Reviews - Intel vs. Intel - four Core i5 2500 chips go head-to-head
Quote:
2500, 2500K, 2500S and 2500T - we make sense of them all.
Read more.
Re: Reviews - Intel vs. Intel - four Core i5 2500 chips go head-to-head
Intel with their very annoying and confusing model numbers of CPU's and motherboards is all too much.....
Can't be bothered
Re: Reviews - Intel vs. Intel - four Core i5 2500 chips go head-to-head
Great review, more of this type of thing please :)
On another note, good to see Intel pushing ahead with Operation Mystical Names
Re: Reviews - Intel vs. Intel - four Core i5 2500 chips go head-to-head
If it's getting to the point where a 4 digit number isn't enough to identify your product, then you know that they just have too many products.
i3, i5 i7
K suffix
T suffix
S suffix
series prefix of 2 to indicate 2nd generation....
Just how do you explain to Gran how this will help her do her online banking quicker than using a new AMD based system, or her existing pc.... I really do think that someone needs to come up with a simpler strategy for the mere mortals out there, otherwise we're back in the realms of DX2-66 vs K6 nonsensical naming conventions....
Re: Reviews - Intel vs. Intel - four Core i5 2500 chips go head-to-head
Used to be that the low voltage version of a chip had the same clock speed, if it runs at 2.3GHz then its clearly not a 2500 and should be named accordingly, damn you Intel.
Re: Reviews - Intel vs. Intel - four Core i5 2500 chips go head-to-head
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Platinum
Used to be that the low voltage version of a chip had the same clock speed, if it runs at 2.3GHz then its clearly not a 2500 and should be named accordingly, damn you Intel.
It does under typical load - the turbo speed is the same, it just throttles back more under heavy all core load to provide a lower TDP.
Which is vital when you are designing a system to specifically cope with up to a certain amount of wattage heat - the extra cost in coping with a higher heat dissipation might well not be worth the small increase in performance under very heavy load, while for most of the time you have a chip that's just as fast.
Re: Reviews - Intel vs. Intel - four Core i5 2500 chips go head-to-head
Thanks for this Hexus, this is exactly the sort of article that I came here for in the first place.
Of course, I came for the articles, but stayed for the banter :)
Re: Reviews - Intel vs. Intel - four Core i5 2500 chips go head-to-head
what of the hardware bug? frame rate skipping every 20s or so?
Re: Reviews - Intel vs. Intel - four Core i5 2500 chips go head-to-head
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kalniel
It does under typical load - the turbo speed is the same, it just throttles back more under heavy all core load to provide a lower TDP.
Which is vital when you are designing a system to specifically cope with up to a certain amount of wattage heat - the extra cost in coping with a higher heat dissipation might well not be worth the small increase in performance under very heavy load, while for most of the time you have a chip that's just as fast.
Eh?
Code:
i5 2500K 4/4 3.3GHz 3.7GHz 1/2/3/4 95W HD 3000 $216
i5 2500 4/4 3.3GHz 3.7GHz 1/2/3/4 95W HD 2000 $206
i5 2500S 4/4 2.7GHz 3.7GHz 1/5/9/10 65W HD 2000 $216
i5 2500T 4/4 2.3GHz 3.3GHz 1/5/9/10 45W HD 2000 $216
Re: Reviews - Intel vs. Intel - four Core i5 2500 chips go head-to-head
Is there any chance to have some gaming benchmarks with a discrete card added to the review??
Re: Reviews - Intel vs. Intel - four Core i5 2500 chips go head-to-head
Quote:
Originally Posted by
snootyjim
Eh?
Code:
i5 2500K 4/4 3.3GHz 3.7GHz 1/2/3/4 95W HD 3000 $216
i5 2500 4/4 3.3GHz 3.7GHz 1/2/3/4 95W HD 2000 $206
i5 2500S 4/4 2.7GHz 3.7GHz 1/5/9/10 65W HD 2000 $216
i5 2500T 4/4 2.3GHz 3.3GHz 1/5/9/10 45W HD 2000 $216
Sorry, was probably thinking of the S. No idea about the T model then. Seems like they want to create a third tier of products, just like how mobile versions of chips sometimes bear no resemblance to the desktop one of the same model number.
Maybe it's just a reflection of the performance per watt, or position in market, then. If it provides the same performance as a lower numbered chip but uses far less power to do so then it's a class above.. but having that all hang on a letter at the end of the model number is unhelpful.
Re: Reviews - Intel vs. Intel - four Core i5 2500 chips go head-to-head
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HalloweenJack
what of the hardware bug? frame rate skipping every 20s or so?
Yeah it can be an annoying problem for HTPC use but it's generally not much of a concern for desktop use. For anyone thinking huh? scroll down this page for an explanation.
Re: Reviews - Intel vs. Intel - four Core i5 2500 chips go head-to-head
Quote:
Originally Posted by
watercooled
Yeah it can be an annoying problem for HTPC use but it's generally not much of a concern for desktop use. For anyone thinking
huh? scroll down
this page for an explanation.
Use an i3 2100T for an HTPC, watched loads of stuff, never noticed it... maybe I just have squiffy eyes, but it looks absolutely fine to me.
Re: Reviews - Intel vs. Intel - four Core i5 2500 chips go head-to-head
It's only for media mastered at specific frame rates, it irritates me but some people never notice it even when it's pointed out. I find it's like a reminder or something popping up on your TV, temporarily ruining immersion in the film. Maybe that software patch has been well distributed now somehow? I'm not sure where it would fit in though, at an OS or application level?
Re: Reviews - Intel vs. Intel - four Core i5 2500 chips go head-to-head
Not sure about the power readings of the 2500T. Running WPrime now and mine uses 35.7 watts 100% load, 18.5 watts idle (no EIST or C1E). With C1E and EIST on it uses something like 6.9 watts idle :S
Come to think of it, is Core Temp reliable for power readings??
Re: Reviews - Intel vs. Intel - four Core i5 2500 chips go head-to-head
No, software isn't remotely reliable for power readings. For example, HWMonitor claims my CPU is using more than the whole PC is pulling from the wall...