Am I missing something with the i3/i5?

So, since the time of the i3/i5 cpu releases, i have been under the impression that the i3 is a dual core, non hyper threaded cpu, and the i5 is a dual core, hyper threaded cpu. I know more about the i5 only because my gateway laptop that I just traded off had the i5...did not know much about the i3.

Anywho, after poking around a bit, and doing a comparison on intel's site, i now see that the i3 and i5 are built off the same processor code name.

The i3 330m and the i5 430m, in particular....unless i'm missing something, the only diffrence between these (or all the i3m and i5m) are clock speed, and some of the i5 (or at least the 430m, not sure if any other i5m do) have turbo boost, and that the i3's do, are in fact, hyper threaded.


So am i missing something? Or is this the case? I guess if this is the case, is intel moving away from dual core processors that are not hyper threaded? I believe there are a couple atom cpus that are dual core, but not HT, as well as some atoms that are dual core and HT. Was the C2D the last series cpu that was a dual core without HT? Maybe HT cpus are just as cheap to manufacture now and intel is wanting to make sure they continue to stay a top AMD?

Sorry for the random question, i'm sure this topic has been discussed all over the place, or at least the break down of the i3 and i5, but i just wanted to see if i'm missing something?

 

You aren't missing anything. At 32nm, Intel has more room to play with, so hyperthreading was included in mainstream chips. What Intel once a waste of transistors it has now deemed worthwhile. What will throw you even more off is that, as far they go on the mobile side of things, Intel has called some of their 32nm dual core nehalems i7's in addition to i3's and i5's. They are all based on the same silicon, with the only differences being frequency, voltage, multiplier settings and disabling of available features.

 

He already pointed out that he realised the i3 was hyperthreaded.

Indeed, there aren't too many differences between all the 35W Core i3/i5/i7 Arrandales. The biggest differences are clock speeds (Turbo Boost can be considered as a change to clock speeds as well). Apart from that, the Core i7 Arrandales have 4MB cache as opposed to 3MB cache for the rest, and the 35W i3s have a max IGP frequency of 667MHz as opposed to 766MHz for the 35W i5s and i7s.

There's also a few features the 4xxM and lower numbered CPUs lack - VT-d, Trusted Execution Technology, and AES-NI.

Recently a number of Arrandale CPUs with the "Celeron" label have been introduced. The 35W Arrandale Celerons are basically Core i3s with no Hyper-Threading, only 2MB of cache, no SSE4.1 or SSE4.2, and no ClearVideo HD.

 

I know, but he was wondering what the deal with that was.

 

There was a post in between yours and mine that disappeared. I think it was Pitabred's, maybe? I guess I should have quoted it.

 

The only thing your missing is the complete confusing intel customers have about these iCPUs. I am one among them.

 

Thanks for the responses guy. That cleared it up for me. I pretty much gathered all that, but wanted to double check. Plus you did fill me in on a few things that i had not read, ie no VT-d, and especially the new celeron processors.

I think its a bad move by intel do present them as a celeron processor. So many people, especially the casual, average computer user, has a bad view of the celeron, and it's history of being a weak processor. And if these are dual core (actually sounds along the lines of a pent D), then I think they should have changed the name to lead people away from feeling they are a weak cpu. The celeron dual cores that attempted to make their way in the market never succeeded. They were moderately priced, nice for a cheap build, but no one wanted them because they had the "celeron" label. I realize they are still the weaker of all the newer cpus, but i don't think they are weak in a way that they deserve the celeron label.

 

But that is what Intel wants. If more people realized that all they needed was a Celeron CPU, Intel would not make so much money out of selling higher end CPU's that people don't actually need.

 

Right...that makes sense, but why try to give a better reputation to what in my opinion was a failed cpu (only consider it this because so many turned their head at the site of the "celeron" label)?

Why not just release it under a new label, and start from a clean slate? Maybe Intel feels people are scared at trying sometime new? But I don't think that is the case, or else no one would ever buy a new cpu. Personally, I just feel they would be better off releasing it under a new name, and push it as a "powerful, quality processor at an affordable price for the standard home user" or something along those lines.

But I definitely get what you are saying, Trottel. The only problem I have with it, is the majority of people, especially non "techies", tend to want to buy the latest and greatest, despite if they will use the potential power it possesses. Especially when it comes to computers, (and other high priced electronics, appliances, etc), I think people figure if they are going to drop a decent amount of money, they may as well spend the little extra for technology that will take them into the future.

But on the other hand, those that are on a budget (which, heck, lets face it, is most all of us these days), want the most for their money. And introducing a processor name that doesn't have the best reputation, just doesn't seem smart. If the cpu was re-introduced under a new name, I think those on a budget would be more inclined to buy it.

If i'm missing a different perspective, please enlighten me . That's just the only take i can see it from. But you definitely have a point, trottel!