Monday, November 23rd 2009

Dual Core Intel Core i3, Core i5 Processors Start Getting Listed

Over a month ahead of its launch, the first wave of Intel's 32 nm based Core i3 and Core i5 series dual-core processors have been listed on German online store HPM-Computer. The pricing and specifications disclosed by these listing confirm the information that surfaced as early as in July, this year. The series starts with Core i3 500 series processors whose clock speeds range between 2.93 to 3.06 GHz, and continue with Core i5 600 series dual-core processors ranged between 3.20 GHz and 3.43 GHz. While both series feature HyperThreading Technology to give the operating system four logical processors (threads) to work with, the Core i3 processors lack the Turbo Boost feature which the Core i5 chips have.

According to the new listing in which the chips are priced in Euros, the 2.93 GHz Core i3 530 processor is priced at 103.90 EUR, and 3.06 GHz Core i3 540 at 120.90 EUR. The Core i5 600 series lineup includes the 3.20 GHz Core i5 650 priced at 160.90 EUR, 3.33 GHz Core i5 660 and 661 priced at 175.90 EUR, and lead by the 3.43 GHz Core i5 670 priced at a premium 252.90 EUR point. All prices include a 19% applicable tax. The IGP clock speed (750 MHz vs. 900 MHz), differentiates Core i5 660 from 661. It is likely that the price of one of those seems to have entered incorrectly. With these processors, Intel may also introduce the Intel H57 Express chipset, and motherboards by various vendors will soon follow. These processors, however, have the same LGA-1156 socket the "Lynnfield" quad-core processors have, which are currently in the market. They may run on existing P55 Express based motherboards too, according to a recent report.

Source: TechConnect Magazine
Add your own comment

31 Comments on Dual Core Intel Core i3, Core i5 Processors Start Getting Listed

#1
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Fitseries3 said:
TDP includes the integrated GPU so idk why you guys are complaining. these are far less than any other cpu+gpu combo with similar performance.
Doh! I forgot about the integrated north bridge. That considered, yes, the wattage is quite low for a desktop.


gumpty said:
I wouldn't say they make a massive difference in games, but they do make a difference - well, 3+ cores makes a difference compared to dual and single core.
Thanks to all the Xbox 360 ports to PC. Some games (like Saints Row 2) are barely playable with less than three cores. :(


mlee49 said:
How much higher did are your expectations? 4.0Ghz+? Should we see 10Ghz San Andreas' aka "Pentium" within 2-3 years?
I do want to see a 4 GHz CPU out of Intel or AMD. Intel got really close (3.8 GHz) with Pentium 4 and gave up on it (as they should have) before reaching the 4 GHz mark. Westmere is in a position to reach, and exceed 4 GHz but only if AMD puts the pressure on. Netburst proved that 10 GHz on the current manufacturering process is unreasonable.


1Kurgan1 said:
Anyone happen to know what the real performance is on these versus the quads out there? How will these run compared to things like the PII 965, or even the i5 750? I think once the price drops on these things they will sell like hotcakes, they look to be a lot of fun.
Someone post an Engineering Sample, Sandra benchmark. It scaled almost perfectly in the benchmark from 2.8 GHz quad-core to 2.8 GHz hexacore (50% faster).
Posted on Reply
#2
OnBoard
So any news about 32nm Quad-core? 32nm hexa-core is coming as i9, surely there will be a mainstream version of that Core i7-890 or something. Or maybe they'll make it Core i5-720.

edit: not until 2011 according to this :( http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/mbrzostek/idf2009/4/roadmap_v1_k.png

Then again if these 4 thread things do as well as s775 Quads, I'd have no real need for a Quad-core. Cool, cheap and almost as good as hot&expensive quads, yeah, I could go for that :p
Posted on Reply
#3
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
pjladyfox said:
Okay, that makes a bit more sense 'tho it would have been nice if they had made the ones with a integrated GPU it's own separate "i" designation rather than lumping it under the i5-series especially since looks like they may have other i5 CPU's like the i5-750 out there that do not have the GPU in them. But, then again, they could have done it that way to separate them into their own performance category but that's kind of silly since they have it setup like this:

Lynnfield Core i5-7xx, 4 cores, LGA-1156, no Integrated GPU

Clarkdale Core i3-5xx, 2 cores, LGA-1156, 733 MHz Integrated GPU
Clarkdale Core i5-6xx, 2 cores, LGA-1156, 733 MHz Integrated GPU

Arrandale Core i5-4xxM, 2 cores, laptop µPGA-989, Integrated GPU
Arrandale Core i5-5xxM, 2 cores, laptop µPGA-989, Integrated GPU

I mean, why not lump all of the Clarkdale's under the i3-series and differentiate them based upon other factors especially since they all run the same amount of L2/L3 cache and cores? At least the Pentum Dual Core makes sense by giving it a Gxxxx classification.

And that Core i5-661 is an oddball for sure since it's the only Clarkdale that I could find that runs the IGP at 900 MHz rather than 733 MHz.
You're coming across the same argument of why Intel couldn't lump all LGA-1156 "Lynnfield" processors into i5. You'll notice how the dual-core i5 models come under the 600 series, while quad-core ones are 700 series. What differentiates Core i3 dual-core chips from Core i5 is the Turbo Mode. Since there are no Clarkdale chips without an IGP, it doesn't matter if it doesn't have a Gxxxx nomenclature.
Posted on Reply
#4
Hayder_Master
for me i ever think get dual core cpu when i pay a huge of money for p55 and ddr3 memory
Posted on Reply
#5
Laurijan
Interesting that they all have HT at this price point...
Posted on Reply