Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Intel Upgrades Hardware

Core i5 and i3 CPUs With On-Chip GPUs Launched 235

Posted by timothy
from the two-links-is-plenty dept.
MojoKid writes "Intel has officially launched their new Core i5 and Core i3 lineup of Arrandale and Clarkdale processors today, for mobile and desktop platforms respectively. Like Intel's recent release of the Pinetrail platform for netbooks, new Arrandale and Clarkdale processors combine both an integrated memory controller (DDR3) and GPU (graphics processor) on the same package as the main processor. Though it's not a monolithic device, but is built upon multi-chip module packaging, it does allow these primary functional blocks to coexist in a single chip footprint or socket. In addition, Intel beefed up their graphics core and it appears that the new Intel GMA HD integrated graphics engine offers solid HD video performance and even a bit of light gaming capability."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Core i5 and i3 CPUs With On-Chip GPUs Launched

Comments Filter:
  • by wisty (1335733) on Monday January 04, 2010 @05:50AM (#30638822)

    Grrr ... I wish Intel would go back to their system of giving new names to new chips then adding a MHz (and if that's not enough, maybe a cache size and number of cores) to distinguish them, rather than using a weird combination new names (for their top-tier chips) and old names (for their low-end gear).

    I only just realized that Pentium no longer means "crappy NetBurst", but now means "low end C2D". And later this month, there will be "Pentiums" and even "Celerons" built on the same architecture as the i5. How do you let your friends know that the "Pentium" is either a worthless, power-hungry dinosaur; or a cheap version of the i5? Should people memorize the chip serial numbers? Because that seems to be the only way of figuring out what the chip is these days.

  • Solid huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by John Betonschaar (178617) on Monday January 04, 2010 @06:25AM (#30638966)

    In addition, Intel beefed up their graphics core and it appears that the new Intel GMA HD integrated graphics engine offers solid HD video performance

    Solid HD video performance? I see 35% CPU load in the Casion Royale 1080p trailer screenshot, on a fast Quad-core CPU. My puny single-core Atom 1.6Ghz with NVidia graphics does 6-10% max on any 1080p content I throw at it in XBMC.

    It's better than what Intel offered before: nothing, but I still wouldn't recommend Intel graphics for any HD video player.

  • What the hell... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NervousNerd (1190935) on Monday January 04, 2010 @06:48AM (#30639044) Journal
    What the hell is up with their model numbers? Quick, is that i5 you have a dual core or a quad core!? At least Intel's older Core 2 processors differentiated with "Duo" or "Quad", and AMD's simply uses "X2","X3" or "X4".
  • Re:Solid huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hedwards (940851) on Monday January 04, 2010 @07:07AM (#30639098)
    You shouldn't be recommend Intel graphics for pretty much anything. Unless I missed the memo, Intel is really the worst choice for graphics cards, sure it's available on whatever platform you like, but AMD's been releasing documentation on its cards and the Intel graphics chips haven't been good. You're really far better off going with either nVidia or AMD for graphics chips at this point.
  • by Rockoon (1252108) on Monday January 04, 2010 @07:17AM (#30639140)
    ..and now we know why.
  • by beelsebob (529313) on Monday January 04, 2010 @07:44AM (#30639248)

    No, the why is because they're not interested.

    You don't build your own car, why? Because you're not interested in building cars.

    You don't build your own house, why? Because you're not interested in building houses.

    They don't build their own computers, why? Because they're not interested in building computers.

  • by anti-NAT (709310) on Monday January 04, 2010 @07:53AM (#30639294) Homepage

    "In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice they aren't"

    Most people don't multitask on their desktop, or better described, "significantly multitask", meaning run multiple programs are once that are intensively using the CPU(s). Typically, they're running one application, which they're focussed on, and other background applications, while they are running, are mostly idle, or utilising no more than the occasiona few percent.

    Ripping a movie, on an Atom CPU PC (likely a netbook) at the same time as watch one? I think that's an unlikely event.

    Running a highly trafficed web server, on an Atom CPU? I think that's even less likely that ripping a move while watching one.

    Remember the OP's criticism? 35% CPU utilsation, which of course still allows 65% CPU for any other tasks, such as ripping a movie, running a web server etc. was unacceptable. So how much unused CPU is enough for more than likely theortical, rather than in practice, use? 70%, 80%, 90%? Any free CPU is CPU you've paid for but aren't getting any value from. The greater the unutilised CPU percentage, the less value for money you're getting.

    People buy CPU capacity based on their peak usage, not their average usage. My fundamental point, and why I agree with "Solid HD" performance, is that the typical high load use of a PC while watching a movie is only watching that movie. If these new Intel CPUs with GPUs still have 65% capacity left while the movie is playing, you could say they're significantly overspec'd for their likely peak use - by 65% or so percent.

  • by NervousNerd (1190935) on Monday January 04, 2010 @08:00AM (#30639328) Journal
    I wouldn't quite say that. Lower CPU utilization equates to less electricity utilized, which equates to a lower power bill. I would much rather have a processor use only 15% of my CPU's resources in order for me to be able to view a movie instead of having to use 85% of the CPU's resources in order to view a movie.
  • by DrMrLordX (559371) on Monday January 04, 2010 @08:09AM (#30639362)

    That's a faulty comparison. Cars and houses take many well-trained hands to build, whereas a PC can be built by a single individual with little to no training in a few hours time (or less). I don't change my oil, I don't paint my house, hell I can't even fix the leaky faucet downstairs, but I can certainly build my own PC.

  • Re:Multitasking (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sznupi (719324) on Monday January 04, 2010 @08:19AM (#30639404) Homepage

    65% of Core i5 CPU is worth much more than 90% of Atom for "multitasking". Plus, those numbers aren't correlated strongly with how smooth any hypothetical multitasking will be, it's more about OS & the way apps are written.

  • by LordKronos (470910) on Monday January 04, 2010 @09:55AM (#30640036) Homepage

    See, that's funny to me because changing oil, painting a house, or fixing a leaking faucet take FAR less knowledge and ability than assembling a computer. Hell....my WIFE changes the oil on the car.

  • by NervousNerd (1190935) on Monday January 04, 2010 @10:28AM (#30640316) Journal
    Shouldn't your i7 show 8 threads in the task manager as hyper-threading is on (by default, I would think, but I do not own an i7 system)?
  • No flame intended to the Intel fans, but this is one thing I find much simpler with AMD's nomenclature.

  • by MikeBabcock (65886) <mtb-slashdot@mikebabcock.ca> on Monday January 04, 2010 @10:59AM (#30640686) Homepage Journal

    I won't bother pulling up the numbers but I'm pretty sure you'd find that a CPU spec'd to 15% of your current CPU's capacity uses a lot less power than the current CPU running at 15% capacity.

    There's a reason they don't throw Core i3's in cell phones and just under-clock them. Low power CPUs exist for a reason.

  • by alc6379 (832389) on Monday January 04, 2010 @11:37AM (#30641280)

    is VT really significant? VMware on a CPU without VT works just fine, doesn't it?

    Yes, but there are many applications where having VT will improve the performance of the VM. If you do a lot of virtualization, you'll definitely want it.

  • by ae1294 (1547521) on Monday January 04, 2010 @12:09PM (#30641770) Journal

    number of retailers have had cpu mobo combos on sale with no way to determine which SSPEC they're actually stocking

    Send it back and demand a full refund else charge it back. Let the retailers deal will Intel's BS.

  • by Elbows (208758) on Monday January 04, 2010 @12:23PM (#30641986)

    VT lets you run a 64-bit guest OS on a 32-bit host OS. It probably has some performance benefits, too.

Theory is gray, but the golden tree of life is green. -- Goethe

Working...