The Intel Pentium D 955 Extreme Edition was an exciting processor when it was released and not because of its 3.46GHz clock speed or the ludicrous $1000 US price tag that was associated with it. Rather this was an exciting processor as it marked the introduction of the 65nm design process and it was the first to do so on January 16th, 2006.

Almost 2 years later, on November 11th 2007, Intel released another exciting processor that marked the introduction of the 45nm design process with the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650. This was another extreme edition type processor that was again priced at a crazy $1000 US. Today marks another exciting processor launch from Intel as they introduce the world’s first 32nm processors codenamed “Westmere” a little over 2 years after releasing the first 45nm processor.

However unlike the Pentium D 955 EE and Core 2 Extreme QX9650 processors which both featured an introductory price of $1000, the new 32nm processors that we will be showing you today cost less than $200. Rather than introduce the latest manufacturing process with their most elite processors, Intel will be demonstrating it with some affordable dual-core processors.

In fact, Intel is releasing more than a dozen new 32nm processors today, which will include five Core i7 mobile processors, four Core i5 mobile and four desktop processors, along with two Core i3 desktop and two mobile processors. Also being released are four new mobile chipsets and three new desktop chipsets to support all these new processors.

With so many new 32nm Westmere processors being released today, it is interesting to note that there are no quad-core parts. Furthermore, as it stands Intel appears to have none planned for 2010 at all. That said, Intel is scheduled in the later part of the first quarter in 2010 to release the six-core Gulftown (32nm) series of extreme high-end processors which will be branded Core i7 980X. This CPU will become, and remain throughout 2010, Intel’s (and possibly the world’s) highest performance desktop CPU.

Currently the Westmere microarchitecture is made up of two groups, one targeting desktop computing and the other mobile. The mobile parts go by the codename “Arrandale” while the desktop processors that we are looking at today have been given the codename “Clarkdale”. As it stands there are three processor families under the Clarkdale codename which includes the Core i5 6xx, Core i3 5xx and the yet to be announced Pentium G6xxx series. Let’s move on to check out each processor series in more detail...

As it turns out the Core i5 661 does not support Intel VT-d (Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O), vPro Technology or Intel Trusted Execution Technology (TXT), while there is one other difference between these two processors. But first we should explain something else about the new Core i5 6xx series. This new series, which is based on the Westmere architecture and goes by the codename Clarkdale, features an on-die GPU.

The other key difference between the Core i5 661 and 660 processors is the frequency at which the GPU operates. Interestingly while the Core i5 661 operates its GPU at 900MHz, the other Core i5 600 series processors including the 660 only feature a GPU frequency of 733MHz. Why the Core i5 661 is the only CPU to feature a GPU clock speed of 900MHz is unknown to us at this point, but that is the way Intel are playing it.

Therefore, for the first time ever it is now possible to purchase a CPU that features a built in GPU which is entirely separate from the chipset. This is known as General-Purpose computation on Graphics Processing Units (GPGPU) and is the technique of using a GPU, which typically handles computation only for computer graphics, to perform computation in applications traditionally handled by the CPU.

The Clarkdale processors also have another first time claim to make and that is to be the first processor series to be built using a 32nm (2nd Generation Hi-K) design process. This will help improve the efficiency of these processors, allowing them to use less power and generate less heat than existing processors, such as those based on the Lynnfield (45nm) architecture.

Given that the Clarkdale processors feature a GPU on-die, they will require new chipsets and motherboards to support the integrated graphics. These new chipsets include the H55, H57 and Q57, while it is worth noting that the Clarkdale processors will work with existing P55 motherboards without the ability to use the integrated GPU.

The Core i3 5xx series, which will make its début with just two models, features the same L2 and L3 cache with the key difference being the removal of the Turbo Boost mode. The TDP (Thermal Design Power) and GPU frequency will remain the same. The Core i3 530 (2.93GHz) is said to cost just $133 US, while the 540 (3.06GHz) is a little more pricey at $133 US.

Although we have not received any official word from Intel, we believe that the “Pentium G6950” processor is also arriving this month. The Pentium G6950 is expected to operate at just 2.8GHz with a GPU frequency of 533MHz. The L2 cache will remain the same while the L3 cache will be reduced from 4MB to 3MB. It is estimated that this processor will have a MSRP of just $87.

The GPU or IGP (Integrated Graphics Platform) is called the Intel Graphics Media Accelerator HD which has derived from an existing Intel graphics product. However Intel claims that the Graphics Media Accelerator HD is considerably more powerful than the GMA X4500 HD featured in the Intel G45 chipset. The number of shader processors will increase to 12 from the 10 offered by the G45, while they will operate at either 733MHz or 900MHz depending on the processor, where as the G45 runs at 800MHz.

Furthermore, Intel has increased the amount of RAM that the GPU can utilize from the maximum of 768MB for the G45, to a massive 1.7GB for systems with memory to spare. The Graphics Media Accelerator HD has a theoretical bandwidth of 21.2GB/s, which is about 25% greater than the GMA 4500M HD using DDR3 memory. Overall, Intel claims that Clarkdale graphics will work about 1.5x faster than the integrated graphics core of G45 chipset.

Now the new Intel chipsets include the H55, H57 and Q57, which are all quite similar in terms of specifications. All three offer six SATA 3.0 Gbit/s ports while the H57 and Q57 boast eight PCI Express 2.0 lanes and fourteen USB 2.0 ports. The H55 on the other hand looses a few USB 2.0 ports as it supports twelve, and drops a few PCI Express 2.0 lanes with a total of just six.

The only other differences between these chipsets, has to do with the features that they support. For example the Intel Remote PC Assist Technology for Consumer is not supported by the Q57, while it is present in the H55 and H57 chipsets. The Intel Rapid Storage Technology 9.5 is not supported by the H55 chipset, where as it is by the H57 and Q57 chipsets.

Another feature called Intel Anti-Theft Technology (TDT) is only supported by the Q57 chipset, as is the Intel Active Management Technology 6.0 with Intel Remote PC Assist Technology for Business. Then finally a feature called Intel Identity Protect Technology (Sentry Peak) is only supported by the H57 and H55 chipsets.

Due to the fact that the Core i5 750 processor does feature twice as much L3 cache when compared to the new Core i5 661 and Core i3 540 processors, the memory bandwidth produced by this processor is considerably higher. Still despite being 21% slower than the Core i5 750, Intel’s new Core i5 661 processor did produce 14% more bandwidth than the Phenom II X4 945. The Core i5 661 and Core i3 540 processors delivered similar bandwidth results with the higher clocked Core i5 661 just 4% faster in this test.

Something that we found interesting about the new Core i5 661 and Core i3 540 processors was the poor latency performance. While the Core i5 750 produced our best result in this test, the Core i5 661 and Core i3 540 processors delivered our worst.

Although the memory bandwidth performance of these two processors was quite strong, the latency performance is weak. This is because although the memory controller is still featured on the CPU package it is off-die. This means the Clarkdale design is different to the Lynnfield's which features the memory controller on-die for much greater performance.

The EVEREST Ultimate Edition results back up what we saw when testing with MaxxMem² as the results are almost identical. Again the Core i5 661 and Core i3 540 processors demonstrate excellent memory bandwidth performance outclassing the AMD Athlon II X4 and Phenom II X4 processors.

Using the MaxxPI² 8MB calculation test to measure both single and multi-threaded performance we find that the Core i5 661 is extremely fast when measuring single thread performance due to its 3.33GHz clock speed. The single-thread performance of the Core i3 540 is also very fast, delivering our second best result behind the Core i5 661.

However given that the Core i5 661 and Core i3 540 are both dual-core processors, their multi-threaded performance is a little lacking when compared to the quad-core competition. That said, the Core i5 661 did match the performance of the Core i5 750 and Phenom II X4 945 processors.

This time we are looking at the throughput of each processor when running the MaxxPI² 8MB calculation test. As you can see MaxxPI² does have an issue with single-thread AMD performance and for this reason the Phenom II X4 and Athlon II X4 processors appear much slower than they actually are. The multi-threaded performance is however spot on and as you can see both quad-core AMD processors beat the Core i3 540 processor.

Using the in-built WinRAR benchmark we again measured the performance of each processor using a single core and multi-core configuration. Oddly, with just a single core in use WinRAR claims that the Core i5 750 is faster than the Core i5 661, which we would have thought was unlikely.

The multi-core test also gives the Core i5 750 a serious performance advantage over the Core i5 661. That said, the Core i5 661 was almost able to match the multi-core performance of the Phenom II X4 945. The Core i3 540 processor also closely mimicked the performance of the Core i5 661.

The Core i5 661 performs similar to that of the Phenom II X4 945 when using Microsoft’s Excel 2007. This did make the Core i5 661 the fastest dual-core processor tested, as it took 39% less time to complete the MonteCarlo test when compared to the Core 2 Duo E7400, and 44% less than the Phenom II X2 550. However dropping two cores meant that the Core i5 661 took 90% longer than the Core i5 750 to complete the test. The Core i3 540 was also impressive delivering a similar level of performance.

This time when testing with WinRAR we created our own compression test using the Windows 7 DVD and a single 720p HD file. The Core i5 661 was around 13% faster than the Core i3 540. Despite offering considerable performance gains over the old Core 2 Duo E7400, the Core i3 540 was still slightly slower than the Phenom II X2 550 processor. Furthermore, the Core i5 661 was also considerably slower than the Core i5 750, taking around 55% longer to complete the task.

The Adobe Photoshop CS4 test that we have devised measures the time it takes to apply two filters to a high resolution image. This program does not appear to be quad-core optimized, or at least not this aspect of it. As a result the highly clocked Core i5 and Core i3 processors did deliver the best results which were comparable to the Core i5 750 processor.

Given the performance seen when testing with HandBrake it is hard to believe that the new Core i5 661 and Core i3 540 are dual-core processors. The Core i5 661 as able to beat the Core 2 Quad Q6600 while the Core i3 540 was just 4fps slower. Both destroyed the dual-core Phenom II X2 550 and Core 2 Duo E7400 processors, while they were considerably slower than the quad-core Phenom II X4 945 and Core i5 750 processors.

The x264 HD Benchmark 3.0 results resemble those found when testing with HandBrake though this time the Core i5 661 performs even closer to the Athlon II X4 620. The Core i3 540 is also very close to the Core 2 Quad Q6600 now, while both new Intel processors easily beat the Phenom II X2 550 and Core 2 Duo E7400 processors.

Using TMPGEnc we converted a 715MB avi file to the mpg format and measured the time it took for each processor to complete this task. The Core i5 661 was once again very impressive, as it roughly matched the performance of the Phenom II X4 945, making it one of the fastest processors tested. The Core i5 661 was able to complete the test 24% faster than the Core 2 Quad Q6600. The Core i3 540 was 10% slower than the Core i5 661 in this test.

Furmark is one of the benchmark programs we use to measure synthetic 3D performance. As you can see, all 7 processor configurations were able to max out the GeForce GTX 285 at 186fps. The minimum frame rates seemed to be more or less dictated by the processors clock frequency, though the Phenom II processors did appear to provide a performance advantage here. Still, the Core i5 661 performed very well here, delivering one of the best results which was also matched by the Core i3 540 processor.

The Core i5 661 performs very well in the SPECviewperf v10 Maya and 3dsMax tests, losing only to the Core i5 750 processor in each test. This meant that the Core i5 661 was just able to edge out the Phenom II X4 945, while it was around 40% faster than the Core 2 Quad Q6600. The Core i3 540 was slower than the Phenom II X4 945 though it did manage to beat the Athlon II X4 620.

CINEBENCH R10 has been used to show both single and multi-threading performance. As you can see, when using just a single thread the 3.33GHz Core i5 661 really shines with a score of 4750pts. This meant that the Core i5 661 was 19% faster than the Core i5 750. The multi-threading test saw the Core i5 661 more than double its single thread score, thanks to the use of Hyper-Threading technology. Still, despite this the Core i5 661 was 24% slower than the Core i5 750.

The Core i5 661 is the fastest tested dual-core processor delivering 223fps at 1024x768 in Unreal Tournament 3. This meant that although the Core i5 661 was 9% faster than the Core i3 540, it was also 10% slower than the Phenom II X4 945, and 17% slower than the Core i5 750 processor. Still the Core i5 661 was considerably faster than the Athlon II X4 620 and Core 2 Quad Q6600 processors, both quad-cores.

Although the Core i3 540 processor was able to match the Core i5 750 at 1920x1200, it was 8% slower at 1024x768. However given that Street Fighter IV is not well optimized for quad-core processors, the Core i5 661 steams ahead at both resolutions due to its relatively high 3.33GHz clock speed.

The last game that we tested with was Far Cry 2 and at 1920x1200 the Core i5 661 again does very well. With an average of 70fps, the Core i5 661 was just a single frame slower than the Core i5 750, while it beat the Phenom II X4 945 by a single frame. At 1024x768 the story was a little different, as the Core i5 661 was found to be 2fps slower than the Phenom II X4 945, and 15fps slower than the Core i5 750. The Core i5 661 was 6% faster than the Core i3 540 processor at 1920x1200.

The Radeon HD 4200, used on 785G boards, is the second fastest IGP on the market, trailing behind the HD 3300 found on 790GX boards. However today we are using the 780G which uses the Radeon HD 3200, making it AMD’s third fastest IGP.

When compared to the H55 using the Core i5 661 processor, the AMD 780G delivered comparable performance. The synthetic FurMark test at 1024x768 saw the 780G deliver a maximum frame rate of 11fps, while the Graphics Media Accelerator HD of the Intel Core i5 661 processor produced a maximum of 10fps. Interestingly the Intel combo got stomped in the Maya test, delivering significantly less performance.

Finally we tested with Unreal Tournament 3 using maximum in-game quality settings with AA/AF disabled at 1024x768. At this low resolution the Graphics Media Accelerator HD managed 30fps, while the 780G averaged just 22fps. In either case, do not expect to do much gaming with either integrated solution.

Overclocking the Core i5 661 went extremely well, as we were able to push it from 3.33GHz to an incredible 4.60GHz using air-cooling. The cooler of choice was the Cogage TRUE Spirit, which had no trouble keeping the 32nm processor cool, even at such an extreme frequency.

The overclock boosted the Core i5 661 performance in the CINEBENCH R10 multi-threading test by 34%, which meant that the processor was now slightly faster than the quad-core Core i5 750 processor. This single thread performance saw the Core i5 661 beat the Core i5 750 by an incredible 59% margin.

Overclocking the Core i5 661 processor to 4.60GHz reduced the calculation time in Microsoft Excel 2007 by 36% for the MonteCarlo test and 30% for the BigNumberCrunch test. These are impressive performance gains and it meant that this dual-core processor was faster than almost everything tested with the exception of the Core i5 750.

The power consumption figures of these new 32nm processors are impressive. The Intel Core i5 661 features two less cores when compared to the Core i5 750 processor, though it does come clocked considerably higher while it also includes a GPU clocked at 900MHz. Despite this the Core i5 661 system configuration consumed just 142watts of power when under load, which was 20% less than that of the Core i5 750 configuration.

The Core i3 540 on the other hand used 32% less power when compared to the Core i5 750, meaning that it used 38% less power than the Phenom II X2 550 and 50% less than the old Core 2 Duo E7400. These are quite an impressive result for the new Intel 32nm dual-core processors and we found them to be just as energy efficient when at idle.

Priced at $196 US the Core i5 661 costs as much as the Core i5 750, which we found to be a superior product in terms of performance. However the overall system build will be around $100 US cheaper with the Core i5 661 as you save on a budget graphics card, while H55 motherboards should retail for under $100 US, where as P55 boards are priced up around $170 US.

However the real competition for the Core i5 661 and the 6xx series in general will come from the AMD Phenom II X4 processors and the flagship model being the Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition can be had for just under $200 US. In fact the Phenom II X4 945 which we used for comparisons sake today, costs just $165 US while the faster 965 costs just $195.

Either Phenom II X4 processor is going to be superior to the Core i5 661 in terms of performance, and I believe our testing proved that. Also unlike the Core i5 750 processor which is limited to the P55 platform, the Phenom II X4 processors can be coupled with the AMD 790GX chipset.

Supporting motherboards can be had for as little as $70 US, so as it stands the Phenom II X4/790GX combo will cost you no more than the Core i5 661/H55 combo, while it will deliver better processing and graphics performance. This is certainly something worth considering when purchasing a new Core i5 6xx series processor.

Unfortunately the Core i5 650 will not be much better in terms of value with a suggested retail value of $176 US, while the Core i5 670 will go for an insane $284 US, so you can forget that product even exists. The Core i3 540 is considerably cheaper at $133 US, and in terms of performance is not a great deal slower than the Core i5 661. In fact, if you plan to overclock it’s not really any slower at all.

Still, even at just $133 US the Core i3 540 will face a great deal of competition from AMD. The Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition retails for just $100 US, while the Athlon II X4 630 can be had for just $113 US, or the Phenom II X3 710 for just $120 US. Then for around the same price as the Core i3 540 we have the AMD Phenom II X4 810, while the Phenom II X4 925 clocked at 2.8GHz steps in at $145 US.

For the most part the Core i3 540 blew away the Athlon II X4 620, so even at $113 US the 630 version is an inferior option in our opinion. However processors such as the Phenom II X3 710 for just $120 US are a serious threat, as are the Phenom II X4 810 and Phenom II X4 925 processors. Again all these AMD processors can be coupled with a 790GX motherboard for as little as $70 US.

Still, given the performance provided by the Core i3 540 processor, we feel that it is exceptional value, particularly for those willing to overclock it a little. The Core i3 540 is also very light on power and does consume considerably less than the AMD competition.

Had the performance of the Intel Graphics Media Accelerator HD been just a little bit better we would be far more excited about these new processors. However truth be told it’s just good enough to play 1080p HD content and that’s about it, which we guess is all it needs to do for now.

The problem with this being that AMD is gearing up to release its fastest desktop IGP platform yet, with the first of their new 800-series chipsets early this year. Combined with that, AMD will be launching at least five new budget processors, including the AMD Phenom II X2 555 Black Edition (3.2GHz) which will be their fastest dual-core yet, along with a low-powered Phenom II X4 910e (2.6GHz) quad-core.

Also on the cards are three new Athlon II processors, which will be the Athlon II X4 635 (2.9GHz), X3 440 (3.0GHz) and X2 255 (3.1GHz). Clearly AMD wants to try and minimize the damage the new Core i3 and Core i5 processors may have of their low-end market share. The first quarter of 2010 is going to be a busy time for AMD, as they also plan to extend their Radeon HD 5000-series with multiple, new more affordable models, the first of which should happen in late January.

Overall we are impressed with the level of performance provided by the Core i5 661 and Core i3 540 processors. That said, the Core i5 6xx series has not won us over entirely, as it is still possible to build an equivalent AMD system for less. In fact, it could be argued that a superior AMD system can be built for less, especially if you are just taking raw performance into account. The Core i3 5xx series on the other hand seems like the way to go at this stage, though we will know more once motherboards start becoming available.

Reviewed By Steven Walton