eetaylog Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Is there a noticable benefit in going from 3M -> 6M cache when choosing one of the i-range intel processors? i3 2105 - 3.10GHz, 65W, Intel HD graphics 3000 3M cache -> ~£130 i5 2405 - 3.3GHz, 65W, Intel HD graphics 3000 6M cache -> ~£180 As above, both have very similar specs apart from the caching, but quite a bit of difference in price. Would be used in an htpc, with 1080p movies being the most cpu intensive load. TIA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidrick Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) I thought only the i5 and i7 had the onboard GPU, not the i3? Would that not play a large part in the price difference? Edited March 23, 2012 by sidrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eetaylog Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) I thought only the i5 and i7 had the onboard GPU, not the i3? Would that not play a large part in the price difference? Dont think so. From what ive read , the whole i range has the integrated graphics and cpu on one piece of silicon which has improved things considerably, but there are 2 different version of the gfx side, the HD 2000 and the HD 3000. The 2k is good, but the 3k kicks ass by all accounts. Edited March 23, 2012 by eetaylog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidrick Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Oooooh, I think I'm right though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eetaylog Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 Oooooh, I think I'm right though. Ill fight you about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidrick Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Oooooh, I think I'm right though. Hmm, maybe not entirely. http://www.brighthub.com/computing/hardwar...cles/65861.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eetaylog Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 http://motherboardnews.com/2011/04/07/comp...-1155-chipsets/ third paragraph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidrick Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Oooooh, I think I'm right though. Ill fight you about it. I'm a lover, not a fighter. I'll make love to you about it When I was building my PC I was 100% sure that the i3 didn't have an on CPU GPU. Intel's CPU comparison tool backs this up. That was a year ago though, so it could welll have been added to later/newer i3 processors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eetaylog Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 Oooooh, I think I'm right though. Ill fight you about it. I'm a lover, not a fighter. I'll make love to you about it When I was building my PC I was 100% sure that the i3 didn't have an on CPU GPU. Intel's CPU comparison tool backs this up. That was a year ago though, so it could welll have been added to later/newer i3 processors. I was just gonna say that. Youre probably thinking of the 1156 chipset. The newer 1155's all have the balls deep treatment. Anyway, sorry to drag it back to my original question, but.... cache, talk to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithyandco Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I always thought i3s were the Core2Duo replacement... and i5s the Core2Quad replacement. Based on that theory, wouldn't the i5 be a better solution for future expansion given that the price is not that much higher? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) My i3 has the gpu, so Fcuk you. Edited March 23, 2012 by Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eetaylog Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 My i3 has the gpu, so Fcuk you. Which one did you go for? Is it worth forking out the extra beans for more cache given the use (I'm sure you know the sort of thing I use it for)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) I went for the cheapest one at the time, which was the 530. You don't need the cache, it shouldn't affect the GPU performance noticeably. Edited March 24, 2012 by Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mutley Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Is there a noticable benefit in going from 3M -> 6M cache when choosing one of the i-range intel processors? i3 2105 - 3.10GHz, 65W, Intel HD graphics 3000 3M cache -> ~£130 i5 2405 - 3.3GHz, 65W, Intel HD graphics 3000 6M cache -> ~£180 As above, both have very similar specs apart from the caching, but quite a bit of difference in price. Would be used in an htpc, with 1080p movies being the most cpu intensive load. TIA i3 2105 has 2 cores and 64k level 1, 512kb of level 2 and 3072 of level 3 cachei5 2405 has 4 cores and 128k level 1, 1024kb level 2 and 6144 of level 3 cache so in answer imo worth the extra money.. you can see a notable difference in performance between an i3 and i5 and once you go i7 youll see an increase again.. (i have an i5 and she has an i7 and even in facebook games you can see how much faster it runs) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottybo Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 im gna drop myself i the firing line and say buy an AMD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now