i3 at 3.4 GHZ???

[clamchives]

An i3 at 3.4 ghz for $117.

 

How could this be possible? Is there some catch to it? 

[Arika]

https://ark.intel.com/products/65690/Intel-Core-i3-3240-Processor-3M-Cache-3_40-GHz

 

Quote

Processor Base Frequency: 3.40 GHz

 

What's so hard to understand?

[emosun]

the catch is it's an i3 , so if you wanna be transported back to 2007 this is the cpu for you!

[SeraphicWings]

an i3 6100 is 3.7GHz, so nothing surprise here dude

 

 

[rip]

Just now, emosun said:

the catch is it's an i3 , so if you wanna be transported back to 2007 this is the cpu for you!

2017 also has i3 so what is your point? 

[dizmo]

It's old. That's why it's cheap. I'd just wait for the B and H series boards and build something with one of the new i3s.

[emosun]

1 minute ago, rip said:

2017 also has i3 so what is your point? 

2017 also has tube computers with paper tape displays sitting in museums , whats your point?

[rip]

1 minute ago, emosun said:

2017 also has tube computers with paper tape displays sitting in museums , whats your point?

I didn't mention any of these. Your post implying that an i3 "transports back to 2007"meaning it's old, but it is not. What's paper tape and tube pc has to do with our convo? 

[emosun]

1 minute ago, rip said:

Your post implying that an i3 "transports back to 2007"meaning it's old

meaning it's slow genius.......

 

i honestly hate having to do the thinking for everyone all the time

[rip]

Just now, emosun said:

meaning it's slow genius.......

 

i honestly hate having to do the thinking for everyone all the time

what? it's like comparing an old ford in the 90s vs a ford gt in the 2000s ofc it would be slow. its not a fair comparison at all. 

 

and no, 3rd gen i3 isn't that slow "genius" 

[HKZeroFive]

Wait till you hear about the i7 that can go up to 5GHz.

[emosun]

7 minutes ago, rip said:

3rd gen i3 isn't that slow

if it was 2007 lol

[Trulop]

16 minutes ago, emosun said:

meaning it's slow genius.......

 

i honestly hate having to do the thinking for everyone all the time

Pretty toxic comments. Lets go with some facts.

 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-7400-vs-Intel-Core-i3-8350K/3886vs3935

 

Heres the new i3 that came out in, wait for it.. 2017. Has great ipc, has great stock clock speeds and can overclock to make a serious competitor even in the case of the lower/higher end i5's from not even that long ago. If what you meant to say, is that buying an i3 from the older days is kind of a waste of money with what we have for options now, sure i agree. But if your point is that all i3 is crap because its an i3 then your a bit wrong my dude

[emosun]

1 minute ago, Trulop said:

But if your point is that all i3 is crap because its an i3 then your a bit wrong my dude

my point was the i3 he's looking at was the speed of cpu's from 2007. 

don't bother responding clearly you dont get the joke. I forget how many little kids here weren't even alive in 2007.

[Jurrunio]

Just a generation later there's even a Pentium with unlocked multiplier and can be overclocked on some H mobo even, so no surprises here.

[tp95112]

Jesus this post bringing out the cancer of the forum really well.

[rip]

59 minutes ago, emosun said:

if it was 2007 lol

so you are comparing an extreme. processor with an entry core i3 with PassMark 

 

sure... 

[emosun]

1 hour ago, rip said:

so you are comparing an extreme. processor with an entry core i3 with PassMark 

 

sure... 

yea a 2007 cpu

[Guest]

6 hours ago, EggOfReason said:

How could this be possible? Is there some catch to it?

To get back to OP:

 

Ghz numbers aren't all there is to a CPU. Whats more important is architecture (the way the cpu is built) and core count. The architecture is from 2012 and it only has 2 cores, that's why it's only 150$ (which is imo too much for that cpu, you can get CPUs for the same price built in 2016 and 2017 that will perform better).

Architectural improvements = faster CPU at the same Ghz speed than the old architecture.

[clamchives]

3 hours ago, Medicate said:

To get back to OP:

 

Ghz numbers aren't all there is to a CPU. Whats more important is architecture (the way the cpu is built) and core count. The architecture is from 2012 and it only has 2 cores, that's why it's only 150$ (which is imo too much for that cpu, you can get CPUs for the same price built in 2016 and 2017 that will perform better).

Architectural improvements = faster CPU at the same Ghz speed than the old architecture.

Ah. Lesson learned, I guess. Quite new to the PC building thing. 

 

Also what a mess this post became