i3 pricing

[GaiaHunter]

Of course Intel will be making more money with having these at 32nm.

Do you know the die size of i3?

Athlon II X4 are small already at 169 mm^2.

I'm quite interested to see how the i3 perform at heavy multi-threaded scenarios - especially games 😛 .

 

[cbn]

and as far as your other costs being much higher for the i5, we discussed it already. If you want to buy a crap psu that barely can manage an i3 setup, yes, your theory might be right.

If these motherboards ever come with switchable graphics then I think people with Big PSUs will want them even more. (Re; running the IGP for 2D desktop is going to save money compared to Crossfire/SLI idling 24/7)

 

[lothar]

If these motherboards ever come with switchable graphics then I think people with Big PSUs will want them even more. (Re; running the IGP for 2D desktop is going to save money compared to Crossfire/SLI idling 24/7)

What moron is going to use a 750+w PSU with an i3 with IGP?

 

[Markfw]

If these motherboards ever come with switchable graphics then I think people with Big PSUs will want them even more. (Re; running the IGP for 2D desktop is going to save money compared to Crossfire/SLI idling 24/7)

Having a big psu means nothing as far as usage. If the machine only requires 200 watts, thats what it will require and draw out of the PSU. It does not draw 700 for a 700 watt PSU, thats just the maximum it will deliver. And the good PSU's are very efficient, usually > 85%. So if you take a crap 400 watt psu, and need 200 watts, at that draw, your efficiency could be as low as 50%, so it may draw 400 out of the wall !

 

[cbn]

What moron is going to use a 750+w PSU with an i3 with IGP?

Maybe someone with a Future Eyefinity set-up when drivers are updated to Enable quad fire with it.

 

[edplayer]

If these motherboards ever come with switchable graphics then I think people with Big PSUs will want them even more. (Re; running the IGP for 2D desktop is going to save money compared to Crossfire/SLI idling 24/7)

I would think that you would be able to switch from onboard gpu to discrete on almost every motherboard that could handle the i3, even the very first ones for sale.

Maybe you meant switchable from within Windows, as in not having to restart and change a BIOS setting?

That would be really nice if you could completely shut down the discrete gpu (for the power savings). ATi and Nvidia had products that could do that but seem to have abandoned their development.

Maybe someone with a Future Eyefinity set-up when drivers are updated to Enable quad fire with it.

I think most of the people that end up with a quadfire setup would not base it on an i3 cpu.

 

[cbn]

I think most of the people that end up with a quadfire setup would not base it on an i3 cpu.

I believe what you are saying is definitely true at the moment.

But how long are poor scaling Tower cooled multicore CPUs built on larger processes going to last for gaming? The only game that benefits from them with a 60 Hz monitor is GTA IV and that game can already be enjoyed on 2005 console technology.

 

[edplayer]

But how long are poor scaling Tower cooled multicore CPUs built on larger processes going to last for gaming?

Load your questions much?

Do you think that AMD and Intel plan to introduce new multicore cpus on older processes?

 

[edplayer]

Haha TSMC doing 32nm in Q1 2010.
Ignoring the fact that rumours are that TSMC might be skipping 32 and going to 28, they don't even have 40nm working well.

they do more than make gpus


Here is something from them about having functional 28nm products (happened in August of this year):

http://www.tsmc.com/tsmcdotcom/PRListingNewsAction.do?action=detail&language=E&newsid=4042


btw, I think that ATi will not be shipping 32nm gpus from anyone in Q1 2010

 

[cbn]

Load your questions much?

Do you think that AMD and Intel plan to introduce new multicore cpus on older processes?

I think it depends on how bad yields scale on 22nm, 16nm and 11nm. It may be in the future the smaller CPUs and GPUs are released before the larger ones.

 

[edplayer]

There is a 0% chance of it happening. They will introduce new products on the current or a new process.

 

[cbn]

There is a 0% chance of it happening. They will introduce new products on the current or a new process.

Well the first 40nm desktop GPU wasn't a particularly large one (HD4770) and we are seeing it happen here with Core i3 for the CPU side of things. So it is happening now already.

Will it happen in the Future I don't know? Like I said before I think it depends on how challenging those nodes are vs. How practical the multi-core benefit ends up being.

 

[Voo]

And the good PSU's are very efficient, usually > 85%. So if you take a crap 400 watt psu, and need 200 watts, at that draw, your efficiency could be as low as 50%, so it may draw 400 out of the wall !

Good PSUs ARE very efficient, but don't forget that you get the best efficiency above 50%, the difference between 20% and 50% load can be around 10% in absolute terms, so it is kinda silly to use a overdimensioned PSU..


Well b2t: I really hope that there will be some low power chips - 70+W for 32nm dual cores.. nope not impressed by that. An e8400 has a TDP of 65W after all (that's the same measurement is it? if not just correct me)

 

[edplayer]

Well the first 40nm desktop GPU wasn't a particularly large one (HD4770) and we are seeing it happen here with Core i3 for the CPU side of things. So it is happening now already.

What are you talking about?

First you were asking how long poor scaling, tower cooler requiring, quad cores being built on older processes will continue. I said that would never happen.

Now you are talking about simpler designs coming out first on new processes. That is always the case.

 

[lothar]

Maybe someone with a Future Eyefinity set-up when drivers are updated to Enable quad fire with it.

What moron is going to use quad Crossfire on an i3 processor?

 

[jvroig]

Good PSUs ARE very efficient, but don't forget that you get the best efficiency above 50%, the difference between 20% and 50% load can be around 10% in absolute terms, so it is kinda silly to use a overdimensioned PSU..

How could it be silly as long as it is highly efficient? It's only going to draw as much power as you need. It's not going to draw 700W just because it can.

EDIT: Upon re-reading your statement, I get what you mean now. However, I'd have to wonder if the difference would really be around 10%, Perhaps only if you were comparing a 350W PSU against a 1000+W PSU?

 

[ilkhan]

On a box using 300W at load, the difference between a 65% (460W) PSU and a 85% (353) PSU is 100W. Yeah, PSU efficiency makes a difference.

 

[jvroig]

On a box using 300W at load, the difference between a 65% (460W) PSU and a 85% (353) PSU is 100W. Yeah, PSU efficiency makes a difference.

Are you replying to me? Assuming you are... well, I'm not talking about efficiency. I already stated that it's not silly as long as the PSU is highly efficient. The topic is completely different. The topic is about using over-dimensioned PSUs (say, 350w over 1000w, assuming both are 80%+ efficiency certified).

The question is: if the normal power usage of a certain computer unit is just 200W (actual power usage, not the power draw at the wall, which will be a little higher depending on how inefficient or efficient the PSU is), is there a difference in actual power draw between using an 80% efficient 350W PSU and an 80% efficient 1000W PSU?

My opinion is that it won't matter at all, since both 1000W and 350W PSUs will be drawing ~250W from the wall, since they are both 80% efficient. Voo, however, pointed out that the efficiency of PSU's depend on the load they are in, and added that efficiency is better at 50% or more loading compared to a miniscule 20% load, thereby saying that using an overdimensioned PSU (1000w in this case) will actually be less efficient than the smaller PSU simply because of the lower efficiency in "mini" loads.

 

[cbn]

What moron is going to use quad Crossfire on an i3 processor?

Someone who is not brainwashed by "marketing" will see the advantages.

Smart money is on the Core i3 especially when Tower cooler and extra energy drain of a 45nm quad core won't help frame rates one bit.

With three 1080p monitors the GPUs will still be the bottleneck.

 

[lothar]

Someone who is not brainwashed by "marketing" will see the advantages.

Smart money is on the Core i3 especially when Tower cooler and extra energy drain of a 45nm quad core won't help frame rates one bit.

With three 1080p monitors the GPUs will still be the bottleneck.

i3(Dual core) on a Quad crossfire platform? You're nuts.
I'd love to see how you plan to accomplish that with the limited PCIe lanes on the P55 chipset.

It seems you still have your hard-on for dual core...Enjoy it while it lasts.

 

[cbn]

i3(Dual core) on a Quad crossfire platform? You're nuts.
I'd love to see how you plan to accomplish that with the limited PCIe lanes on the P55 chipset.

I forgot about the limited PCI-E bandwidth.

So with two HD5870s or a single HD5890 we are talking even more "GPU bottleneck" with triple monitors.

It seems you still have your hard-on for dual core...Enjoy it while it lasts.

GPU time + CPU time= Frames per second <-----I think a person would like to achieve equivalent amounts of this with the least amount of waste (money, heat, energy)

 

[edplayer]

Good PSUs ARE very efficient, but don't forget that you get the best efficiency above 50%, the difference between 20% and 50% load can be around 10% in absolute terms, so it is kinda silly to use a overdimensioned PSU..

that is going to be in a crappy psu though

Part of the 80 plus certification is to be able to be 80% or higher efficient at 20%, 50% and 100% load.

Just guessing but I think in most of the psus that hobbyists consider "good/excellent", you will find a difference of around 3% or less.


Now, if you are trying to buy a $14.95 psu just to prove that your i3 setup has a lower total build cost apart from the cpu, who knows what kind of efficiency you will get... :biggrin:

Smart money is on the Core i3 especially when Tower cooler and extra energy drain of a 45nm quad core won't help frame rates one bit.

Yet there are benchmarks that show benefits from quads on games other than GTA4 and when you are under 60fps. What do you say about those?

 

[cbn]

Yet there are benchmarks that show benefits from quads on games other than GTA4 and when you are under 60fps. What do you say about those?

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...rks-75-percent-boost-for-quad-cores/Practice/

Well you are right about this game.

I'd like to see how a quiet overclocked Core i3 compares to a quiet overclocked Core i5 750 in this one. How well the smaller pooled cache of Core i3 scales I have no idea?

Using Eyefinity monitors would lessen the impact of the greater CPU scaling on frame rate increases due to Video card bottlenecking. However at the same time this title doesn't really look that GPU intensive (the CPU benchmark was run at 1680x1050 with 4x MSAA)

Still having one RPG that works well with quad core doesn't sell me off the idea of Core i3. The benchmark they used apparently was very CPU intensive. If that is as bad as this game gets someone with a dual core shouldn't have anything to worry about.

[From the review article linked above]"Regardless of the huge variations in the results a fast dual-core or a small triple-core is enough to play the game smoothly."

 

[jvroig]

"Regardless of the huge variations in the results a fast dual-core or a small triple-core is enough to play the game smoothly."

That statement has a ton of wiggle room. What's a fast dual-core? What's "enough"? Why is a "fast dual-core" equal to a "small triple-core"? And what is a "small" triple-core anyway? And what does the whole statement actually imply?

For me, it only means "If you already have a decent dual-core processor, don't rush out to buy a new one. Just get a better video card if you need one". It's not in any way directed to mean (at least, as far as I understood it) that dual-cores are a better deal. It's all over but the shouting. Dual-cores are old news, and the way forward is quad-cores (now) and eventually more cores than that. We can argue in circles whether dual-cores would have been perfectly fine, but the fact that the manufacturers are moving on already sealed that deal.

 

[Fayd]

Having a big psu means nothing as far as usage. If the machine only requires 200 watts, thats what it will require and draw out of the PSU. It does not draw 700 for a 700 watt PSU, thats just the maximum it will deliver. And the good PSU's are very efficient, usually > 85&#37;. So if you take a crap 400 watt psu, and need 200 watts, at that draw, your efficiency could be as low as 50%, so it may draw 400 out of the wall !

except that a PSU efficiency curve typically reaches max efficiency in the high middle of its available power curve. or, 65~% load.

if you have a machine that takes 200 watts max, buying a high efficiency 350 watt PSU would be ideal in terms of total power consumption.

if it's constantly in the bottom or top 15% of its avail power curve, then you're operating at a lower level of efficiency.

in other news, operating on 220v power is more efficient for PSU's than 110v.