Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Evaluating Clarkdale vs AMD offerings

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    Of course you never compile anything while running gentoo...
    Hey I recompile openSUSE regularly, send to local build server and let her buck. Guess it depends on if you use only one machine or not.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    Of course you never compile anything while running gentoo...
    If the system is set-up right, do I care if it's compiling? It can take all night if it wants, and even if I'm trying to use the system, generally it's not hard to tweak the settings so it remains responsive. If I can keep a C7-M responsive with compilation going on, anything can be.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    103

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    103

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    265

    Default

    I would prefer the Athlon X4 630 + asrock motherboard with intergrated HD Radeon 3200 to an Intel Clarkdale processor.
    I guess the speed of an Radeon 3200 and Intels HD graphic is almost the same. Atleast the Radeon HD 3200 is faster than the Intel GMA X4500HD and Intel promised that this new Intel HD graphics is about 1.5 times faster than the X4500HD. The performance of the Athlon X4 630 is maybe about 15% slower than the Core i5 750 but you would save about one third of the money.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,598

    Default

    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?

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    265

    Default

    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 at 08:13 PM.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,598

    Default

    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.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    103

    Default

    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.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    15

    Default

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •