Processor comparison

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Moose016

Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
96
Location
Charleston, SC
I have read some of the tech threads on here and there seems to be some pretty knowledgeable people so I thought I'd ask you help in a processor comparison in two desktops I am looking at for my parents. I build my own systems when the need arises but don't really keep up with how processors compare between Intel and AMD.

I'm looking at a Inspiron 580 for $529 with Intel® Core™ i3-530 processor(4MB Cache, 2.93GHz)+Integrated Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator HD

Also a Studio XPS 7100 for $499 with AMD Athlon™ II X4 630 + ATI Radeon HD 4200

or Studio XPS 7100 for $699 with AMD Phenom™ II X6 1035T + ATI Radeon HD 5450 1GB

I know the Athlon is kind of an old processor, but is the phenom worth the extra $200?

The question is which would you go with, does anyone have experience with the i3, Athlon or Phenom?

Not looking really for performance, just to go the longest without becoming slow and obsolete and needing to be replaced and having to go through this again. The [censored] thing about the 580 is that all memory slots come filled from the factory so you have to upgrade the old chips to add more.

I don't want to build them one because then they look to me even more when something goes wrong. I'm trying to teach them to run CCLeaner and keep [censored] off of there to stem sluggishness.

I have pretty much dismissed the Inspiron 580 with Intel® Pentium® G6950 processor(3MB Cache, 2.80GHz)

Thanks for any input
 
Well, the extra $200 is not only the processor but the better graphics card as well. Does your parents need a good graphics card? What are they going to be doing?

If they're doing just basic work and mild graphic applications, I'd go with the Studio XPS Athlon II X4.
 
Originally Posted By: Popinski
Well, the extra $200 is not only the processor but the better graphics card as well. Does your parents need a good graphics card? What are they going to be doing?

If they're doing just basic work and mild graphic applications, I'd go with the Studio XPS Athlon II X4.


Yeah they don't need the graphics card, they really just use it for basic purposes, email, web browsing, using word, storing pictures. Is the Athlon an improvement over the Intel i3?
 
The i3 is a hyperthreaded dual core. I dont know as other specific information on what these models offer and why its more is not posted at this time.
I'd be tempted to go with the Athlon II machine as it is cheapest..
 
Last edited:
The i3 is a strong performer. I build all my entry level systems around it. The Intel mobile chipset is vastly superior to anything AMD has in their camp; they simply have nothing that can touch Intel's mobile offerings.

If you can get the i3 with a better graphics card, I'd go to town.
 
i3 is pretty weak in terms of graphics (Intel don't know graphics), and if you are using it on a desktop, the only benefit of longer battery life / power efficiency is lost compare to the Athlon series.

i3 is slightly faster (less than 15%) than Athlon II x4, but its integrated graphics isn't enough to compensate against the ATI Raedon HD 4200.

For a browsing and movie watching PC, I'd say get the Studio XPS 7100.
 
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
i3 is pretty weak in terms of graphics (Intel don't know graphics), and if you are using it on a desktop, the only benefit of longer battery life / power efficiency is lost compare to the Athlon series.

i3 is slightly faster (less than 15%) than Athlon II x4, but its integrated graphics isn't enough to compensate against the ATI Raedon HD 4200.

For a browsing and movie watching PC, I'd say get the Studio XPS 7100.



Unless you are gaming, it is irrelevant. Intel's i3 runs all of Windows 7's Aero features with EASE. You get a superior chipset, and a better mobile package.

Putting a "better" video card in a computer that isn't going to see anything more graphically intense than facebook games and watching movies is akin to putting BFG Mud Terrain tires on an SUV that will never leave the black top.

I've got two i3's being built right now, one is on the bench, the other is waiting to be put together. 4GB of RAM, P55 chipset motherboards from ASUS and you have something that isn't overly expensive and works phenomenally well for the price.
 
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
how does the i3 compare to the SU series in the ultra-light notebook category for processing power & battery life?


Battery life seems to be a little better than the Core2 stuff it replaces. I haven't seen an ultra-light with an i3 yet, so I can't draw that comparison until I do.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


Unless you are gaming, it is irrelevant. Intel's i3 runs all of Windows 7's Aero features with EASE. You get a superior chipset, and a better mobile package.

Putting a "better" video card in a computer that isn't going to see anything more graphically intense than facebook games and watching movies is akin to putting BFG Mud Terrain tires on an SUV that will never leave the black top.

I've got two i3's being built right now, one is on the bench, the other is waiting to be put together. 4GB of RAM, P55 chipset motherboards from ASUS and you have something that isn't overly expensive and works phenomenally well for the price.


What is the point of buying a computer like i3 rather than a celeron if it is not for at least video watching? You could have gotten a core duo based chip and save a bunch, and why would it be better than AMD's quad core then?

i3 have the low quality graphics integrated into the CPU package, without the cost saving, and without good performance, and cost more. Why would it be a better choice? Unless you run it on a laptop and need the better battery life, it makes no sense.
 
You are missing it. The graphics quality is FINE. Have you USED ONE? It will do everything you want it to do other than hardcore GAMING. Video playback and all that jazz are not an issue.

They are also HALF the price of an i5.

They perform markedly well. I'm thinking you are speaking from something that doesn't resemble experience with this particular CPU......... Would I be correct in this assumption?
 
are the i3 mobile CPU's tied to the Intel 4500 graphics?

I find the X3100 is the absolute base for business graphics (forget the GMA 9xx, bleeccch). The 4500 series have run surprisingly well when displaying complex, 50MB images for clients w/o any noticeable lag compared to a dedicated board.

now, for games, well, that's different. I don't buy business-class laptops for people to spend all day playing WoW all day!
wink.gif
 
They call it Intel HD Graphics:

Originally Posted By: Intel


Intel® HD Graphics

Enhanced video and 3D engine delivers smooth HD video playback and mainstream 3D gaming without the need for add-in video cards or decoders. Intel® HD
Graphics provides a suite of video processing, 3D, and software technologies designed to improve image quality and performance, including hardware-accelerated
decode for Blu-ray* dual-stream picture-in-picture and 3D support for Microsoft* DirectX* 10 and OpenGL* 2.1. Supports full functionality of the Microsoft*
Windows* 7 operating system and display connectivity options, including HDMI* and DisplayPort*. Enables professional-grade audio capabilities with support for
Dolby* TrueHD and DTS*-HD Master Audio multi-channel bitstreaming.


Intel Graphics guide:

Guide

And I just want to add (and this is going to shock a certain somebody) that the Intel HD graphics is actually FASTER than the ATI 4200 offered in the one laptop being discussed in this thread.
 
I guess I should have done more research, I didn't realized the new HD graphics is faster, I though they were the x3100 days or even worse the GMA900 junk.
 
Upgrade to the i5 if you can. The i3 lacks the dynamic overclocking/underclocking the i5 has so it take a big hit in performance. The graphics performance is not bad either. 4 years ago AMD mopped the floor with Intel, especially in the mobile market, but now Intel has the best mobile processors. If we were talking desktops and/or bang for the buck that would be a different story.

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/ This site usually is good for reference when looking at computers.
 
Originally Posted By: T-Keith
Upgrade to the i5 if you can. The i3 lacks the dynamic overclocking/underclocking the i5 has so it take a big hit in performance. The graphics performance is not bad either. 4 years ago AMD mopped the floor with Intel, especially in the mobile market, but now Intel has the best mobile processors. If we were talking desktops and/or bang for the buck that would be a different story.

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/ This site usually is good for reference when looking at computers.



AMD has NEVER mopped the floor with Intel in the mobile market. Since the birth of the Core series as Banias and Dothan... from the ashes of the Pentium-III, Intel has absolutely DOMINATED the mobile segment, in power, battery life and everything in between. Given that Centrino began life in 2003.... That's a lot more than 4 years ago. AMD slapped lower-voltage tested desktop CPU's in welfare chipsets and they were stuffed in cheap notebooks. Ones which often needed batteries the size of bricks just to get decent run-time.

And yes, the i3 lacks "Turbo boost", so it will not automatically clock UP beyond the stock clock, but it definitely can still scale DOWN.

The i5 is also the best "bang for buck" CPU in the desktop segment.

It is simply the fact that Intel chipset motherboards cost more than their AMD counterparts that presents itself as somewhat of a price obstacle when comparing similar systems.
 
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
I guess I should have done more research, I didn't realized the new HD graphics is faster, I though they were the x3100 days or even worse the GMA900 junk.


Sort of why I took issue with your statement, since as I said, I've been building a lot of i3 and i5 systems lately, some with integrated graphics and the performance is actually quite decent.
 
Never? When how about back in the pentium 4 days? Intels processors used too much juice and were too hot for laptop use. They didn't even have processor scaling and multispeed fans. Even the celeron M didn't get the power saving features of the Pentium M. All AMD processors even the cheap ones got all of their power saving features. Only with Core2 and the i series processors has Intel passed AMD. Now AMD has a price advantage on most systems but can't match the extreme high end and low end Intel chips.

Bottom line is that the i3 is the "celeron" of the i line. Same as an i5 but without all the features. Spend the extra $100 for a big increase in performance.
 
Originally Posted By: T-Keith
Never? When how about back in the pentium 4 days?


Well, the Pentium 4 days were a lot longer than four years ago. Given that Banias replaced the P4-M in 2003.

Quote:
Intels processors used too much juice and were too hot for laptop use.


No, only the Pentium 4-M was hot running. Just like AMD's offerings. The Pentium III, which later morphed into Banias, then Dothan, always had good mobile performance.

Quote:
They didn't even have processor scaling and multispeed fans.


Yes, actually, they did. I've got an old P4 notebook from that era here. It has a desktop CPU in it, and runs hotter than hades, but does in fact have multi-speed fans.

The PIII notebooks also had multi-speed fans as well as SpeedStep.

Quote:
Even the celeron M didn't get the power saving features of the Pentium M.


It didn't get SpeedStep. But it still was not power hungry. They also were NOT sold as Centrino, due to this.

Quote:
All AMD processors even the cheap ones got all of their power saving features.


Which weren't much. They were desktop CPU's run at lower voltage with an unlocked multiplier to allow frequency scaling. Unlike Centrino, which was a dedicated mobile platform, and the CPU's that went with it.

The Mobile Athlon XP came out in 2003. The same time-frame as Banias and Dothan; which would have been it's direct competitors, had it offered anything in the way of competition to them, which it didn't. VIA, SiS and ALI chipsets! YAY! There's a recipe for reliable computing.

Quote:
Only with Core2 and the i series processors has Intel passed AMD.


Intel never had to pass AMD in the mobile market. Before Core was even called Core. Again, see my reference to Banias and Dothan. In the DESKTOP market (which you don't appear to be making a distinction about) you are somewhat correct. On a clock-per-clock basis, the Athlon CPU's were indeed quicker then their Pentium-4 counterparts. That was until Intel migrated Core from the mobile market into the desktop arena.

Quote:
Now AMD has a price advantage on most systems but can't match the extreme high end and low end Intel chips.


They always have had a price advantage.

Quote:
Bottom line is that the i3 is the "celeron" of the i line. Same as an i5 but without all the features. Spend the extra $100 for a big increase in performance.


The Celeron was an FSB-limited, cache-castrated version of it's Pentium-class counterpart.

The i3 still has 4MB of cache, and no FSB limit. What they HAVE done of course, is give you only two cores. And in mobile implementations, remove the Turbo Boost capability, so that you have SpeedStep and stock clock, no dynamic overclocking.

So, while, like the Celeron, it is their entry-level CPU, there are a host of distinctions that set it apart from its predecessor, and likely why Intel didn't carry the name over.

There is not a BIG performance increase between say an i3 530 and an i5 750 unless you actually use an app that will take advantage of all four cores. Something that most users will never do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Need help building for a game
Replies
8
Views
6K
nleksan
9
  • Locked
AMD sepron processors?
Replies
16
Views
9K
GMFan
ZeeOSix
  • Locked
Go For Windows 7 or Windows 8.1?
8 9 10
Replies
191
Views
111K
The_Eric
O
  • Locked
sound card options
Replies
6
Views
2K
oilboy123
S
  • Locked
Need advice for new desktop computer
2
Replies
29
Views
9K
BearZDefect
Back
Top Bottom