Behind Intel Core I5 661
Information about their processors with 32 nm fabrication has circulated several months ago. Now Intel has begun marketing the processor with 32 nm fabrication process.
Core i5 661
While still wearing a i5 Core, Core i5 661 (code name of Clarkdale) which does not really have too many differences with the previous Core i5 using code name (code name) Lynnfield. The most visible difference is the Core i5 661 is a dual-core processor while the Core i5 750 is a four-core processor (quad-core processor as others who joined in the line of processors bernamasandi Clarkdale). Besides, this is the first processor that successfully integrate graphics processing into the “home” processor. The rest is the same for both Lynnfield and Clarkdale was built on the Nehalem architecture.
As seen in the physical appearance of this new processor, IHS behind him there are two of the core, which one is the core processor, while the other one is the core of the graphics processor.
With graphics processors placed in the processor, indirectly the number will decrease as processor core is occupied by the graphics processor core. But to still have a reliable performance, Intel ranks Clarkdale equip this with Hyper-Threading capabilities and Turbo Boost (except for the Clarkdale “junior” as Core I3 / without Turbo Boost and Pentium G6950 which also has the smallest of L3 cache).
Core i5 661 that we tested here has its own privileges. If you look at the table, Core i5 661 has the fastest graphics processor speed compared to his brother. It would also have an impact on its TDP is also higher among other Clarkdale processor.
Own graphics processor is an Intel GMA with DX10 support specifications that are similar to the GMA X4500 integrated in the Intel G41 chipset.
Here we do two kinds of tests. The first is pure performance testing of the Core processor vs. Core i5 661 i5 750. The second is the integrated graphics performance between the Intel Core i5 661 vs. G41.
As the operating system, we use the Windows Vista Ultimate SP2. There also is 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 Preview 1:05 (image rendering)
– Cinebench R10 (3D content creation)
– 3DMark Vantage Pro 1.0.1 (performance preset)
– STALKER: Clear Sky Benchmark (3D gaming)
PCMark Vantage Pro 1.0.1.0
* Description: PCMark Vantage most applications built using Windows Vista. The software is divided into three suites: PCMark Suite, Windows Vista Consumer Scenario Suites, and HDD Suite. Used in this test is the PCMark Suite which represents the overall system.
* Results: Although the core i5 661 has a higher speed, it seems Core i5 750 is still disadvantaged by the number of its core processor.
Sisoft Sandra 2009 SP4
* Description: SiSoftware Sandra 2009 is a Windows-based system analyzer. The process of benchmark tests were conducted to test the CPU arithmetic and multimedia side. Benchmarks are also found in the module named Memory Bandwidth choice. When executed, Memory Bandwidth will measure the system’s main memory bandwidth. The test is divided into two, Integer and Float. For the record, this is a test of synthetic (not using real applications), so it does not necessarily result in line with real applications..
* Result: Same as in PCMark Vantage, i5 750 i5 661 is still superior for some theoretical test by SiSoft Sandra.
3 Expression Encoder 3.0.1332.0
* Description: With the help of this software, we convert an avi video file with extension into the extension wmv.
* Results: In the video encoding test, Core i5 750 with four still benefit from its core. Performance differences go far enough.
dbPowerAmp 3.13
* Description: Measuring performance in converting the audio processor
* Results: For the first time, here winning the Core Core i5 661 i5 750. Apparently, this conversion program is more important than the number of processor core speed.
Sysmark 2007 Preview 1:05
* Description: Software test aimed at measuring the performance of an overall system. Tests carried out using real applications and usage models are popular and 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 the performance of the system at the relevant usage scenarios. While the rating results show SYSmark 2007 Preview overall system performance.
* Results: showed that the superior Core Core i5 661 i5 750 in some tests and finally came out as a faster processor in this test Sysmark 2007. Again, the i5 661 speeds seem much help in the application that has not really able to exploit multi-core processors.
Cinebench R10
* Description: This software is based on Cinema 4D – animation software that is widely used in studios and production houses in 3D content creation. Cinebench R10 test the system performance in rendering 3D content. The test used is specific to rendering using multi-core processors.
* Results: As expected, if the application is capable of using multi-core capabilities optimally, i5 750 with four point forward in the front left i5 661.
3DMark Vantage Pro 1.0.1 (performance preset)
* Description: Aims to evaluate the performance of a system running the DirectX 10 3D games. 3DMark did not use real applications (real 3D games). However, this tool has a number of principles that help meet these goals. Here’s integrated graphics core i5 661 was tested and compared with existing integrated graphics solution on the chipset.
* Results: Values obtained far enough difference, we suspect this is due to the system used (processor and memory) have an effect on overall results.
STALKER: Clear Sky Benchmark
* Description: Test performance of 3D Gaming officially released by the developers of this game. This benchmarking tool has been fully supports DX10.
* Results: Here is seen a fairly significant difference in performance between the integrated graphics processor. Armed with a higher speed, Intel GMA 661 Core i5 on graphics cards that have outperformed the G41.
Conclusion
From the test results, the processor core i5 661 has a fairly competitive performance compared with Core i5 750. With a high clock speed and the ability of Hyper-Threading, the impact of the loss of 50% of the core is not too large. Graphics processing capabilities are not yet reliable for serious gaming (although the speed is high enough), but more than enough for everyday use. Solutions integrated graphics processor is also an interesting added value now that the ranks of Clarkdale, the solution to the all-in-one computing can be realized to be more concise.
speed test
#Intel #Core
Will be pleased to have you visit my pages on social networking .
Facebook page here.
Twitter account is here.
Linkedin account here
Post byBedewy for info askme VISIT GAHZLY
