Intel 32nm Clarkdale Core i5 661 Dual Core CPU + GPU Evaluation

Synthetics
For our performance testing we like to have a combination of synthetic and real-world testing.  For Synthetics we have the usual bank of tests from FutureMark, Maxon, Sisoft, and HyperPi.

These tests cover raw performance and potential; this side of testing brings out the basics of the CPU on its own while our real-world testing covers actual usage.

So for the numbers crowd; let’s get started with two of the industry standards for benchmarking system and gaming performance.

FutureMark - PCMark Vantage
PCMark Vantage is a suite of tests designed to give an easily reproducible result. It is also often used for bragging rights.

PCMark Vantage Testing
Click to Enlarge - Opens new Window

Right out of the gate the Dual Core i5 661 manages an upset. Using only the GMA HD IGP it manages to outperform an AMD Phenom II X4 955 CPU by over 3000 point [the X4 955 was using an nVidia GTX 285] and when we add the GTX 285 to the i5 661 we see performance that tops the Core i5 750 Quad Core and an extended lead over the Phenom II X4 955.  

FutureMark - 3DMark Vantage
3DMark Vantage is the second in the twin tests from FutureMark.  This one turns to gaming. It is one of the first tests to use DX10 for the rendering loops. We also see the first full-scale usage of PhysX in a gaming test.

3DMark Testing, not so good for the GMA HD
Click to Enlarge - Opens new Window

Here we have our first indication that the Core i5 661 is not combined with a true gaming GPU.  In our testing with 3DMark Vantage we see the IGP dragging the CPU score down due to processing overhead [and due to shared system memory]. When we overclocked to 4.3GHz we gained some of this back but not enough to get too happy. Even when combined with a GTX 285 the Core i5 661 comes in last place.

Sisoft Sandra 2010
Next up we have Sisoft’s Sandra up on the board. Here we see the numbers that represent the raw potential of our CPUs.

Sisoft's Sandra 2010
Click to Enlarge - Opens new Window

This somewhat confusing graph tells an interesting tale. We see that while the Core i5 661 is only a dual-core silicon with Hyper Threading, but it can still hang with the Quads.

Maxon Cinebench R10 x64
This test from Maxon [the makers of Cinema 4D] covers CPU based rendering. The test renders a single file using a single CPU and then again using all the available CPUs.

Cinebench R10 Render Testing
Click to Enlarge - Opens new Window

Again we find that the Dual Core nature of the i5 661 is not much of a limiting factor as it shows excellent single core performance and even decent multi-core performance. Unfortunately it cannot completely keep up with the real quads but we still see good numbers here.

HyperPi 0.99
HyperPi is a great test to find out how well a CPU can handle large amounts of math based information. With HyperPi you have a single instance of SuperPi Mod 1.3 running on each logical and physical core. This puts a great deal of stress on the CPU and also on the internal memory controller.

HyperPi 0.99b Number Crunching
Click to Enlarge - Opens new Window

As we have come to find out when we tested the Lynnfield Core i5 750, Hyper Threading and HyperPi do not play well together. Still our hardy little Core i5 661 does manage to outpace the AMD Phenom II X4 955 by quite a nice margin.

Adobe Photoshop CS4
Photoshop is an industry standard image manipulation application. It is great for not only editing photographs but also for creating original content. For out testing here we used the Driverheavn Photoshop script. This is a custom built action that puts a stock image through a series of filters and allows you to record the time each takes to run.

Photoshop CS4 Performance
Click to Enlarge - Opens new Window

The Dual Core i5 661 does an excellent job here. While there are some filters that have a greater impact its overall performance is better than the slower clocked Core i7 870 and Core i5 750 and the similarly clocked Phenom II X4 955.