Current Intel Processor Guide
Jan 20, 2012 12:35:39 GMT
Post by CharlieChomper on Jan 20, 2012 12:35:39 GMT
Given that Intel's current offerings (at least, their naming conventions) may appear more confusing or even misleading to anyone considering them, I thought to post this in hopes it may be of help to anyone looking into a new computer--especially as it appears the current naming convention is going to remain for the foreseeable future.
I may not do a similar such guide with AMD given how much more complicated it would be to even attempt--there are way too many releases and variables involved (and just cores--not even including the differences in duals, quads, hexas, and octas out there, but the actual cores that comprise them) to even begin to consider it, especially given that they change things (and even names or where they may have come from) too often to make it practical to do so (especially as they just recently changed things yet again)--for anyone considering AMD, it would actually be easier to try and explain on more of a case-by-case basis than across the board, as it were (not just against anything by Intel, but even just by AMD themselves).
This also does not take into account single core processors.
That being said, the three main "i"s you're most often to see (i3, i5, i7) don't denote their respective releases to each other nor "age" but actually in what features they may/may not have in relation to each other. Even with the most recent core release ("Sandy Bridge"), you'll actually see all three of these listed (and Intel appears to be continuing with it into their next major core release supposedly due out much later this year).
The difference between them is that the i3 is a dual core whereas the i5 and i7 are both quad core processors (although, in the case of the i7, you need to be careful as it's also used in Intel's hexacore designations--more on that later, though. Likewise there are some much older processor cores out there where you may find an i5 that is dual core, but it's very unlikely to find any commercially-built system these days that would even still use such a core--these days, an i5 typically would be more likely to refer to a quad core).
The i5 and i7 also have a feature Intel is touting known as "Turbo Boost" (which allows the processors to appear to be running at a faster speed than it its clock speed--for example, a 3.3 Ghz i5 may instead run at the equivalent of a 3.7Ghz i5 with it enabled). The key difference between the i7 and the i5 is that the i7 also has another feature known as "Hyper-Threading" (which also plays a role in the performance of the processor, but tends to play more of a role in its efficiency).
Also with the i7, as I mentioned above, you sometimes need to be aware that Intel also sometimes uses this designation for their hexacore processors as well--however, they're also labeled as containing that many cores (also the price is usually a give away as even an older generation hexacore is still going to be much more expensive than even a current generation quad core processor).
Also, you may sometimes see "Extreme" added to the name--however, you're not as likely to encounter this with the current generation of cores that are available to choose from (as its target market tends to be what are seen as the "enthusiasts" (ie such as people who overclock), the difference is that this edition allows for certain settings to be tweaked or changed (although the risks involved still apply) and the price is usually more than its "regular" version might be.
With the current cores on the market, the equivalent to this would be processors that have an added "K" in their name (after the processor number)--but again, they're not something you may be likely to encounter on the consumer level (and are actually very difficult to come by even for many system builders, to say nothing of the higher cost).
To further round out this list a bit, Intel also has brought back both the Pentium name (albeit, in a very different way and very different target) as well as the Celeron which are both aimed toward the lower end of the market--and a very different architecture compared to their predecessors that had used the names in the past. However, their goal in doing so was to target a different segment of the market compared to their other offerings--and you're also probably not likely to see these very often offered by most commercial system builders as far as options go for a main desktop system (and definitely not gaming).
The current Pentium series processors often will use the same cores as the different "i" processors out there, but with some features scaled back or disabled and sometimes running with lower power requirements (which makes them more ideal in certain circumstances). Ironically, while Hyper-Threading used to be a commonly-touted feature on Pentiums in the days when the name was used for the company's flagship products, these days you're definitely not likely to find it attached.
The Celeron strips back features even further, or sometimes in different ways (it still remains, however, the "little brother" to the Pentium) and as with the Pentium, this has some advantages in certain markets (although, again, it may not be something you're likely to encounter on a normal desktop build).
All that said, again my apologies for not being able to do the same with AMD, but I hope this helps in better understanding or being able to navigate Intel's current offerings at least or make more sense out of them.
I may not do a similar such guide with AMD given how much more complicated it would be to even attempt--there are way too many releases and variables involved (and just cores--not even including the differences in duals, quads, hexas, and octas out there, but the actual cores that comprise them) to even begin to consider it, especially given that they change things (and even names or where they may have come from) too often to make it practical to do so (especially as they just recently changed things yet again)--for anyone considering AMD, it would actually be easier to try and explain on more of a case-by-case basis than across the board, as it were (not just against anything by Intel, but even just by AMD themselves).
This also does not take into account single core processors.
That being said, the three main "i"s you're most often to see (i3, i5, i7) don't denote their respective releases to each other nor "age" but actually in what features they may/may not have in relation to each other. Even with the most recent core release ("Sandy Bridge"), you'll actually see all three of these listed (and Intel appears to be continuing with it into their next major core release supposedly due out much later this year).
The difference between them is that the i3 is a dual core whereas the i5 and i7 are both quad core processors (although, in the case of the i7, you need to be careful as it's also used in Intel's hexacore designations--more on that later, though. Likewise there are some much older processor cores out there where you may find an i5 that is dual core, but it's very unlikely to find any commercially-built system these days that would even still use such a core--these days, an i5 typically would be more likely to refer to a quad core).
The i5 and i7 also have a feature Intel is touting known as "Turbo Boost" (which allows the processors to appear to be running at a faster speed than it its clock speed--for example, a 3.3 Ghz i5 may instead run at the equivalent of a 3.7Ghz i5 with it enabled). The key difference between the i7 and the i5 is that the i7 also has another feature known as "Hyper-Threading" (which also plays a role in the performance of the processor, but tends to play more of a role in its efficiency).
Also with the i7, as I mentioned above, you sometimes need to be aware that Intel also sometimes uses this designation for their hexacore processors as well--however, they're also labeled as containing that many cores (also the price is usually a give away as even an older generation hexacore is still going to be much more expensive than even a current generation quad core processor).
Also, you may sometimes see "Extreme" added to the name--however, you're not as likely to encounter this with the current generation of cores that are available to choose from (as its target market tends to be what are seen as the "enthusiasts" (ie such as people who overclock), the difference is that this edition allows for certain settings to be tweaked or changed (although the risks involved still apply) and the price is usually more than its "regular" version might be.
With the current cores on the market, the equivalent to this would be processors that have an added "K" in their name (after the processor number)--but again, they're not something you may be likely to encounter on the consumer level (and are actually very difficult to come by even for many system builders, to say nothing of the higher cost).
To further round out this list a bit, Intel also has brought back both the Pentium name (albeit, in a very different way and very different target) as well as the Celeron which are both aimed toward the lower end of the market--and a very different architecture compared to their predecessors that had used the names in the past. However, their goal in doing so was to target a different segment of the market compared to their other offerings--and you're also probably not likely to see these very often offered by most commercial system builders as far as options go for a main desktop system (and definitely not gaming).
The current Pentium series processors often will use the same cores as the different "i" processors out there, but with some features scaled back or disabled and sometimes running with lower power requirements (which makes them more ideal in certain circumstances). Ironically, while Hyper-Threading used to be a commonly-touted feature on Pentiums in the days when the name was used for the company's flagship products, these days you're definitely not likely to find it attached.
The Celeron strips back features even further, or sometimes in different ways (it still remains, however, the "little brother" to the Pentium) and as with the Pentium, this has some advantages in certain markets (although, again, it may not be something you're likely to encounter on a normal desktop build).
All that said, again my apologies for not being able to do the same with AMD, but I hope this helps in better understanding or being able to navigate Intel's current offerings at least or make more sense out of them.
