Overclock.net banner

Hazwell History Lesson on Core I-3s

591 views 22 replies 7 participants last post by  RWayne 
#1 ·
I am trying to educate myself on socket 1150 Core I-3s. Can anyone give me a brief overview or link some articles?

Questions:

1.) Which models are hyperthreaded?

2.) What is the difference between the 4100 and 4300 series?

3.) What date was each series released?

4.) Are any Core I-3s unlocked?

5.) Any news on the Skylake core I-3s?

6.) What is the best bang for your buck core I-3?

7.) Is it advisable to go with an 8 series chipset to save some money?

If the forum can answer some or all of these questions it would be appreciated.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4
 
See less See more
#5 ·
read the conclusion and that is what I though at first. And an answer from the comment section states that hyperthreading bottlenecks sooner on loe end GPU's.
Just Read the article or some of it
Remember this is just in Games and only won by couple of frames in "some games" not ALL
 
#6 ·
#7 ·
taken from the article :

While the R9 290X results here are very predictable with the i7-4790K on top, take a look just below this at the GTX 980 results. Both the FX 9590 and FX 8350 from AMD provided better performance with the GTX 980 in this test, with the i7-4790K actually a few points behind the i5-4440! Given the difference in clock speed and thread count (8 vs. 4) one would think the i7-4790K would always best the Core i5. This happened again down at the R7 260X result, with the i3-4130 (a dual-core, HyperThreaded part) finishing so much higher that I can only assume something went wrong with this result. Sometimes benchmarks are odd.
here: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Systems/Quad-Core-Gaming-Hardware-Roundup/Synthetic-Benchmarks

Another example of the i5-4440 taking the lead over the the i7-4790K, which if anything indicates that (for DX11 gaming anyway) you probably don't need a Core i7 with a single GPU (we'll see if that remains true through the next GPU generation).
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Systems/Quad-Core-Gaming-Hardware-Roundup/Metro-Last-Light-and-Middle-Earth-Shadow-Mordor

1440p

http://www.pcper.com/files/imagecache/article_max_width/review/2015-06-30/mordor_1440_sorted.png

Above in the last link I3 WINS
 
#8 ·
this comes from the author at the end of last benchtable :

What is this? The i3-4130 can't possibly be this good, right? Somehow it has managed to top the Core i7 more than once in these benchmarks, and it confuses me. Did I secretly overclock the i3-4130 to skew the results? Did I lose all grip on reality during the 6 months of sleepless nights spent benchmarking? I may never know.
 
#9 ·
The only one I see where the i3 is better is in the 1440p test and only with the 290.
Increasing the resolution puts more load on the GPU and stays the same on the CPU IIRC.

If they really wanted to test the processors instead or the GPU, they should have went 800x600 and ran the lowest settings with draw distance maxed out.
 
#10 ·
The function of Intel smart cache is at the hardware level where the physical cores have shared access, not the logical cores. Hyper threading is marketing slang for SMT, where the parallelization of threads are optimized, prioritized, and ordered through the core's pipeline.

IMHO, your experience in the performance hit was probably due to simultaneously seeding and looping the cache at the pipeline level leading to a bottleneck in the resource. So not that the "Logical" cores were the issue, rather the overall cache miss rate was high due to the resource bottleneck. Also I think since the i5 4440 has a smaller L3 cache (6MB), it's faster to search than the i7's 8MB cache and probably resulted in lesser cache miss rate.
 
#11 ·
So all of the core I-3 have 4 threads?

So if the core i3 have 4 threads and the i5s have 4 cores what is the major difference between the two that makes the i5 such a beast?

From what I heard the 4170 is a recently released chip? Is that true?
 
#12 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWayne View Post

So all of the core I-3 have 4 threads?

So if the core i3 have 4 threads and the i5s have 4 cores what is the major difference between the two that makes the i5 such a beast?

From what I heard the 4170 is a recently released chip? Is that true?
Hyper threading isn't adding cores.
When the CPU is asking for something in the cache, it has to wait for it.
With hyperthreading, while it is waiting for what it needs, other things can be processed in that tiny fraction of a second.
A dual core that is hyperthreaded will do about 30% better than a dual core that is not.
A quad core on the same architecture would double what the dual core could do.
Hyperthreading tends to run hotter as well.

Also the i5 can be overclocked.

No idea when the 4170 was released, but I'd take a Sandy Bridge i5 over it any day.
 
#13 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLAWNOOB View Post

2. 4300 clocks higher and more expensive
#2 isn't right, the main difference is the size of cache.
http://ark.intel.com/compare/77490,77495

Quote:
Originally Posted by RWayne View Post

So all of the core I-3 have 4 threads?

So if the core i3 have 4 threads and the i5s have 4 cores what is the major difference between the two that makes the i5 such a beast?

From what I heard the 4170 is a recently released chip? Is that true?
yes all i3s have 4threads.

the difference is how hyperthreading functions.
in hyperthreading you're using unused resources on a core to simultaneously execute two threads on a single core, meaning you're executing 4threads on a dual core.
where as i5s with their 4 cores have their own individual resources to simultaneously execute 4threads.
the difference is that if an application can load a core fairly heavily you run out of resources for hyperthreading to gain efficiency.
in effect the extra threads on hyperthreading loses speed but that does not necessarily mean it won't function.
the main benefit of hyperthreading is in those applications that requires multiple threads but does not need too much resources.
in such a case an i3 wouldn't perform any slower than an i5 4core at the same clock speed.

from what i recall its a later released chip yeah, since their fabrications have improved they can manage to get chips to clock higher.
 
#14 ·
Yes, the i3 4170 was released this year (march i believe). There are very few reviews but given its specs it looks better than the previous 4130 on paper (as epic1337 mentioned, the new ones have higher clocks), which had good reviews, so i bought the 4170 instead... I cant really compare them both but i got the T version, and I must say it feels pretty good! I havent had any stutter of any aspect so far.
 
#16 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWayne View Post

@ Baelog - three questions: 1.) What motherboard to you have for your 4170? 2.) When you say 'stutter' do you mean in games? 3.) How does it handle in Battlefield? Assuming you have BF4 or hardline

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4
1) I have an ASRock H81M
2) Yes (have not tried 4k tho, so maybe there x)
3) dont have BF4
 
#17 ·
1.) Which models are hyperthreaded? All i3s are 2C/4T (2 core with hyper threading) Read this

2.) What is the difference between the 4100 and 4300 series? 4300 series have a bit more speed, a bit more cache and a bit more expensive.

3.) What date was each series released? All here

4.) Are any Core I-3s unlocked? No.

5.) Any news on the Skylake core I-3s? No.

6.) What is the best bang for your buck core I-3? i3-4170

7.) Is it advisable to go with an 8 series chipset to save some money? It depends your wanted features. H8x (H81 or H87) will both be able to handle that processor with ease. If you want to cut costs as much as possible, you can go with something like an MSI H81M-P33.
 
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWayne View Post

What are all of your expectations for Skylake? Do you feel that availability and price gouging might be an issue a month or two out of the gate?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4
better cache handling and much faster IMC, overall IPC should be notably faster too, newer instruction sets, higher I/O bandwidth, etc.
overall a good upgrade even if you're coming from haswell.

probably gonna be expensive on first launch, you'd have to wait for market saturation first, the early buyers would starve the supply on the first two months.
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWayne View Post

I am beginning to consider getting an i5 4690k. Its only about $100 more and over the life of the computer that really ain't much. I dunno. I'll be happy either way

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4
You can always get the lower end and in a year or two, score a 4690k used for cheap from someone who upgraded.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top