Think intel will ever release a "K" version of the i3?

K

kpxgq

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
284
I really think intel should release an i3 2100K... with an unlock i bet that sucker would hit 5ghz since it has a lower TDP than the quad core counterparts. and a lot of people (like me) dont care for quad cores.
 
I'd rate it as likely to happen as a dual i7-2600k motherboard ;)
 
I doubt it, as you wouldn't need the i5\i7's for gaming until they start using more then 4 threads. Anyone else would be fine with a non k processor.
 
kpxgq said:
I really think intel should release an i3 2100K... with an unlock i bet that sucker would hit 5ghz since it has a lower TDP than the quad core counterparts. and a lot of people (like me) dont care for quad cores.
Click to expand...

If there was a 400 core with hyperthreading it would be mine.

I have gamed on a friends 2100 and it wasn't that impressive to say the least. I think the PhII 965 is faster. The 2100 doesnt have the same throughput and IPC that the 2500 base and up have. And not to mention that the HD2000 on the 2100 is horrid and the HD3000 on the higher chips sucks as bad.
 
I do not think intel even wanted to release any K series CPUs, but they figured out that alot of knowledgable people were buying the black edition Phenoms because of the unlocked feature. As said i3 is their intro CPU and they want to upsell you to the higher end models for unlocking.

It could change in the future though if some other competitive product poses a threat. Another option is each generation of chip seems to have more distinct features. In the early days all CPUs were almost exactly the same and they tried to lock out OC through multipliers to protect their high priced CPUs. But as time went on and total CPU consumption in the world went up they started disabling parts and actually building dedicated chips for lower end lines. This made it so that even if you could OC you could not get the same performance out of lower end chips. After that happened they could offer unlocked chips with less fear of canabalizing thier high end sales.
 
You gotta love Intel, they can sell you a Dual Core CPU in 2011 for 125.00 that can't be Overclocked whatsoever :D Jesus. Thank you Intel! :rolleyes: :D
 
It is however a much better value than all Athlon X4s and most Phenom X4s and even some X6s since at base clock it is about equivalent to a 4 core PhenomX4 at 3.5 GHz.
 
Last edited:
teletran8 said:
You gotta love Intel, they can sell you a Dual Core CPU in 2011 for 125.00 that can't be Overclocked whatsoever :D Jesus. Thank you Intel! :rolleyes: :D
Click to expand...

If that dual core in 2011 performs better than some quad cores, then who cares? As AMD has shown, more cores != better performance.
 
I can't imagine any reason why they would, it is an entry-level basic design CPU. They offer two (midrange and psuedo-highend (2600k). It will be more interesting to see what we get out of the LGA2011 stuff later this year.
 
Shane_c82 said:
If that dual core in 2011 performs better than some quad cores, then who cares? As AMD has shown, more cores != better performance.
Click to expand...
Read this . If you can :D

Gaming yes, you can see a slight increase in fps performance only in sum lame benchmarks in single and dual core only games, but lets be real for a minute. Which game will a Quad core cpu be unable to PLAY or compete in with a dual core CPU, anyhow? Show me a Single Core or Dual Core game my Quad won't be able to play at almost the same fps as a Dual, and with more smoothness in the game play, because of the extra cores running my background apps? Can you Mr.smarty pants? See my point hombre? So yeah no real benefit, unless you think 300fps is so much better than 250fps in Minecraft or sum BS like that! It really doesn't matter when there's no hiccups or slowdowns in either setup and your way over 60FPS is there?.

Quad Core AMD owners can OC their CPU's unlike the SB locked CPU crowd owners. ;) And then when it comes to any Video Transcoding, 3D Rendering or Photoshop you will lose there also with a silly Dual Core even if it is the latest Sandy Bridge Dual Core. But hey the 2100 will win in Single Threaded benchmarks (which run perfectly fine on Quads anyhow) So everyone should go run out and get one you think! :rolleyes:

BUT when the multi-threaded benchmarks come in the Dual Core can't win anything (but canned benchmarks) and gives you choppier performance to boot when your background apps kick in!

That's my point, single threaded apps that aren't multi-threaded run fine on either Dual or Quad setups it's meaningless, but the multi-threaded programs that matter. They run faster and smoother now, and in the future + you can actually tell the real world difference, not some obscure synthetic single threaded benchmark that means nothing in the real world. Because the program flys regardless ;)

Here's sum real benchmarks between the i3 2100 and Phenom 2.
Article
http://www.behardware.com/articles/816-5/intel-core-i3-2100-lga-1155-sandy-bridge-dual-core.html

3D Studio Max 2010 rendering time in seconds - We begin with the famous image rendering software, now in its x64 and 2010 version. The test scene used is from SPECapc for 3ds max 9 (space_flyby_mentalray) which employs the MentalRay rendering machine.
i3 2100 = 548 Seconds
P2 955 = 398 Seconds WINS!

Cinema 4D R11 rendering time in seconds - The rendering software Maxon is well known in the overclocker community through Cinebench, which allows you to compare processor performance easily. We use version R11 of C4D in 64 bit mode with the scene from Cinebench R10 rendered at a higher resolution so as to prolong rendering time.
i3 2100 = 427
P2 955 = 349 WINS!

MinGW / GCC aka MAME Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator source code - Time in Seconds
i3 2100 = 248
P2 955 = 200 WINS!

WinRar 3.9 - We’re using the 64-bit 3.9 version of WinRAR that introduces new multithreading optimisations to compress a group of files.
i3 2100 = 285 WINS!
P2 955 = 357

Avidemux + x264 encoding - Our test videos use H.264 encoding exclusively. To start with, we use Avidemux version 2.5.2, which improves performance beyond 4 threads compared to version 2.5.1, to compress a 1920x1080 HD video file via the x264 codec at intermediary quality.
i3 2100 = 466
P2 955 = 377 WINS!

For this second H.264 encoding we use MainConcept Reference and its H.264/AVC Pro codec on “High”, still with the same video.
i3 2100 = 287
P2 955 = 250 WINS!

Adobe After Effects CS4 rendering time in seconds - We’re using a new composition using various effects so as to render 3D animation. Multiprocecessing is activated so as to make the most of the available number of cores.
i3 2100 = 358
P2 955 = 330 WINS!

Nuendo 4.3 music export program - time in seconds
i3 2100 = 182 WINS!
P2 955 = 227

With patch 1.2, Crysis has a very heavy CPU bench (to be found in the Bin32/Bin64 directory). The test was carried out at high settings, but at a res of 800x600 so as to limit dependence on the graphics card.
i3 2100 = 31.6 WINS
P2 955 = 24.8

Arma 2 is configured with all settings at a max including max visibility (10 km), which brings the configurations to their knees. Resolution stays at 800x600 to stop the graphics card levelling performance. To gauge performance we measure the framerate during a well-defined movement after having loaded a saved game.
i3 2100 = 17.6 WINS by .5 of a frame! OMG!
P2 955 = 17.1

Grand Theft Auto IV is included in the protocol for its weight and multi-threading optimisations. Once again all the settings were pushed to a maximum, with the exception of the textures so as not to exceed available video memory, all at a res of 800x600.
i3 2100 = 34.6 WINS by .6 a FRAME OMG!
P2 955 = 34.0

Anno 1404 is a strategy game tested at max settings but with resolution still at 800x600.
i3 2100 = 34.0 WINS
P2 955 = 29.1

Now also remember that you can also Overclock Phenoms, and the Black Editions OC easily. So with an OC'd AMD Phenom 2, I don't see where this 2100 is such s BETTER performer, that I should get rid of my Phenom 2 because it gets destroyed by SB 2100 Dual Core or sumthing like that wrote by Anandtech king of the canned benchmarks!, lmao who writes this garbage anyhow (Intel?)!? That Dual Core 2100 will never OVERCLOCK! AMD's CPU's will ALWAYS OC. :D

Those tests are run on REAL programs, not some PC Mark Vantage or SYSMark benchmarking program that means little to nothing in real world. But definitely fools people like yourself who don't know about any other programs available, and thinks benchmarking programs tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Come on! If you want an additional 0.5-6.8 fps @ 800x600 in Crysis you can have it lmao! If you run your games @ 1920x1080p I wonder what that looks like?

Starcraft II at Ultra Settings
i3 2100 = 83.8 fps WINS BY 3.3 FRAMES OMG! What an ADVANTAGE!
P2 975 = 80.5 fps

We tested Left 4 Dead 2 at its highest settings but with no Anti-Aliasing 1920x1080.
i3 2100 = 243.5 fps LOSES BY ALMOST 20 FPS! OMG! HOW DID AMD DO IT?
P2 975 = 262.8 fps

We tested FIFA 2011 at its highest settings and 4x Anti-Aliasing at 1920x1080.
i3 2100 = 262.8 fps WINS BY 1.5 FRAMES!!! O M G!! BIG ADVANTAGE!
P2 975 = 261.3 fps

Or Folding @ Home
i3 2100 = 6:22 seconds
P2 975 = 5:13 seconds WINS BY A MINUTE + Which is actually important when your doing Hundreds and Thousands of workloads.


Also another thing I hate is Anandtech Bench which has a Cinebench Single Threaded Benchmark. Now why in the heck would you not use Cinebench with Multi Threading enabled? Are they Braindead? But people look at Anand Bench and are like wow i3 2100 wins in Cinebench when you only use Single threading? :rolleyes: Oh yeah Intel Fanboys run single threaded benchmarks all day I forgot that lol!

Phenoms kick butt @ in the 139.99 and less price point for years. X3's unlock to X4 Denebs for 90.00 or less if you get a capable Mobo. The i3 2100 is the best Intel Dual Core Intel has ever manufactured, but it still stinks because it took Intel this long to get it to market plus it's 124.99 and gets spanked by AMD's 1-2 year old CPU's that run on cheaper Motherboards than the Intels costlier ones. OVERCLOCKING is fun too.

I'm done with you now.
 
And not to mention, you can actually overclock the AMD CPU, unlike the extremely limited 2011 i3 OC ability :(
 
jeremyshaw said:
and ignore the Phenom II 955BE benchmarks that dominated that post. Whatever, go overclock an i3 2100 :p
Click to expand...

I'm not buying one. I'm plenty happy with my stock 2400, also very happy with my stock X4 620. I still don't know why you and that other guy are getting your panties in a wad.
 
It amuses me how you complained about "sum lame benchmarks" and "obscure synthetic benchmarks", then proceeded to post about a dozen benchmarks, including one for WinRAR. Yes, WinRAR is not an obscure, lame benchmark. Forget about Crysis... the first thing I ask when I buy new hardware is "Can it run WinRAR 3.9?". I OC'ed my CPU to get better file unzip times in WinRAR 3.9. I might even pick up a SR-2 for it, because when you need files unzipped, you really need some files unzipped.

Going for the 2100 over the 955 makes sense for some people. It doesn't for other people. Obviously, it is highly dependent on the application, whether it can effectively utilize the two extra cores enough to make up for a significant clock-for-clock disadvantage. Or you could just get a Microcenter i5-2400 for ten bucks more, which completely slaughters both chips in every benchmark and real world application.
 
Then why did you compare the 975 with the 2100, also why are the only benches that the i3 won compared to the 975, compare it to the 955, oh I guess the gap was to large for your argument. :rolleyes: And btw I am not an Intel fanboy, the current cpu I have is the first and only Intel I've owned. And there are 4 machines running in my home. Very good use of Ctrl+c, and Ctrl+v, I have to say.
 
Last edited:
shawnmramsey said:
Then why did you compare the 975 with the 2100, also why are the only benches that the i3 won compared to the 975, compare it to the 955, oh I guess the gap was to large for your argument. :rolleyes: And btw I am not an Intel fanboy, the current cpu I have is the first and only Intel I've owned. And there are 4 machines running in my home. Very good use of Ctrl+c, and Ctrl+v, I have to say.
Click to expand...

I didn't compare any CPU, lol, you're probably quoting the wrong person ;) and I am a fucking Intel fanboi :D I haven't bought any AMD CPU, lol, only got one for free and traded it :p

EDIT: though if you wanna join the idiot on the other page, feel free, he's "getting his panties in a wad," already.
 
nalc said:
It amuses me how you complained about "sum lame benchmarks" and "obscure synthetic benchmarks", then proceeded to post about a dozen benchmarks, including one for WinRAR. Yes, WinRAR is not an obscure, lame benchmark. Forget about Crysis... the first thing I ask when I buy new hardware is "Can it run WinRAR 3.9?". I OC'ed my CPU to get better file unzip times in WinRAR 3.9. I might even pick up a SR-2 for it, because when you need files unzipped, you really need some files unzipped.

Going for the 2100 over the 955 makes sense for some people. It doesn't for other people. Obviously, it is highly dependent on the application, whether it can effectively utilize the two extra cores enough to make up for a significant clock-for-clock disadvantage. Or you could just get a Microcenter i5-2400 for ten bucks more, which completely slaughters both chips in every benchmark and real world application.
Click to expand...

Haha, well played sir. :D
 
My guess is for Intel to profit from a 2100K would bump into i5 2300 and 2400 chip prices.
I do believe they are being foolish, as there would be a steady upgrade market.
However, there has been a history of people paying more for Intel chips.
The advantage of the I3 that appeals to me is its the bottom of a new chipset sure to be tweeked better.
The advantage I see in the AMD CPUs is they work, and can upgrade present systems reasonably well. At least as long as video cards make more difference than CPUs.
Am I tempted to build an I3 2100 computer, yes. Will I? mAYbE.
 
K series is positioned as the top tier in each segment. There might be a slim chance for an i3-2120K. But there's no chance we'll ever see an i3-2100K. Tray price for a 2120 is $138. A 2120K would most likely be $148. At that price I think most people would drop a few more bucks to get the 2500K.
 
Last edited:
Well if you make a 2100k then having a 2400 would be useless as you buy one and overclock the living crap out of it. I presume it would go a far way on air since its 2 cores and have a low voltage leakage.
 
Actually an I3 2100K would make sense if competition closed in on the 2100. But. WAITING IS..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top