Gaming Intel Core ix Processors...

[dn_angel000]

Out of all the Intel Core ix Processors which is the fastest (Not including Turbo Boost)

i7 i5 i3 i2??

 

[fgghjjkll]

Obviously the i7.
i7 = High end CPU
i5 = Mid end CPU
i3 = Low end CPU

What's an i2?

 

[dn_angel000]

The i2 processor is pretty new it came out right around the i3 was released!

EDIT: Ya I wasn't sure which was faster! Thanx 4 the quick reply!

 

[Thoob]

i7 is the fastest obviously. And the i2 isn't new, it just doesn't exist.

 

[dn_angel000]

lol U really need 2 take a look at a Best Buy ad or check out their site! lol

 

[Thoob]

lol U really need 2 take a look at a Best Buy ad or check out their site! lol

lol U really need 2 type proprly U hav a full keybrd.

Find me a link to a Core i2 processor, and I'll send you $100.

 

[ultimatex]

and if you combine it with 4-8gb ddr3 main, nvidia ddr3-5 w/ 1gb+memory, you have now a monster PC.

 

[dilav]

The i2 processor is pretty new it came out right around the i3 was released!

Your probably thinking of the Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad... Some Core 2 Duo logo is quite similar to the i3/5/7 series.

DDR3 ram is quite expensive...

 

[Originality]

Core 2 Duo/Quad/Extreme all use SKT775 and dual channel memory.

Core i3 and i5 use SKT1156 and also uses dual channel memory. i3 is equivolent to Core 2 Duo and i5 is equivolent to Core 2 Quad. You can still get Core 2 Duos faster than most of the Core i series, but the new architecture means it's able to handle instructions more efficiently which makes it more suitable to modern computing (especially as more programs/games are being coded to use multi-threading, which is something the Core i series excells at with hyper-threading). Just an example, some of the Core i7s are only ~1.7Ghz, but since they have 4+4 cores, they work very well with multi-threaded applications.

Core i7 use SKT1366 and triple channel memory (it's mostly the memory and adapted motherboards that make it so expensive). At the top end of the Core i scale is the Core i7 980X, which has 6+6 cores at 3.3Ghz. With a high base clock and so many cores, that thing is a monster in the CPU world, not to mention how high you can get it from overclocking.

Btw, DDR3 RAM isn't so expensive, just appropriately scaled in price compared to DDR2. It has double the data lines of DDR2, so is roughly double the price. Bit less now that it's been out for so long. Also, about the "nVidia DDR3-5"... DDR4/5 doesn't exist yet. Modern cards use GDDR5, which is based on DDR3. See the Wiki for more information.

Finally, about the "Core i2"... if I remember (and this was some time ago), Core i2 was a misinformed rumour regarding the new Pentium series based on Nehalem, G9xxx, P6xxx and U5xxx. Designed for low power systems such (i.e. CULV), they're essentially a mini-Core i3 (hence being labelled as "i2") with hyperthreading disabled and several of the Core i3 specs cut back (like the integrated APU being only 533Mhz). It is a mistake to call it "i2" - it's just the new Pentium series (although, if you ask me, Intel should've just called them i2 since it's based on i3).

 

[Minox]

Core i3 and i5 use SKT1156 and also uses dual channel memory. i3 is equivolent to Core 2 Duo and i5 is equivolent to Core 2 Quad. You can still get Core 2 Duos faster than most of the Core i series, but the new architecture means it's able to handle instructions more efficiently which makes it more suitable to modern computing (especially as more programs/games are being coded to use multi-threading, which is something the Core i series excells at with hyper-threading). Just an example, some of the Core i7s are only ~1.7Ghz, but since they have 4+4 cores, they work very well with multi-threaded applications.

First of all, the 1156 socket supports Core i7s too, just not the same models that 1366 supports.

Second of all, calling the Core i3 equivalent to the C2D would hardly be true as the i3 features a built-in GPU and Hyperthreading (granted the GPU is shitty and Hyperthreading doesn't do too much in terms of performance, but it's still some kind of difference).

And finally - you can't call the Core i5 an equivalent of the C2Q as there's several differences. The first models of the Core i5 were indeed quad core CPUs and so are the Core 2 Quads, however the 4-core i5s contained 4 cores on a single chip while the Core 2 Quad basically contained two tightly connected Core 2 Duos on a single chip, in theory this should mean that the i5 performs better since it does not feature the choke point which the Core 2 Quad contained but as to whether there's a big difference in performance that I do not know. The newer dual core i5s however features an integrated GPU and Hyperthreading similar to the Core i3 series.

 

[Originality]

When I spoke of equivolency, I was referring to Intel's marketting campaign. Core 2 Duo/Quad/Extreme was a relatively easy hierarchy to follow in its years, yet with the Core i series, it's anything but straightforward. They advertise i3 as dual-core, i5 as quad core and i7 as both quad- and extreme-core processors (even though it's inaccurate) because that's what the average consumer in a computer shop like PCWorld knows. If they started trying to say that Core i7-8xx is SKT1156 along with the i3 and i5 series but Core i7-9xx is SKT1366, the average consumer would certainly start becoming confused and probably go for AMD which is cheaper and easier to understand.

On a side note, I didn't know Core 2 Quad was simply 2 C2D squeezed on a single chip. I always wondered why my E8400 did better in games than my brother's Q9550. Aside from the small difference in base speeds, I guess that explains it.

 

[myuusmeow]

The fastest Core i* (Core processors being the consumer grade ones) processor is the i7 980x, soon to be replaced by the 990x.

The fastest Intel processor is the Xeon X5680 (debatable of course, 6 high clocked cores or 8 medium clocked cores) which is basically a higher binned (better overclocking at lower voltages and temperatures) (Xeon being industrial server grade) version of the 980x with dual QPIs (allows for 2 CPUs on one board)

 

[Berthenk]

and if you combine it with 4-8gb ddr3 main, nvidia ddr3-5 w/ 1gb+memory, you have now a monster PC.

And again, someone doesn't know what the fuck he/she/it is talking about.

That's why I'm with AMD. I don't want a huge performance, I want something cheap that can do what I need without being too expensive.

 

[raulpica]

and if you combine it with 4-8gb ddr3 main, nvidia ddr3-5 w/ 1gb+memory, you have now a monster PC.

And again, someone doesn't know what the fuck he/she/it is talking about.

That's why I'm with AMD. I don't want a huge performance, I want something cheap that can do what I need without being too expensive.

AMD is actually always a step behind Intel, in gaming: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-g...970,2698-7.html

 

[Berthenk]

and if you combine it with 4-8gb ddr3 main, nvidia ddr3-5 w/ 1gb+memory, you have now a monster PC.

And again, someone doesn't know what the fuck he/she/it is talking about.

That's why I'm with AMD. I don't want a huge performance, I want something cheap that can do what I need without being too expensive.

AMD is actually always a step behind Intel, in gaming: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-g...970,2698-7.html

Doesn't change the fact that Intel is more expensive.

 

[ZeWarrior]

and if you combine it with 4-8gb ddr3 main, nvidia ddr3-5 w/ 1gb+memory, you have now a monster PC.

And again, someone doesn't know what the fuck he/she/it is talking about.

That's why I'm with AMD. I don't want a huge performance, I want something cheap that can do what I need without being too expensive.

AMD is actually always a step behind Intel, in gaming: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-g...970,2698-7.html

Doesn't change the fact that Intel is more expensive.

Well, yeah, it's obvious you have to pay more for a better product.