Featured Articles

IHS teardown reveals Galaxy S5 BOM

IHS teardown reveals Galaxy S5 BOM

Research firm IHS got hold of Samsung’s new flagship smartphone and took it apart to the last bolt to figure out…

More...
Galaxy S5, HTC One M8 available selling well

Galaxy S5, HTC One M8 available selling well

Samsung’s Galaxy S5 has finally gone on sale and it can be yours for €699, which is quite a lot of…

More...
Intel lists Haswell refresh parts

Intel lists Haswell refresh parts

Intel has added a load of Haswell refresh parts to its official price list and there really aren’t any surprises to…

More...
Respawn confirms Titanfall DLC for May

Respawn confirms Titanfall DLC for May

During his appearance at PAX East panel and confirmed on Twitter, Titanfall developer Respawn confirmed that the first DLC pack for…

More...
KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 gained a lot of overclocking experience with the GTX 780 Hall of Fame (HOF), which we had a chance to…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Friday, 24 December 2010 14:03

Core i5 2400 beats i5 650 up to 80+ percent

Written by Fuad Abazovic
corei5n_logo

Intel testing, dual vs. quad at the same price
We got some benchmarks of Core i5 2400, the new Sandy Bridge core with 6MB of cache 3.1GHz core clock and four cores and four threads. The Core i5 2400 also features Turbo and can run at much higher clocks than 3.1GHz, all depending on Turbo 2 conditions and current thermal environment.

Intel decided to compare current Core i5 650 3.2GHz core with 4MB of cache and two cores and four threads including Turbo to a new Sandy Bridge part.

In Sysmark 2007 business application test Core i5 2400 is some 20 percent faster than the old core but in 3D rendering in Cinebench 10.0 it can get 84 percent faster simply as it has two more cores.

Continuing in 3Dmark Vantage overall 3D graphics performance, Core i5 2400 will deliver a 19 percent higher score while in 3Dmark Vantage CPU test that includes Game Physics and AI the new part can score 82 percent faster.
Last modified on Friday, 24 December 2010 16:42
blog comments powered by Disqus

Comments  

 
+136 #1 Regenweald 2010-12-24 15:04
So I guess real cores really are better than virtual ones huh ? Who'd have thunk it ? :lol:
 
 
+31 #2 arclight 2010-12-24 17:52
80% applies only in situations where 4 cores are used by the respective software and not just 2 cores and it's normal since it's a comparison between a dual core and quad core......

As for gaming i think it will be 20-30% faster at maximum (in very rare cases) but the average will be somewhere around 10%. Keeping in mind that overclocking is out of the question....that's not such a good deal.

Check this out:
http://en.inpai.com.cn/doc/enshowcont.asp?id=7944&pageid=7672

The 80+% is obviosly Intel BS marketing, simillar to what AMD did prior to the launch of the 6970 when a graph claimed it will be ~20% faster than GTX 480 when in fact it's on par with that card and GTX 570(except TWIMTBP titles ofc).
 
 
+26 #3 Naterm 2010-12-24 18:03
Who cares about gaming performance anymore? Basically anything is fast enough to allow you to play games assuming you have a decent GPU. You may not get triple digit frame rates, but who really cares?
 
 
+38 #4 arclight 2010-12-24 18:12
Quoting Naterm:
Who cares about gaming performance anymore? Basically anything is fast enough ?



Well fine, games are not your thing, still look at the review leaked of the Core i7 2600K vs the Core i7 875K and you'll notice that even the rendering is not mindblowing compared to that provided by the old generation.

The only thing that Sandy Bridge could bring would be lower prices and lower power consuption thanks to the 32 nm process.....oh and let's not forget Intel will prevent overclocking on low end and mid end CPUs.

I'm not saying it will be a flop, but one must wonder did they really need to go from 1156 pin to 1155 pin just for this underwhelming die shrinked CPUs? Couldn't they have used the old socket?
 
 
-74 #5 Jurassic1024 2010-12-24 18:47
Quoting arclight:
Quoting Naterm:
Who cares about gaming performance anymore? Basically anything is fast enough ?


Couldn't they have used the old socket?







Sure, if they were recycling the same architecture for the past 5 odd years like AMD. Sorry pal, its 2011, and it's time for a new socket. If i didnt have to buy a new motherboard every couple years, my computer building hobby would be no more. Dont cry just cuz your not as passionate as the rest of us!
 
 
+18 #6 loadwick 2010-12-24 19:18
Dear Intel,

How does it compare to the ARM processor in iPhone? How does it compare to the micro-chip in my dvd player?

OH, Wait! Who gives a shit! Why the hell compare apples to oranges?!
 
 
+48 #7 arclight 2010-12-24 19:28
Quote:
Sure, if they were recycling the same architecture for the past 5 odd years like AMD. Sorry pal, its 2011, and it's time for a new socket.



I'm sure you'll come back down to Earth when you'll see the reviews in a few weeks, till then know that Sandy Bridge is the same arhitecture as Nehlem, it's only a die shrink, so it is in fact an old technology. And since it's 2011 i would like to have that old technology for less money but Intel feagured out they can remove 1 f***ing pin from the socket and ask you to buy new motherboards which are more expensive cause they are brand new. Sorry pal i'm just not buying it.
 
 
-7 #8 Dave_Tangeir 2010-12-24 19:28
Quoting arclight:
80% applies only in situations where 4 cores are used by the respective software ...

The 80+% is obviosly Intel BS marketing, simillar to what AMD did prior to the launch of the 6970 when a graph claimed it will be ~


Certainly it is marketing, but the compare is probably at the same price point, in which case 80% more performance in common usages is significant.
 
 
-3 #9 Dave_Tangeir 2010-12-24 19:34
Quoting arclight:
till then know that Sandy Bridge is the same arhitecture as Nehlem, it's only a die shrink, so it is in fact an old technology. Sorry pal i'm just not buying it.


Oddly, most of the technical savvy architectural guru's are calling it a massive deviation from Nehalem:
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT091810191937
Quote:
The Sandy Bridge CPU cores can truly be described as a brand new microarchitectu re that is a synthesis of the P6 and some elements of the P4. Although Sandy Bridge most strongly resembles the P6 line, it is an utterly different microarchitectu re.


You don't need to buy it, just realize how ignorant you are.
 
 
+17 #10 arclight 2010-12-24 19:35
Quoting Dave_Tangeir:
Certainly it is marketing, but the compare is probably at the same price point, in which case 80% more performance in common usages is significant.


Your being mislead, even today Core i5 650 is priced simillar to Core i5 760, and if you were to do rendering and compare this 2 existing CPUs ofc the 760 will be almost twice as fast since it has double the cores. The Core i5 2400 won't be that different from existing offerings....

Core i5 650 ~180 USD
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115220

Core i5 760 ~205 USD
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115067

Intel has already priced their dual core too high...
 

To be able to post comments please log-in with Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments