Slashdot Mirror
Core i5 and i3 CPUs With On-Chip GPUs Launched
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."
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.
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 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".
"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.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf