G1610 reviews - any?

[escrow4]

Using one in a basic box and I'm most surprised how capable they are. I'm curious how they compare to Core 2's and i3's, any reviews out there? Maybe Anandtech could whip one up? There never seem to be any basic CPU reviews anymore, its all 5GHz FX this or Haswell 5GHz that . . . . .

 

[SPBHM]

Using one in a basic box and I'm most surprised how capable they are. I'm curious how they compare to Core 2's and i3's, any reviews out there? Maybe Anandtech could whip one up? There never seem to be any basic CPU reviews anymore, its all 5GHz FX this or Haswell 5GHz that . . . . .

around 5-10% faster than the e8400
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,3487-20.html

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Xbitlabs did a test of the very similar G1620 not long ago:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/trinity-vs-ivy-bridge.html

And yes, from personal experience, they're very capable for basic use...

 

[Dice144]

Using one in my HTPC. Great little chip. Also sips power. Kill-a-watt showed my whole HTPC drawing 32 watts while running IBT.

 

[UaVaj]

comparing
i3 - 2 core + 2 hyperthreading - 3MB
or
i5 - 4 core - 6MB
or
i7 - 4 core + 4 hyperthreading - 8MB
or
i7e - 6 core + 6 hyperthreading - 12MB

as you consider more expensive chip you do get more computing power.

reality is. most of that computing power is a waste since many application cannot make even make use of such power.

hence am entry level G1610 is sufficent enough for typical everyday task.

 

[frozentundra123456]

around 5-10% faster than the e8400
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,3487-20.html

I thought the difference would be more than that, considering the age of the E8400. However, the E8400 was fairly top of the line when it came out, if I recall correctly, while the pentium is low end now. I do have a comp at work with the E8400 and it feels very fast in web browsing and office use (Excel and Access).

One reason it feels fast I am sure is that it has a hard line ethernet connection, while my home comp and work laptop are on wireless.

 

[sm625]

E8400 has a serious clock speed and cache advantage. The extra cache can actually put it over the top in some applications just like the raw clock speed advantage can. And of course it can also be overclocked pretty much for free.

 

[Rvenger]

I game on mine to keep my room cool on hot days. BF3 isn't very playable on 64 player maps but everything else has been ok so far.

 

[jacktesterson]

less than 10% faster than the G540 if that helps. (G540 pretty much = E8400)

I've gamed on a Sandy Bridge Celeron - It handled games decently - better than most would describe here.

 

[Subyman]

I used one in a build for a family member and I've also used them in servers. They are great little chips and I'm surprised they aren't recommended more often. Most will never need anything in the ix series. At $45-55, the savings are better spent on an SSD for day-to-day use for most people on a budget. My brother was able to play Shogun Total War 2 on the machine with great results.

 

[DominionSeraph]

are great little chips and I'm surprised they aren't recommended more often.

Probably because the G2020 gives a not-insubstantial 12% clockspeed boost and 1MB more cache for $19 more. One of the few reasons to put together a build of this tier instead of going prebuilt is for budget gaming, and you can't really afford to sacrifice on CPU any more than that.

 

[SPBHM]

E8400 has a serious clock speed and cache advantage. The extra cache can actually put it over the top in some applications just like the raw clock speed advantage can. And of course it can also be overclocked pretty much for free.

yes, the e8400 is not your "average C2D", it's pretty fast for when it was released...
if you compare the G1610 to what it actually replaced from that era, the gain would be significant (e3200?), but, you could overclock the e3200 to 4GHz and probably match the G1610!

still, if you look at the g2020, it's a 2.9GHz CPU, but with 3MB of l3 (1610 have 2MB) it still looked OK compared to the e8400 at 4GHz

E8400 was the equivalent in price to a core i5 like the 3330, 3350P, 4430...

 

[skipsneeky2]

G1610 being faster then a E8400 which is a 45nm core 2 duo isn't to bad considering its price and the fact the G1610 has a clock speed and cache disadvantage,have to love the power of ipc increasements over the years.

Crazy to think i fell in love with my first and only dual core purchase being a E6750 which i thought rocked and looking at the lowly G1610 seriously makes that E6750 look like a pentium 4.