Information about its 32nm manufacturing processors has been around for several months. Now Intel has started marketing the processor with a 32nm manufacturing process.
Core i5 661
While still using a Core i5, Core i5 661 (codename Clarkdale) which doesn’t really have too many differences from the older Core i5 that uses the codename (codename) Lynnfield. The most visible difference is that the Core i5 661 is a dual-core processor while the Core i5 750 is a quad-core processor (quad-core processor like others that joined in the bernamasandi Clarkdale line of processors). Furthermore, this is the first processor to successfully integrate graphics processing into the “home” processor. The rest is the same for Lynnfield and Clarkdale was built on Nehalem architecture.
As seen from the physical appearance of this new processor, IHS behind it are two of the core, which is the processor core, while the other is the graphics processor core.
With the graphics processors placed in the processor, indirectly the number will decrease as the graphics processor core is occupied by the graphics processor core. But to continue to have reliable performance, Intel rates Clarkdale equipping this with Hyper-Threading and Turbo Boost capabilities (except for the Clarkdale “junior” like Core I3 / without Turbo Boost and Pentium G6950 which also has the smallest L3 cache).
The Core i5 661 we tested here has its own privileges. If you look at the table, the Core i5 661 has the fastest graphics processor speed compared to its brother. It would also have an impact on your TDP which is also higher among other Clarkdale processors.
The graphics processor itself is an Intel GMA with DX10 support specifications that are similar to the GMA X4500 built into the Intel G41 chipset.
Here we do two types of tests. The first is the pure performance test of the Core processor vs. Core i5 661 i5 750. The second is the integrated graphics performance between the Intel Core i5 661 vs. G41.
As the operating system, we use Windows Vista Ultimate SP2. There is also our test application:
– PCMark Vantage Pro 1.0.1.0
– Sisoft Sandra 2009 SP4
– 3 Expression Encoder 3.0.1332.0 (video encoding)
– DBpoweramp 13.3 (audio encoding)
– Sysmark 2007 1:05 preview (image rendering)
– Cinebench R10 (3D content creation)
– 3DMark Vantage Pro 1.0.1 (performance preset)
– STALKER: Clear Sky Benchmark (3D games)
PCMark Vantage Pro 1.0.1.0
* Description: PCMark Vantage most applications created with Windows Vista. The software is divided into three suites: PCMark Suite, Windows Vista Consumer Scenario Suites, and HDD Suite. This test uses PCMark Suite, which represents the overall system.
* Results: Although the Core i5 661 has a higher speed, it seems that the Core i5 750 is still at a disadvantage by the number of its central processor.
Sisoft Sandra 2009 SP4
* Description: SiSoftware Sandra 2009 is a Windows-based system analyzer. The benchmarking process was carried out to test the arithmetic and multimedia side of the CPU. The benchmarks are also in the module called Memory Bandwidth Option. When run, Memory Bandwidth will measure the bandwidth of the system’s main memory. The test is divided into two, Integer and Float. For the record, this is a synthetic test (it does not use real applications), so it does not necessarily result in line with real applications.
* Result: As in PCMark Vantage, i5 750 i5 661 is still superior for some theoretical tests by SiSoft Sandra.
3 expression encoder 3.0.1332.0
* Description: With the help of this software, we convert an avi video file with extension to wmv extension.
* Results: In the video encoding test, Core i5 750 with four still benefit from its core. The performance differences are sufficient.
dbPowerAmp 3.13
* Description: Performance measurement in audio processor conversion.
* Results: For the first time, the Core i5 661 i5 750 wins here. Apparently, this conversion program is more important than the number of processor core speed.
Sysmark 2007 Preview 1:05
* Description: Software test intended to measure the performance of a global system. Tests performed with real-life applications and usage models are popular and are considered to represent the majority of users. Applications used include Windows Media Encoder 9, Photoshop CS2, Word 2003, and 3DS Max 8.0. 20 SYSmark 2007 Preview is divided into four usage scenarios, such as: e-learning, video creation, office productivity, and 3D modeling. Each shows the performance of the system in the relevant usage scenarios. While the ranking results show the overall performance of the SYSmark 2007 Preview system.
* Results: showed the Core Core i5 661 to be superior to the i5 750 in some tests and finally came out as a faster processor in this Sysmark 2007 test. Again, the speeds of the i5 661 seem to be of much help in the application that it really hasn’t exploit multiple core-processors.
Cinebench R10
* Description: This software is based on Cinema 4D, an animation software that is widely used in studios and production houses in the creation of 3D content. Cinebench R10 tests system performance when rendering 3D content. The test used is specific for rendering using multi-core processors.
* Results: As expected, if the application is able to use multi-core capabilities optimally, i5 750 with four points forward on the front left i5 661.
3DMark Vantage Pro 1.0.1 (Performance Preset)
* Description: Aims to evaluate the performance of a system running DirectX 10 3D games. 3DMark did not use real applications (real 3D games). However, this tool has a number of principles that help achieve these goals. Here the i5 661 integrated graphics core was tested and compared to the existing integrated graphics solution on the chipset.
* Results: The values obtained with sufficient difference, we suspect that this is due to the fact that the system used (processor and memory) have an effect on the general results.
STALKER: Clear Sky Benchmark
* Description: Test the performance of 3D games officially released by the developers of this game. This benchmarking tool is fully DX10 compliant.
* Results: Here is a fairly significant performance difference between the integrated graphics processor. Armed with a higher speed, Intel GMA 661 Core i5 in graphics cards that have outperformed the G41.
Conclution
From the test results, the core i5 661 processor has quite competitive performance compared to the Core i5 750. With high clock speed and Hyper-Threading capability, the impact of 50% core loss does not It’s too big. The graphics processing capabilities are not yet reliable for serious games (although the speed is high enough), but more than enough for everyday use. The integrated graphics processor of solutions is also an interesting added value now that the Clarkdale ranks, the solution for all-in-one computing can be realized to be more concise.