• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Ivy bridge Core I3 3240 beats up on fx 4170

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Was going to suggest clocking the core i3 to its turbo max but I guess I have not been paying attention and just noticed the SB I3 has no turbo.Imo thats lousy coming from Intel they could have at least gave us 3.8ghz turbo.

Would be nice to see a turbo for IVB or Haswell i3 though I doubt it.
 
paperwastage said:
seriously... comparing CPU Mark scores?

// face palm
Click to expand...

Haha.. real world performance the FX 4100 and 4170 are terrible CPU's. I would know, I had both at one time or another. Basically, they did not last long with me because who would keep them.

Zambezi is a complete fail.
 
Shintai, the E6500K was a failure because of the 2M cache. There is no reason to purchase a high end priced processor with 2M cache. You'd most likely only be able to clock 10% or 15% higher than an E8400 can manage with fsb OC, but that advantage is completely lost in gaming due to the much larger cache of the E8400. So there was literally no enthusiast market for a pentium E6500K.
 
sm625 said:
Shintai, the E6500K was a failure because of the 2M cache. There is no reason to purchase a high end priced processor with 2M cache. You'd most likely only be able to clock 10% or 15% higher than an E8400 can manage with fsb OC, but that advantage is completely lost in gaming due to the much larger cache of the E8400. So there was literally no enthusiast market for a pentium E6500K.
Click to expand...

Highend? It was 84$ and only sold in asia.
 
An unlocked i3 with a HD2500 gpu and no fused off parts would have a much smaller die than an i5-3570k. So if they sold an unlocked i3 for $150 it should be more profitable than selling an i5 for 40% more, since an i5-3570k die is more than 40% bigger (1.4 billion xtors) than an i3-HD2500 die could be. (I have no idea if the HD2500 die will be a native smaller die or a larger fused off HD4000 die.) Worst case, the i3 die size should be whatever the mobile i5 die size is... which I still dont know, but I would guess no more than 1 billion transistors.
 
Last edited:
sm625 said:
An unlocked i3 with a HD2500 gpu and no fused off parts would have a much smaller die than an i5-3570k. So if they sold an unlocked i3 for $150 it should be more profitable than selling an i5 for 40% more, since an i5-3570k die is more than 40% bigger (1.4 billion xtors) than an i3-HD2500 die could be. (I have no idea if the HD2500 die will be a native smaller die or a larger fused off HD4000 die.) Worst case, the i3 die size should be whatever the mobile i5 die size is... which I still dont know, but I would guess no more than 1 billion transistors.
Click to expand...

It cost Intel maybe 10$ to make an i5 3570K with HD4000 in terms of production cost. So unless the unlocked i3 would sell in a high enough volume to fit the perfect price/volume/margin ratio. Then I dont see it happening.

Diesizes is something that got highly overrated by Charlie. (When nVidia had the larger dies.)
 
Red Hawk said:
So what? Intel would be losing sales...to itself, not exactly a bad situation. People who still want solid quad core performance would buy the i5s, while people who don't quite have the money for i5s would buy the i3s instead of purchasing unlocked AMD processors at the same price. It's a win/win situation for Intel.
Click to expand...

You do realise this imaginary unlocked I3 and the I5s are the same chip yes??? If the unlocked I3 was cheaper than an unlocked I5 every one sold would cost Intel profit, assuming that the buyer would have bought the unlocked I5 instead, which isn't a huge leap of imagination because it is the next chip up the food chain with an unlocked multi.
 
For those who haven't noticed,A10 5700's score is up on passmark's website. It scores 6700pts while having 3.4Ghz stock and 3.7Ghz Turbo clock. Compare this to FX4170's score of 4600pts and you can see how much betetr PD core is performing in passmark suite. At same clock as 4170, new A10 5700 would score ~8000pts... Same clock and thread count.
 
BallaTheFeared said:
8000?

Pretty sure i5-2500ks only get about 10k around 4.9GHz.
Click to expand...
i5 2500K is much more pricier than A10 5700. And the score of A10 is real,look how much mobile A10 4600M scores and you will see the scores are perfectly in line with clock speed difference.
 
ShintaiDK said:
Dont worry. The hype dies in a painful horrible way as always.
Click to expand...
Don't worry,it's just one result from one horrible benchmark. I posted it due to crappy title of this horrible thread. BTW the result of Trinity in passmark is real,it does beat up i3s and i5s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top