The Difference Between Intel’s i3, i5, and i7 Core Processors

With all of these commercials coming in front of our faces about Intel’s newest line of processors, we can’t help but wonder what in the world the difference is. We have i3, i5, and i7 to choose from, but which one would suit our needs the best?

This is something that I have been pondering upon and I found out that I wasn’t the only one wondering what on earth Intel has done by releasing these new processors.

Well, the time is here for you to discover the difference between Intel’s i3, i5, and i7 processors. You can thank the coffee on a late night for this post. 🙂

Intel Core i3 ProcessorThis particular Intel processor is the enter level processor of this new series of Intel processors. While it may not be the fastest one of the bunch, it can get the job done, at least for most applications.

  • Mind you, if you need high speed, I suggest one of the other processors that I will unveil in front of your eyes later on in this post. Here’s some of the Core i3 features.
  • Uses 4 threads. Yes, it uses hyperthreading technology which is the latest craze due to its improved efficiency over earlier processors that were put on the market.
  • This processor consists of 2-4 cores, depending on which one you get your hands on.
  • Contains A 3-4 MB Cache
  • Uses less heat and energy than earlier processors, which is always a good thing in this day and age.

Intel Core i5 Processor

  • This is the mid-size processor of this bunch, recommended for those who demand a little speed, but not quite enough where the user will be running resource-intensive applications.
  • As with the Core i3 processor, this comes with 2-4 cores, the main difference is that it has a higher clock speed than the Core i3.
  • This is also a heat and energy efficient processor, but it does seem to be better at this particular job than the Core i3 processor.
  • The number of threads used in this is no different than the Core i3 with 2-4 threads, and it also uses hyperthreading technology for a boost in performance.
  • The cache of the Core i5 is bigger than the Core i3, it’s at 3-8 MB.
  • The Core i5 is where the turbo mode is made available, this provides users with the opportunity to turn off a core if it’s not being utilized.

Intel Core i7 Processor

  • This is for the users that demand power, yes it does provide more power and if Tim Allen gets one of these, this would be the beast that he gets his hands on. Great for gamers and other resource intensive users. 
  • The cache on this one is 4-8 MB.
  • This processor comes with 8 threads, definitely enough to get the job done quickly, maybe even at the speed of light if you’re lucky.  And yes it also utilizes hyperthreading technology.
  • You will have four cores to take advantage of with this particular series.
  • And just like the other ones in this Intel series of processors, it is more energy efficient and produces less heat.


This is the age of technology and today we use electronic mails more as compared to the old form of physical mails. When we receive an email from someone we can find out who is the sender of the email from the sender’s address but there is no field that can tell us what the location of the email sender is. Sometimes it becomes very important to determine the location of the email to check its validity as a person may be sitting in some country and claiming to be in another.

Thus it sometimes, is important to find out the approximate location (if not accurate) of the email sender. To be able to find out the location of the email sender we first need the IP address of the email sender or the IP route used by the email itself. Determining this is not very difficult and every different email service has its own way of finding this out. It can be like right clicking and checking the properties or the Full Headers.If you are using Gmail primarily, then here is how to find the IP address of the sender and its location.

How to find the IP address of the Email sender in Gmail:

1. Open the email that you wish to find the IP address of.

2. From the drop down on right side, click the Show Original button

3. This will open a new window with lots of email information.

4. Now search for “Received: from”, you will see some IP address in the same line within square brackets like [XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX]

5. Now see for the last IP address of the page.
This will be the IP address of the sender or the route of the email used for delivery.

How to find the location of the email sender:

1. You can use the IP address noted above to find the location of the sender.
2. Visit this link, paste the IP in the Remote Address Field and click the Host Trace button.

3. Within few seconds, you would be able to see the location of the IP address on the Google Maps.
In the testing, I found this address to be more than approximation, if not accurate.
Note: Some email address might not be showing an IP address, this can be because they have protected their IP address from public display.

Happy birthday Vikee..!!

Hi da ,
It is  your birthday..!!!

BiRtHdAy BoY..!!

See ,  i remembered.!!

Well i have made this page just  for you wanted to make it a little special..!!

So i just wanted to wish you a very very veryyyyy HAPPIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEeeeeeeeeeeee BIRTHDAY……!! Have fun and dont forget to treat me da..!!

It is  your day and enjoy it to your fullest.!!

That means you have gone around the sun 20 times now..!!

Wow that seems really cool…….!!
Overa mokka poda virumbala..!!
So, that’s all……i am done….. 🙂 “

Happy birthday to you
Happy birthday to you
Happy birthday to vikee akon..  (

(ah……..i guess i really made it a long one )

Happy birthday once again…… 🙂 have a great time……i am soooo happy for you :))
enjoy and have fun……..!! 😉

Something Someday Will Kill Facebook, But We’re Not There Yet…!!


Warren Buffet always advises investors to buy a company with “moats” defending them from competitors, and Facebook has one of the deepest and most dragon-laden moats in the world. First, of course, there’s the network effect; with a billion active users, everyone goes there because that’s where everyone is. (Of course, there are individuals and subcultures who avoid FB — perhaps quoting Yogi Berra, “Nobody goes there any more, it’s too crowded” — but whether they like it or not, they’re a tiny minority among the networked of the world.)

Second, their Open Graph strategy means that Facebook isn’t just Facebook; they’re woven into the bones, and in some cases arguably the DNA, of millions of other apps and web sites. Every “Log In with Facebook,” “Share to Facebook,” and “Like” button across the Web and within every app store is Facebook territory. They don’t just own all the end users: Developers, executives, marketers, startups — they all want access to the Facebook empire, which means, to a considerable extent, becoming part of the Facebook empire.

Third, they’ve already seen off the most immediate threat, that of a direct assault by their most dangerous competitor. I refer of course to Google+. Which isn’t dead, but could hardly be described as thriving. Knee-jerk Google defenders tend to say things like “Google+ can’t possibly fail, it’s just a social layer on top of Google,” which may be true but it’s also nonsense. G+ was clearly intended as a social network that would supersede Facebook as the place where most people go to share their lives and thoughts with friends and followers, and it failed at that.

Finally, they seem to be incredibly paranoid, which is a good thing. Consider Intel, arguably the longest-lived successful company in the history of technology. That’s at least in part because of Andy Grove’s motto, “Only the paranoid survive.” I strongly suspect Facebook spent more than half a billion dollars to buy Instagram — a company with 12 employees! — because they’ve already imagined one way that they could die.

I call it “Creeping Defection.” If all their users also join another network, even one that focuses on a niche, then that competing network could conceivably grow into a full-fledged social network, and Facebook’s users might find themselves spending less and less time on Facebook itself. In the end, they would leave Facebook without ever really consciously intending to do so. That was Google’s hope, but unfortunately for them, G+ never really took off. Instagram seemed to be on that kind of trajectory, so they had to be dealt with. Just in case.

This leaves, I think, only three ways that Facebook’s dominance could be shaken.

The first is in some ways the most obvious, but also, to my mind, the most unlikely: that their users turn away. There’s no shortage of reasons propounded by the anti-Facebook crowd. Because they gnaw away at their users’ privacy more and more with every passing year. Because they’ve sold their soul to advertisers. Because they’re anti-pseudonym and pro-censorship. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

The sad truth, though, is whether they’re frogs in a slow-boiling pot of heavy-handed, anti-privacy water or whether it’s only Internet activists who think that these sorts of things really matter on social networks, most users really don’t care. Absent some kind of melodramatic revelation that Facebook is selling its data to al-Qaeda, or that Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg are really Kang and Kodos from The Simpsons, Facebook user revolts will be temporary and limited as long as Facebook backs off of its crusade for “more sharing!” when necessary. They always do — only to relaunch them some years later, of course, when their users are ready.

The next possible doom is more plausible — and actually testable — but the data required is data that only Facebook has, and last I checked, they aren’t sharing. It’s possible, though, that social networking is something that people get bored of; that after the first few years of watching your friends share memes and cat pictures, it becomes more chore than joy, and people find themselves drifting away to more tangible pursuits. Facebook knows the answer to this one; they can tell if there’s a negative correlation between how long someone’s been a Facebook user and how often they visit and interact.

If so, then it’s possible that Facebook use might wither away as people do grow bored of it. Maybe they’d potentially be driven away by desperate Facebook attempts to bring them back. Or maybe a few competitors might attack the social network’s last line of defense: its de facto status as one’s defining online ID. This attack might come from, say, Apple, Google, Mozilla and Microsoft forming an ID service that works across Android, iOS, Chrome, Safari, Firefox and IE. Unlikely, I know, but not impossible.

One attack I don’t think is possible is that long-held dream of Internet activists: a federated social-networking model, where your identity and your data can live at the provider of your choice, communicating with other providers through a common protocol. As an example, imagine if Facebook, Twitter, and Google+ all played nicely with each other, so you could open one and see anything/everything shared on the other two. But federated protocols with many players, by their very nature, innovate more slowly than authoritarian central sites. (To an extent that’s why Twitter has clamped down on its once-thriving ecosystem of Twitter clients.) Such a federated model would never catch up.

So the only thing that I think will actually kill Facebook, in the end, is the same thing that’s slowly killing Microsoft today: a platform shift. Not the shift to mobile; they’re riding that one out nicely. The nextplatform shift. When it happens, maybe Facebook’s death spasms will finally trigger a long-awaited spate of innovation and creativity from them, as seems to have happened in Redmond of late. If I were a betting man I’d put my money on wearable computing as the platform of the future — something like Google Glass plus Kinect, bearing in mind that each of those is but the Altair II of its field, and I’m talking about their descendants a decade or more hence.

I doubt Facebook will survive that shift; but at the same time, it’s hard to imagine something else replacing it between now and then. The world is yours for a decade, Mark Zuckerberg. Enjoy it while it lasts