C2D vs i3

fastdude

fastdude

Active Member
The Core 2 Duo is Intel's veteran, covering a wide range of price and performance sweet spots. It is now being replaced, however, by Intel's "rOokie", the Core i3. So, is the Core i3 actually better than the Core 2 Duo, or can you hold off upgrading for a while longer?/ The C2D Clocks faster, but does the i3's architechture just sorta give it the edge?A look at the technical specifications of the Core i3 processors automatically puts them into a negative light when it comes to power consumption. The deskttop Core i3 parts at listed as having a 73 Watt TDP, while most Core 2 Duo desktop parts have a 65 Watt TDP. In laptops the Core i3 has a 35 watt TDP, while Core 2 Duo mobile processors usually have a 25 Watt TDP. I'm posting this thread because I am stumped on what is better, overall :confused: Opinions plz? thanks :)
 
I don't think the i3 is strictly a replacement for the Core 2, it just marks the retirement of the Core 2 series, as Intel transitions into a new naming scheme. The i3's are low end and mobile processors, most Core 2s would be more comparable in performance to the dual core i5 processors.
 
fastdude101 said:
The Core 2 Duo is Intel's veteran, covering a wide range of price and performance sweet spots. It is now being replaced, however, by Intel's "rOokie", the Core i3. So, is the Core i3 actually better than the Core 2 Duo, or can you hold off upgrading for a while longer?/ The C2D Clocks faster, but does the i3's architechture just sorta give it the edge?A look at the technical specifications of the Core i3 processors automatically puts them into a negative light when it comes to power consumption. The deskttop Core i3 parts at listed as having a 73 Watt TDP, while most Core 2 Duo desktop parts have a 65 Watt TDP. In laptops the Core i3 has a 35 watt TDP, while Core 2 Duo mobile processors usually have a 25 Watt TDP. I'm posting this thread because I am stumped on what is better, overall :confused: Opinions plz? thanks :)
Click to expand...

i3 is actually more efficient at power consumption. Remember that the the TDP of Core i3 includes the integrated graphics, memory controller and the integrated PCI-E controller. While Core 2 Duo have integrated graphics and north bridge on the motherboard, as it is not integrated to the CPU.

As for performance, i3 has advantage in multi-threaded applications because it supports hyperthreading technology. In single-threaded applications, you won't notice any big difference specially if i3 has lower clock speed.
 
maroon1 said:
i3 is actually more efficient at power consumption. Remember that the the TDP of Core i3 includes the integrated graphics, memory controller and the integrated PCI-E controller. While Core 2 Duo have integrated graphics and north bridge on the motherboard, as it is not integrated to the CPU.

As for performance, i3 has advantage in multi-threaded applications because it supports hyperthreading technology. In single-threaded applications, you won't notice any big difference specially if i3 has lower clock speed.
Click to expand...
Nice point about the hyperthreading. So your
saying that the i3 is bettter optimized for mobile systems whereas the core2D for e.g. workstations(low-end)? thanks
 
fastdude101 said:
Nice point about the hyperthreading. So your
saying that the i3 is bettter optimized for mobile systems whereas the core2D for e.g. workstations(low-end)? thanks
Click to expand...

No, the i3 is a better optimized processor overall, capable of higher clockspeeds, more effecient processing power clock/clock, hyperthreading, etc.
 
OKay, so I gather that it's better value for your £££/$$$, but what is the gross price? i.e. which is more expensive? cheapest i can find Core 2 duo is £83, less if you count the pentium dual-cores as one. With the i3, it's £81! With better cache+same clock rate! Are there any price variations elsewhere?
 
If you are building a new system, definitely I3 over core 2 duo. Hyper threading helps quite a bit, about 25% stronger chip because of it. It's *almost* the equivalent of a triple core processor.
Also, as mentioned, the 73w rating is including the internal grapics. If you are using a discreet GFX card, it will use much less. Also, the internal memory controller is much better/faster than socket 775's memory controller.

And one more thing, with socket 1156 you always have the option on upgrading to an I7 860 in the future as an upgrade.
 
It makes the operating system see each core as double. So you have 2 physical cores, plus two virtual cores. The OS thinks the CPU is a quad core, and task manager will show 4 cores. But of course the two ''virtual cores'' are not as strong as real cores. This benefits you quite a bit in multithreaded applications, multitasking in general with several single threaded apps going at the same time, and also in gaming as well. As I said, about 25% stronger compared to a straight dual core.

What all do you do with your PC?
 
Last edited:
Nice info, thanks. I mean, this "PC" is just theoretical at the moment, I'm gathering my funds :) But when I build it, probably mainly schoolwork, music, e-mails and mild gaming :) That's why I'm not considering an i5
:good:
 
fastdude101 said:
Nice info, thanks. I mean, this "PC" is just theoretical at the moment, I'm gathering my funds :) But when I build it, probably mainly schoolwork, music, e-mails and mild gaming :) That's why I'm not considering an i5
:good:
Click to expand...

If thats the case you could get by with a cheap Athlon II X2.
 
StrangleHold said:
If thats the case you could get by with a cheap Athlon II X2.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I thought that aswell, as those listed above would be the main uses. but,I would like to be able to do the occasional heavy-duty task e.g. video editing, for projects, etc.
Also, having an i3 (with its 1156 socket) would be beneficial if I say, wanted to upgrade in a few years time, to maybe an i5/7 :good::good::good:
 
If he builds a sweet AM3 setup and just cheaps out on the CPU with an Athlon II, thats not a bad idea at all.

He could get a sweet 890fx board-

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157196

or an 870 is money is a little tighter0

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157198


And 4 gigs of decent speed ddr3 ram-

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231193


A good PSU and decent graphics card, and even with the Athlon II it'll be a decent gaming PC. Future upgrade to a 1090t hex core, why not!
 
StrangleHold said:
The way Intel does sockets, in a few years time it will be a frisbee.
Click to expand...

Thats a dumb argument. Am2 boards can be used for a frisbee at this point as well, and AM2+ boards are rapidly approaching that point as well the only thing thats saving SOME of them is bios updates for AM3 support. But as DDR3 becomes more popular, AM2+ will die as well.

All AM2 and AM2+ cpu's are pretty much junk at this point. The 940 being the only decent AM2+ cpu left worth breaking out an AM2+ board for.
 
​
87, really nice, but sadly here in the UK things are so much more $$$:mad: and I've heard ASrock are pretty Cr*p ;) though that's only from one guy,in particular. ;) Good searching, I think I'll stick with the Athlon X2

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top