Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Intel Core i3 530 Clarkdale On Linux

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,812

    Default 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

  2. #2

    Default

    The AMD Phenom II X3 710 did not pose much of a thread to the Core i3 530 processor except in the OpenSSL and Apache benchmarks.

    You really meant "threat".

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    141

    Default

    aww, i bought my dad a new hard drive from newegg. i should've used the shopping links!

    now that i think about it, it's not just good for phoronix. the more linux users that newegg knows their dealing with, the better.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by birdie View Post
    The AMD Phenom II X3 710 did not pose much of a thread to the Core i3 530 processor except in the OpenSSL and Apache benchmarks.

    You really meant "threat".
    Doh, yeah. Thanks.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Isn't this review so much different from the one dealing with intel i5/i7? What was the problem in that case?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Can we have some power consumption measurements also?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    325

    Default

    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Eire
    Posts
    58

    Default

    Quote 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

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote 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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Eire
    Posts
    58

    Default

    Quote 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.

Posting Permissions

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