Core I3 @ 4.8Ghz Vs X4 965 @ 3.8Ghz

[alyarb]

with the exception of nforce, i've been pleasantly surprised by the OCs i get from cheap boards. don't know about you guys.

 

[Avalon]

I'd assume this

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813128406

Would overclock just as well as a $200 P55 board. I've used UD3L boards for P35 and P45 and both have been stellar overclocks, able to clock 95% as high as more expensive boards with Core 2 Quads.

 

[KeypoX]

wow core i3 is nice.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Mark,

When i get paid i'll pick up an uber cheap 1156 board to test

Sounds good, get an H55 and see what you can do with it. That is, if you have the time.

Still waiting on more Far Cry 2 benches with your new vid card . . . 5770 eh? Still better than the dual 9600GTs I guess.

 

[Hey Zeus]

Sounds good, get an H55 and see what you can do with it. That is, if you have the time.

Still waiting on more Far Cry 2 benches with your new vid card . . . 5770 eh? Still better than the dual 9600GTs I guess.

Dr,

I moved to 7 and haven't even Re downloaded FC2 yet. When i do i'll get you those benches.

 

[Hey Zeus]

Yes, but the 4.8 ghz OC of Hey Zues requires a $250 for 300 mobo. You can get a 3.8 out of a 965 on a $80 mobo (I did)

As for the overclocked benches, we will see, but I bet they are very close.

Mark,

Here's that review of 4.6Ghz with a 99 dollar biostar H55 board

http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=631412

 

[DrMrLordX]

Dr,

I moved to 7 and haven't even Re downloaded FC2 yet. When i do i'll get you those benches.

Sweet. It's nice to have someone on here that is running the chip in an essentially unrestricted system so we can see it stretch its legs. Anandtech's i3-530 review, while nice, is somewhat lacking in comparison.

That review on overclockers.com is sort of a reversal of the problem about which Mark is complaining; instead of running a cheap chip on an expensive board, they're running an expensive, higher-binned chip on a cheaper board.

I suspect that your testing will prove to be more informative.

 

[zsdersw]

And support the underdog, while you're at it.

A very poor reason for choosing one CPU over another.

 

[Hey Zeus]

If the 6 cores Overclock over 4Ghz and are under 300 dollars i might consider buying one just to fuck around with.

 

[soccerballtux]

A very poor reason for choosing one CPU over another.

You're welcome to think so but it's most certainly not if they both perform the same.

 

[zsdersw]

You're welcome to think so but it's most certainly not if they both perform the same.

I didn't say anything about performance. I simply said that buying an AMD CPU just to support the underdog is a very poor reason to buy an AMD CPU. There may be good reasons to buy one, but supporting the underdog isn't one of them.

 

[soccerballtux]

I didn't say anything about performance. I simply said that buying an AMD CPU just to support the underdog is a very poor reason to buy an AMD CPU. There may be good reasons to buy one, but supporting the underdog isn't one of them.

Implicit in my recommendation is that AMD's CPUs are price competitive. Unless you want to be paying $999 for a top of the line CPU, it's good to support the underdog.

 

[zsdersw]

Implicit in my recommendation is that AMD's CPUs are price competitive.

It's not implicit at all, given your preferences as expressed on this forum. In which thread(s) have you recommended anything other than an AMD CPU?

Unless you want to be paying $999 for a top of the line CPU, it's good to support the underdog.

Top of the line CPUs are already $999 or more. The "underdog" charged that much for their top of the line gear once upon a time as well.

 

[Markfw]

Implicit in my recommendation is that AMD's CPUs are price competitive. Unless you want to be paying $999 for a top of the line CPU, it's good to support the underdog.

NOTE: MY COMPARISIONS ON PRICE/PERFORMANCE ARE FOR OVERCLOCKED PROCESSORS.

This is my take. If you want the fastest, right now its Intel, and you will pay more for it.

If you need something less, I think I can make a case that at most price points in the lower 75% of the pricing spectrum, the price/performance is for AMD or equal. IN THAT SCENARIO, buying from the underdog is good, as it helps support competition, and otherwise we would all be paying $500 for a "cheap" cpu like I paid for my 486-dx33.

But I refuse to my more for less performance, its just I will buy AMD for the same price/performance, when there is a question on which to pick othrwise.

 

[lopri]

Implicit in my recommendation is that AMD's CPUs are price competitive. Unless you want to be paying $999 for a top of the line CPU, it's good to support the underdog.

I agree with the first part but not the second part. Surely there is a fun in trying out something different - especially for a lot of AnandTech members to which PC hardware is a hobby. But the bottom line is, you pay for what you want, what you need.

There comes occasions where consumers (and the government) can/will act collectively against a corporation's wrongdoings. But those case asides, it doesn't seem like a sound logic for a consumer to spend money on an underdog's product just because. I purchase AMD's products because they suit my needs and are competitive, not because I feel sorry about AMD's today and tomorrow. If they cease to be competitive, I will stop buying them and so will others.

 

[cbn]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3724&p=5

From Today's Anandtech Core i3 review we can see a 4 Ghz Core i3 actually beats stock speed Phenom II 956 in Dragon Age. I never expected that to happen.

So how would a max 24/7 OC Core i3 do against a 4Ghz Phenom II x4?

P.S. I am making the assumption that the Phenom II x4 would have to shed its stock cooler to make 4 Ghz. So sound level comparisons using the same aftermarket cooler on both might be very interesting.

 

[cbn]

IN THAT SCENARIO, buying from the underdog is good, as it helps support competition

I agree supporting the underdog is a wise move for consumers. However, one thing I have learned from my Core i3 investigations is that AMD needs a lot of help.

The Bright side might be AMD forming an alliance with Google/Steam (or whomever) and increasing distribution of very cheap computers into the hands of more people around the World (Africa, etc). Seriously, I wish I got involved with IT when I was a lot younger. I think a lot of really good people got their inspiration by playing with hardware at a very young age.

 

[Hey Zeus]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3724&p=5

From Today's Anandtech Core i3 review we can see a 4 Ghz Core i3 actually beats stock speed Phenom II 956 in Dragon Age. I never expected that to happen.

So how would a max 24/7 OC Core i3 do against a 4Ghz Phenom II x4?

P.S. I am making the assumption that the Phenom II x4 would have to shed its stock cooler to make 4 Ghz. So sound level comparisons using the same aftermarket cooler on both might be very interesting.

I have serious issue with that article. You don't need a low QPI speed to overclock well. They should have asked ME to write an overclocking article on the clarkdale.

 

[JMapleton]

Zeus, what cooler are you using to get that speed? I have an Arctic 7 Pro and I had my i3 up to 4.45Ghz with no problem and about 38C at idle. I bet it could go higher but I don't know what an acceptable temp for these are.

 

[cbn]

Hey Zeus,

Are you running the Corsair H50 cooler now? What do you think of that product?

Back in my old Core i3 pre-release thread we determined the radiator to be rather small for large cooling demands? However, your chip is 32nm and this reduces the thermals.

 

[JMapleton]

Hey Zeus,

Are you running the Corsair H50 cooler now? What do you think of that product?

Back in my old Core i3 pre-release thread we determined the radiator to be rather small for large cooling demands? However, your chip is 32nm and this reduces the thermals.

I thought Corsair H50 was his PS or Ram, ahaha. Didn't know Corsair made coolers.

 

[cbn]

I thought Corsair H50 was his PS or Ram, ahaha. Didn't know Corsair made coolers.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2024223&page=11

We talked about Corsair H50 mini watercooler in the above Core i3 thread. (If you scroll down just a few posts the discussion continues the rest of the page)

The upshot was the H50 seemed slightly better than Megahalems on Core i7 @ 3.4 Ghz. However @ Higher Overclocks the little radiator couldn't keep up no matter how strong the fan(s) strapped on were.

Core i3 is different because the little 32nm Cores make less heat. However @ 4.6 Ghz I suspect 32nm is putting out some strong thermals (due to the inefficiency of higher clock speeds)

 

[JMapleton]

Core i3 is different because the little 32nm Cores make less heat. However @ 4.6 Ghz I suspect 32nm is putting out some strong thermals (due to the inefficiency of higher clock speeds)

At 4.45GHz I was at 38c, so that isn't that bad.

 

[soccerballtux]

It's not implicit at all, given your preferences as expressed on this forum. In which thread(s) have you recommended anything other than an AMD CPU?



Top of the line CPUs are already $999 or more. The "underdog" charged that much for their top of the line gear once upon a time as well.

According to post 1 in this thread, it's faster.
Why would I tell someone "buy AMD, you'll spend more and get less performance"?
I'm not wreckage.

 

[Hey Zeus]

Hey Zeus,

Are you running the Corsair H50 cooler now? What do you think of that product?

Back in my old Core i3 pre-release thread we determined the radiator to be rather small for large cooling demands? However, your chip is 32nm and this reduces the thermals.

With Speedstep enabled it's pretty good.