Intel Core i3-2105
Intel’s Core i3-2105 is a 3.1GHz dual-core CPU with hyper threading, so any OS will see it as a four-core processor, although it’s not as efficient when it comes to multithreaded jobs as a true quad core processor, such as the AMD A8-3870K. Although, just like the A8-3870K, it lacks a Turbo boost to dynamically increase the clock speed, should the need arise. The Intel Core i3-2105 also has its multipliers locked, so any overclocking can only be done via the system bus, which limits what can achieved.
Intel H61 Express chipset block diagram
The desktop versions of the Core i3 normally use the HD2000 version of Intel’s integrated graphics core but the i3-2105 was the first member of the family to use the more powerful HD3000 graphics core which, at the time of its release, was only to be found in some Core i5 and i7 CPUs.
PCMark7 overall score
Longer bars are better
Cinebench R11.5 Index Score
Longer bars are better
AMD and Intel X264 V4.0 video encoding rate
Average frame rate: longer bars are better
When it comes to the mainstream market for CPUs, the phrase, "You’ve never had it so good” springs to mind. With a multitude of processors to choose from and priced such that there is a CPU for every budget. If it’s confusing now it’ll only get worse when the low-end Ivy Bridge processors eventually turn up. The good news is that, if you don’t want to go down the Intel path, there are plenty of respectable and affordable options available from AMD that have some unique and innovative features on-board too. ®
AMD and Intel mainstream desktop CPUs
is the point of this review???
The author basically picked up one chip each from the Intel and AMD lineups that have roughly the same price (without ANY justification as to why these particular ones were picked), performed a comparison around a minimal set of vapid benchmarks (!) and then reached a verdict that said.. what exactly? "Cheap as chips".. riiiight....
Instead, why not do a feature on which motherboards look the prettiest? Ooh, look at the lovely blue heatspreaders there...
Re: AMD still trailing
First off, OS's are increasingly reliant on graphics capabilities. Even business workers want all the pretty (and sometimes usefull) effects on their desktops. A more powerfull embeded GPU helps them run more smoothly.
Also, a GPU embedded in the CPU can be more efficient, saving on power. This is a plus for businesses and consumers. For those who need more grunt, an APU can be paired with a more capable discrete card, and the discrete card can be powered down when only light graphical work is done, saving power, keeping things cooler, and prolonging battery life in mobile environments.
Possibly the more important reason is that GPUs areincreasingly used for non-graphic purposes. Even users who don't play games or use graphically intensive apps can benefit from a more capable GPU, and this is likely to become more prevalent as time goes on. So a nice APU would be of great benefit to low end systems where the workload is capable of uitilising it, and these workloads are expanding rapidly. Even something as simple as playing a YouTube video can gain in both performance and efficiency with a more capable GPU than has been available to integrated graphics users before the advent of the APU.
Finally, there is the trend towards integration. This has happenned throughout the developement of electronics, and usually leads to cheaper, better products. Moving the components from an add-in card, to the chipset, then into the processor is a logical progression which happens all the time, and usually benefits everyone.
The main thing preventing me upgrading my PC's processor is that I have no way to properly compare processors! Infinite choice is no choice at all.
Graphics cards are even worse.
Re: AMD still trailing
Businesses don't care about graphics FOR NOW. The GPU components of these APU's are basically just a huge bunch of vector processors. Better GPGPU support (like the HSA stuff in Winzip and Handbrake) will give chips with a powerful GPU component a big boost.
And many mid to low range laptop buyers have two choices: get an APU laptop and have decent graphics and CPU for a cheap price, or buy the equivalent iX series and have awesome CPU with sucky graphics. The numbers say AMD makes a good enough case for many consumers in this price range.
Re: What exactly...
Indeed. It doesn't even give the price of the intel part which dispute being only 2 real cores seems to outperform the Amd on processor tasks.
Some tdp data for the intel would not have gone amiss either.