No announcement yet.

Evaluating Clarkdale vs AMD offerings

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    The i5 750 is a QUAD core without gpu and should be faster than the fastest Phenom X4 in >85% of all benchmarks (some run really fast on amd too). The codename is Lynnfield for those. Clarkdale however are the desktop DUAL core solutions with integrated GPU. So with what chip do you really want to compare?


    • #17
      uhm ok sorry, I thought the Core i5 750 has also the Intel HD graphics, but thats wrong.
      Then I compare it to the Core i5-661, which has only 2 cores and is even slightly more expensive than the Core i5 750.

      The Athlon X4 630 has about the same performance as the Core i5 661. In a few benchmarks tests the Athlon is a bit better in others especially gaming and a few other things not. Well the power consumption of the Core i5 661 is better though.
      Last edited by Fenrin; 01-05-2010, 08:13 PM.


      • #18
        The i5-661 has got a tiny bit faster gfx core than the i5-660, but i don't think that's really needed. Who would play games with it anyway? If you don't need Turbo Boost then i3 is already enough.


        • #19
          Another clarkdale review

          And the conclusion

          I stumbled across this on one of my RSS feeds. You may be interested if considering a purchase "soon"tm. I am not aware of any new releases of intel chips (as they just released these) other than the i7 930.


          • #20
            Well, I went for a Core i5-650 on a MSI H55-GD65 board, and I'm quite satisfied. Reasons for my choice were:
            - the 32nm Clarkdales are quite more power efficient than similar AMD processors
            - I also encrypt all my harddrives, so AES-NI is handy (NOTE: only i5 Clarkdales have AES-NI, i3 don't !)
            - Integrated graphics hopefully save some power, too, and I don't play games on that machine

            I'm also using gentoo - but as it's more of a server machine, I'm on stable arch and therefore there isn't so much compiling going on anyway. It also overclocks very nicely, without upping the voltage I could go straight to a baseclock of 160MHz (standard 133), so the processor now runs at 3.84GHz (yes, this doesn't really improve power-savings ;-) ).

            Well, my main reason was power-savings ... I guess if you don't care too much about that, you could get a similar performing solution with more cores and (better) discrete graphics from AMD for a lower price.


            • #21
              Originally posted by Luzipher View Post
              - I also encrypt all my harddrives, so AES-NI is handy (NOTE: only i5 Clarkdales have AES-NI, i3 don't !)
              Could you benchmark this? Maybe build a one kernel with AES-NI support and one without and do a few large file writes?


              • #22
                FWIW I'm using a i5-650 I bought for $120 at Microcenters.
                I can stably overclock it to 4.5Ghz (I did so for 24hrs), but since low power is my goal I have it top at 4Ghz - this make <1W diff at idle. With an GB H57M..USB3 bd two sata disks, dvd & 4GB dram, 2 fans it idles at 50-51 watts. I think the Asus offering may be slightly better.

                Things to consider -
                A/ Among the Clarksdales the features on the chips vary. For example the i5-661 lacks TXT(Intel trusted execution) and lacks Directed I/O (VT-d) which is very important for high performance virtualization. Read the Intel site carefully before selecting.
                B/ the i5-661 has a slightly faster GPU (23% faster), and has a 14W higher TPD. I think that's a bad performance/power trade-off. A 23% boost in that GPU is like putting a turbocharger in a Yaris. A faster mediocre GPU.
                C/ You can overclock the H*** out of the clarksdales. So I wouldn't worry much about the nominal clock rate. My (nominal 3.2Ghz) i5-650 has been clocked at 5Ghz for a benchmark. The GPU locks up, but the CPU works fine. Olny at 5.2Ghz it chokes.
                D/ Sadly for AMD that have nothing with both good performance and low power consumption. Power implies more fans & noise and heat and a basically unpleasant PC.

                So yes AMD is marginally cheaper in purchase price. You'll lose that savings to the power company over the life of the machine. AMD certainly wins some specific benchmarks solidly over intel. Read the AandNtech comparisons. If you do loads of vid encoding the AMD is a solid choice. If you can really use 4 CPUs and need this at high performance then choose AMD (the Intel comp is way too expensive).