Difference between 2nd and 3rd generation i3 ??
- Thread starter dinesh66
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Basic Processors
- Apr 19, 2006
- 7,553
- 4
- 50,315
Ivy Bridge CPUs (3rd gen) are basically on average 6% more processing power than Sandy Bridge CPUs (2nd gen). They also use a little less power.
The main difference is the new Intel HD 4000 which is on average around 35% - 40% more powerful than the older Intel HD 3000. Sounds impressive, but it is still relatively weak compared to desktop graphic cards. The Intel HD 4000 is a bit slower than AMD's most powerful graphic core found in the older Llano A8 APUs. Compared to desktop graphic cards, the mobile version of the Intel HD 3000 is a little slower than the Radeon HD 5450, while the Intel HD 4000 would be a little slower than the Radeon HD 5550. The fastest AMD Llano A8 graphics core would be a little faster than the Radeon HD 5550.
AMD's recently released Trinity APU's best graphic core would probably be as powerful as a desktop Radeon HD 5570, but don't quote me on that.
The main difference is the new Intel HD 4000 which is on average around 35% - 40% more powerful than the older Intel HD 3000. Sounds impressive, but it is still relatively weak compared to desktop graphic cards. The Intel HD 4000 is a bit slower than AMD's most powerful graphic core found in the older Llano A8 APUs. Compared to desktop graphic cards, the mobile version of the Intel HD 3000 is a little slower than the Radeon HD 5450, while the Intel HD 4000 would be a little slower than the Radeon HD 5550. The fastest AMD Llano A8 graphics core would be a little faster than the Radeon HD 5550.
AMD's recently released Trinity APU's best graphic core would probably be as powerful as a desktop Radeon HD 5570, but don't quote me on that.
unreal9400
Honorable
- Aug 4, 2012
- 131
- 0
- 10,710
blazorthon
Distinguished
- Sep 24, 2010
- 761
- 0
- 18,960
AMD's APU graphics performance varies greatly by memory performance (those Llano A8s paired with some DDR3-2133 10-10-10-30 or thereabouts can easily top most Radeon 5570/6570 DDR3 cards and the best Trinity A10s with such memory can fight with even the Radeon 6670 DDR3 cards).
Also, only a few i3s get HD 3000 and HD 4000. Only the SKUs with model numbers ending in a 5 have the more powerful IGP for their generation, all of the others have the much weaker HD 2000 (2nd gen i3/i5/i7) or HD 2500 (3rd gen i3/i5, 3rd gen i7 always has HD 4000).
Also, Intel's HD graphics has differing performance even with the same model names. For example, the i3-2125's HD 3000 is a lot weaker than the HD 3000 of the i5-2500K which is somewhat weaker than the HD 3000 of the i7-2600K. Having the same model number only means having the same hardware IGP, but the frequency differs and thus so too does performance.
However, more on topic for OP, don't bother with an older generation Intel CPU most of the time. Unless it's the difference between getting a new i3 and an older i7 or something like that, get the newer one.
Also, only a few i3s get HD 3000 and HD 4000. Only the SKUs with model numbers ending in a 5 have the more powerful IGP for their generation, all of the others have the much weaker HD 2000 (2nd gen i3/i5/i7) or HD 2500 (3rd gen i3/i5, 3rd gen i7 always has HD 4000).
Also, Intel's HD graphics has differing performance even with the same model names. For example, the i3-2125's HD 3000 is a lot weaker than the HD 3000 of the i5-2500K which is somewhat weaker than the HD 3000 of the i7-2600K. Having the same model number only means having the same hardware IGP, but the frequency differs and thus so too does performance.
However, more on topic for OP, don't bother with an older generation Intel CPU most of the time. Unless it's the difference between getting a new i3 and an older i7 or something like that, get the newer one.
- Apr 19, 2006
- 7,553
- 4
- 50,315
Considering Intel never really cared about the graphics core beyond business use, the Intel HD 3000 is actually pretty decent. I was able to complete Mass Effect 3 on my laptop at 1366x768 resolution on Insanity mode.
An average 35% - 40% improvement in graphics performance is nothing to sneeze about. You can thank Apple for prodding Intel into improving their integrated graphics performance in the Sandy Bridge CPUs.
An average 35% - 40% improvement in graphics performance is nothing to sneeze about. You can thank Apple for prodding Intel into improving their integrated graphics performance in the Sandy Bridge CPUs.
blazorthon
Distinguished
- Sep 24, 2010
- 761
- 0
- 18,960
My bad, but still. My point was that they still perform differently. A mobile i3 and a mobile i7 with HD 4000 will not have the same graphics performance and the same is true for an older i3 and i7 with HD 3000.
- Apr 19, 2006
- 7,553
- 4
- 50,315
Yes, I agree with you there. I think in mobile Intel CPUs there are 3 different clock speeds used for their integrated graphics core. The ultra low voltage (ULV) CPUs used in Ultrabooks are clocked the slowest to reduce power consumption. I believe core i3 and i5 share the same performance level, while the highest core speed is reserved for the mobile Core i7 CPUs.
Perhaps the dual core i3, i5 and i7 share the same performance (core speed), while the highest core speed maybe exclusive only to the quad core i7 "QM" models.
Perhaps the dual core i3, i5 and i7 share the same performance (core speed), while the highest core speed maybe exclusive only to the quad core i7 "QM" models.
blazorthon
Distinguished
- Sep 24, 2010
- 761
- 0
- 18,960
http
/ark.intel.com/compare/64887,71096
http/ark.intel.com/compare/70846,70847,64899,64893,65714
http/ark.intel.com/compare/65708,65707,64896,64895,64903
http/ark.intel.com/compare/65700,71465,65697
It seems to be more complicated than that... Even the two EE i7s have slightly different GPU frequencies, many of the regular i7s have greater variance (some of which are equal to the slower i7 EE) and it just gets worse from there. ULV models have much lower base frequencies, but their max frequencies are pretty similar to the higher wattage models.
/ark.intel.com/compare/64887,71096http
/ark.intel.com/compare/70846,70847,64899,64893,65714http
/ark.intel.com/compare/65708,65707,64896,64895,64903http
/ark.intel.com/compare/65700,71465,65697It seems to be more complicated than that... Even the two EE i7s have slightly different GPU frequencies, many of the regular i7s have greater variance (some of which are equal to the slower i7 EE) and it just gets worse from there. ULV models have much lower base frequencies, but their max frequencies are pretty similar to the higher wattage models.
blazorthon
Distinguished
- Sep 24, 2010
- 761
- 0
- 18,960
Hello Friends,
Intel is the king of processor and chipset world, of course AMD also presenting affordable processors for computers but AMD failed to beat Intel. Intel founded on 1968 and they have almost 45 years experience on electronics field. Celeron and Pentium were did well on previous decade while intel second generation Sandy Bridge processor from 2010. They won’t take rest, Intel Ivy bridge (also known as third generation processors) released on May 2012 upon massive expectation from people. processors are very similar to sandy bridge processors (second generation) except few tweaks. Intel still continuous the i3, i5 and i7 numbering in their 3rd generation.
Best Regards
Duncan Jones
AMD beat Intel in all performance at the start of this decade and once or twice before that 😉 AMD is about as old as Intel and who is winning is extremely subjective. It's all very situation dependent. Besides, what's your point in that?
rene13cross
Honorable
- Apr 2, 2012
- 14
- 0
- 10,570
Was gonna comment that aswell, but refrained. I didn't see how his comment contributed anything 😛
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter