Where does an i3 rate for you?

[TheGreatSatan]

So, I'm new at Radio Shack and the guy I work with is setting up new laptops. He pulls one out with a Celeron and we talk about it being a very basic use PC. Then he unboxes one with an i3 and says that it too is a basic computer. I was stunned. To me an i3 is pretty damn nice. I'd say my Q9400 is better, but an i3 is close.

My AMD 6000+ X2 is still a nice processor. It's dual core and runs at 3GHz, but to him it ancient garbage. I've built systems for others recently and used Pentium 4's running Vista and they score in the low 4's on the Windows Experience Index. They get hot as hell, but they're still solid chips.

Why do people think that nothing less than an i5 or i7 is any good at all? How many of you are still using single core or early dual core systems like my kid's 3800+ X2 and would KILL for an i3 system?

[x88x]

I would rate individual models may vary, but as a line I would rate the i3 as above the Celeron (and obviously above the Atom), but still an 'mid-to-low-range' chip. That being said, an i3 will definitely provide plenty of power for the majority of users. I feel like the i3 is sorta Intel's attempt at making a cheaper CPU for general use, that isn't hindered by the bad name the the Celeron line has gotten over the years. TBH, I'm perfectly happy with the Celeron in my server (E1500). I think the whole Celeron line has gotten loads better since the old days when, well, they were glorified paper weights.

On the other hand, available CPU power has outstripped common consumer needs so far that 2-3 generation old chips can still run modern stuff without any problems (common use for most people, not common use..around here :P ). Heck, I'm running on a single-core hyperthreaded Pentium D at work, and while it is admittedly very limiting and frustrating whenever I try to do anything serious, for a lot of stuff it works just fine.

[Zephik]

i3 = The New Celeron (low range)
i5 = The New C2D (mid range)
i7/i9 = The New Quad Core (high range)

That's how I see it anyways. It makes sense too. They're just phasing out the old with the new. Keeping the market fresh and all that.

And of course the "i" Series processors are better than older ones. They're all powerful, but compared to eachother it's in that order.

iPod, iPhone, iThis and iThat. Even Microsoft is hopping on the iBand Wagon. lol

[chaksq]

My desktop, which I use only for media runs a Athlon 64 X2 6000+ dual core, more power than I generally need. My laptop, which is my primary computer only has a Atom dual core, which is exactly the power level I need/want. For me I find ram to be the most important factor in my computers performance level. Now if I still were gaming regularly this might be different.

My parent's and many casual users have low expectations of performance, I find software choices is actually a bigger indicator of performance than hardware. The biggest issue I see with performance for many typical users is bloatware installed on the prebuilts (which are almost never configured right for the particular user that buys them). My parent's use a Pentium 4 Dell with 1gb of RAM which is more than powerful enough for their use once I cleared most of the bloatware and switched their antivirus to a less memory intensive one.

As for the i3, I think it is an excellent processor. A bit underpowered for my personal use (I like a dual core) but more than enough power for the large majority of users. I'm not largely familiar with the processor so could someone let me know how the power consumption of an i3 compares to an Atom?

[x88x]

A bit underpowered for my personal use (I like a dual core)

The i3's are dual-core. ;)


Also, fwiw, Intel is actually continuing the Celeron line. I'm not sure how much they expect to make/sell, but it'll still be there.

[Zephik]

Perhaps they'll use them in lower power consumption setups? Although I dont know the difference between any of them in that area. But then, that's what I thought the Atoms were for... Perhaps the Atoms just aren't powerful enough at the moment and thus the continuation of the celeron line. Hmm.

[x88x]

The i3's don't consume any less power than the lower-end i5's (73W), but they do have a significantly lower MSRP. I think that is their target; the price point between the Celerons ($40-60) and the i5's ($175-300).

Celeron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Celeron_microprocessors
i3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i3_microprocessors
i5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i5_microprocessors
i7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i7_microprocessors

[blueonblack]

Somewhere below an AMD K6-2/450 and above an abacus.

Can I assume the The Shack only deals in Intel products?

[mDust]

The Celerons will probably be kept around for office use. That's mainly where they're used now anyway. Large companies will probably still be buying them by the truckload years from now.
The i-series are likely aimed at us, the private users. i3's will live in light-duty computers that spend most of their time online, casual gaming, and playing media files. The i5's will be found in the computers that will be multitasking during moderate work and play...capable of just about anything. And the i7's will be found in the high-end PCs that will be tearing holes in spacetime...depending on how many cores they have.

[blaze15301]

i just stick with amd. cheaper and in my opinion better. but yeah the i 3 seems like a mid range product for the average user.

[crenn]

The i3 is more like a SoC because of it's integrated graphics. A i3 will run circles around a Celeron and additionally, the Celeron line soon will be no more.

[OvRiDe]

One thing the i series of processors brings back is hyper-threading so you have 4 threads to work with on an i3 unlike you would on a C2D or the Celeron. I would rate the i3 as a light to moderate work machine or HTPC since it's on chip GPU is capable of decoding up to 2 HD streams. It will probably run many games just fine, with the proper video card.

[BuzzKillington]

So, I'm new at Radio Shack and the guy I work with is setting up new laptops. He pulls one out with a Celeron and we talk about it being a very basic use PC. Then he unboxes one with an i3 and says that it too is a basic computer. I was stunned. To me an i3 is pretty damn nice. I'd say my Q9400 is better, but an i3 is close.

My AMD 6000+ X2 is still a nice processor. It's dual core and runs at 3GHz, but to him it ancient garbage. I've built systems for others recently and used Pentium 4's running Vista and they score in the low 4's on the Windows Experience Index. They get hot as hell, but they're still solid chips.

Why do people think that nothing less than an i5 or i7 is any good at all? How many of you are still using single core or early dual core systems like my kid's 3800+ X2 and would KILL for an i3 system?

I think what it boils down to is some people are just stupid.

[diluzio91]

alot of people think "its not new it cant perform that well" this guy obviously falls into that category... Another thing people don't understand is the new chip architectures... we have been spoon fed by intel! you take our spoon away how are we supposed to know how many cores we have?!?!? i3-dual core i5-quad i7-beastquad or hexa

[Twigsoffury]

i'm extremely happy with my phenom II 955

don't they come in around the same price as a i3, yet perform with the i7 series?

[TheGreatSatan]

Nothing from AMD competes with an i7

[x88x]

Well, it depends what i7, what AMD chip, and what you're doing. IIRC, in most situations the Phenom II x6's will trounce the quad-core i7's (and be quite a bit cheaper). They do fall behind when it comes to memory bandwidth, iirc, and the hex-core i7's do outperform the Phenom II x6's (though they also cost 4-5x as much). I'll be interested to see what happens with the Phenom III (or whatever they call it), when they hopefully upgrade the memory controller.

[Twigsoffury]

Nothing from AMD competes with an i7

my X4 955 @ 3.7Ghz seems to hang/compete with my buddies i7-920 @ 3.0Ghz

least in video games... but i sure am jelous when he opens that resource monitor with 8 flippin CPU charts : \

[Konrad]

Hey, I still use my ancient Socket 478 P4 3.2E - one core with hyperthreading.

Stock 3200MHz but my particular piece OCs at 3998Mhz *all the time* and is absolutely stable. Asus i865 mobo, decent PSU, 4GB PC3200 RAM, Radeon HD 4650 AGP card. I obviously won't be doing Bioshock 2 on this machine; but Bioshock "1" (along with most circa-2008 or earlier games) still do 30fps smoothly on max visual quality. I do all the same movies, music, internet, etc any gamer does; I code and I run things like CAD, SPICE, Solidworks all the time.

All these things work fine - and fast - enough to hardly complain. Sure, I sometimes get an idiotically fat 12GB movie or .jpg or .pdf - enough to choke and stutter even the mid- and high-end 4GHz multicores ... I'm just agreeing that "old" tech is still overkill for normal (and a bit of abnormal) consumer use.

I know for a fact that my system outperforms many i3's ... though no doubt that's only because they've been put together with bargain hardware and run bloated Windows installs.

Yeah, they say it's not the size but what you do with it ... they're onto something but it's still a lie.

My old "junk" is still plenty of computing power; sure, I'd like to upgrade, no doubt I'd love a top echelon six-core i7 (along with all the innumerable other improvements an LGA1366/X58/PCIe system would bring over my wimpy lil old AGP system). Alas, I'm no longer a pure hardcore gamer and there are other priorities in my life, so for me the price of a complete system upgrade doesn't really justify the gains. Maybe one day I'll blow $3-5K on whatever's most kickass, maybe I'll just wait and pick up a 6-core system 2 years from now on craigslist for a pittance.

[x88x]

Maybe one day I'll blow $3-5K on whatever's most kickass, maybe I'll just wait and pick up a 6-core system 2 years from now on craigslist for a pittance.

TBH you can build a really kickass system now for around $800. ...not saying you necessarily need to, just clarifying the playing field. ;)

[Oneslowz28]

I have an Phenom II I will put up against some of the i7 line....

[diluzio91]

IMHO, the i7 Series are great for industries that require huge numbers of threads, and have massive amounts of data to process. However, you can pick up a top of the line phenom 2x4 for $180 and a phenom 2x6 for $200, but to even scratch the i7 line you need $290. AND i can almost guarantee that the 2x6 will spank the $290 i7 all day long...

[Oneslowz28]

I think my 2x4 will spank it!

[Kayin]

I have an i7 and a Phenom x6 here ATM. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

[Oneslowz28]

huh?

[diluzio91]

^ what he said...

[Kayin]

They rate about equal to me for most work. Work being gaming, compiling code and video encoding.

[Twigsoffury]

They rate about equal to me for most work. Work being gaming, compiling code and video encoding.

with the most processing intense game i've found/play (battleground europe) My buddies i7 does spit out 5~6 more fps when were standing side my side in the same town in the same spot looking at the same battle. and his clock speed is a full 700mhz slower. although mine OC'd is faster then his is stock. overclocking that i7-920 is pretty much like unleashing the krakken in your case. but hes still rolling the stock heatsink atm. I'm sure once he gets a good cooler (thinking about a CoolIT or Corsair H50 all-in-1 LHS) he'll be able to push it to the limit.

Anyone recommend some good, non enormous heatsinks for LGA-1366?

[Kayin]

Prolimatech Megahalems or MegaShadow. About TRUE sized, beats it hands down.

[Twigsoffury]

Prolimatech Megahalems or MegaShadow. About TRUE sized, beats it hands down.

whew i looked at those, i'm not sure if they'll fit inside the case he has.

not that the case isn't flippin' huge, but its got that smart electronic tint glass inside, and that takes up a serious amount of space. : \

http://www.thebestcasescenario.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23058