Downgraded to a Celeron

[frozentundra123456]

Power usage matters to A LOT of people, it may not matter to you but it sures does to me.

It matters to me as well. I cant believe some of the arguments presented in these forums to try to justify ignoring it. Now is is the only thing? Of course not. But it is a factor. Am I willing to use more power for better performance? Of course, up to a point. But when performance is equal or even lower, then extra power use is definitely a negative factor.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Maybe if you play backgammon.

Try saying that to someone who plays BF4 on 64 Conquest or a CPU-intensive MMORPG game. If you don't notice a difference it's either because A) you don't know where/how to look(which I find unlikely) or more likely B) you don't really play any kind of demanding games from a CPU perspective. Playing BF4 on SP is a totally different experience than on MP, for instance, so it's not enough to own a certain kind of game, how you play it matters just as much, if not more so.

TL;DR Please don't be ignorant, thanks.

I said in most cases, certainly not all. I'm not being ignorant, I stand by what I said.

 

[escrow4]

Ok, nitpick mcgee, this was not my first rodeo.

I ran the numbers; I did not have the physical time to drive to Micro Center and get an Intel setup.

The total dollar cost was cheaper to order everything for an AMD box from Newegg than an Intel one.

And no, I do not like integrated Intel graphics, so what ever, deal with it.

Except AMDs APUs which were supposed to be the second coming in iGPUs can't even run 4K. That A78 board is more or less the AMD version of H81 and I don't see the point of 4 RAM slots, if you need that much you may as well go to the next tier of chipset which will give you more of everything. Haswell iGPUs and upcoming Skylake are nothing like previous Intel iGPUs at all either. Price wise its $5-$10 more here for mobo+CPU for going AMD. No real huge difference.

EDIT: Tested that same Elysium 4K trailer as in Guru3D, CPU usage was 15-25%. On a Celeron. What do you get on your setup?

EDIT 2: Power consumption with Prime95 first, then Prime95+Furmark from Techspot's Kabini vs Bay Trail review:

 

[coolpurplefan]

These two charts show a significant difference between the i3 and Pentium. But there isn't too much of a difference between the i3 and i5.

 

[crashtech]

These two charts show a significant difference between the i3 and Pentium. But there isn't too much of a difference between the i3 and i5.

Interesting observation, but don't you know that the quad core gang will silence you for such heretical posts?

 

[SPBHM]

These two charts show a significant difference between the i3 and Pentium. But there isn't too much of a difference between the i3 and i5.

as it should be, Intel GT1 vs GT2

 

[crashtech]

as it should be, Intel GT1 vs GT2

Haha, that's right, this is an integrated graphics chart! Makes perfect sense, and actually seems to make a bit of a case for the 43xx series i3s as well.

 

[frozentundra123456]

not really playable at 720p. does it really matter?

 

[crashtech]

not really playable at 720p. does it really matter?

Not really, but it might be indicative of performance in casual games? There's not a lot of data in regards to semi-demanding graphics chores, which is actually an area where a more powerful iGPU as found in the AMD APUs or higher-end Intel stuff might shine.

 

[Madpacket]

Many games are still playable even on the worst integrated graphics. It's all about perspective. Todays bottom feeding chips are extremly quick performing most tasks considering the prices.

Although the 7400K wouldn't be my first choice it's not a bad chip considering it's unlocked and the integrated graphics keep up with Core i3/i5 Haswell chips. The best APU is clearly the 7600 for the price though.

I own a 7600, 7800 and 7850K and there is very little difference between them once you pair them with DDR 2133 and bump up the GPU to 1000Mhz. They all can play 95% of my Steam collection without too many issues.

As for the Celerons they are excellent as general purpose machines but if you can find one on sale grab the G3258. I managed to snag one for 59 CAD last year. It's significantly faster once clocked up to 4Ghz on the cheapest H81 boards at stock voltage. No need for aftermarket cooling either. It really is the Celeron 300A of today.

 

[TheELF]

as it should be, Intel GT1 vs GT2

No the i3-4330 has GT3 its the same hd 4600 that the i5 has,that is why they are so expensive,the i3's that have a 1 as the second number,like the i3-4130 have the gt2 graphics.

Just another trick some people use to make out the i3 to look worse,more expensive.

 

[SPBHM]

No the i3-4330 has GT3 its the same hd 4600 that the i5 has,that is why they are so expensive,the i3's that have a 1 as the second number,like the i3-4130 have the gt2 graphics.

Just another trick some people use to make out the i3 to look worse,more expensive.

wrong, it's called GT2, with 20EUs or 16 EUs, GT3 is HD 5000 not relevant for this test; for the 4330 and 4690 both have 20EUs anyway and it's called GT2, the Pentium uses GT1 (10EUs) and there is always a little bit of impact from l3 and clocks...

in any case, comparing the i5 to i3 with IGP is worthless, the IGP is pretty slow on both, but the i5 version is normally marginally faster,

 

[crashtech]

I think it is the i3-41xx that also has GT1 like the Pentiums, and the 43xx that has GT2 like the i5.

EDIT: See below.

 

[taisingera]

i3 41xx has HD4400 graphics while i3 43xx has HD4600 graphics. Both are GT2, but HD4600 has 20EU and HD4400 has 16EU. All this info is found here, http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_2.html

 

[SPBHM]

i3 41xx has HD4400 graphics while i3 43xx has HD4600 graphics. Both are GT2, but HD4600 has 20EU and HD4400 has 16EU. All this info is found here, http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_2.html

and to make things more confusing Intel also sells HD 4400 with 20 EUs on mobile...

in any case, even with 20 EUs vs 20 EUs the faster CPUs can be faster
http://www.techspot.com/review/972-intel-core-i3-vs-i5-vs-i7/page4.html

it's difficult to say how much is having extra cores, and how much is l3 and clock,

 

[CriticalOne]

The i3 41XX series has 3MiB of level 3 cache and they use the 16EU version of the GT2 graphics. It used to be so that you could only buy the lowly i3-4130 and its lower power brother, i3-4130T, but with the refresh you can get the i3 4150, the 4160, and even the 4170 which has a clock rate of 3.7GHz.

The i3 43xx series has more cache as it has 4MiB of L3$. This can amount to a small increase in performance. It also has the full version of GT2 graphics with 20 execution units. When Haswell launched you could have gotten the i3 4330 and the i3 4340. With the Refresh, you can now get the i3 4350 (which actually is the same config as the i3 4340), 4360, and the fastest yet 4370 which has a clock rate of 3.8GHz.

The i3 4170 is the best value for those who don't live near a Microcenter. The clock rate of 3.7GHz is seriously fast which helps make up for the lack of cores. If you live near a Microcenter the i3 4370 is a better deal. The 4170 is just $99 at Microcenter and the i3 4370 is $139, but the i3 4370 is elgible to bundle a motherboard which reduces the price by $40 essentially making it the same price by getting the 4170. The 4370 is going to be around 5% faster from the higher clock rate and more cache.

 

[waltchan]

but the i3 4370 is elgible to bundle a motherboard which reduces the price by $40 essentially making it the same price by getting the 4170.

It's now $30 off since June 1 and continues through July. Price raise up now, which means I'm done with Intel.

 

[dark zero]

Seems that Intel is finally realizing that they need to be priced properly, so time for increases.

BTW, Skylake seems very expensive :S

 

[taisingera]

Seems that Intel is finally realizing that they need to be priced properly, so time for increases.

BTW, Skylake seems very expensive :S

Lack of competition.

 

[TheELF]

Lack of competition.

Surplus of cache.
Can't imagine 128mb of cache being cheap for them either.

 

[escrow4]

Is Skylake cranking out Celeron's? I'd be interested what the fastest (heh) Celeron is compared to my G1850 @ 2.9GHz. Will 3.0GHz finally be cracked?

 

[VirtualLarry]

Is Skylake cranking out Celeron's? I'd be interested what the fastest (heh) Celeron is compared to my G1850 @ 2.9GHz. Will 3.0GHz finally be cracked?

I'd prefer HyperThreading support from top to bottom of their CPU stack. If AMD can sell $20 true quad-core CPUs, then Intel can certainly sell HyperThreaded dual-core Celeron and Pentium CPUs.

 

[SPBHM]

I'd prefer HyperThreading support from top to bottom of their CPU stack. If AMD can sell $20 true quad-core CPUs, then Intel can certainly sell HyperThreaded dual-core Celeron and Pentium CPUs.

true, I would like a 2.7GHz HT enabled Celeron,
the i3s can differentiate with higher clock, IGP, l3 and so on... no need to disable HT.

 

[VirtualLarry]

true, I would like a 2.7GHz HT enabled Celeron,
the i3s can differentiate with higher clock, IGP, l3 and so on... no need to disable HT.

Don't forget the added opcodes in i3 and up. I imagine that a HyperThreaded Skylake Celeron, would give AMD's 860K a run for it's money. Performance / watt would be a lot better too.

 

[TeknoBug]

One of my i3 at 1.7GHz is phenomenal and only draws 9W, it does everyday stuff just fine, a low end Skylake would probably be quite good.