Intel’s Core i5 processor addresses the sweet spot says Tarsus PM

30 November 2009

While the market is extremely excited about Intel’s new range of Core i7 Nehalem processors which were recently released, Shane Krog, Acer product manager at Tarsus says the excitement in the market should rather be centred on Intel’s Core i5 processors, since these offer far better value for money.

Krog explains that Intel’s Core i5 processors are identical to the Core i7 processors in every way except for their lack of support for HyperThreading – a technology the chipmaker uses to ensure that each of the four cores in the Core i7 processor are able to handle two instructions simultaneously.

“In essence, this allows a four-core Intel Core i7 processor to be viewed as an eight-core processor by the operating system. By contrast, however, a four-core Core i5 is viewed as a four-core processor by the operating system,” he says.

“And this is where the clincher lies,” Krog continues.

“While the overriding rule in previous years has been the more cores the better, recent research into this field has shown that the software market is still lagging behind the hardware space in that at least 90% of today’s applications aren’t able to thread effectively or in other words, can’t make use of more than one processor simultaneously.

“By inference then, the additional cores made available to the operating system by a Core i7 processor, and to some extent a Core i5 processor, sit idle and unused for a large portion of time in everyday usage.

“When a user does, however, make use of an application that can effectively thread its code, it is a completely different story. In this case, you might well see a Core i7 processor outperforming a Core i5 processor by as much as 70%,” Krog says.

“The harsh reality is that the vast majority of applications that are capable of threading today exist in professional niches, such as CAD/CAM, financial services and graphic design disciplines,” he says.

“Although with the arrival of Windows 7, the software market has taken a leap forward, it is still unlikely that a person making use of desktop productivity tools, a web browser, light graphical applications and multimedia will notice too much of a difference between a Core i7 and Core i5 processor in their everyday usage model,” Krog adds.

“So the pertinent question is, why spend substantially more on a processor that offers such a small degree of additional performance, unless of course you’re making use of applications that are capable of threading effectively?

“And looking at the pricing Intel has released thus far, OEMs pay $562 for a 2.93GHz Intel Core i7 processor, $284 for a 2.80GHz Core i7 and $196 for a 2.66GHz Core i5 processor.

“That equates to a 44% price difference between a Core i5 at 2.66GHz and a Core i7 at 2.80GHz and a further 185% price differential between the 2.66GHz Core i5 and the 2.93GHz Core i7.

“That’s a great deal more than the average user should be spending, versus the return they are likely to see,” he says.

“With all of the Nehalem refinements under the hood, however, the Core i5 is a great deal more appealing, and for this reason it is the processor that we believe will see the most traction in the coming year,” Krog concludes.