Intel Core i3-550 Clarkdale 3.2GHz 4MB L3 Cache LGA 1156 73W Dual-Core

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,916
Location
USA

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
22,232
Location
I am omnipresent
They're zippy for budget systems, though subjectively they aren't much different from upper-end Core2s.

Motherboard: Gigabyte H55M-USB3
RAM: DDR3 from one of the usual suspects (Crucial, Corsair, Kingston, Mushkin)
 

time

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
4,932
Location
Brisbane, Oz
Congratulations Santilli, Newegg/Intel has successfully scammed you.

The blurb on that page refers to the 2500K, which comes with the new and very much faster HD 3000 graphics.

The actual chip for sale, similarly to the i3 variants, comes with HD 2000 graphics, which isn't much different from the old (and slow) Intel HD graphics.

At the same clock frequency, Sandy Bridge appears to be maybe 10% faster than the old i3/i5 series.
 

Santilli

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 27, 2002
Messages
5,257
Congratulations Santilli, Newegg/Intel has successfully scammed you.

The blurb on that page refers to the 2500K, which comes with the new and very much faster HD 3000 graphics.

The actual chip for sale, similarly to the i3 variants, comes with HD 2000 graphics, which isn't much different from the old (and slow) Intel HD graphics.

At the same clock frequency, Sandy Bridge appears to be maybe 10% faster than the old i3/i5 series.

HMMMM. Time, first off, scammed usually means you bought the product. Or, perhaps, you might be correct, in that scammed means you spent researching a product, and wasted time due to false advertising.

THANK YOU for pointing the misinformation out.

More I think about it, the more I'd be inclined to go with this:

Intel Core i5-2500 @ 3.30GHz
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115073

If I upgrade the HTPC. Thing is, it works, and very well with the existing components in place.
 

Chewy509

Wotty wot wot.
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
3,348
Location
Gold Coast Hinterland, Australia
You think it was deliberate?

To place in different gfx cores based on the K suffix, may be result of the unlocking of the chips multipliers to allow overclocking. The older HD2000 may play more nicely with high overclocks than the new HD3000 gfx core.

The other thought is, most people buying a K suffix chip will most likely have a discrete gfx card as well, so any loss of performance on the builtin gfx core won't have any affect on them.
 

time

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
4,932
Location
Brisbane, Oz
Chewy, it's the other way around. The expensive K-suffix chips are the one with the HD 3000. Oddly enough, these seem to be the ones sent to reviewers. ;)

Most Sandy Bridge chips only have HD 2000. :???:
 

Adcadet

Storage Freak
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
1,861
Location
44.8, -91.5
The lowest-end Sandy Bridge with the better video that I've heard of is the 2500k, which goes for $225. The cheapest H67 boards (H67 allows you to use the on-die graphics stuff, P67 does not) currently available start for ~$75 and go up from there. Not sure that's a bargain for a HTPC compared to what you can do on the AMD front for a HTPC or even with an older i3 Clarkdale. If you are OK with the lower-end graphics but think Sandy Bridge offers some advantages, you could save some money with the 2300 for $190 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115076). But I doubt you're thinking about a truly budget HTPC (which from what I figure includes a max CPU cost of $100).

My AMD-based HTPC build is detailed here: http://www.storageforum.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8201&page=2&highlight=HTPC.
It's overkill for a HTPC, although not for video editing.
 

Chewy509

Wotty wot wot.
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
3,348
Location
Gold Coast Hinterland, Australia
Chewy, it's the other way around. The expensive K-suffix chips are the one with the HD 3000. Oddly enough, these seem to be the ones sent to reviewers. ;)

Most Sandy Bridge chips only have HD 2000. :???:

Sorry, I thought it was the other way around?

That certainly is a WTF, as it'll be the low end using the internal gfx, not the high end unlocked parts.
 

Chewy509

Wotty wot wot.
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
3,348
Location
Gold Coast Hinterland, Australia
I just did a quick comparison between the i7-2600 and the i7-2600K to see what else is different in addition to the different gfx cores.

It's interesting to note the the K part is missing VT-d and Intel TXT support, which are very useful if you use any virtualisation technologies or software such as VMWare, VirtualBox or VirtualPC (including XP Mode on Win7)...

Source: http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=52213,52214
 

blakerwry

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Oct 12, 2002
Messages
4,203
Location
Kansas City, USA
Website
justblake.com
It's interesting to note the the K part is missing VT-d and Intel TXT support, which are very useful if you use any virtualisation technologies or software such as VMWare, VirtualBox or VirtualPC (including XP Mode on Win7)...

Source: http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=52213,52214


That's something I hadn't read in the reviews. However, it's important not to confuse VT-d with traditional VT (aka VT-x). I don't know that anyone is actually taking advantage of either of these technologies (VT-d, TXT) in the consumer space. Both technologies also require a fully supported stack (Mobo, CPU, OS) if I remember correctly, so I wouldn't count on them working unless you've specifically validated every components for support.
 
Top