Intel Westmere 32nm & Clarkdale Core i5-661 Review @ [H]

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,634
Intel Westmere 32nm & Clarkdale Core i5-661 Review - Intel fuses its new 32nm Westmere processor along with its 45nm GPU onto one package. This is Intel's new Clarkdale CPU that will be officially known as Intel Core i5-6XX and Intel Core i3-5XX series processors. Today we look at the Core i5-661 which we compare to the Core i5-750, Core i7-965, and AMD Phenom II X4.

The new Clarkdale core processors are a new engineering marvel from Intel. The new Core i5 and Core i3 processors will both serve its intended market very well. These are obviously not enthusiast products though, although some of us will possibly find the lowest end Clarkdale Core i3-530 to be a fun play toy or HTPC gem.
Click to expand...


FYI, I am still editing this article. Post your corrections here, we will make them, then delete the post.
 
Now for the love of God, please divorce Westmere cores from that piece of junk Intel calls a "Graphics Media Accelerator!"
Click to expand...

Seconded! What we need is 32nm enthusiast processors..NOW!

I seriously have a hard time understanding Intel's road map decisions. Why cant they release something decent sooner. Lets hope this release would serve as a test bed for the 32nm process and that later processors such as Gulftown will be even better. These 32nm processors just screams to be OCed! :D
 
hm, I was expecting a bit more OC potential from them being dual core and 32nm.
It doesn't give me the same impression that E8400 showed us what it could do compared to old process.

Would there be any chance that the integrated 45nm graphics chip is possibly holding some potential back?
 
jubbie said:
Seconded! What we need is 32nm enthusiast processors..NOW!

I seriously have a hard time understanding Intel's road map decisions. Why cant they release something decent sooner. Lets hope this release would serve as a test bed for the 32nm process and that later processors such as Gulftown will be even better. These 32nm processors just screams to be OCed! :D
Click to expand...

Well, technically the hexa-core 980X is a 32nm process :D
 
ihira said:
hm, I was expecting a bit more OC potential from them being dual core and 32nm.
It doesn't give me the same impression that E8400 showed us what it could do compared to old process.

Would there be any chance that the integrated 45nm graphics chip is possibly holding some potential back?
Click to expand...


the biggest difference is the architecture clock for clock is still faster then the e8400.. so even if the overclocks arent the same you still cant compare the processors.. but a 4.8ghz overclock at 1.55v and very minimal voltage changes on other bios options on a board with extremely immature bios pretty much gives you a good idea of what these processors should be capable of.. if you get a board with half decent bios and overclocking then who knows maybe the 5ghz mark is do-able..

also dont forget that this is a chip running an overclocked graphics chip.. so it is quite possible that its hurting the overclocking on this processor.. we will see soon enough what the retail versions can do..
 
intel got away with the POS called the P4.

now they are trying this funny shit.
 
Well thing is that the 980X aint out yet. Dont know who started it but it seems to have came from the GPU side, look at the way Intel is releasing their CPU and how ATI/nVidia is doing it. Could be the whole tick-tock thing, who knows :rolleyes:

Intel could very well be using the 'funny shit' as a platform to something better. Theres me hoping!
 
ihira said:
hm, I was expecting a bit more OC potential from them being dual core and 32nm.
It doesn't give me the same impression that E8400 showed us what it could do compared to old process.

Would there be any chance that the integrated 45nm graphics chip is possibly holding some potential back?
Click to expand...

With the GPU being integrated, there is some potential loss in OC potential, the thing that stands out is the memory controller on the GPU die. That will increase memory latency.
 
very good review. It's an interesting trend to start seeing gpus integrated into the cpu to handle basic (and more HTPC applications) While I am sure that these gpus will not replace our amd/nvidia power-hungry, heater, miniature surfboard sized cards that we need for [H] gaming/folding purposes; It would be nice not to have to buy a separate card for playing HD movies and basic needs for windows and such...
 
It seems like a pretty decent product, taken by itself. However, I'm not sold on its target market. It's aimed at the mainstream or HTPC market. Both of those markets are already served by inexpensive CPUs and integrated graphics. If I'm building a HTPC, why would I opt for this over, say, an inexpensive AMD chip and a cheap 780G motherboard? If I watch the Fry's ads, I can get such a deal for under $100. Granted, with Clarkdale you get much more CPU grunt, but for the mainstream and HTPC markets, you don't need it, right?
 
Thanks for the review on these parts. Do you imagine there's any likelihood of new attack susceptibility given the lack of Trusted Execution in the xx1 parts (based on the chart early in the review)?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
odd that Athlon II X4 isnt mentioned as a compotition to theese cpu's.
AMD fights directly in that price spectre there! and i reccon AMD can beat intel in loads of things.

Except games... (with dedicated videocard)
Hyperthreading or not, a quadcore will be better i reccon, even if its from amd, theese should fight Phenom II X3 quite nicely!(best them i reccon)

And they are a worthy succesor for the core 2 duo thats priced to the skies, still...
 
AtkinS said:
AMD fights directly in that price spectre there! and i reccon AMD can beat intel in loads of things.
Click to expand...

Loads of things? In a price/performance ratio it can be competitive but otherwise I think "loads" is overstating it a bit.
 
behold this is it for intel this year 32nm low end and a 1k processor only kyle will be able to touch. now where is amd's 6 core hehe
 
Loads of things? In a price/performance ratio it can be competitive but otherwise I think "loads" is overstating it a bit.
Click to expand...
Talking about Athlon II X4 630 vs Clarkdale 2.6 ghz
Phenom II 955 vs 3.3 ghz clarkdale

its a good fight tho. for the cash.

for the gpu.

I'd pick a hd4550 instead of the igp:) (but if i could choose i'd wait on hd 5450)
 
I'm a bit perplexed by this 'review', at least from a gamer's perspective.

The benchmarks are nil. The only gaming benchmarks carry a huge disclaimer about how these aren't to be trusted for real world evaluation on their own - but that's exactly what the review gives for analysis.

Why not do some real world testing? Same hardware, 1900x1200 type testing then? How can someone reading this review come to their own conclusion based on testing? How does this compete with my current rig? There is no reference point for the (scant) benchmarks provided. Is an i3/5 faster than a Core 2 Duo/Quad? Shrug.

Very weird. I actually expected to see some overclocked benchmarks as well, but nothing. It feels like the material in this article was hastily prepared to meet a press deadline with little to no regard for certain aspects. Since when was an Anandtech article more complete (and used more extravagant cooling) than a HardOCP article?
 
The market for these CPU's is not the gaming or enthusiast crowd, Intel is aiming for the typical home and business users.

The built in video is fine for business use, and will reduce the cost the the system (important when buying 20 or 30 systems at a time).
The benchmarks I've seen for the i5-661 are faster than the older socket 775 quad cores, and would be a huge improvement over our the existing single and dual core systems.
A small cheap system with 250gb drive, no floppy, no cd/dvd, GB ethernet for < $500 would do it.


I'd just like to see a low-powered laptop version, since I need to start upgrading laptops this year, and the current core2 chips are not much better than the 2 year old 2.4 Ghz core2's we currently use.
 
So this is what is replacing Wolfdale? Not as sweet as back then but I can see these selling in a lot of Dells.
 
So is this going to be a cheap option to go with when I decide I want to pony up the cash to build my brother's family a cheap but "current" system?

I haven't been keeping up with the latest and greatest for the last 6 months or so, but after cruising threw the review it seems this isn't a CPU I'd buy for myself. Just another milestone for the market I guess.
 
So it looks like it might be an 'adequete' HTPC cpu. Leaves me wondering about secondary uses for that graphics core, like CUDA or Folding.
 
Meh, still waiting for Gulftown.

The i3-530 could be an interesting "Celeron 300A-ish" CPU for overclocking, especially if someone makes a dual CPU board to support them.
 
I am waiting on 22nm before I go to a quad. Maybe then we can get some decent clocks too? This easily reachable 2.33-3.8GHz range is getting old. After all we should be at 15GHz by now. :p
 
There's physical/practical limits for why that isn't the case... As for Clarkdale, it's definitely not for the enthusiast, or even for the casual user that's capable of building his own rig and wants to do a minimum amount of gaming... For the price you're still better off w/a 750, obviously. It's definitely for the mainstream user that won't do any gaming beyond Flash stuff, and maybe for some HTPC users... Depends on how the prices for the mobos pan out, AMD could still have the upper hand there if they're not low enough (and they probably won't be initially).

More of a step towards a future progression if you ask me... They have to experiment w/this and get the market ready (while at the same time improving their existing IGP, even if marginally) if they ever hope for Larrabee to be taken seriously.
 
coolrunner84 said:
Will there be a 32nm quad or six core being released this year? Looking to upgrade my e8400
Click to expand...

nope you are seing the only 32nm products this year and the 6 core will be an EE. to note sandy bridge supposedly is delayed till 2011
 
niconx said:
I am waiting on 22nm before I go to a quad. Maybe then we can get some decent clocks too? This easily reachable 2.33-3.8GHz range is getting old. After all we should be at 15GHz by now. :p
Click to expand...

i7/i5 quads are getting past 4GHz these days and I imagine that hitting 5 with the 980 will be within the reach of good cooling. Nehalem is a much bigger upgrade coming from a QX9650 than I thought.
 
maxius said:
nope you are seing the only 32nm products this year and the 6 core will be an EE. to note sandy bridge supposedly is delayed till 2011
Click to expand...

I don't think they've said the only hexa-cores will be EE throughout the entire year, they might've said the first one will be an EE release but it doesn't mean it'll stay that way for long. I could be wrong tho...

Regarding clocks, keep in mind any of these are still much faster than a C2D or C2Q clock for clock... People seem to forget that all too easily.
 
Adam12176 said:
The benchmarks are nil. The only gaming benchmarks carry a huge disclaimer about how these aren't to be trusted for real world evaluation on their own - but that's exactly what the review gives for analysis.

Why not do some real world testing? Same hardware, 1900x1200 type testing then? How can someone reading this review come to their own conclusion based on testing? How does this compete with my current rig? There is no reference point for the (scant) benchmarks provided. Is an i3/5 faster than a Core 2 Duo/Quad? Shrug.

Very weird. I actually expected to see some overclocked benchmarks as well, but nothing. It feels like the material in this article was hastily prepared to meet a press deadline with little to no regard for certain aspects. Since when was an Anandtech article more complete (and used more extravagant cooling) than a HardOCP article?
Click to expand...

First, yes, it was hastily prepared, but not ill-prepared. I have been in bed sick with an intestinal infection since the 26th. Still, this is how folks like CPU articles done. When you start doing real word testing (which was done exclusively on the multimedia benchmarks) in a gaming realm, it turns into a GPU review.

Not very weird though, we have done it like this for years. Last time we did not was during Conroe launch and I had to eat shit about that for months and suffer many slings and arrows so we don't do it any more.

Also, given you read no real world benchmarks and no overclocking shows that you did not RTFA. Every graph has a 1GHz overclock shown. Multimedia benchmarks are all real world.

I am sorry that the review did not live up to your needs, but I honestly don't see the format changing anytime soon. I have already wasted a lot of time on that in the past and it simply does not fly. Sorry.

That all said, I firmly stand by our conclusions that were reached through our testing and usage of the Clarkdale.

nutzo said:
The market for these CPU's is not the gaming or enthusiast crowd, Intel is aiming for the typical home and business users.

I'd just like to see a low-powered laptop version, since I need to start upgrading laptops this year, and the current core2 chips are not much better than the 2 year old 2.4 Ghz core2's we currently use.
Click to expand...

We did not cover mobile in the article, but here are the specs.

MobileChart.jpg
 
heatlesssun said:
Your conclusions seem to match that of the other reviews I've read. Good overclockers, a little expensive and at home in an HTPC.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt this conclusion, or Kyle's for that matter. I'd still contend that the article was light on supporting matter compared to others. Odds are you are basing your assessment on a culmination of review material, and not solely on that of HardOCP.

I'm mildly curious why the gaming benchmarks were performed at 640x480. Months ago, the CPU scaling article referenced was even done at 'normal' gaming resolutions. I understand the basis for a 'non gpu limited' style benchmark, but how is this painting an accurate picture? Results at 640x480 are invalid (and still included) but higher resolutions lead to 'gpu limited' results? I'm confused.
 
640x480 makes the CPU the bottleneck while higher rez makes it the GPU. Therefore this becomes a CPU review. Surprise!

At higher resolutions, the GPU still becomes the bottleneck.
 
No, the 640x480 charts don't give you an idea of what kind of numbers you're going to get out of your processor when playing at your typical 1920x1200. Instead they try to show you the relative performance of these processors when chewing through typical game code, with physics, AI, etc. It lets you see how much of a penalty hit you take for only having two cores and whether or not overclocking to the gills makes up for it. You can see quickly that a 4.3GHz 661 is slightly better than a stock 750 is most games, despite having half the cores, which is nice to know.

Doing these benchmarks at 1920x1200 would make the relative differences a lot harder to see... although seeing exactly how badly GPU-limited things get would be nice too.
 
My conclusion is that basically there's zero reason to be excited about one of these new processors compared to an i7 920 for $200 from microcenter I could have had a year ago
 
HarkovAdm said:
My conclusion is that basically there's zero reason to be excited about one of these new processors compared to an i7 920 for $200 from microcenter I could have had a year ago
Click to expand...

You're looking at it only from a performance perspective and the cost of the chips themselves. This is a new process AND couples basic graphics on the chips and sip power in desktop terms. These things packaged with a TV tuner (especially a CableCard tuner) and BD drive would make wonderful HTPCs the size of a gaming console for not a lot of money. Sure they wouldn't be great gaming machines but that would rule everything else. And put it the right case with decent PSU you could even pop in a dedicated GPU, something like a 5770 and there you have an all in one HTPC/mid-range gaming machine for around $600 to $700. That's ain't bad.
 
Long time reader here. Thanks for the nice article [H]!
 
kyle, is hard falling on tough times? how come the test systems (minus the 661) were using win 7 rc?
 
And still you cant tell the diffrence when not running FRAPS.

I recently sold my main computer, waiting for something that really improves stuff.
Running a Phenom 9850BE (went from two systems, 920@ 3.6 and PHII 940 @ 4) and i really cant tell the diffrence in games.....
Nor windows....

Winrar does go slowly though compared to the I7 and the Empire total war loading.

Other than that, i havnt noticed much of a diffrence, 4870CF. and my cpu is slow and old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top