..:: PCSX2 Forums ::..

i3 is better than your quadcore in many ways.
i3 has a new improved architecture, it has a faster clockspeed than any qcore, it might be a dual core but it has hyperthreading w/c allows it to perform like a qcore. your quadcore has 4-cores and 4-treads, operating system reads it at 4 cores. your friend's i3 is dual core with 2-cores and 4-threads, operating system reads it as 4 cores also. number of cores really doesnt matter, its the threads that counts ,Physical cores are actual ‘real’ cores. Threads are how many ways the data is transfered. Generally the number of cores match the number of threads but Intel’s new i3 have different amount of threads per cores which is called Hyperthreading that allows a dual core to act like a quadcores or a quadcore to act like an 8-core. i3 runs cooler with 32nm, compared to core2quad's 45nm, less power means less heat and longer system life, another is i3s supports up to 16gb ram, core2quad can only supports up to 8gb ram max, and i3 supports a faster ddr3 memory compared to core2quad's ddr2 which is slower. i3 also has an integrated graphics incase your video card dies accidentally. core 2quad's only advantage is it is better in multitask. but i3 is better overall.

Hmm, i3 is way better than quadcores, it can be overclocked until 4Ghz on air and just bumping a little the volts . Quadcores require a lot of volts and better coolers >_< and even at the same speed i3 is faster

Hmm, i3 is way better than quadcores, it can be overclocked until 4Ghz on air and just bumping a little the volts . Quadcores require a lot of volts and better coolers >_< and even at the same speed i3 is faster

What comparison are you trying to make? Clock for clock performance in PCSX2? Something else?

Seriously, it's a bit of an unfair comparison. The Core 2 Quad is a desktop processor running at 2.66 GHz with a TDP of 95W. The Core i3-330M is a mobile processor running at a 20% lower clock rate and a TDP of 35W (with actual typical power consumption probably being way less). Assuming both are running at stock, the quad would be faster. Still the difference would probably be just around 10~15%.

(12-03-2010, 08:22 PM)Butz_san Wrote: [ -> ]Hmm, i3 is way better than quadcores, it can be overclocked until 4Ghz on air and just bumping a little the volts . Quadcores require a lot of volts and better coolers >_< and even at the same speed i3 is faster

i noticed your vcore voltage is just slightly over 1 volt and youre clocked @ 4.2 ghz, what i3's stock voltage if your high overclock requires only 1.02v?

(12-04-2010, 05:10 AM)vdgamer Wrote: [ -> ]i noticed your vcore voltage is just slightly over 1 volt and youre clocked @ 4.2 ghz, what i3's stock voltage if your high overclock requires only 1.02v?

Actually, that might just be due to Vdroop...

(12-04-2010, 05:34 AM)ilovejedd Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, that might just be due to Vdroop...

You are right, my i3 is at 1.26 in volts in 4.2. But that just happen if my 2 cores are running at 100% . Right now I'm at 4Ghz but with HT enabled

Isn't the i3 the follow-up of the Celeron?? I mean what I've read in some computer magazines is that u can see the:

i3: Celeron-Class CPU
i5: Core2Duo CPUs
i7: Quad and above CPUs

The Celeron comparisons are not relevant anymore. Intel hasn't retired the Celeron "concept", they just retired the name and built the Celeron-style models into every line. If you buy a Q8400, it's effectively a "Celeron" edition of the Q9400, and the Q9400 is a "Celeron" edition of the Q9450. The i3/5/7 lines complicate things because they freely mix up core counts, cache sizes, and multipliers. The i5 6xx series is a 2-core design while i5 7xx series is a 4 core design, for example. You can't really do any sot of Celeron comparison when core counts are involved.

In any case, for our modern PCs (Core2 and i3/5/7) L2/L3 cache and bus speed/clock multipler ratios size barely makes any difference in performance except for the most obscure of daily tasks on your PC. So even if you are given a choice, go with the "Celeron" editions. You'll save a ton of money, get a more overclockable CPU, and at the end of the day have equal or superior performance.

Okay thanks for clearing that up, here I thought that it could be a logical naming oh well heh.