1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Intel Launches its Core i3-8130U Mobile CPU

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Feb 13, 2018.

  1. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    32,893
    Likes Received:
    1,867
    GPU:
    AMD | NVIDIA
    Intel is expanding the performance options available for mainstream laptops and 2 in 1s with the 8th Gen Intel Core i3 processor. The new Intel Core i3-8130U features 2 cores and 4 threads, up to 3.4 ...

    Intel Launches its Core i3-8130U Mobile CPU
     
  2. xrodney

    xrodney Master Guru

    Messages:
    219
    Likes Received:
    11
    GPU:
    Aorus 1080ti xtreme
    I don't see point in releasing 2 core CPUs that have same TDP but way lower performance as their quad core counterparts like i5-8250U.
     
  3. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,082
    Likes Received:
    418
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Remember, TDP!=wattage. Also, Intel for years has been extremely vague about their TDPs. Nowadays, the only reason to pay attention to it is to get a rough idea of what kind of heatsink you need if you don't intend to overclock. Otherwise, you might as well ignore the TDP value they advertise, because it's pretty much meaningless. This is exacerbated when you consider that turbo-clocked chips will sometimes ignore the TDP whenever they get the opportunity.
     
  4. SweenJM

    SweenJM Active Member

    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    16
    GPU:
    sapphire 580x nitro
    a new i3. yay! i can play crysis now..
     

  5. airbud7

    airbud7 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,927
    Likes Received:
    1,870
    GPU:
    MSI RX 480 ARMOR 4G OC
    coffee lake i3/ 1050ti/1060 would blow this off the map @ gaming! ...get a grip folks.

    per core performance still counts.

    anyone that tells you that a new ryzen is faster than a 7700k (2years old) is stupid....

    its funny how gaming benchmarks no longer matter?....synthetic benchmarks are just that...synthetic...much less the 8700k/8600k

    I'm starting to see a prejudism here and hey!....Is there a ryzen that can beat a 7700k? Nope!

    Much less a 8600k....8700k....Nope! ..Facts are Facts.............
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2018
  6. awang

    awang Member

    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    msi rx9800 pro 128mb 256bit
    fact is, amd won certain benchmarks and so does intel..sysh
     
    airbud7 likes this.
  7. airbud7

    airbud7 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,927
    Likes Received:
    1,870
    GPU:
    MSI RX 480 ARMOR 4G OC
    not gaming dude

    8700k will kick the dog crap out of any AMD @ Gaming
     
  8. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,082
    Likes Received:
    418
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    The only one here who brought up Ryzen is you, so.... considering you're ranting on a thread about something that was never said, you mind toning down the trolling?

    Anyway, in most cases (but obviously not all), a 7700K or 8700K will only win by up to 5 FPS, and that's taking into consideration the significant frequency boost they have. That's not "kicking the dog crap out of any AMD @ gaming". The vast majority of people play below 90FPS with vsync on and tend to bottleneck their GPUs, so I think most people are fine with buying a cheaper CPU with no perceivable performance loss. Everyone knows that if you want a 120Hz+ display, Intel is still the better option.

    When you phrase things the way you do, you might want to reconsider who you think is being prejudiced. Not everyone has, wants, or needs every last frame they can get. Remember, most console games operate at 30FPS, which millions of people are satisfied with.
     
    airbud7 likes this.
  9. airbud7

    airbud7 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,927
    Likes Received:
    1,870
    GPU:
    MSI RX 480 ARMOR 4G OC
    Love my 2600k but i tell ya....that 8700k/8600k looks like some bad ass mofo's a good value
    8700k is still faster......Still waiting on your point? ....7700k is to?
     
  10. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,082
    Likes Received:
    418
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    I don't disagree, but I don't see how any of that is relevant to this thread. Seems very off-topic to me - we're talking about mobile i3s...

    As for the 8700K being faster, so what? What's the point of paying extra for performance you won't use? If you can take advantage of its higher clock speeds (like for 120Hz+ gaming or streaming) then great. But most people don't apply to that, and therefore, that "bad ass mofo's good value" suddenly looks like an unnecessary expense. I'm not saying to avoid Intel - my point is they're not a one-size-fits-all solution, and that Ryzen is perfectly adequate for gaming. As awang put, one brand wins some tests, one brand wins other tests. Get what you need. If an 8700K fits your needs that a competing Ryzen won't, then go get the 8700K.
     
    airbud7 likes this.

  11. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,962
    Likes Received:
    619
    GPU:
    -NDA +AW@240Hz
    Tell it to throttlestop. Intel's mobile parts have several clock limiting factors.
    But main two are power consumption limit and temperature. And both revolve around TDP.
    With throttlestop you can partially get over power draw limit, but there is hard one in BIOS. I remember that unpleasant finding that after BIOS update on tablet, CPU refused to eat more than 10W while before it could go up to 12W.

    Here this chip at least does not have limited speed due to number of cores used (Same turbo for both cores under load.)
     
  12. Agonist

    Agonist Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,659
    Likes Received:
    118
    GPU:
    R9 Fury CFX
    Why you so bent?

    Seriously. I went from a 3930k @ 4.6 to a 1500x @ 3.9, and guess what. I literally only can tell the difference in once game. BF1.

    Ryzen is better then Intel in my opinion except for 144hz+ users @ 1080p. 1440p 120hz+ is a whole different story IMHO. Both are great. This past almost year has been awesome in the CPU world finally.

    I had a i7 3820( same as 2600k) and was it was crap until I pushed it to 4.5ghz.

    Personally Id rather have a 1600x @ 4ghz then a 6700/770k @ 4.5ghz. Why, because I am tired of quadcores. I still hate that I couldnt get even a R5 1600. My last 3 cpus before Ryzen, x5650@4.5, i7 3820 @ 4.5, i7 3930k@ 4.5.


    Quad core 8 thread cpus have been the near top end gaming cpu for 10 years now. X58 12 thread cpus were retarded expensive and still are outside of the xeons. X79 was expensive as hell too.
    I paid $375 for my 3930k.

    My 1500x was $189. Cheaper them 3820 was @ $220.

    Thats rather crappy IMHO.
     
    kruno and airbud7 like this.
  13. sykozis

    sykozis Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    20,506
    Likes Received:
    291
    GPU:
    XFX RX 470
    This processor isn't meant for gaming. It's a ULV processor....and it's a mobile processor.

    And the ULV i3's have excellent "per core performance"

    This thread is about a mobile ULV processor. Why are you bashing AMD and Ryzen processors? Hell, why are you even mentioning the 7700K, 8600K or 8700K? They're all desktop processors.

    The only prejudice here appears to be from you.... I mean, sure, Hilbert did just post 2 reviews of AMD processors the other day, but you're the only one that seems to see any prejudice. This is a tech forum, right? It's a bit ironic to see someone complain about "prejudice" considering this forum's long standing history of being insanely Intel/NVidia biased...

    Also, as a point of fact, there are applications that favor Intel processors and applications that favor AMD processors. Neither maintains an advantage in every market. Gaming happens to be the market that matters least in the real world.
     
    kruno and airbud7 like this.
  14. airbud7

    airbud7 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,927
    Likes Received:
    1,870
    GPU:
    MSI RX 480 ARMOR 4G OC
    I clicked on the wrong thread...good grief give me a lashing and get over it.

    Love ya sykozis!...you make America great better than Trump...:D
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2018
  15. Neo Cyrus

    Neo Cyrus Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,847
    Likes Received:
    90
    GPU:
    GTX 1080 Ti
    Not gaming that's not optimized to properly use more than 4 cores. That gap wouldn't exist vs 8 core Ryzens if games actually made proper use of 16 threads. We already know clock for clock Ryzen is not insanely far behind Intel's latest chips. Pretty much everything is optimized for 4 cores and Intel CPUs in general. I expect that to change in the near future. Everything is so heavily bottlenecked by the GPU anyway that I'm not even considering an Intel CPU if the next Ryzens offer similar relative value as the current.

    The cheapest 8700K I see available is $450 CAD (that's a "sale" LOL), versus $365 for a Ryzen 7 1700, not exactly the same value per dollar, especially considering we all know Intel motherboards are only used for 1 generation while the AMD boards will function for the next with BIOS updates. Considering the GPU bottleneck, I'd say screw it and go for a Ryzen 5 1600 for $239 at the moment if I was upgrading.

    Edited to be less of a mess.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2018
    schmidtbag and lucidus like this.

Share This Page