Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Core i3 530 Clarkdale On Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • phoronix
    started a topic Intel Core i3 530 Clarkdale On Linux

    Intel Core i3 530 Clarkdale On Linux

    Phoronix: Intel Core i3 530 Clarkdale On Linux

    Earlier this month Intel rolled out their new Clarkdale processors that are built on a 32nm process and making them rather unique is that integrated on the dual-core Westmere-based part is an integrated graphics processor. The Clarkdale CPUs launched under the Core i3 and Core i5 brands (along with a Pentium version) and since their launch have received favorable reviews, well, under Windows. We have now received our Core i3 processor and have carried out various processor benchmarks under Linux to see how well Clarkdale runs with the penguins.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14547

  • karl
    replied
    Originally posted by huygens_25 View Post
    .....

    I'm currently evaluating to buy a CPU with strictly more than 2 "threads" (either 2 cores with HT, or just 3 or more core). Price, multi-threading performance and power consumption are my constraints. So, I will continue to watch closely benchmarks on Phoronix!
    I'm basically in the same boat as you: I want to buy a new system and can't decide if to go intel or amd (I also can't decide on the video card, amd or nvidia but that's another story).

    Like you, all that I found were tests on Windows but I would really like to see how are things in Linux land (power consumption being top priority for me).

    Leave a comment:


  • huygens_25
    replied
    Further tests

    I support the idea express in a previous post concerning power consumption during the tests. It would be also interesting to see how optimised the Linux stack is for each processor. Also, a sort of speed/watt comparison could put into a new perspective the results.
    As well, I support the idea to add results for an overclocked AMD processor (if overclocking is possible).

    I've read that you will also try to benchmark the integrated GPU of the Core i3. It seems also interesting to measure the memory access performance, as this can impact also the IGP behaviour. There is an interesting article about memory performance comparing Core i3/5, i7 and AMD Phenom, but also only tested on Windows. It would be interestng to see results on Linux too.


    I'm currently evaluating to buy a CPU with strictly more than 2 "threads" (either 2 cores with HT, or just 3 or more core). Price, multi-threading performance and power consumption are my constraints. So, I will continue to watch closely benchmarks on Phoronix!

    Leave a comment:


  • blackshard
    replied
    Also it would be nice to say in detail when the test is definitely single threaded or it is multithreaded.
    Also those overclocked intel processors... It would be nice to have a phenom II x3 overclocked at 3.0 ghz for fair comparison, rather than a core i3 overclocked to 3.6 ghz

    Leave a comment:


  • RobbieAB
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael View Post
    All has to do with what's available... AMD does not send desktop CPUs to Phoronix and Intel rarely does.
    While I have no issue with this, the article implied that the Phenom II X3 710 is comparable to the i3, when in fact it should expect to get hosed. Even if all you had added was a rough price for the Phenom, it would have improved the comparison.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sadako
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael View Post
    All has to do with what's available... AMD does not send desktop CPUs to Phoronix and Intel rarely does.
    I understand that, and it's fair enough, but it really would be better if the disadvantages the AMD part had were mentioned in the conclusion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael
    replied
    Originally posted by Sadako View Post
    So glad to see I wasn't the only one to kinda take issue with this.

    I don't mean to be a pain, but comparing it to the X3 710?

    I know clock speed doesn't mean as much anymore, but the 710 is only a 2.6 GHz part, either the dual core Phenom II X2 545/550/555 or the Athlon II 250/255 would have been a much better match, preferably the Phenom II X2 because of the L3 cache like the i3.

    Dual rather than tri core, and both the tdp and clock speeds of all these models are far closer to Core i3 tested, not to mention the prices being more comparable too.

    While I apreciate having an AMD cpu in the mix in these comparisions, the choice of cpu model made little sense, almost reads as if they wanted AMD to look poor in comparision...

    To be fair, I have no doubt the reason the 710 was used is simply because it was the only comparable AMD cpu on hand, the same one they acquired for the "AMD Phenom II X3 On Linux" article, so I suppose my real gripe is that not once did they mention the reasons the Phenom did worse in the tests, and how that particular model was disadvantaged from the start.

    /rant

    All has to do with what's available... AMD does not send desktop CPUs to Phoronix and Intel rarely does.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sadako
    replied
    Originally posted by RobbieAB View Post
    A quick look at NewEgg shows an AMD Phenom II x3 720 Black Edition for $110, we can assume the 710 is cheaper.

    So basically, thrown up against a cheaper chip, it wins in the benchmarks? Good to see the prices scales are roughly correct there.
    So glad to see I wasn't the only one to kinda take issue with this.

    I don't mean to be a pain, but comparing it to the X3 710?

    I know clock speed doesn't mean as much anymore, but the 710 is only a 2.6 GHz part, either the dual core Phenom II X2 545/550/555 or the Athlon II 250/255 would have been a much better match, preferably the Phenom II X2 because of the L3 cache like the i3.

    Dual rather than tri core, and both the tdp and clock speeds of all these models are far closer to Core i3 tested, not to mention the prices being more comparable too.

    While I apreciate having an AMD cpu in the mix in these comparisions, the choice of cpu model made little sense, almost reads as if they wanted AMD to look poor in comparision...

    To be fair, I have no doubt the reason the 710 was used is simply because it was the only comparable AMD cpu on hand, the same one they acquired for the "AMD Phenom II X3 On Linux" article, so I suppose my real gripe is that not once did they mention the reasons the Phenom did worse in the tests, and how that particular model was disadvantaged from the start.

    /rant

    Leave a comment:


  • RobbieAB
    replied
    A quick look at NewEgg shows an AMD Phenom II x3 720 Black Edition for $110, we can assume the 710 is cheaper.

    So basically, thrown up against a cheaper chip, it wins in the benchmarks? Good to see the prices scales are roughly correct there.

    Leave a comment:


  • karl
    replied
    Can we have some power consumption measurements also?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X