Core i3, Yea, I'll pass on that one.

The new i3's are benching like all Intel did was take a P7450 and add an integrated memory controller. From the looks of it, most of the current generation Core 2's out bench it. What's going on there?

EDIT: I'm referring to the i3 330m

 

Link?



.

 

Just because it's an "i" series doesn't mean it's in a whole other class of processors... It's the same sort of deal with Core and Core 2, there's not really a huge difference between them, Core 2 is just a revision of Core, and Core 2 is 64-bit, but when Core 2 was first released in processors most Core people stuck with their Core for another year or so.

 

Here's one from Tom's Hardware. In the review is a desktop chip.

 

If it has a low power usage and produces less heat i would recommend it as a media center computer or something.
Just get a lowly ATI or Nvidia card for video decoding. xD

But other than that it looks like AMD budget builds will dominate Intels budget solutions.

 

Well, the i3 330m for the mobile segment is dual core, and uses more power than the current P-series.

P-series = 25 watts
i3 = 35 watts

And from the articles I'm reading it also runs hotter.

 

Or just get an HD decoder...

 

*buzz*
Wrong on that, buddy. The Core 2 was a new architecture altogether, taking bits from the Pentium 4 and M as well as new developments. That's why it was clock-for-clock faster than prior CPUs.
The Core (1) was just two Pentium Ms stapled together.

The i7s are the same kind of new architecture jump, even if the i3 lacks the Turbo Boost feature. It's still 2 cores with hyper-threading and a built-in GPU (which might explain the TDP difference).

 

TDP is not the same as power usage.

 

From what I've read I'm not sure the i3 330m even has the turbo-boost feature, which is completely not worth it!

 

So what? The TDP of the i3 is higher, but it will still use less power than the P series. And no, it does not have Turbo Boost.

 

IDK? To me it just seem's like they're trading one feature for another. But then again this is just the first generation of the i3 so, if it goes like it has in the past, they will get much much better in the later revisions.

 

It seems a good improvement in Cinebench.

 

That TDP is CPU+GPU combined. Don't jump into conclusions until you actually see some real world benchmarks.

 

Ok, I'll hold off judgement for a little while... lol.. but they better be good when they come out.

 

Don't forget the integrated memory controller. 10 extra watts is actually a significant step forward.

 

Or are still sticking with it

 

Well if you REALLY want to get frugal, talk to my work. I'm still using a P4 3GHz with an intel GMA915 to do 3d AutoCAD modeling.

 

Ouch.

 

I second that.

I hope this doesn't turn into a contest.

" Well, my job still makes me use EDIT on a 286 with DOS 1.0!!!! "

 

See, now you can wear your Ray-Ban's and some skinny jeans to work, cuz that's just old skool. So outdated it's cool again.

 

hey XG got a question for u? How did u put a Q9100 in a CW? Doesn't it only support dual cores and come with GT230M and no G210M?

But seriously , core i3 doesn't looks so great... it looks like its gonna replace intel's pentium series... i would personally get a core i7 which isn't crippled like core i3...

 

Well, no and yes. It ships with only dual cores, but it's upgradable to a socket p q9100. The first time I booted it the BIOS posted twice then booted right into Win7. I was like score! I was just hoping it would be supported in the BIOS and I guess it is. And yea, I agree so far about the i7. I think the i7's are suppossed to represent the higher end performance segment, where the i3 is suppossed to replace the entry level core2's.

 

Pentium=Arrandale
i3=Arrandale
i5=Arrandale
i7=Arrandale

 

Ok, maybe I'm confused as to what i3 is supposed to replace? Maybe that's why i'm not too impressed with them.

 

It along with i5 and i7 will eventually replace all "Core 2" branded processors.

 

From the looks of it, it will be the low end of the consumer segment, replacing the T4300, for example. (And dare I say the Celeron? I do not recall hearing about Intel's plans for them.)

 

Ok, see, now that makes sense.