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
Final Words
I like the Core i3 530. It’s the first real alternative Intel offers to AMD’s Phenom II X2 and Athlon II X4 processors. And dare I say that it’s perfectly competitive? With Clarkdale I get the feeling that Intel is actually trying to compete with AMD, instead of run them into the ground.
If you need a fast dual-core processor, the Core i3 530 is right for you. If you need affordable threaded performance, the Athlon II X4 is a better option. Intel attempts to sweeten the deal with TrueHD/DTS-HD MA bitstreaming support, but ultimately what we have here is a chip that is truly competitive.
The i5s continue to be priced far too high, but that’s where they should be. Intel has a much larger sales and marketing budget than AMD, so put those sales folks to work. AMD (and Intel) offer better value than the entire dual-core i5 line, so it’s up to Intel's marketing to sell those more expensive chips. To those in the know, you'll ignore them almost entirely.
The i3 is the sensible solution. It’s not too perfect. You’re still better off with an Athlon II X4 if you are doing a lot of video encoding or offline 3D rendering, but it’s great for the rest of the market. You lose turbo mode but honestly, with only two cores, you don’t really need it. Instead, just be happy with the fact that you can push nearly 4GHz with minimal effort and without even swapping out the stock heatsink/fan. The lack of AES-NI support keeps the i3 from being the otherwise perfect chip for corporate use, a clever but unfortunate move by Intel.
The competitive angle is even more interesting when you realize that the majority of the dual-core CPUs that AMD sells today are all much cheaper than the Core i3. Maybe it’s Intel playing nice for the FTC, but it almost looks like the two companies have conspired to compete without stepping on each others toes.
Between $60 - $100 you have the Athlon II X2. Then at $100 - $130 you can go with either an i3 or an Athlon II X4. Between $130 and $200 you have a number of Phenom II X4 choices that make sense. And at $200 and above it’s all Lynnfield/Bloomfield. Everyone gets a piece of the pie, Intel just gets the more expensive price points (which to AMD’s credit, aren’t high volume sellers anyway).
AMD technically has the best product at one of the most important price points - $150. Maybe I’m reading too much into this but the competition here just seems...clean.
There you have it. If you want a dual-core processor at around $130, the Core i3 530 is as good as it gets. Competition without killing AMD. I like it.
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