 Pentium Haswell?

Intel Pentium G3220 Haswell 3.0GHz LGA 1150 54W Dual-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics BX80646G3220

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819116950 (http://redirect.anandtech.com/r?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newegg.com%2FProduct%2FProd uc...82E16819116950&user=u00000687)
I have zero intention to upgrade from G2020, to be frank. No AVX, TSX, bigger thermal output. (Newegg got it wrong, again :)) Only for a new build, can it make any sense. I'd rather buy a new iPhone.


I have bought this for a friend's HTPC.

When I have it up and running, I'll do some benchmarks on it. :)
Please do that, and let's compare idle/load power consumption :thumbsup:

considering the amount of work they did on the platform level to lower the idle power usage, I'm quite impressed by the numbers we've seen so far, which are showing no improvement at all compared to IB.
Yeah, it's weird, but let's wait for more reviews, the Russians had tested an engineering sample, after all :)

SammichPG
09-04-2013, 10:08 AM
Not necessarily. If you're compiling for 64bit then SSE2 support is mandatory.

But that's not the point. Using artificial feature limitations quite simply sucks.

Intel i3s and pentiums edge AMD processors in single thread and gaming, don't you think that using avx and later sse versions would close the gap or make it smaller? It's just free performance left on the table by an artificial trick in the intel compiler.

It boggles my mind that you can't easily change cpuid with some utility, why does AMD block that stuff?

Jimzz
09-04-2013, 10:17 AM
How about the new G3220 Pentium Haswell?

Intel Pentium G3220 Haswell 3.0GHz LGA 1150 54W Dual-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics BX80646G3220

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819116950 (http://redirect.anandtech.com/r?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newegg.com%2FProduct%2FProd uct.aspx%3FItem%3DN82E16819116950&user=u00000687)


Thats kinda the rub and hate for the new i3's. For about half the price you get 80%+ of the performance.

I agree, either get a i5 Quad or get a Pentium and save the money for a better video card.

EDIT:

Just saw the new lower/cheap I3 also have less cache than the more costly i3's? The heck is up with that?

Insert_Nickname
09-04-2013, 11:56 AM
Intel i3s and pentiums edge AMD processors in single thread and gaming, don't you think that using avx and later sse versions would close the gap or make it smaller? It's just free performance left on the table by an artificial trick in the intel compiler.

I don't think, I know. Try comparing the same code with/without AVX/FMA4/XOP on a Piledriver-based CPU. The result is very is measurable... :)

(of course the same is true of Intel CPUs)

It boggles my mind that you can't easily change cpuid with some utility, why does AMD block that stuff?

They most likely have to. Don't know the details though.

SammichPG
09-04-2013, 12:15 PM
I don't think, I know. Try comparing the same code with/without AVX/FMA4/XOP on a Piledriver-based CPU. The result is very is measurable... :)

(of course the same is true of Intel CPUs)



They most likely have to. Don't know the details though.


Do you mean that not using avx/sse3/sse4 isn't a big deal?

Insert_Nickname
09-04-2013, 12:31 PM
Do you mean that not using avx/sse3/sse4 isn't a big deal?

Quite the opposite in fact... :)

Using AVX/FMA4/XOP gives a big boost to Bulldozer/Piledriver. A friend of mine tried compiling the linux kernel with those extensions. The result was actually pretty impressive. Don't ask for details, I'm not that much of a programmer...

ehume
09-04-2013, 08:41 PM
Pondering a laptop next year. I'm using a 2008 Dell Core 2 Duo T5800 at 2GHz and it has gone from intolerable to merely lame by adding an SSD (128GB C300). But the graphics get corrupted easily.

My kid games on a laptop she bought in the UK. It has an IB quad, HD 4000 graphics, an SSD and a 1 TB HD in place of the DVD. She plays various games and likes it.

So that is why the Core i3-4330T looks good. 2t/4c, HD4600, 35W TDP. I figure on getting an inexpensive laptop with HD, replace the HD with an SSD and get good battery life.

Basically, few of us OC, and I don't need powerful anything on my laptop. But if I go too cheap I'll get lousy components and battery time will go down. So I need a lappy this coming Dec-Jan, and I figure the time frame is about right for these new chips. I see most of the new cpu's announced as either chips for really chip desktops (like what we use at work) or for laptops.

Am I thinking correctly here? Or am I missing something?

LOL_Wut_Axel
09-05-2013, 12:56 AM
Pondering a laptop next year. I'm using a 2008 Dell Core 2 Duo T5800 at 2GHz and it has gone from intolerable to merely lame by adding an SSD (128GB C300). But the graphics get corrupted easily.

My kid games on a laptop she bought in the UK. It has an IB quad, HD 4000 graphics, an SSD and a 1 TB HD in place of the DVD. She plays various games and likes it.

So that is why the Core i3-4330T looks good. 2t/4c, HD4600, 35W TDP. I figure on getting an inexpensive laptop with HD, replace the HD with an SSD and get good battery life.

Basically, few of us OC, and I don't need powerful anything on my laptop. But if I go too cheap I'll get lousy components and battery time will go down. So I need a lappy this coming Dec-Jan, and I figure the time frame is about right for these new chips. I see most of the new cpu's announced as either chips for really chip desktops (like what we use at work) or for laptops.

Am I thinking correctly here? Or am I missing something?

Don't get too excited. If past history repeats itself, then the "low power" T versions will be hugely disappointing given their considerably lower performance and only slightly lower power consumption. The standard versions are always the ones that deliver the most performance/watt, at least in desktops.

LOL_Wut_Axel
09-05-2013, 12:58 AM
Don't see why most desktop users would get this when the FX-6300 costs $10 less and is faster on most tasks.

escrow4
09-05-2013, 01:26 AM
Don't see why most desktop users would get this when the FX-6300 costs $10 less and is faster on most tasks.

Have to add in a GPU. Given all that might as well go for a 6800K.

LOL_Wut_Axel
09-05-2013, 01:54 AM
Have to add in a GPU. Given all that might as well go for a 6800K.

6800K is overpriced. It's merely a slightly higher-clocked 5800K. Not worth the $30 difference when you can just bump the multiplier on the 5800K and get the same performance.

Most people that build their own PCs will use a discrete card, anyway, and if you're getting a i3 it means you don't care much about IGP performance given that the 5800K/6700/6800K are faster there. If you care about CPU performance instead, then you'd go for the FX-6300/6350. And if you want a jack-of-all-trades (CPU, IGP performance, low power consumption) then the A10-6700 makes the most sense. The only thing I can see the i3 making sense for is an HTPC.

Edit:
And BTW, if you only need basic a basic IGP you can get a 760G board with an HD 3000 or 3200.

Hulk
09-05-2013, 11:19 AM
I really want to see a good head-to-head review of a dual core hyperthreaded Ivy vs. Haswell at the same clock running highly multithreaded code, like video editing. It seems as though Haswell's wider back end and other improvements should allow better utilization of hyperthreading than Ivy. There "should" be more unused resources available for the logical cores.

ngasset
09-05-2013, 04:40 PM
I really want to see a good head-to-head review of a dual core hyperthreaded Ivy vs. Haswell at the same clock running highly multithreaded code, like video editing. It seems as though Haswell's wider back end and other improvements should allow better utilization of hyperthreading than Ivy. There "should" be more unused resources available for the logical cores.

Here is what you search ... well in french!
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/901-3/performances-applicatives.html

Anyway, there are very few reviews of Haswell i3 ... Why nobody is reviewing these cpu ????? I found it very strange! Also few shop have them!

frozentundra123456
09-05-2013, 05:13 PM
Have to add in a GPU. Given all that might as well go for a 6800K.

For gaming, the FX6300 makes sense, considering that you need a discrete card for any kind of decent gaming experience.

Otherwise, I would go with a pentium for basic tasks, or even a celeron. The 6800k is overpriced IMO, and has more gpu than needed for everyday use but still borderline for gaming.

Red Hawk
09-05-2013, 05:14 PM
No real performance improvement and more power hungry than the Ivy Bridge i3s? Wasn't Haswell supposed to be more power efficient than the Ivy Bridge? I guess it could be that all the power-efficient CPUs are going to mobile, and Intel is selling all the ones that didn't make the cut to the desktop channel.

That die would be pretty useless for a laptop, given what Intel wants to do, although I can't imagine why Intel wouldn't put out binned igp-disabled parts for relatively cheap prices instead.

It was called the 2550K.

frozentundra123456
09-05-2013, 05:17 PM
No real performance improvement and more power hungry than the Ivy Bridge i3s? Wasn't Haswell supposed to be more power efficient than the Ivy Bridge? I guess it could be that all the power-efficient CPUs are going to mobile, and Intel is selling all the ones that didn't make the cut to the desktop channel.



It was called the 2550K.

Well, if you look at that link posted by ngasset, it does look like a considerable improvement from an ivy i3 in several tests. Still not sure that makes it a good choice compared to an i5 on the higher end or a pentium or FX6300 on the cheaper side though.

Hulk
09-06-2013, 12:54 PM
Here is what you search ... well in french!
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/901-3/performances-applicatives.html

Anyway, there are very few reviews of Haswell i3 ... Why nobody is reviewing these cpu ????? I found it very strange! Also few shop have them!

Nice find! Thanks. Looks like in well threaded apps the Haswell duals with HT may well show a decent performance increase over Ivy.

Insert_Nickname
09-06-2013, 01:42 PM
Nice find! Thanks. Looks like in well threaded apps the Haswell duals with HT may well show a decent performance increase over Ivy.

I too would like to see a direct comparison at the same clocks. The Haswell architecture is wider then Ivy, so perhaps HT has more resources to play with.

ngasset
09-07-2013, 12:57 AM
Not considering the price, those new i3 seem to show more improvement than i5 and i7, notably on the iGPU side. Let's welcome the generalization of crapdvence Intel iGPU to i3 ...
i3 do not have turbo, but keep they two core at the max frequency of i5, and two thread benchmark are very good. So you may not loose anything in light multitasking.

They seem perfect for htpc.

Intel priced them as a10 which is too expensive considering you can have an i5-4570 for only 30$ more (which include all the bell and whistles execpt ht). Also what is worrying is that next gen of intel CPU may not be compatible with the current current 1150 socket.

SPBHM
09-07-2013, 02:38 AM
I too would like to see a direct comparison at the same clocks. The Haswell architecture is wider then Ivy, so perhaps HT has more resources to play with.

the hardware.fr test shows a clock vs clock comparison...

4130, 3240 and 2130 all work at 3.4

the relative performance (to a PII 955)
was 105.9% for Haswell, 95.6% for Ivy and 92.1% for Sandy, I think it' the usual gain for Haswell...


but haswell gains int terms of perf per watt are nothing or negative I think.

crashtech
09-07-2013, 11:16 AM
Odd that the gains made in low power consumption did not translate to full power desktop usage. Does anyone know how much the more powerful IGP is contributing to power draw?

BSim500
09-07-2013, 01:00 PM
Odd that the gains made in low power consumption did not translate to full power desktop usage. Does anyone know how much the more powerful IGP is contributing to power draw?

It's probably a combination of the iGPU + widely unpopular Haswell "feature" of the new IVR's arbitrarily adding +0.1v when loaded with anything with an AVX instruction sending load temps through the roof (as seen on quad-cores)...

As for how much is the iGPU, we probably won't know until a "P" version comes out. The i5-3470 was officially rated 77w, and the i5-3350P was 69w, so that's 8w used by the much slower Ivy Bridge's iGPU by Intel's estimate. I reckon Haswell's iGPU is probably 10-14w iGPU loaded.

Either way, overall efficiency (performance divided by watts) has actually managed to regress almost all the way back to Sandy Bridge - wiping out the gains achieved on the SB->IB 32nm->22nm die shrink even with no overclocking at all at a relatively slow 3.6GHz... o_O

From French review:-
"Consumption increases significantly against our Core i3-3240 Ivy Bridge, with the socket 7 watts more on one thread and 13 watts at 100% load (4 threads), increasing the TDP of 10 watts between two generations... Logical energy efficiency is down sharply against the i3 Ivy Bridge. So the gain is only slight against a i3 Sandy Bridge 32nm..."

Russian & Chinese reviews concur with similar +10-15w load figures and almost no improvement in idle figures (despite lower clocked 800MHz Haswell idle state (vs 1600MHz of SB/IB) showing more improvement on the i5). With its price only $20 cheaper than a budget Ivy i5 (high-end), and almost double that of an IB Pentium (budget work-box) with 80% the speed, unless there's a price-cut, it's turned out to be a bit of a white elephant, IMHO...

Insert_Nickname
09-07-2013, 01:24 PM
the hardware.fr test shows a clock vs clock comparison...

4130, 3240 and 2130 all work at 3.4

the relative performance (to a PII 955)
was 105.9% for Haswell, 95.6% for Ivy and 92.1% for Sandy, I think it' the usual gain for Haswell...


but haswell gains int terms of perf per watt are nothing or negative I think.

You're quite right. I must have misunderstood something along the way. I also think you're right about Haswells performance per watt.

Either way, overall efficiency (performance divided by watts) has actually managed to regress almost all the way back to Sandy Bridge - wiping out the gains achieved on the SB->IB 32nm->22nm die shrink even with no overclocking at all at a relatively slow 3.6GHz... o_O

Hrm, bigger core and bigger IGP on the same process. I think its what one could expect. That doesn't soften the blow of disappointment though... :|

taisingera
09-07-2013, 02:15 PM
Same thing happened with the M variants of haswell. It went from 35 to 37W, not as bad of an increase compared to the desktop cpus, but still higher than last generation. I think a lot of people are overestimating battery life for haswell laptops, Now how they got the U parts down from 17w to 15w I don't know, but they could be lying about it, just like that SDP Intel released for Baytrail and Haswell Y.

I bought a i3 4330 because with a motherboard, a quad would still be too much for my budget. I don't game, so I could have gone with a Pentium but decided on the i3 since I upgrade only every 3-5 years. Plus I got a $25 discount from Newegg so the i3 4330 really only cost me $125, of course I had to go for an H87 mobo vs a cheaper B85 mobo in order to meet the $250 minimum. If I was on SB/IB I probably would not have upgraded, but I was coming from a i3 530.

Only thing that sucks is Newegg had a warehouse malfunction, and it is taking longer to get the gear.

crashtech
09-07-2013, 02:44 PM
Regardless of the complaints, the newest i3s have about the highest IPC out there, and it can be argued that such high performance in lightly threaded tasks is worth some price premium.

Pilum
09-09-2013, 08:47 AM
Regardless of the complaints, the newest i3s have about the highest IPC out there, and it can be argued that such high performance in lightly threaded tasks is worth some price premium.
Yes, that seems to be the reason for the pricing. Of course you could turbo-OC the Ivy Bridge i5s, which tilted price/performance away from the i3s, but that's gone with Haswell.

If you look at the Haswell lineup, the cheapest i5 to reach 3.6 GHz on turbo is the i5-4570 which costs $192, compared to $149 for the 3.6 GHz i3-4340 ($43/29% difference). If you take the next-lower i5, the i5-4440, you get 3.3. GHz max. turbo for $182, while the i3-4130 for $122 runs at 3.4 GHz ($60/49% difference).

So for most normal users the i3s are actually an excellent deal.

StrangerGuy
09-09-2013, 08:56 AM
Yes, that seems to be the reason for the pricing. Of course you could turbo-OC the Ivy Bridge i5s, which tilted price/performance away from the i3s, but that's gone with Haswell.

If you look at the Haswell lineup, the cheapest i5 to reach 3.6 GHz on turbo is the i5-4570 which costs $192, compared to $149 for the 3.6 GHz i3-4340 ($43/29% difference). If you take the next-lower i5, the i5-4440, you get 3.3. GHz max. turbo for $182, while the i3-4130 for $122 runs at 3.4 GHz ($60/49% difference).

So for most normal users the i3s are actually an excellent deal.

Please tell me who are the "normal" users that require anything more than a $50 Celeron. The ones that runs benchmarks day in day out?

frozentundra123456
09-09-2013, 08:58 AM
Yes, that seems to be the reason for the pricing. Of course you could turbo-OC the Ivy Bridge i5s, which tilted price/performance away from the i3s, but that's gone with Haswell.

If you look at the Haswell lineup, the cheapest i5 to reach 3.6 GHz on turbo is the i5-4570 which costs $192, compared to $149 for the 3.6 GHz i3-4340 ($43/29% difference). If you take the next-lower i5, the i5-4440, you get 3.3. GHz max. turbo for $182, while the i3-4130 for $122 runs at 3.4 GHz ($60/49% difference).

So for most normal users the i3s are actually an excellent deal.

Possibly for a small niche that needs maximum single or dual threaded performance, but not multithreaded workloads. Seems like a small niche to me though, as a much cheaper pentium is adequate for the vast majority of general users, while a haswell quad offers almost the same lightly threaded performance at a small increase in price, especially considered relative to the cost of the entire system. If you are willing to give up a little clockspeed for better multithreading, the lowest clocked i5 is only 33.00 more than the most expensive i3.

rootheday3
09-09-2013, 09:32 AM
Same thing happened with the M variants of haswell. It went from 35 to 37W, not as bad of an increase compared to the desktop cpus, but still higher than last generation.
Remember that Haswell cpu includes the VRM which was present on the motherboard previously. That takes some additional power because it has conversion losses. That is, for a IVB CPU drawing 35W, the VRM on the motherboard was probably drawing 37-38W; 2-3W converted to heat in the VRM due to voltage conversion losses. Now that conversion happens inside the package and the TDP must be adjusted to account for it. No net difference in power used at a platform level. In fact, due to reduced signaling latencies and fewer variables re motherboard components, Haswell should be able to be faster at switching voltages, allowing it to drop to lower power states faster.

I think a lot of people are overestimating battery life for haswell laptops, Now how they got the U parts down from 17w to 15w. I don't know, but they could be lying about it, just like that SDP Intel released for Baytrail and Haswell Y.
No trolling not required. Lots of Haswell laptop reviews are out and they all show marked increases in battery life - like 2-3 hours longer on web browsing, 1-2 hours longer on video playback. Note that battery life has to do with getting to low power states quickly and staying there as much as possible and has almost nothing to do with TDP.

parablooper
09-09-2013, 08:34 PM
Thanks guys, the thing about the poor price range (too close to i5, not that much better than Pentium) really struck me. I was gonna get an i3-4340 to build a non-gaming rig for one of my relatives, but now I figure the i5-4430 is a better choice, since it's just $30 extra for two more physical cores.

escrow4
09-09-2013, 10:30 PM
Thanks guys, the thing about the poor price range (too close to i5, not that much better than Pentium) really struck me. I was gonna get an i3-4340 to build a non-gaming rig for one of my relatives, but now I figure the i5-4430 is a better choice, since it's just $30 extra for two more physical cores.

Or just a G1610. I use one close to every day, perfectly suitable for standard basic tasks. For like $45.

crashtech
09-10-2013, 12:35 AM
The funny thing is that the 4430 will be significantly slower than the 4340 in the kind of lightly threaded tasks that relatives usually do. But it probably won't be noticed. You could probably disable two of the quad's cores and never have it be noticed, either.

BSim500
09-10-2013, 04:22 AM
The funny thing is that the 4430 will be significantly slower than the 4340 in the kind of lightly threaded tasks that relatives usually do. But it probably won't be noticed. You could probably disable two of the quad's cores and never have it be noticed, either.
True, but that's primarily due to the Haswell's nerfed i5 Turbo Boost (no +400MHz 4-bins "limited overclock" on Z boards vs Ivy & Sandy which limits the 4430 to 3.2GHz instead of 3.6GHz), but the difference between an i3-4340 (3.6GHz fixed) and an i5-3470 (4.0GHz max Turbo OC) is barely $35 and vs an i5-3350P (3.7GHz max Turbo OC) is literally just $20 (for budget gamers with a discrete GFX card).

i3's are great, but Haswell i3's definitely need a $20-$30 "haircut" from current prices. There's just $20 difference between them and Ivy i5's and almost $80 difference between them and Ivy Pentium's (yes I'm comparing to Ivy's since that's what they're replacing). And that's still excluding they run 10-15w hotter than Ivy i3's under load which is an issue for HTPC builders using slimline coolers in slimline cases with very low 600 RPM fans looking for the absolute lowest TDP dual-core. If I were building a HTPC today, a $15 cheaper i3-3240 still has a more desirable 15% higher performance/watt ratio, and doesn't come with Haswell's "overly clever" IVR's which "helpfully" arbitrarily adds 0.1v to the CPU under load whenever it feels like it (the last thing you want when building a silent rig)...

i3's at $125-$130 make sense. An i3 at almost $160 is stuck between a rock (too expensive for budget gaming vs low-end i5's - especially with more multi-threaded gaming coming out with the new consoles) and a hard place (costs far, far more than a Pentium for a basic "work box" (ie, MS Office + web browser + e-mail + audio/video playback + light flash gaming + solitare & minesweeper, etc).

Not bashing them for the sake of it - (I have fond memories of my i3-530 OC'd to 4.2GHz punching well above its weight), but the +20% increase in heat & +10% increase in cost vs Ivy Bridge i3's seems to be "two steps forward, 1.5x steps back" to me.

USER8000
09-10-2013, 06:30 AM
Thanks guys, the thing about the poor price range (too close to i5, not that much better than Pentium) really struck me. I was gonna get an i3-4340 to build a non-gaming rig for one of my relatives, but now I figure the i5-4430 is a better choice, since it's just $30 extra for two more physical cores.

I would just get an A8 5600K or an A8 5500. The CPU is more than good enough for normal tasks,and for any GPU acceleration of normal tasks,the IGP is more than good enough.

Put the money saved into an SSD.

Insert_Nickname
09-10-2013, 07:58 AM
The funny thing is that the 4430 will be significantly slower than the 4340 in the kind of lightly threaded tasks that relatives usually do. But it probably won't be noticed. You could probably disable two of the quad's cores and never have it be noticed, either.

That depends on the relatives. The thing is that you can pretty much expect an awful amount of background tasks, open tabs, sometimes crap AV and general bloat on such a system. People also do multitasking much more then you think. Quad core+SSD takes care of them...

If you got "disciplined" relatives, then a G1610 is more then enough. For something a little more fancy, the AMD APUs are pretty good value. At least in my country.

StrangerGuy
09-10-2013, 09:03 AM
That depends on the relatives. The thing is that you can pretty much expect an awful amount of background tasks, open tabs, sometimes crap AV and general bloat on such a system. People also do multitasking much more then you think. Quad core+SSD takes care of them...

If you got "disciplined" relatives, then a G1610 is more then enough. For something a little more fancy, the AMD APUs are pretty good value. At least in my country.

Again those are dependent on RAM, RAM, and more RAM, and I/O. Any SB or later dual core won't be a bottleneck.

Insert_Nickname
09-10-2013, 10:11 AM
Again those are dependent on RAM, RAM, and more RAM, and I/O. Any SB or later dual core won't be a bottleneck.

...and plenty of RAM. I should have thought that obvious. When I build for the FF segment, the minimum assumed lifetime is 5 years. Sometimes 10 years, some people can't afford/don't want to upgrade, and that build will be specced accordingly.

Like it or not but duals are only really viable for value/entry level. With the premium Intel is charging for the i3's, I see little reason to bother with them over Pentiums/AMD APUs at the low end or i5s at the high end.

crashtech
09-10-2013, 11:02 AM
I shall call this orthodoxy the Proquadstean bed.

z28dreams
09-10-2013, 06:25 PM
People here seem to only be comparing the i3-4330 and up.

What about the i3-4130? It's only $129. I agree that once you hit $150-$160 you might as well just go with an i5 and get 2 more cores.

Also, if you have a microcenter nearby, the i3-4340 works out to about the same price with the motherboard combo.

How would you compare those? (4130 or an equivalent priced 4340) to an FX-6300 for overall performance?

I'm having trouble finding any benchmarks on these new haswell i3's yet, particularly single threaded ones.

Insert_Nickname
09-11-2013, 07:10 AM
What about the i3-4130? It's only $129. I agree that once you hit $150-$160 you might as well just go with an i5 and get 2 more cores.

The problem is that you can get 80% of the performance for ~50% of the cost with a Haswell Pentium. Though you do sacrifice some of the more advanced features.

StrangerGuy
09-11-2013, 07:16 AM
The problem is that you can get 80% of the performance for ~50% of the cost with a Haswell Pentium. Though you do sacrifice some of the more advanced features.

Exactly. Even if you talking about building a cheapo Dota 2 box you will still be much better off with a Pentium + HD7750 for about the same cost.

know of fence
09-11-2013, 04:10 PM
According to that french review an 11% increase in average app perfomance between the 3.4 GHz clocked Ivy and Haswell and a 200 MHz (6%) bump in frequency actually sounds kind of nice for the i3, worse efficiency and sizzling thermals not withstanding.

http://ark.intel.com/compare/77480,65690,77771

I only wish we had power supplies that could provide the 3.6 W at idle withouth somehow turning to 40W at the wall outlet.

Radeon962
09-18-2013, 03:49 PM
Microcenter has the 4340 for $139 and it qualifies for the $30 mobo bundle. The i5-4670k has the same $30 mobo bundle but is $199. The i5-4570 for $159 but no bundle price. The i3-4130 is $119 but again no mobo bundle.

So is the 4670k worth the extra $60 for general use system with no gaming? Secondary home machine primarily used by teenage kids for Internet, Office apps, Facebook and iTunes and Windows Media Center playback.

Would be using the HD 4600 integrated graphics on the chip rather than a discrete video card.

AtenRa
09-18-2013, 04:33 PM
Microcenter + your usage = A10-6800K + Asrock FM2A75M-itx Rev2.0 bundle at $179,98 ftw.
You will have way lower idle than Core i3 + ATX motherboard, way better iGPU for Video playback, steady Video and higher OpenCL performance for every current and future application.

http://www.microcenter.com/site/products/amd_bundles.aspx

crashtech
09-18-2013, 04:36 PM
@ Radeon962, I think the new i3 is a stellar chip for the above application. There's no love for it on the Anandtech forum, because it supposedly doesn't do well in the price/performance calculation. But an i5 is overkill for a general use system. The i3 is a premium chip for that app, which most would say might be better served by a Pentium or Celeron.

EDIT: At $169 MC price, the i3 bundle is less money while totally outclassing the A10 in single thread, which means it will be snappier measurably faster during light/medium tasks. The only thing the A10 has going for it is 3D graphics, which don't figure in the above intended use.

BallaTheFeared
09-18-2013, 04:47 PM
Any overclocked reviews, or can't it (iGPU)?

crashtech
09-18-2013, 04:59 PM
Are any of the other non-K Haswell iGPUs overclockable?

BallaTheFeared
09-18-2013, 05:00 PM
Are they?

crashtech
09-18-2013, 05:03 PM
Are they?
C'mon, you are the Haswell evangelist around here. Converted me, anyway.

BallaTheFeared
09-18-2013, 05:33 PM
I have no idea /:(\

Edit:

It's the only way the i3 could be a compelling choice for a iGPU based solution, otherwise it's AMD no question IMO.

HD4600 just isn't fast enough at stock but it has stupid amounts of OC headroom which actually causes it to easily outpace the A10 at stock.

I would even say OC VS OC the HD4600 has a slight advantage, in gaming and in typical OpenCL programs.

Shivansps
09-18-2013, 05:49 PM
Are any of the other non-K Haswell iGPUs overclockable?

Well, you could overclock any Sandy and Ivy CPU if the mb had support, and i far i know, even H61 could do it, i guess its the same on Haswell.

Its strange that there is no Windows tool that allows you to do that.


Any idea of the cut downs on Haswell GT1? on Ivy and Sandy it was the same as the GT2, only features cut down.

ehume
09-18-2013, 06:00 PM
I have no idea /:(\

Edit:

It's the only way the i3 could be a compelling choice for a iGPU based solution, otherwise it's AMD no question IMO.

HD4600 just isn't fast enough at stock but it has stupid amounts of OC headroom which actually causes it to easily outpace the A10 at stock.

I would even say OC VS OC the HD4600 has a slight advantage, in gaming and in typical OpenCL programs.

How far can one push the HD4600 on average?

BallaTheFeared
09-18-2013, 06:07 PM
I've pushed mine up to 50% OC, that's 1800MHz.

It's not really a common thing though so I can't site a lot of instances of anyone even overclocking it in the first place.

TPU hit 1700 or 1750 with it though.

crashtech
09-18-2013, 07:28 PM
It's the only way the i3 could be a compelling choice for a iGPU based solution, otherwise it's AMD no question IMO.

HD4600 just isn't fast enough at stock but it has stupid amounts of OC headroom which actually causes it to easily outpace the A10 at stock.

I would even say OC VS OC the HD4600 has a slight advantage, in gaming and in typical OpenCL programs.
Post #85 mentions use in a machine that might see some Flash games and maybe Blu-Ray playback, how is the HD4600 not suited for that?

ehume
09-18-2013, 08:18 PM
I've pushed mine up to 50% OC, that's 1800MHz.

It's not really a common thing though so I can't site a lot of instances of anyone even overclocking it in the first place.

TPU hit 1700 or 1750 with it though.
Thanks

BallaTheFeared
09-18-2013, 08:31 PM
Post #85 mentions use in a machine that might see some Flash games and maybe Blu-Ray playback, how is the HD4600 not suited for that?

I wasn't addressing any specific person or question, only a general comment on the performance of Intel vs AMD.

I think the i3 is a better CPU than the A10, but the stock iGPU isn't fast enough. My comment was that if you could overclock the iGPU on the i3's than they'd make compelling options over the AMD APUs.

Post #85 would probably be content with Bay Trail.

USER8000
09-18-2013, 08:41 PM
Microcenter has the 4340 for $139 and it qualifies for the $30 mobo bundle. The i5-4670k has the same $30 mobo bundle but is $199. The i5-4570 for $159 but no bundle price. The i3-4130 is $119 but again no mobo bundle.

So is the 4670k worth the extra $60 for general use system with no gaming? Secondary home machine primarily used by teenage kids for Internet, Office apps, Facebook and iTunes and Windows Media Center playback.

Would be using the HD 4600 integrated graphics on the chip rather than a discrete video card.

You could always get an A8 6600K or an A10 6800K:

http://www.microcenter.com/site/products/amd_bundles.aspx

One of the deals with the A8 6600K,comes to $115(or $110 after rebate),which essentially makes the motherboard free.

crashtech
09-18-2013, 09:37 PM
I wasn't addressing any specific person or question, only a general comment on the performance of Intel vs AMD.

I think the i3 is a better CPU than the A10, but the stock iGPU isn't fast enough. My comment was that if you could overclock the iGPU on the i3's than they'd make compelling options over the AMD APUs.

I agree. I was really hoping for a mini-ITX or even µATX board with a BGA Iris Pro. Lucky for the A10 it's not happening.

AtenRa
09-19-2013, 12:45 AM
I would even say OC VS OC the HD4600 has a slight advantage, in gaming and in typical OpenCL programs.

Not a chance.

Insert_Nickname
09-19-2013, 07:26 AM
EDIT: At $169 MC price, the i3 bundle is less money while totally outclassing the A10 in single thread, which means it will be snappier during light/medium tasks.

Please don't go there. As a part time 6800K user, I'm very hard pressed to notice any appreciable difference in "snappiness" compared to my 3770@4.3GHz under normal usage. Both systems are running identical SSD (Samsung 830) BTW, and those have far more effect on "snappiness" then any CPU.

USER8000
09-19-2013, 07:44 AM
Please don't go there. As a part time 6800K user, I'm very hard pressed to notice any appreciable difference in "snappiness" compared to my 3770@4.3GHz under normal usage. Both systems are running identical SSD (Samsung 830) BTW, and those have far more effect on "snappiness" then any CPU.

Agreed. Tried a friends old Llano A8 based system with an SSD,against my Core i5 2500 system with an SSD too,and for day to day stuff I could not tell them apart. In fact I think that an SSD has been one of the biggest computer upgrades I have ever noticed,and the same goes with my friends.

If I were the poster in post 85,getting an A8 6600K would just about free up enough budget to get a small SSD,and a refurbished Crucial M4 128GB is only $74.99 too:

http://www.microcenter.com/search/search_results.aspx?N=4294945779&NTX=&NTT=&NTK=all&sortby=pricelow

crashtech
09-19-2013, 09:44 AM
Please don't go there. As a part time 6800K user, I'm very hard pressed to notice any appreciable difference in "snappiness" compared to my 3770@4.3GHz under normal usage. Both systems are running identical SSD (Samsung 830) BTW, and those have far more effect on "snappiness" then any CPU.
You are right. Please replace "snappier" with "measurably faster." My apologies.

Radeon962
09-19-2013, 05:24 PM
If I were the poster in post 85,getting an A8 6600K would just about free up enough budget to get a small SSD,and a refurbished Crucial M4 128GB is only $74.99 too:[/URL]

The build already includes a Samsung 840 Evo 120 gb.

Price is not really the main consideration between the two CPU's as in the end it's only $60. But I have not over clocked a processor in years as the stock speed on most any of the new chips is more than fast enough for the secondary system. I look more at stability and overall "quick feel". Running Intel X25-M 80GB DVD's in my current systems and they were the one upgrade that was really noticeable by anyone that uses it. I don't build systems without them anymore.

Yes, the K is a better, faster chip but in day to day use I just don't see the benefit for your average use system.

I'm just trying to convince myself that I don't need the K.

USER8000
09-19-2013, 07:16 PM
The build already includes a Samsung 840 Evo 120 gb.

Price is not really the main consideration between the two CPU's as in the end it's only $60. But I have not over clocked a processor in years as the stock speed on most any of the new chips is more than fast enough for the secondary system. I look more at stability and overall "quick feel". Running Intel X25-M 80GB DVD's in my current systems and they were the one upgrade that was really noticeable by anyone that uses it. I don't build systems without them anymore.

Yes, the K is a better, faster chip but in day to day use I just don't see the benefit for your average use system.

I'm just trying to convince myself that I don't need the K.

I am not sure where you are getting the overclocking bit from,but I am talking about the AMD A8 6600K,not the Core i5 4670K,and it has nothing to do with overclocking.

For the purposes,you mentioned the AMD A8 would be more than enough,plus the IGP is faster with bog standard 1600MHZ DDR3. To reiterate I have a Core i5 2500 with a discrete card,and I could not really tell it apart from an A8 3870K for general purpose tasks,when both had an SSD and I agree with Insert_Nickname (http://forums.anandtech.com/member.php?u=308440).

Even an old Core2 quad would be more than enough TBH. The tasks you talk about are very light indeed and most of the time the CPUs are running at power saving clockspeeds.

Another thing is you need to be careful with reading into some of the benchmarks. For example,iTunes benchmarks are done by first ripping the CD to an SSD or RAM disk,to reduce the realworld bottleneck,which is the optical drive and the system interface. 99% of the population rip a CD using the optical drive on the fly meaning the CPU is not really the bottleneck.

Radeon962
09-19-2013, 08:58 PM
I am not sure where you are getting the overclocking bit from,but I am talking about the AMD A8 6600K,not the Core i5 4670K,and it has nothing to do with overclocking.

For the purposes,you mentioned the AMD A8 would be more than enough,plus the IGP is faster with bog standard 1600MHZ DDR3. To reiterate I have a Core i5 2500 with a discrete card,and I could not really tell it apart from an A8 3870K for general purpose tasks,when both had an SSD and I agree with Insert_Nickname (http://forums.anandtech.com/member.php?u=308440).

Even an old Core2 quad would be more than enough TBH. The tasks you talk about are very light indeed and most of the time the CPUs are running at power saving clockspeeds.

Another thing is you need to be careful with reading into some of the benchmarks. For example,iTunes benchmarks are done by first ripping the CD to an SSD or RAM disk,to reduce the realworld bottleneck,which is the optical drive and the system interface. 99% of the population rip a CD using the optical drive on the fly meaning the CPU is not really the bottleneck.

I take any benchmarks with a grain of salt, whether Intel or AMD but would agree with your statements. I have not used an AMD processor for years, might have to take a look at them.

What's a good mATX board that's compatible? I can Google it, but you seem to have a good handle on AMD, which I definitely don't.

Thanks, Bill

USER8000
09-19-2013, 09:13 PM
I take any benchmarks with a grain of salt, whether Intel or AMD but would agree with your statements. I have not used an AMD processor for years, might have to take a look at them.

What's a good mATX board that's compatible? I can Google it, but you seem to have a good handle on AMD, which I definitely don't.

Thanks, Bill

The MSI in the Micro Center bundle deal is actually more or less free,although MSI can be a bit of a mixed bag. I know someone who used a Gigabyte GA-F2A55M-HD2 with an A10-5800K(not an overclocking build of course),and even though it lacks SATA3.0 and USB3.0 seems solid enough for a cheap motherboard. That is quite cheap in the bundle too and is almost free too.

The Asus F2A85-V PRO is probably one of the best FM2 motherboards(especially for overclocking) but of course is relatively expensive considering the cost of the CPU,so I am not sure it is worth it TBH! I probably would not go OTT on a relatively expensive socket FM2 motherboard,unless I was going for a mini-ITX motherboard.

AMD have launched socket FM2+ which will be working with the new Kaveri CPUs being launched this year. Where I live these motherboards are not too highly priced on pre-order:

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4727#ov
http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4716#ov

However,an exact launch date for the desktop Kaveri is not known yet and I doubt it will be as cheap as the A8 6600K bundle deals on Micro Center.

nextJin
10-18-2013, 08:01 AM
I'm picking up the i3 4340 bundle from Microcenter in a few hours. It's 60 more dollars than the FX6300 bundle but it looks like across the board it's a better chip in gaming especially in Blizzard games. The Anandtech comparison page between the FX6300 and the older i3s are humiliating for AMD.

It's just slower in gaming, uses tons more energy and comes with a terrible heatsink. I'd have to pay for an after market even at stock from what people have been saying especially in a case like the VSK3000.

I have a single 92mm intake and outtake in the budget build I'm working with.

USER8000
10-18-2013, 10:19 AM
I'm picking up the i3 4340 bundle from Microcenter in a few hours. It's 60 more dollars than the FX6300 bundle but it looks like across the board it's a better chip in gaming especially in Blizzard games. The Anandtech comparison page between the FX6300 and the older i3s are humiliating for AMD.

It's just slower in gaming, uses tons more energy and comes with a terrible heatsink. I'd have to pay for an after market even at stock from what people have been saying especially in a case like the VSK3000.

I have a single 92mm intake and outtake in the budget build I'm working with.

I had the Core i3 2120(and done a Core i3 3220) and mates with the FX6300 and FX6350.

I also know people who are in WoW clans playing the games(around 12 people at least). The FX6300 and FX6350 are fine.

The Core i3 are overrated for they are,by people who have never used the broad spectrum of chips in that price range.

Brahmzy
10-18-2013, 12:26 PM
Pretty big diff going from a 3225 to a 4570S for my HTPC. I don't have much use for dual cores anymore (even with HT.) I thought I wouldn't notice a lick of diff - I did.

crashtech
10-18-2013, 01:02 PM
Pretty big diff going from a 3225 to a 4570S for my HTPC. I don't have much use for dual cores anymore (even with HT.) I thought I wouldn't notice a lick of diff - I did.

The difference couldn't be noticeable during normal HTPC usage. I gather you must game with it as well?

Brahmzy
10-18-2013, 01:19 PM
I absolutely notice it with normal HTPC usage. I don't game. But I rip stuff, surf, open PDFs etc. Opening up MC, opening MyMovies (SQL), surfing, booting, everything is noticeably faster, all else being equal, other than W8 > W8.1 and P67 > Z87.
Watching ripped BDs / TV/ DVR functions - no diff whatsoever. But general usage is where I noticed it. I'm not talking night and day here, but I do notice a difference. Especially working with my media management stuff. Was the 3225 "slow"? No, it was pretty darn fast, but the quad core is most definitely faster.

crashtech
10-18-2013, 01:50 PM
Confirmation bias?

TerryMathews
10-18-2013, 02:09 PM
Confirmation bias?

Why do you think that? He doubled the number of cores and picked up +10% clock speed on turbo, on top of IPC improvements.

Attic
11-30-2013, 10:52 PM
Yes, that seems to be the reason for the pricing. Of course you could turbo-OC the Ivy Bridge i5s, which tilted price/performance away from the i3s, but that's gone with Haswell.

If you look at the Haswell lineup, the cheapest i5 to reach 3.6 GHz on turbo is the i5-4570 which costs $192, compared to $149 for the 3.6 GHz i3-4340 ($43/29% difference). If you take the next-lower i5, the i5-4440, you get 3.3. GHz max. turbo for $182, while the i3-4130 for $122 runs at 3.4 GHz ($60/49% difference).

So for most normal users the i3s are actually an excellent deal.


The 4330 running at 3.5ghz makes a lot of sense at $120-130. The 4340 for $160 not nearly as much. I'm going from newegg pricing.

I just picked up a 4330 and h81 combo for HTPC/gaming use. Discrete GPU of course. 4330 is solid in gaming and for everything else it's more than fast enough. Really was looking to go with AMD to replace the phenom x3 system I'm upgrading. I was pretty close to going fx 6300. 4330 looks better for gaming, future may change that, but I wanted possibility of upgrading to i5 if I want more serious performance in games.

escrow4
11-30-2013, 11:15 PM
The 4330 running at 3.5ghz makes a lot of sense at $120-130. The 4340 for $160 not nearly as much. I'm going from newegg pricing.

I just picked up a 4330 and h81 combo for HTPC/gaming use. It's solid in gaming and for everything else it's more than fast enough. Really was looking to go with AMD to replace the phenom x3 system I'm upgrading. I was pretty close to going fx 6300. 4330 looks better for gaming, future may change that, but I wanted possibility of upgrading to i5 if I want more serious performance in games.

How does that make sense? Pay $130 now and $230 in the future, even less if you sell off the i3? You should always get what you really want now, buying a cheapo CPU now and upgrading later makes zero sense. And upgrading CPUs now, seeing as Intel changes chipsets more or less every year, eh.

TerryMathews
11-30-2013, 11:18 PM
How does that make sense? Pay $130 now and $230 in the future, even less if you sell off the i3? You should always get what you really want now, buying a cheapo CPU now and upgrading later makes zero sense. And upgrading CPUs now, seeing as Intel changes chipsets more or less every year, eh.

Yeah, the way Intel does CPU/chipsets anymore they may as well be BGA soldered to the motherboard.

Attic
12-01-2013, 12:13 AM
How does that make sense? Pay $130 now and $230 in the future, even less if you sell off the i3? You should always get what you really want now, buying a cheapo CPU now and upgrading later makes zero sense. And upgrading CPUs now, seeing as Intel changes chipsets more or less every year, eh.


It was a budget driven decision more than what I want. Needed mobo and cpu for $160-$180 to my door. The 4330 isn't really a cheapo CPU IMO, it's solid and provides a decent alternative to AMD in that price range. I've always been beholden to AMD CPU's in the Sub $150 area and certainly they usually have the more appealing stuff around $100. For my budget where I was planning on going AMD, I'm just saying I'm glad I saw the 4330 and looked into how it stacks vs AMD's offerings in that area.

Yeah, the way Intel does CPU/chipsets anymore they may as well be BGA soldered to the motherboard.

AMD definitely wins this battle. But at this point I'd much rather be on 1150 than AM3+.

bgt
12-01-2013, 05:37 AM
some results of my ITX system with a i3-4130(AsrockB85M-ITX):

idle 16W(used in a LC-Power 1360 with 65W adapter)
Prime95 70W
Furmark 48W
P+F 80W and fps halved
Handbrake 114fps 57W

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11003205/4130b.jpg
like the 4770K
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11003205/4770K8.jpg

BTW 4770K's IGP is more then twice as fast as the 4130's IGP.
7fps(460 points) & 3fps(200 points)
running prime causes the furmark to halve the fps on both cpu's.
I don't know if the A10-6800 has the same fps decrease when running prime.
I cannot test mine because I am out of housings.

Magic Carpet
01-08-2014, 08:52 AM
some results of my ITX system with a i3-4130(AsrockB85M-ITX):

idle 16W(used in a LC-Power 1360 with 65W adapter)
Prime95 70W
Furmark 48W
P+F 80W and fps halved
Handbrake 114fps 57W

Can you list your total system specs minus monitor?

16w idle is very nice.

Fox5
04-17-2014, 09:03 AM
I just picked up a Core i3 4340 bundle from Microcenter. ($30 off the cpu, and a decent deal on an h87 motherboard)

This is actually an upgrade for an HTPC, which is kind of funny since the A10-7850k would be a perfect fit for this use case. However, I wanna run gaming emulators. Everything up to Dreamcast will run fine on just about any hardware you can throw at it, but Gamecube and (to a lesser extent) PS2 really love Haswell and AVX2, so the core i3 is the lowest priced entry to high single thread performance. If I didn't need that, I'd probably have stayed with my Core 2 based Pentium dual core.

Oh, and Dolphin is a particular case that really does benefit from AVX2, on both AMD and Intel. The A10-7850k puts up pretty good performance numbers, and its gpu is way faster for this purpose than the Intel IGPs (except for maybe Iris Pro). But even with that, Intel has a sizable lead (like 50% for Haswell, although AMD is catching up to Nehalem performance, and Sandy and Ivy aren't much better than that in this case).
Plus, I have an old GTS 250 I was already using in the PC, and if I need something faster/newer (the emulator loves the newest OpenGL extensions), I'll probably upgrade to a 750Ti.