The Intel Core i3 530 Review - Great for Overclockers & Gamers
by Anand Lal Shimpi on January 22, 2010 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Overclocking Intel’s HD Graphics - It Works...Very Well
The coolest part of my job is being able to work with some ridiculously smart people. One such person gave me the idea to try overclocking the Intel HD graphics core on Clarkdale a few weeks ago. I didn’t get time to do it with the Core i5 661, but today is a different day.
Clarkdale offers three different GPU clocks depending on the model:
Processor | Intel HD Graphics Clock |
Intel Core i5-670 | 733MHz |
Intel Core i5-661 | 900MHz |
Intel Core i5-660 | 733MHz |
Intel Core i5-650 | 733MHz |
Intel Core i3-540 | 733MHz |
Intel Core i3-530 | 733MHz |
Intel Pentium G9650 | 533MHz |
The Core i5 661 runs it at the highest speed - 900MHz. The rest of the Core i5 and i3 processors pick 733MHz. And the Pentium G6950 has a 533MHz graphics clock.
Remember that the Intel HD Graphics die is physically separate from the CPU die on Clarkdale. It’s a separate 45nm package and I’m guessing it’s not all that difficult to make. If AMD can reliably ship GPUs with hundreds of shader processors, Intel can probably make a chip with 12 without much complaining.
So the theory is that these graphics cores are easily overclockable. I fired up our testbed and adjusted the GPU clock. It’s a single BIOS option and without any changes to voltage or cooling I managed to get our Core i3 530’s GPU running at 1200MHz. That’s a 64% overclock!
I could push the core as high as 1400MHz and still get into Windows, but the system stopped being able to render any 3D games at that point.
I benchmarked World of Warcraft with the Core i3 running at three different GPU clocks to show the potential for improvement:
CPU (Graphics Clock) | World of Warcraft |
Intel Core i5 661 (900MHz gfx) | 14.8 fps |
Intel Core i3 530 (733MHz gfx) | 12.5 fpx |
Intel Core i3 530 (900MHz gfx) | 14.2 fps |
Intel Core i3 530 (1200MHz gfx) | 19.0 fps |
A 64% overclock resulted in a 52% increase in performance. If Intel wanted to, it could easily make its on-package GPU a lot faster than it is today. I wonder if this is what we’ll see with Sandy Bridge and graphics turbo on the desktop.
107 Comments
View All Comments
dandar - Saturday, January 23, 2010 - link
Bought 3-pack of win7 pro and these things run beautiful. Fast, win xp mode is supported so every app they had back with win xp still runs. I'm very happy with this platform from Intel. This was a home run in my opinion.raced295 - Friday, January 22, 2010 - link
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought it was well understood that Intel uses processor power to accelerate gpu functions. In other words the GPU is not nearly as fast as is appears the drivers offload work to the cpu since it is very powerful. I will try to post links to support this but don't remember them off hand as I thought this was common knowledge on "in depth" sites such as this. I believe that this was going on in part on G45 at least with benchmark software. Also that the driver looks for benchmark exe's and game exe's and manipulates quality and offloads to CPU.It doesn't change much for the end user as its still faster but bottom line I don't think the GPU is as good as it appears. Net performance however is as good as it has shown and this is brilliant of Intel to do.
Submit to the community for thought.
MrSpadge - Friday, January 22, 2010 - link
So the integrated GPU can be overclocked really high. Nice, but we're not gaming on this thing anyway.No, what this really means is that the GPU voltage is set unnecessarily high by Intel! We'd be using these integrated GPUs to save power compared to discrete GPUs, not to waste it. It doesn't have sophisticated power management yet, but at least a reasonable voltage would be nice..
sandman1687 - Friday, January 22, 2010 - link
On the fourth page it says that overclocking without increasing the voltage will not increase power consumption. This is not true; while power is directly proportional to frequency, exponentially to voltage. Could you post some idle and load power figures when overclocked at 4 and even 3.3GHz? I'm always hesitant to raise the CPU voltage. Thanks.-sanders
Rajinder Gill - Saturday, January 23, 2010 - link
As power consumption and efficiency has become more important, and manufacturing processes improved, how far you can push a CPU without increasing its core voltage appears to be the most efficient way to overclock. You minimize any increases in power consumption while maximizing performance.It does not say the power consumption will not increase, but that you will somewhat minimize the increase by keepingthe voltage at stock.
regards
Raja
MrSpadge - Saturday, January 23, 2010 - link
You're right, but one also needs to keep the absolute value of the stock voltage in mind. A fine example are the initial 45 nm Phenom II chips: reviewers applauded them for being able to OC rather high at stock voltage. However, "stock" in this case meant 1.35 - 1.40 V. That's more or equal to the maximum Intel gave it's 65 nm chips.So either one could argue "great stock voltage OC" or one could say "wasting power by setting a unnecessarily high stock voltage".
MrS
MrSpadge - Friday, January 22, 2010 - link
P ~ V^2, not exponential. Some leakage currents scale stronger, but these don't dominate the overall power draw (otherwise the process / design would be pretty bad).sandman1687 - Friday, January 22, 2010 - link
Sorry, meant quadratic.Finally - Friday, January 22, 2010 - link
I compared power draw under LOAD for the Phenom II 965 BE and here: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?... you say it draws 274W (sic!), while in your database the same figure is much lower. How come?janm9 - Friday, January 22, 2010 - link
i am looking for the power consumption of the an amd athlon x4 620/605e with the 785G chipset. i can not find a review using just onboard graphics. the anandtech benchmark database is nice, but it only lists power consumption with either the 5870 or geforce 280gtx.i myself have run into problems ( artifacts ) under windows 7 with both media center and MPC-HC in 64bit with DXVA too.
thank you for writing an interesting article :)