Intel's Core i3/i5 32nm chips slow in Windows 7
Even the diehard Intel supporter Anand sees that Intel's chips are not that good under Windows 7. The Core i5 661 3.33 GHz ($196) is substantially slower than Athlon II X3 435 ($100) at 2.9GHz in x264 encoding. BTW, it's just a total waste of silicon for Intel to glue those non-competitive integrated graphics with the 32nm CPUs -- people still need to buy a separate graphics card for some 3D fun. An AMD 785G motherboard by itself is capable of serious modern 3D fragging for $40.
posted by Sharikou, Ph. D. @ 1/07/2010 09:27:00 AM
3 Comments:
Yet another real world example of why Intel hardware is completely useless garbage.
You say Intel chips are not good under windows 7? You nitpicked out of the bunch the ones with the lowest performance on purpose. Look at the i5 750, it beats all the AMD chips they tested. You choose to look at the i5 661, which is not meant to be as high as a performer if you look at the stats. They took the memory controller off the chip, which results in around 62% less bandwidth according to the benchmarks. Way be bias against Intel.
Also your comment that Anand says that Intels chips are not that good is a lie.
"Intel admitted that these high end SKUs aren't going to be very high volume. Most users are expected to opt for the Core i5 750 instead of the i5 661 unless they absolutely need Intel's HD Graphics for some bizarre reason.
The real volume is going to be in the Core i3 and that's where I believe Intel has a real winner here."
Also throw this in too:
"There isn't a single Core i5 I'd recommend, but the i3s are spot-on. To Intel's credit, though, if it priced the Core i5s more aggressively, I'm not sure there would be much room for AMD to compete."
I wouldn't call Intel Chips garbage, last time I checked Intel has the fastest desktop processors.
Post a Comment
<< Home