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 ). 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...icroprocessors
i3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...icroprocessors
i5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...icroprocessors
i7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...icroprocessors

[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.