Behind Intel Core I5 ​​​​661

Information about its 32nm manufacturing processors circulated several months ago. Now Intel has started to market the processor with 32nm manufacturing process.

core i5 661

While it’s still using a Core i5, the Core i5 661 (codename Clarkdale) doesn’t really have too many differences from the older Core i5 that uses the codename (codename) Lynnfield. The most visible difference is that the Core i5 661 is a dual-core processor while the Core i5 750 is a quad-core processor (quad-core processor like others that joined the Bernamasandi Clarkdale line of processors). Also, this is the first processor to successfully integrate graphics processing into the “home” processor. The rest is the same for both Lynnfield and Clarkdale and was built on top of Nehalem architecture.

As seen from the physical appearance of this new processor, IHS behind it are two of the core, one is the processor core, while the other is the graphics processor core.

With graphics processors placed on the processor, indirectly the number will decrease as the processor core is occupied by the graphics processor core. But to still have reliable performance, Intel classifies the Clarkdale to equip it with Hyper-Threading and Turbo Boost capabilities (except for the Clarkdale “junior” like Core I3 / no Turbo Boost and Pentium G6950 which also has the smallest L3 cache). .

The Core i5 661 we tested here has its own privileges. If you look at the table, Core i5 661 has the fastest graphics processor speed compared to its brother. It would also have an impact on your TDP which is also higher among other Clarkdale processors.

The graphics processor itself is an Intel GMA with DX10 support specifications that are similar to the GMA X4500 built on the Intel G41 chipset.

Here we do two types of tests. The first is a pure performance test of the Core vs. Core i5 661 i5 750. The second is the integrated graphics performance between Intel Core i5 661 vs. G41.

As operating system we use Windows Vista Ultimate SP2. There is also our test application:

-PCMark Vantage Pro 1.0.1.0

-Sisoft Sandra 2009 SP4

– 3 Expression Encoder 3.0.1332.0 (video encoding)

– DBpoweramp 13.3 (audio encoding)

– Sysmark 2007 1:05 preview (image rendering)

– Cinebench R10 (3D content creation)

– 3DMark Vantage Pro 1.0.1 (performance preset)

– STALKER: Clear Sky Benchmark (3D games)

PCMark Vantage Pro 1.0.1.0

* Description: PCMark Vantage, most applications built with Windows Vista. The software is divided into three suites: PCMark Suite, Windows Vista Consumer Scenario Suites, and HDD Suite. PCMark Suite is used in this test, which represents the overall system.

* Results: Although the Core i5 661 has a higher speed, it seems that the Core i5 750 is still disadvantaged by the amount of its central processor.

Sisoft Sandra 2009 SP4

* Description: SiSoftware Sandra 2009 is a Windows based system scanner. The benchmarking process was carried out to test the arithmetic and multimedia side of the CPU. Benchmarks are also found in the module called Memory Bandwidth Choice. When run, Memory Bandwidth will measure the bandwidth of the system’s main memory. The test is divided into two, Integer and Float. For the record, this is a synthetic test (not using real apps), so it doesn’t necessarily result in line with real apps.

* Result: Same as in PCMark Vantage, i5 750 i5 661 is still superior for some theoretical tests performed by SiSoft Sandra.

3Expression Encoder 3.0.1332.0

* Description: With the help of this software, we convert an avi video file with extension into wmv extension.

* Results: In the video encoding test, the Core i5 750 with four still benefits from its core. The performance differences go far enough.

DBPowerAmp 3.13

* Description: Measurement of audio processor conversion performance

* Results: For the first time, the Core Core i5 661 i5 750 won here. Apparently, this conversion program is more important than the amount of processor core speed.

Sysmark 2007 Preview 1:05

* Description: Software test intended to measure the performance of a system as a whole. Tests with real applications and usage models are popular and are considered to represent the majority of users. Applications used include Windows Media Encoder 9, Photoshop CS2, Word 2003, and 3DS Max 8.0. 20 SYSmark 2007 Preview is divided into four usage scenarios, such as: E-Learning, Video Creation, Office Productivity, and 3D Modeling. Each shows system performance in the relevant usage scenarios. While the rating results show the overall system performance of SYSmark 2007 Preview.

*Results: Showed the Core i5 661 i5 750 to be superior in some tests and ultimately came out as a faster processor in this 2007 Sysmark test. been able to exploit multiple -core processors.

cinema bench R10

* Description: This software is based on Cinema 4D, an animation software widely used in studios and production houses to create 3D content. Cinebench R10 tests system performance on 3D rendering content. The test used is specific to rendering with multicore processors.

* Results: As expected, if the application is able to use multi-core capabilities optimally, i5 750 with four front points on the left front i5 661.

3DMark Vantage Pro 1.0.1 (performance preset)

* Description: Aims to evaluate the performance of a system running DirectX 10 3D games. 3DMark did not use real applications (real 3D games). However, this tool has a series of principles that help meet these objectives. Here the i5 661 integrated graphics core was tested and compared to the existing integrated graphics solution in the chipset.

* Results: The values ​​obtained are quite different, we suspect that this is because the system used (processor and memory) has an effect on the overall results.

STALKER: Clear Sky Waypoint

* Description: 3D Gaming benchmark officially released by the developers of this game. This benchmarking tool has been fully compatible with DX10.

* Results: Here you can see a fairly significant performance difference between the integrated graphics processors. Armed with higher speed, Intel GMA 661 Core i5 in graphics cards that have outperformed the G41.

Conclusion

Based on the test results, the Core i5 661 processor performs quite competitively compared to the Core i5 750. With high clock speed and Hyper-Threading capability, the impact of 50% core loss is not It’s too big. The graphics processing capabilities are not yet reliable for serious gaming (although the speed is high enough), but they are more than enough for everyday use. Integrated graphics processor solutions are also an exciting value-add now that Clarkdale Rows, the solution for all-in-one computing, can be made to be more concise.

Comments |0|

Legend *) Required fields are marked
**) You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>