Shold intel make a new cpu which is between the i5 and the i3?

[ExozeGD]

so i was laying in bed and watched the new techquickie video about binning and i tought to myself, "why would they disable that many cores on the i3 when there actually might be 3 cores which are ok". so basicly i'm asking you guys what you think about intel making a new cpu list with 3 core cpus which is basicly i7's and i5's which were going to be i3's but have 3 functioning cores. this would then be placed between the i5 and the i3 in both price and performance. I personally think this is a good idea for people who just can't fit an i5 in their system because they're 20-30$ off but still don't want to loose performance due to bottlenecking. please tell me what you guy think and thank you for reading this

[Bhav]

No, they need a chip between I5 and I7, 6-8 cores without HT.

[Dabombinable]

1 minute ago, ExozeGD said:

so i was laying in bed and watched the new techquickie video about binning and i tought to myself, "why would they disable that many cores on the i3 when there actually might be 3 cores which are ok". so basicly i'm asking you guys what you think about intel making a new cpu list with 3 core cpus which is basicly i7's and i5's which were going to be i3's but have 3 functioning cores. this would then be placed between the i5 and the i3 in both price and performance. I personally think this is a good idea for people who just can't fit an i5 in their system because they're 20-30$ off but still don't want to loose performance due to bottlenecking. please tell me what you guy think and thank you for reading this

Remember the Phenom II X3? Which were cut down Phenom II X4? Minimal core clock and therfore single threaded speed increase, drastically reduced multithreaded performance, ergo, tri core CPU are pointless, like a certain 3 wheeled car.

[Matty2hatty]

I would like a 3 core hyperthreaded processor from intel. You hear me intel? You hear me!

[Dabombinable]

1 minute ago, Bhav said:

No, they need a chip between I5 and I7, 6-8 cores without HT.

That'd just wreck the i7.

[ExozeGD]

3 minutes ago, Bhav said:

No, they need a chip between I5 and I7, 6-8 cores without HT.

well with all the x chipsets (x58, x79, x99) only has i7's and xeons and usually the consumer boards like the z97 or the z170 got all the lower end stuff. if they made a thing between the i5 and the i7 it would be all fucked up with 4 cores and 6 threads or something stupid but i see what you mean

[mikat]

8 minutes ago, Bhav said:

No, they need a chip between I5 and I7, 6-8 cores without HT.

they have a 1.6 Ghz 6 core no HT xeon

http://ark.intel.com/products/83349/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2603-v3-15M-Cache-1_60-GHz

[ExozeGD]

4 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Remember the Phenom II X3? Which were cut down Phenom II X4? Minimal core clock and therfore single threaded speed increase, drastically reduced multithreaded performance, ergo, tri core CPU are pointless, like a certain 3 wheeled car.

well not really pointless as games such as far cry 4 has problems with 2 core cpus so that if you still have more money then an i3 you should be able to play those games with no problem and it would also reduce bottlenecking. the cores doesn't need to be hyperthreaded but they need to be fast enough to beat an i3 which is the point here, this is an idea for people with budget systems which the cpu is the bottleneck and they wouldn't have to spend a fortune on a new i5 which they can't afford

[ExozeGD]

4 minutes ago, mikat said:

they have a 1.6 Ghz 6 core no HT xeon

http://ark.intel.com/products/83349/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2603-v3-15M-Cache-1_60-GHz

well just cut those cores in half and boost the clock and blam, an "i4"

[mikat]

1 minute ago, ExozeGD said:

well just cut those cores in half and boost the clock and blam, an "i4"

it is lga 2011-3 though

[ExozeGD]

Just now, mikat said:

it is lga 2011-3 though

shhhhh, no one needs to know

[Oshino Shinobu]

20 minutes ago, Bhav said:

No, they need a chip between I5 and I7, 6-8 cores without HT.

Considering i7s are 4 cores with HT, a 6-8 core CPU would be above the i7 (If we're assuming the same IPC and clockspeeds), even without hyperthreading. Physical cores > Logical cores

[Coaxialgamer]

Considering how to binning process works, if intel didnt make a tri core cpu, that probably means that (considering they looked at the most common failure points),  that their aren't many cpu with 3 working cores that come out... 

[ExozeGD]

Just now, Coaxialgamer said:

Considering how to binning process works, if intel didnt make a tri core cpu, that probably means that (considering they looked at the most common failure points),  that their aren't many cpu with 3 working cores that come out... 

i would guess there is more cpus comming from the line which got 1 defect core then 2 defect cores but idk, it's just an idea but would be kinda cool for the consumer side

[Coaxialgamer]

2 minutes ago, ExozeGD said:

i would guess there is more cpus comming from the line which got 1 defect core then 2 defect cores but idk, it's just an idea but would be kinda cool for the consumer side

Well the thing is,  while there might be only 1 defective core,  some could also need more voltage or power,  so they would also be disabled.  Intel didnt make the i3 a dual core because it sounded right,  but because statistically,  a lot of cpus came out as dual cores,  and not many came out as tri cores.

[minibois]

Well what would that be? i3 = dual core HT. i5 = quad core no HT. What is inbetween that? overclockable i3?

[ExozeGD]

Just now, Minibois said:

Well what would that be? i3 = dual core HT. i5 = quad core no HT. What is inbetween that? overclockable i3?

maybe a 3 core no HT with oc enabled?

[minibois]

1 minute ago, ExozeGD said:

maybe a 3 core no HT with oc enabled?

Yeah that's inbetween the two, but it's super silly. Why go with less threads than an i3, less core than an i5 and overclockability for that money..

I would rather just see K series i3 CPU's at that point. Because the price difference between the most expensive i3's and cheapest i5's are about 50 euros or something. There is just no logical thing to put inbetween that.

[Dabombinable]

31 minutes ago, ExozeGD said:

well not really pointless as games such as far cry 4 has problems with 2 core cpus so that if you still have more money then an i3 you should be able to play those games with no problem and it would also reduce bottlenecking. the cores doesn't need to be hyperthreaded but they need to be fast enough to beat an i3 which is the point here, this is an idea for people with budget systems which the cpu is the bottleneck and they wouldn't have to spend a fortune on a new i5 which they can't afford

I'm talking about the Phenom II X2, X3 and X4 from 2010/2011. With those it was either a dual core at up to 3GHz, a tri core at up 2.3GHz (same power consumption) or a Phenom II X4 at up 2.2GHz (same power consumption as the previous 2). Tri cores are and always will be pointless (unless AMD learns how to actually make a 3 module CMT CPU that doesn't suck).

[ExozeGD]

1 minute ago, Minibois said:

Yeah that's inbetween the two, but it's super silly. Why go with less threads than an i3, less core than an i5 and overclockability for that money..

I would rather just see K series i3 CPU's at that point. Because the price difference between the most expensive i3's and cheapest i5's are about 50 euros or something. There is just no logical thing to put inbetween that.

there is the g3258 which is 2 core with HT that is overclockable but with the i3 you also only have 2 true cores and with the i4 (let's call it an i4) you got 3 true cores which you can oc, this will also make games run better because it can spread out the work on 3 cores instead of only 2 cores which leads to less bottlenecks

[ExozeGD]

2 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

I'm talking about the Phenom II X2, X3 and X4 from 2010/2011. With those it was either a dual core at up to 3GHz, a tri core at up 2.3GHz (same power consumption) or a Phenom II X4 at up 2.2GHz (same power consumption as the previous 2). Tri cores are and always will be pointless (unless AMD learns how to actually make a 3 module CMT CPU that doesn't suck).

well that's also amd and i'm talking intel since intel is in the lead with 2 core cpus that are better then amds 4 core ones. i'm sure that if intel where to make something like it then it would be made somewhat proper like 3.2ghz on the i3 and 3.2 ghz in the "i4" 

[minibois]

1 minute ago, ExozeGD said:

there is the g3258 which is 2 core with HT that is overclockable but with the i3 you also only have 2 true cores and with the i4 (let's call it an i4) you got 3 true cores which you can oc, this will also make games run better because it can spread out the work on 3 cores instead of only 2 cores which leads to less bottlenecks

That Pentium has 2 cores and no hyperthreading and it can OC. That thing kinda made sense and didn't hurt the rest of the Intel line up because it has two cores and two threads. Since many games at that point already ran very poor on two cores it didn't matter. 

Many games (and especially the new API's such as DX12 and Vulkan) will run very good on multiple cores (as in 4 or more), so a three core does not make sense to me.

[Dabombinable]

Just now, ExozeGD said:

well that's also amd and i'm talking intel since intel is in the lead with 2 core cpus that are better then amds 4 core ones. i'm sure that if intel where to make something like it then it would be made somewhat proper like 3.2ghz on the i3 and 3.2 ghz in the "i4" 

Even with newer architectures its the same deal, 1 core would be disabled, and the clock speed wouldn't be boositng performance enough to justify the tri core over a hyperthreaded dual core or a quad core. 

[ExozeGD]

1 minute ago, Minibois said:

That Pentium has 2 cores and no hyperthreading and it can OC. That thing kinda made sense and didn't hurt the rest of the Intel line up because it has two cores and two threads. Since many games at that point already ran very poor on two cores it didn't matter. 

Many games (and especially the new API's such as DX12 and Vulkan) will run very good on multiple cores (as in 4 or more), so a three core does not make sense to me.

my bad about the g3258 but this whole thing is just a thought i had and i thought it would be pretty cool for intel to have an i3 with less bottlenecks basicly

[JimmyGuilbault]

2 hours ago, Bhav said:

No, they need a chip between I5 and I7, 6-8 cores without HT.

I have an Intel Xeon E3-1231v3 and its actually kinda like having something between and i5 and i7. It outperforms an i5-6600k but not an i7-6700k. Also its at $250 with 4 cores and 8 threads, clocked at 3.4GHz. I keep recommending this CPU because it has one the best $$$ per performance value.