CURRENT ISSUE
Contests
Priority IntErrupt
|
|
Issue #240 July 2010
72 Flavors and More
by Steve Ciarcia
I don’t wish to be overly critical all the time—well, actually, I’m not losing any sleep over being a curmudgeon ;-)—but have you tried to figure out what the heck they are doing over at Intel these days? Certainly, the people in the marketing department who came up with their latest processor numbering system must be smoking something stronger than tobacco. I’m sure I’m not the first who thinks that selecting a new Intel chip is a very daunting process.
I’ve been sitting on the fence for a long time when it comes to an operating system. I’ve been using XP Pro for years and saw no logical reason to “downgrade” performance to Vista when Microsoft tossed that lemon in the ring a few years ago. Instead, I continued upgrading hardware, even going so far as having a quad-core laptop, but still using XP Pro as my OS. Now, however, I think Windows 7 may be a reasonable next step even without Microsoft’s continued threats of XP abandonment. But, unlike the cars that I tend to purchase with no more than 10 minutes of procrastination, I find myself researching computer selection to the point that it might take months. It must be the difference between a purely emotional decision and overly intellectual analysis.
The first consideration in buying a new computer these days is deciding whether to choose Core i3, i5, or i7 (and I heard there is an i9 in the pipe someplace). The logical assumption is that the higher the family number the more overall performance it has and that the numbers following the family designation indicate a capability increment in that family (such as a Core i5 670 benchmarking faster than an i5 650). The answer is: Well, sorta, but not necessarily. It turns out that many of the processors within the same family have different features and, in the end, what you get for performance depends a lot on what kind of software you are trying to run!
What might have been three simple family designations is confusing the heck out of me since the numbering scheme incorporates three different design processes, dual, quad, and hex cores, hyper-threading or not, turbo-boost or not, on-die graphics or not, and various cache quantities and memory bandwidths. Figuring out all the players is a game in itself.
The Core i3 5xx series dual-core (32-nm Clarkdale) processors are considered “basic level” but aren’t slouches. They incorporate on-die graphics and hyper-threading, and they’re considered equivalent in processing power to the then top-of-the-line quad-core Q6600 I bought a few years ago.
The Core i5 6xx series dual core (32-nm Clarkdale) processors seem a bit faster. They have on-die graphics and hyperthreading, but they also include something called turbo-boost. This is a process that automatically runs the cores faster than the base operating frequency if the die operating power, current, and temperature are below specification limits. These processors appear equivalent to current midrange Core 2 quads and high-end Phenom II processors.
From then on, it is straight downhill. You’d think that the Core i5 7xx series should be an incremental upgrade—but, no, it’s a different animal. The Core i5 7xx series is a quad-core (45-nm Lynnfield) processor with turbo-boost but no hyper-threading and no on-die graphics. Not enough features? Go to the 8xx series and you add turbo-boost and hyper-threading back in the mix.
If you weren’t confused enough, there is the Core i7 8xx and 9xx series quad-core processors (45-nm Bloomfield). They have similar attributes as the other families with the addition of an unlocked multiplier that allows over-clocking for the power gamers in the crowd. To make the nomenclature even more confusing, the 9xx series isn’t even consistent within its own designation series. A Core i7 975 is a quad-core, but an i7 980X is six cores. Atta boy, Intel!
CPU benchmarks, worshipped by fringe elements who think a liquid nitrogen tank next to the desktop is a necessary part of life, are limited. Nonetheless, they are still useful enough to give us some peace of mind in performance/dollar comparisons. For example, here are the Passmark CPU scores for some that I’ve mentioned: Core 2 Duo T5500 (911), Q6600 (2959), Core i3 540 (2851), Core i5 750 (4207), Core i7 950 (6288), Core i7 975 (7011), and Core i7 980X (9955). There can be a lot of architectural overlap, so be very careful of the hype in prepackaged computers.
So, where does that leave me? Better informed, but not any closer to making my next computer acquisition. The last time I bought a new computer, I approached it the way I buy cars—get something fast and then negotiate driving it slower. The result was a 12-lb, quad-core laptop with a 300-W power supply! Certainly, I only think of it as a “transportable,” but perhaps the idea of stuffing 10 lb of processor in a 5-lb laptop has exceeded trendy effectiveness.
After quoting benchmarks to you, I have to admit that they are meaningless for most of the stuff I do anyway. It sounds wonderful to simply toss in an i7 980X—but at $1,000 each, I’d have to be nuts. Buying a computer with any one of these new processors will instantly upgrade me to Windows 7, but that certainly isn’t going to result in a 3× or 5× speed boost over my present system, regardless of the benchmarks. I doubt it will do a lot for the same old non-threaded application software I’ve been running for years. I guess that means I have to think about the road ahead a bit longer.
Priority Interrupt Archive List
|
