NEWSFLASH: Quad core beats dual core

[Zap]

More cache is better too!



Core i5 2400 beats i5 650 up to 80+ percent

From the Obvious Department of Obvious, a true quad core at 3.1GHz with 6MB cache can beat a 3.2GHz dual core with Hyperthreading and a mere 4MB cache in most benchmarks, especially multithreaded ones.

What's next? Comparing a Core i7 970 hex core with 12MB cache versus the quad core and proclaiming the hex core to be faster?

 

[StrangerGuy]

Who the fvck even buys desktop dual-core i5s?

 

[Lonyo]

I think the main point is that they are the same price.

 

[Skott]

Who the fvck even buys desktop dual-core i5s?

You'd be surprised. Plenty of PC manufacturers push this component in various models. Gamers who are clued in as to whats good or not may not buy one but plenty of 'I just want to read email and surf the net' types who dont know much about CPU power buy them in some package deal. For them its good enough. For the PC manufacturer it s a sell.

 

[StrangerGuy]

You'd be surprised. Plenty of PC manufacturers push this component in various models. Gamers who are clued in as to whats good or not may not buy one but plenty of 'I just want to read email and surf the net' types who dont know much about CPU power buy them in some package deal. For them its good enough. For the PC manufacturer it s a sell.

But then these aren't the people that are going to read CPU benchmarks right...?

Newegg i5 650 = $185, 760 = $204, so why not compare the SB 2400 against a 760, which amusingly makes the latter the much better buy since the 2400 is not overclockable at all?

 

[Markfw]

There are some on this forum that think dual cores are all you need. I don't share that view (understatement)

No names need be mentioned...

 

[Lonyo]

But then these aren't the people that are going to read CPU benchmarks right...?

Newegg i5 650 = $185, 760 = $204, so why not compare the SB 2400 against a 760, which amusingly makes the latter the much better buy since the 2400 is not overclockable at all?

Because Intel is trying to promote their new CPUs over their old, horribly overpriced, dual core i5's.

 

[Phynaz]

Who the fvck even buys desktop dual-core i5s?

Corporate America.

 

[nenforcer]

I never even considered a Core i5 650 and now I know why.

Is a Core i5 750 just 2 Core i5 650's squished together and then downclocked for power requirements?

Now, what is the difference between a Core i3 and a Core i5 6XX Clarkdale? Just a higher clock speed for the Core i5? They both have integrated graphics, 4MB L3 cache and are built at 32nm.

 

[toyota]

I never even considered a Core i5 650 and now I know why.

Is a Core i5 750 just 2 Core i5 650's squished together and then downclocked for power requirements?

Now, what is the difference between a Core i3 and a Core i5 6XX Clarkdale? Just a higher clock speed for the Core i5? They both have integrated graphics, 4MB L3 cache and are built at 32nm.

google will answer your questions in a matter of seconds.

i5 750 is a 45nm quad core
i5 dual cores are 32nm and have ht, turbo core and integrated graphics
i3 dual cores lose the turbo core

 

[Voo]

There are some on this forum that think dual cores are all you need. I don't share that view (understatement)

Yep, just imagine trying to surf the web and reading your mail with less than 3 7/8 cores idling around.. what a horrible imagination

And even for most games a dual core still cuts it, I think we can enumerate maybe a dozen games at best where the difference would be noticeable. Though it still begs the question why the 650 is so horribly overpriced - you may not need a quad core, but if you can get one for about the same price why not? (ignoring the overclocking argument; though then there are still the 750 and co which are way more interesting)

 

[tweakboy]

The i5 and i3 Cores are a joke. Stick with i7 or Core 2 Quad CPU.

 

[toyota]

The i5 and i3 Cores are a joke. Stick with i7 or Core 2 Quad CPU.

i5 quad is just fine and are faster than Core 2 quad. the i5 quads usually match the i7 clock for clock in gaming and are the best bang for buck.

 

[Davidh373]

The i5 and i3 Cores are a joke. Stick with i7 or Core 2 Quad CPU.

^ There's some advice I will never give or follow... Hopefully he's being sarcastic... <_<

 

[Arkaign]

i5 quad is just fine and are faster than Core 2 quad. the i5 quads usually match the i7 clock for clock in gaming and are the best bang for buck.

Yep, if it helps, think of things this way :

Clarkdale = dual core mediocre to crap : All i3s, all i5s up to the 6xx series.
Lynnfield = quad core goodness : all i5s from x7xx +, all i7s other than 9xx series.

The i5 is where the most serious overlap is, the difference between the i5-650 and i5-760 is amazing.

SB is gonna come in and change all this, I wonder if it will be less confusing for people.

 

[Arkaign]

^ There's some advice I will never give or follow... Hopefully he's being sarcastic... <_<

Well, for lots of things an Oc'd C2Q will be way better than Clarkdale i3/i5 duals, so there is some logic in there. Unfortunately he forgot that there are i5s that are lynnfield quads as well.

 

[Markfw]

The i5 and i3 Cores are a joke. Stick with i7 or Core 2 Quad CPU.

First you say quads are a joke, now its all to get ?

No...You get what you need.

 

[cbn]

More cache is better too!



Core i5 2400 beats i5 650 up to 80+ percent

From the Obvious Department of Obvious, a true quad core at 3.1GHz with 6MB cache can beat a 3.2GHz dual core with Hyperthreading and a mere 4MB cache in most benchmarks, especially multithreaded ones.

What's next? Comparing a Core i7 970 hex core with 12MB cache versus the quad core and proclaiming the hex core to be faster?

These benchmarks are underwhelming.

Looking back at some Anandtech benches, it appears Lynnfield was already much faster than Clarkdale (clock for clock, even in benchmarks known to be "dual core".)

Not sure what Sandy Bridge quad core is giving us other than "32nm" and "better graphics"?

 

[DominionSeraph]

There are some on this forum that think dual cores are all you need. I don't share that view (understatement)

Right now I'm on a single-core Northwood Celeron 2.4GHz with 512MB RAM on a 17" CRT at 1024x768. On dial up. Guess what? It works pretty good. I can browse Anandtech and Newegg and /g/ just fine. It could probably handle low-res Youtube if it had the internet connection.

Is it my X2 5200+ with 2GB and high speed? No. But it gets me around.

Now tell me again why I need a quad core?

 

[toyota]

Right now I'm on a single-core Northwood Celeron 2.4GHz with 512MB RAM on a 17" CRT at 1024x768. On dial up. Guess what? It works pretty good. I can browse Anandtech and Newegg and /g/ just fine. It could probably handle low-res Youtube if it had the internet connection.

Is it my X2 5200+ with 2GB and high speed? No. But it gets me around.

Now tell me again why I need a quad core?

did he say everybody needs a quad core? he is simply tired of a few people running around the forums saying a dual core is all you need. you in general of course. the fact that you could be happy with a single core cpu and dial up means you have a completely different level of expectations than most on the forum.

 

[Rifter]

did he say everybody needs a quad core? he is simply tired of a few people running around the forums saying a dual core is all you need. you in general of course. the fact that you could be happy with a single core cpu and dial up means you have a completely different level of expectations than most on the forum.

You beat me to it, was going to say exactly that. I could not even imagine running dialup and a single core in this day and age. not to mention you wouldnt be able to play any games that came out in the last 5+ years, especially with a dialup connection.

 

[toyota]

You beat me to it, was going to say exactly that. I could not even imagine running dialup and a single core in this day and age. not to mention you wouldnt be able to play any games that came out in the last 5+ years, especially with a dialup connection.

I was donloading a file last night that was going to take just over 10 minutes. I looked at my download calculator and with a 56k connection it would have taken over FIVE days. can you imagine waiting that long for a simple game demo to dl? lol

 

[Rifter]

I was donloading a file last night that was going to take just over 10 minutes. I looked at my download calculator and with a 56k connection it would have taken over FIVE days. can you imagine waiting that long for a simple game demo to dl? lol

Exactly, even websurfing cant be done on dialup anymore, most website would take multiple min to load.

And man if i ever had to redownload my steam collection(700GB+) that would take me years, literally.

 

[nyker96]

Intel is trying to confuse potential buyers into thinking Hyperthreading and virtual quad = real quad. That is just dishonest, they probably hope the people who knew little buys their fancy HT dual cores which is cheaper to make for them.

 

[Rifter]

Intel is trying to confuse potential buyers into thinking Hyperthreading and virtual quad = real quad. That is just dishonest, they probably hope the people who knew little buys their fancy HT dual cores which is cheaper to make for them.

You are saying intel is trying to trick people with HT? LOL

I suppose you think the evil seagate are trying to trick people into thinking they are buying a real SSD with the XT hybrid drive too right.......

Its up to the buyer to know what they are buying, if you dont bother looking at the box then its your own fault.