1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Intel Core i7-3610QM Tested

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Mar 20, 2012.

  1. GoFigureItOut

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    179 (0.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9
    I'm not surprised one bit. Even though it's a laptop CPU, it is based on Ivy Bridge. After seeing the score from their Cinebench, I got curious, and decided to test out my machine. My results, a whopping 1.34!
  2. BeepBeep2

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    236 (0.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    42
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    It really is. It also beats a 2500K.
    No reason to lose (more than 99.9%) faith in AMD's CPU segment, Trinity will be the last hope with Piledriver :slap: :D
    Yeah, it's crazy. It also beats the 2500K, what those AMD parts compete with.
    It also beats the 2500K. I guess you didn't know that.
    Yeah!
    Yeah, that's exactly what it is. Ivy Bridge is ~10% faster in single thread than Sandy Bridge, 3.3 GHz will compete nicely with the upper desktop SB parts.
    You mean the $1000 parts sold in $3000 laptops that carry the Extreme Edition label and have 3.4% more performance for 340% the price?
    You are talking about a product that never existed.
    You're absolutely right.
    You are an Intel fanboy, and you don't even have any idea of how an intel CPU performs :toast:
    You're right too. The problem is, everybody is so mis/non-informed that they make stupid comments kind of like the ones made by trickson.
    You got a laugh out of me there.
    It isn't really pathetic, I mean, feel free to call Sandy Bridge desktop pathetic too.
    At least you have SOME idea of what's going on.
    AMD and how pathetic they are have been mentioned SO MANY TIMES in this thread. Had the article said FX-8150 AND 2500K, there would not have been a single comment.
    It really is a good thing, because Intel would be kicking Intel's ass apparently.
    Hey, that's what I said.
    "J/K but seriously"...Phenom II X6 was extremely competitive with Quad-Core Bloomfield i7 9xx and Lynnfield i7 8xx.
    It wasn't a new thing since Bulldozer, but AMD was close enough to compete (really well) before Sandy Bridge came out. BD just made it worse for them.

    Yeah, those were 6 core desktop parts in laptops.
    +1

    SSE is not "handpicked". By the way, I don't know ANYONE that complains about the things like that. You really need to understand what you are talking about before you talk about it.

    You wanna know handpicked? The guy like you complaining when someone wants to take SuperPi (which is in NO WAY an indicator of any type of performance outside SuperPi, which is used as an overclockers benchmark to compare with similar hardware) out of the equation.
    What CPU do you run? :laugh:
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2012
    mastrdrver says thanks.
  3. AvonX New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    169 (0.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    15
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2012
  4. trickson

    trickson OH, I have such a headache

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,494 (1.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    956
    Location:
    Planet Earth.
    Yeah that is great a 6 core CPU keeping up with and at times beating a Quad core. Man that is a big achievement there, Way to go AMD! :rockout:

    Yeah if this BM was on the BD and it beat Intel or Ivy bridge you AMD fanboys would be holding up in our face as the FUCKING holy grail!

    I love how you make it sound as if you are the only one that knows any thing! I think they call that a KNOW IT ALL! What do you know about me? I would ask you keep your person digs to your self!
    I am a Fanboy of performance. Top dog's get praise bottom feeders get the scraps! You do not like that? Go cry to mommy!

    If the Bulldozer wasn't so Pathetic to start with then there would be no need to talk about them. We would be using them as the standard to compare every thing else against.
    Yes looks like Intel has to really compete against it's self as Intel has set the standard for top performance Power consumption and TDP! Bulldozer has a what 125W TDP and Ivy bridge has a TDP of 77W OMFG! Again Intel sets the BAR! Yet you are saying????

    [​IMG]

    Again, You make personal digs at me, I make stupid comments. How mature are you?
    I am misinformed? I wonder how that could be true.

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8

    Now here is the rub, The Bulldozer is an 8 core 8 thread CPU the sandy bridge is a 4 core 4 thread and the phenom II is a 6 core 6 thread CPU. When I use commonsense here and reasoning, I can see that in many ways the Bulldozer and Phenom II are on par with the Sandy bridge and well this tells me that not only does it take less cores with less threads and less TDP to do the same thing an 6-8 core AMD CPU can do but that the one with less cores is also the better performer! Miss informed? Just how is having more cores more speed and more TDP better than one with less cores less speed and less TDP With better overall performance? When every thing shows that it is NOT. No you are the one mislead! BTW. Notice I did not even say any thing about the Ivy bridge in this part of my quote.
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2012
  5. GoFigureItOut

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    179 (0.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9

    AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 3.0ghz, baby!!

    I hope this gets posted correctly... I'm still a noob
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2012
  6. BeepBeep2

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    236 (0.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    42
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    AMD Phenom II on 45nm was able to beat out Core 2 Quad, so at one point AMD's first 45nm product = Intel's first 45nm product. Both shrinks would have been considered "tocks".

    AMD has a lot less of a foundry to work with. Intel has made great strides with transistor shape, optimizing their HKMG 32nm bulk process. GlobalFoundries, and even when AMD owned the fab in Dresden, has always struggled to keep up.

    Bulldozer materialized as a horrible product. It is a horrible product that looks okay on paper. It is a combination though, of the product and the fab. I'm not going to blame either one here. When you realize that AMD is 25x smaller than intel, they run a pretty efficient operation.

    By the way, how the fuck am I an AMD fanboy? I talk about how bad Bulldozer is on a daily basis.

    You're pretty fucking retarded.

    As far as this:
    Well, I'm not a fanboy, like you are a fanboy, so I don't do those kind of things. I am an overclocker, and use both intel and AMD parts. My next CPU will be 3 2600K to bin for DICE/LN2 runs for points on HWBOT. I'm not a partial, biased waste of space like you unfortunately.

    Really? You're gonna go tell me to cry to mommy? Hahahahaha :roll::roll::roll:
    I'm sure you wish you were one of those "Top dog's" in life. I doubt many of us will ever be ;)

    You're absolutely right about Bulldozer being pathetic.

    However I've already said it, I dunno, 10 times in this thread...quad core intel mobile part beats high end intel desktop part too. Just because the article said "AMD FX-8150" and not "AMD FX-8150, 2500K and 6% behind 2600K" you went on your little intel fanboy happy stint, making stupid, worthless, biased comments as far as the Cinebench score being our subject, and it is our subject.

    LOLDUHOMFG IVY HAS A TDP OF 77W? WOAH NO WEY ITS ON 22NM WITH INTELSENHANCEDFINFET3DGATEDESIGN ANDTHEYSPENT20xTHER&DMONEY!

    Did I ever make Bulldozer out to be even a good product in this thread here? I simply mentioned that it beat out a similarly priced Intel desktop product and you're all asshurt on the other side of your computer about imaginary "AMD fanboys" and how much they suck. I am not acting like a fanboy. :toast:

    How mature am I? You resorted to telling me to "cry to my mommy" because I'm the big bad "fanboy" here despite being neutral.

    You do make stupid comments. Lets look at what you've said in words so far this thread:
    1
    2
    3
    4
    1. Intel will not let AMD die. Actually, government won't even let that happen. What will be created is a monopoly. Do you know what a monopoly is? There have already been several investigations about it already being that way, because AMD is too incompetent to keep up.

    In case you need a definition:
    in·com·pe·tent/inˈkämpətənt/
    Adjective:
    Not having the necessary skills to do something successfully.

    2. That really shows the extent of your knowledge.

    3.That largely depends on what you're doing. If you're running an 33 year old instruction set designed for Intel 8087 or SSE, the only thing Pentium 4 could do right, but hardly existed at the time.

    Are you running cinebench or superpi when "any intel quad beats anything AMD has"? Or encoding videos? Making archives?...nobody gives a shit how many cores you need to match the performance in a multithreaded program that allows for 32+ threads. In fact, you can be a lot more efficient when you make a thousand slow cores work in harmony. (Think "GPU")

    4. Throwing SuperPi out of the equation is not "handpicking one benchmark". That does not make someone an AMD fanboy, oh loyal Intel fanboy overlord. :respect: :nutkick:

    I'm sorry, I said you make stupid worthless comments. In fact, you neglected to note that Ivy Bridge mobile beats out Intel's $220 desktop part and almost matches their $320 part yet spend every moment you can making sure everyone knows it beats out AMD's $240 desktop part. Nice one, fanboy :toast:






    Now, if you'd like to know my thoughts on Bulldozer, here are a collection of posts from XtremeSystems.org about what I think of AMD's current lineup.

    Some of these are funny, so feel free to get a laugh out of them.
    @ XS
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2012
    trickson says thanks.
  7. Vulpesveritas

    Vulpesveritas

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    383 (0.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    85
    Location:
    USA
    so is this a quad core or a quad core + HT? Just a quick question.

    Warning: AMD Fanboyism ahead.

    So.... it's I'm guessing a 35w part... compared to the 125-225w *cough cough* FX-8150p 4m/8c/8t 3.6/3.8ghz vs a 2.3/3.3ghz 4c/8t with much better IPC... not really a surprise given that it is technically two generations ahead of AMD as they won't have a 22 (or lower, given that gloflo and tsmc and samsung, etch are jumping past it to 14nm they may go 14 instead then.) until 2014.. the power efficiency isn't really all that surprising. Not to mention the tri-gate transistors and.. yeah.

    Really, people wonder why AMD can't keep up...
    Yet Intel puts more money into R&D than AMD makes in total income each year, before operating costs and the like.
    And yet AMD manages to remain competitive in the mainstream market.

    So tell me which is sadder, AMD or Intel here.
    Also, keep in mind if AMD delivers on Piledriver, if Ivy is clocked the same as current Intel CPUs, 4ghz Trinity will only be ~7% slower than a 3.6ghz IB part CPU wise, and have that nice, many times faster IGP with GPGPU functions and the like. So if we see a 2.8/3.2ghz A10, that will keep up with the i5's at least (If AMD delivers on it's claims that the IPC will be better than Llano STARS, which to date is the best IPC for any AMD CPU). Which AMD knows it can't compete on the high end right now. They're tossing their lot in and doing what the know how to do well, and are putting their remaining dollars into heterogeneous computing architectures. Which if they can dump the floating point over to the IGP, and manage to get fast enough cache, then perhaps AMD will be able to strike back at Intel and have another Athalon. I sure hope so.

    Anyone who isn't a multi-millionaire also probably hopes so as otherwise CPU prices would skyrocket with a monopoly.
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2012
  8. BeepBeep2

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    236 (0.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    42
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    I see you read my last post in full. :)

    I doubt trickson will :wtf:
    trickson says thanks.
  9. ensabrenoir

    ensabrenoir

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,163 (0.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    170
    That video was hilarious :roll:
    Intel costs more because they deliver TODAY AND FUTURE VIABLE performance...not THEORETICAL POTENTIAL performance that will be viable....someday. It is what it is...What ever is in your need /budget & go with it and forget about the rest. Buick makes some nice cars...but they dont try to compete with Bmw or lexus.... proper context brings clarity. Drooling to see what Ivy deskstop can do. Exciting times ...love to see innovation and tech advancement.:)
    trickson says thanks.
  10. Vulpesveritas

    Vulpesveritas

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    383 (0.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    85
    Location:
    USA
    That will be viable someday?... so games are currently mostly around quad-threaded. Your desktop uses however many cores you have for multitasking. So.... yeah. Which is why average users won't see a difference between an i7-2600k and an FX-8150p. Because they're not gaming. And outside of that, quite honestly there's not much difference between the two save for the i7 being more energy efficient and costing more.

    So eh. We, gamers/overclockers/enthusiasts make up only a small percentage of the market. And AMD is already moving towards Heterogeneous computing. What do you think the 'fusion' line is meant for? lol. They've already debuted Trinity running 3 monitor eyefinity on it's IGP alone at 5040x1050p with dirt 3 at medium settings forgoing AA. And that's with test silicon. 720p maxed settings.

    Given that, and a sandy-bridge i3/5 level CPU, in a computer which in whole costs less than $800, isn't really all that bad when you think about it. Not to mention GPGPU and graphics acceleration for nearly everything now. And AMD's visual enhancements, etc.

    AMD is looking to make something competitive. Sure the Intel 4000 graphics is better than the intel 3000... but that's not saying much. An average consumer is going to be surfing the web, watching videos, and playing a game or two and only caring whether they can play it or not. Llano is testimony for this, as with all the computers I've sold, I've never gotten a single complaint for any Llano laptop I've sold, save for one Gateway laptop which had a HDD that failed.

    So AMD is quite viable in the mainstream computer market.

    Moving on to the topic, I can't wait to see how Piledriver stacks up against IB. Hoping AMD delivers on it's promises.

    Also tech advancement... other than the tri-gate transistors and 22nm die-shrink, there isn't much in IB vs SB, it only has a 10-20% IPC increase.
  11. ensabrenoir

    ensabrenoir

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,163 (0.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    170
    :toast:


    Wow......u second everything I just said.......hope pd hype dont place it in bd shoes
  12. Vulpesveritas

    Vulpesveritas

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    383 (0.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    85
    Location:
    USA
    I may be an AMD fanboy, but I'm a realistic an honest AMD fanboy. Who will never buy anything but an AMD chip so long as they remain an ethical company, and they are an underdog in the market.

    If either of those change I might consider other companies.
    But.... the question really is how will the i3 and i5 IB stack up? Seeing as they are what 85% of consumers will be buying Intel-wise.
  13. Prima.Vera

    Prima.Vera

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    2,178 (2.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    280
    This is actually bad news. Now Intel will keep even higher the prices for mobile segment...Damn AMD!
  14. trickson

    trickson OH, I have such a headache

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,494 (1.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    956
    Location:
    Planet Earth.
    Okay you win. :respect:
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2012
  15. Vulpesveritas

    Vulpesveritas

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    383 (0.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    85
    Location:
    USA
    ... You really are a worse fanboy or a troll based on that by my perspective. Honestly, all beepbeep was saying is IB beats both Sandy bridge and bulldozer significantly.
    That's all. Given the mobile part beats most Intel desktop parts as well as all AMD desktop parts, however AMD does need to compete for the sake of us, the consumers.

    Would you disagree?
    trickson says thanks.
  16. trickson

    trickson OH, I have such a headache

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,494 (1.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    956
    Location:
    Planet Earth.
    No I agree with him. And you. Thanks for calling me that though.

    One thing I can see from the New Intel Mobile chip is that is is fast and really nice. I think now it would be worth looking at saving my pennies to get a laptop. One that can game too!

    Well said. I am going to adopt this way of thinking from now on. Thank You.
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2012

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page