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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
107 Comments
View All Comments
MadMan007 - Friday, January 22, 2010 - link
The Clarkdale CPUs are that much less efficient, likely because of the off-die but on-package memory controller not to mention only 2 'real' cores. It's more like having a fast-connected Northbridge in a traditional FSB arrangement than the on-die memory controller of Lynnfield. ardocp did their Clarkdale review with set speeds and no Turboboost and Clarkdale needed a lot more clockspeed to equal Lynnfield. That's why the i5-600 CPUs make little sense unless you desparately want the combination of certain features and integrated graphics, they are too close in price to the i5-750.StormyParis - Friday, January 22, 2010 - link
95 euros for Gigabyte 13566 UD2H, vs 80 for their 785G. That's 20-25 US dollars. At least, both have DVI and HDMI, contrary to Intel Atom 510 board (what were they thinking ?)Calin - Friday, January 22, 2010 - link
I would still prefer integrated graphics from AMD/ATI - but did you saw (or felt) any graphical issues with the integrated graphic from Intel?I'm waiting for the next IGP from AMD/ATI, based on what the current competition is, it should be much better than what Intel has now.
Egowhip69 - Thursday, January 28, 2010 - link
Picked up one of these things... along with a gigabyte ga-h55m-ud2h board.Having AWFUL issues with random reboots. Changed the Memory, PSU, HDD, you name it... then I uninstalled the intel graphics and changed the chip to an i5... no problems.
Just to check, I threw the i3 back in... but no intel drivers... no reboots on a 3 day burn in... added the drivers back... reboot within 45 min.
Both on Win7 pro 64bit, and Xp pro 32bit.
Intel's drivers are VERY immature at the moment...
bupkus - Friday, January 22, 2010 - link
Anand, does the table showing the results of the 4GHz i3 530 overclock include a graphics overclock as well?Calin - Friday, January 22, 2010 - link
The game results with the 4GHz overclock are obtained with a heavy-duty video card, there's no way the integrated graphics would get such results.What I'd like to know is - was the integrated graphic chip active during that 4GHz overclock? And how much could one push the i3 with active (eventually downclocked) internal graphic?
Anand Lal Shimpi - Friday, January 22, 2010 - link
Correct. The IGP wasn't running, only the Radeon HD 5870. I haven't tried to figure out the max overclock while pushing both the CPU and the GPU, I'd guess it'd be relatively similar though. The two chips are physically separate, so as long as you can adequately remove the heat of the GPU you should be fine.Take care,
Anand
notty22 - Friday, January 22, 2010 - link
Your going to catch some flak for deeming this a overall better gaming cpu , in a chart comparing it to a amd 965.nerdtalker - Friday, January 22, 2010 - link
The i3 is creeping surprisingly close to the i7 920, too close for my comfort, in fact./goes and overclocks i7 920 even more
kwrzesien - Friday, January 22, 2010 - link
/goes and turns down the thermostat