To Commemorate the Moment

Which would you rather have in a Core i5 rig?

  • Core i5 750: Quad core 2.66GHz

    Votes: 36 90.0%

  • Core i5 670: Dual Core 3.46GHz, with Turbo Boost up to 3.73GHz

    Votes: 4 10.0%
  • Total voters
    40
Yeah, I expected that. Quad does seem like the way to go for the future, but can dual-cores be overclocked higher than Quad cores with stock cooling, since they probably don't expell as much heat?
Click to expand...

First of all, overclocking and stock heatsinks do not belong in the same sentence. The first step to overclocking is good cooling. Once you have good cooling taken care of, it all depends on what dual and what quad you are overclocking. The E8400 for example, is a dual core that has been widely known to hit 4Ghz. The Q8400 on the other hand, is a quad that is known to hit walls around 3.2-3.4Ghz. The i7 on the other hand, is a quad that is rare to not hit 4Ghz, most capable of benchmark runs all the way to 4.3-4.5Ghz under air.

Also, many are misinterpreting the turbo mode on the new i series chips. All it does is add 1x to the multi if thermal conditions allow it. So on my i7 if i'm running 200x20 (4Ghz) and my temps are under specified levels, the bios will automatically make it 200x21 (4.2Ghz). This is very useful when overclocking, because a higher multiplier and lower bclk will usually generate less heat, and require less voltage.
 
kkpudge7 said:
First of all, overclocking and stock heatsinks do not belong in the same sentence. The first step to overclocking is good cooling. Once you have good cooling taken care of, it all depends on what dual and what quad you are overclocking. The E8400 for example, is a dual core that has been widely known to hit 4Ghz. The Q8400 on the other hand, is a quad that is known to hit walls around 3.2-3.4Ghz. The i7 on the other hand, is a quad that is rare to not hit 4Ghz, most capable of benchmark runs all the way to 4.3-4.5Ghz under air.

Also, many are misinterpreting the turbo mode on the new i series chips. All it does is add 1x to the multi if thermal conditions allow it. So on my i7 if i'm running 200x20 (4Ghz) and my temps are under specified levels, the bios will automatically make it 200x21 (4.2Ghz). This is very useful when overclocking, because a higher multiplier and lower bclk will usually generate less heat, and require less voltage.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I see what you mean, but about the thing with overclocking and stock cooling not being in the same sentence, I know a dude who's got a Core2 Quad Q6600 at 3.6 GHz on stock cooling that idles in the low 40s and loads in the mid 50s, all with the help of some Xclio case that has two enormous case fans on the side. :)
 
Bodaggit23 said:
However, it would be hard for me to buy a $125 Dual Core CPU from Intel, when I could spend $165 for one of AMD's top Quads... ;)
Click to expand...

I wonder how the $125 Intel Core i3 530 Dual-Core stacks up against the $129 Phenom II 720 Tri-Core and the $99 Phenom II 550 Dual-Core Processor?
 
I decided to update this with the info that the new Core i5s and Core i3s have been benchmarked at this site: www.cpubenchmark.net
You guys were right. The Quad Cores do have a better price to performance ratio. :rolleyes:
 
^ That's a lot closer than I expected!

What surprises me is that the i3 530 actually beat the Phenom II 940 in the overclock test by a small bit, and was only 187 points off of the 955. I'm impressed.
 
Last edited:
Are there any mark charts on Tom's Hardware or anywhere else on the Internet to compare the Core i5 670 or the Core i3 Processors with the Phenom II 720 or Phenom II 550?
 
The site that spynoodle posted has them all. Threw in the P II 940 and i5 750 for comparison.

i5 750- 4229
i5 670- 3728
i3 540- 3240
i3 530- 2780


PII x4 940- 3642
PII x3 720- 2590
PII x2 550- 1871
 
Last edited:
Drenlin said:
The site that spynoodle posted has them all. Threw in the P II 940 and i5 750 for comparison.

i5 750- 4229
i5 670- 3728
i3 540- 3240
i3 530- 2780


PII x4 940- 3642
PII x3 720- 2590
PII x2 550- 1871
Click to expand...

Thanks for the information, but these are very general comparisons. I am looking for a more detailed frames per second or a 3DMark06 score.
 
2048Megabytes said:
Thanks for the information, but these are very general comparisons. I am looking for a more detailed frames per second or a 3DMark06 score.
Click to expand...

This is what I've found so far:
chart-16.jpg

3dmark_vantage.gif
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the good information Drenlin.

So the i5 661 Clarkdale Dual-Core Processor is about 26% more powerful than the Phenom II 720 Tri-Core Processor according to this information. At a present price tag of $210 though it still isn't worth it when you could get a Phenom II 945 Quad-Core for $161.
 
All in all I think that the new LGA 1156 dual-cores have a better price/performance ratio than the LGA 775 dual-cores, but the LGA 775 celerons and pentiums were really cheap, thus creating the market demand of people that want a cheap but powerful processor. Although the new dual-cores can beat out price/performance ratio than the Core2 Duos, they're still not that cheap, and most people who want to pay 200$ for a processor would just get a Core2 Quad or Core i5 Quad, which have even better price/performance ratios.
 
Yeah, in order of best bang for the buck CPU given it's price range per performance-

Intel-

E3300- $53 - Excellent overclocker, high multi, runs decently cool

E5400- $73 - ^ same

I3 530- $125 - High multi, 32nm, HT, extreme overclocker

I5 750- $200 - A good overclocking powerful quad

I7 920- $280- Max performance, completely overkill for nearly anything but great for benchmarking

AMD-
Athlon II 250- $67 Good overclocking, 1mbX2 L2 cache, high multiplier good for OC

Athlon II 435 X3- $84- Third core helps multitasking, high multiplier good for OC

Phenom II 550 BE- $100- Unlocked multi, chance of unlocking to quad

Phenom II 955 BE- $165- unlocked multi, best bang for the buck quad on the AMD side


The 720 BE would be in between the 550 and 955 but last time I saw it on the egg it was like $150 :eek: For that price just a couple bucks more get you the 955.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top