http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3570
Printable View
Absolutely fast. Like the guy who wrote the article said, I don't expect huge overclocks without pushing the voltage.
great performance...
so Anandtech isn't under NDA?
wow, amd will need to pull some kind of magic rabbit out of it's @$$ to compete with this processor. much better performance than i had expected!
if true, this makes gigabytes 24 pwm mobo a useless pile of cheese.Quote:
2) More overclockable CPUs. The best yielding Nehalems (and highest clocked Nehalems) will be LGA-1366 processors. I wouldn't expect any 1GHz+ overclocks from LGA-1156 CPUs.
The idle power was amazing.
Quote:
Unfortunately this is the sample I tested with. Thankfully it was healthy enough for me to overclock the BLCK to 166MHz, resulting in a 2.66GHz frequency. Turbo mode was still stuck at a 1x increase over the stock frequency, so final Lynnfield performance should be much better in single and dual threaded apps than what you’ll see here today.
maybe i missed something. how do they have HT enabled in 2.66 Lynfield?
Its not even a 2.66Ghz but an Oced 2.13Ghz...also its an engineering sample. Turbomode doesnt work correctly etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by geo
what?Quote:
The price of Intel’s P55 PCH is also much lower than the X58 chipset, in fact P55 is expected to be price competitive with P45 + ICH10.
x58+ich10=~50$
p45+ich10=~40$
P55(ich10_2)=~40$
much cheaper than x58?
price "competitive" with p45?
it costs about the same while offering a lot less features... if there will be cheap P55 boards it will be thanks to mainboard makers, NOT thanks to intels chipset pricing!
and yes, eventually there will be 100$ and below p55 boards... eventually...
oh please :rolleyes:Quote:
The Lynnfield Preview: Rumblings of Revenge
wha? you tested with the first lynnfield ES chips intel ever sent out, what did you expect anand?Quote:
Based on what I've seen, Lynnfield isn't ready just yet - it's not an artificial delay.
The motherboards are in rough shape, CF/SLI isn't working and we're still at very early revs of the CPU's silicon. While I think that the chip will be ready far in advance of its rumored September shipdate, the CPU and motherboards aren't yet.
boards not beeing ready, im not surprised, but cpus? they are fine...
1) yesQuote:
Why would anyone want a LGA-1366 system then? I believe there are three major advantages to the LGA-1366 platform for single-socket desktops:
1) Support for Gulftown. You can only get 6-cores from the LGA-1366 platform in 1H 2010, Intel currently doesn't have any 6-core LGA-1156 parts planned.
2) More overclockable CPUs. The best yielding Nehalems (and highest clocked Nehalems) will be LGA-1366 processors. I wouldn't expect any 1GHz+ overclocks from LGA-1156 CPUs.
3) More bandwidth to PCIe slots. I don't see this as a huge advantage today, but there may come a time when having as much bandwidth to your GPUs as possible is important. I'm thinking general purpose GPU computing, DX11, OpenCL sort of stuff. But we're not there yet.
2) that doesnt make any sense whatsoever... 1366 and 1156 cpus are diferent silicon... the only part that makes sense is that 1156 will not overclock that well, but thats what intel wants, we will just see about that once 1156 mainboards come out :D
3) yes, but you might not only use that for gpus... raid plus sli is something i really wouldnt recommend on 1156...
and last but not least, you can get 50% more mem and probably clock it better on 1366 than on 1156 thanks to 3 channels and not 2.
so, 1156 will perform about the same as 1366 cpus, but overclock slightly worse. wow, who would have thought? :D
the really interesting part here is that 1156 will beat phenom2, but phenom2 is and will be a lot closer to intel than phenom1 ever was to c2q and i7.
intel and anandtech are beyond things like NDAs... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by johnp1983
i5 looks impressive, Would still rather get a i7920do today though, Amazing that it takes AMD to have a 1ghz advantage to remain competitive.
Honestly did some1 really expect worse performance than this? Personally I was expecting some 1-5% behind Core i7 at same clock depending on app. Was laughing at the comments on i5 is mostly competing with Phenom II and Yorkfield etc. lol
I want to see it binned and LN cold. I could care less about day to day performance.
1Ghz advantage ??Lynnfield is almost identical to i7 and i7 is on average 22% faster per clock than Deneb and C2Q...There is stuff that it is marginally faster or even slower and there are workloads(SMT aware-not that many of them) that are much faster than Deneb/C2Q.It boils down to what users mostly do on their PCs.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
One advantage that i5 may have over Deneb and C2Q is that high Turbo mode for 1/2 cores.Other than that,the 2.66Ghz model without HT will be roughly on par with 2.83Ghz 45nm C2Q with Turbo being its saving grace in mono and dual threaded apps.
edit:
For enthusiasts the "turbo mode" advantage i5 may have over c2q/deneb is not important since this group of users usually OCs their chips anyway regardless of CPU they use.The turbo thingie on i5 will be good for those retail systems that can't or won't be OCed by "normal" end users.
I would love to see some overclocking results. It seems like everyone always says you won't be able to overclock intel's new proc, but look how well i7 is faring
^ This. I'd hate it to be the case i5 would top out at like 3.6GHz in no-turbo mode on air. If the cheapest i5 that has HT does 4.0GHz on air it's i5 for me, otherwise i7 when I upgrade this summer/autumn. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by cobra_kai
When I got to the last page and started reading the Why would anyone want a LGA-1366 system then? , I got a nasty flashback. S939 vs S754: we all knew S754 was a dead end, right from the start; why o why is Intel taking this same decisions? Build one platform, let it scale all the way up and down; why force people to upgrade motherboard to upgrade their CPU :-/
if you didnt get a crap mobo :mad: like me then yes :)Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Well it was actually overclocked by 25% :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra_kai
Its a 2.13Ghz ES sample they OCed it to 2.66Ghz via 166Mhz BLCK. Its the first key to that you can easily OC them. I bet you can OC them almost as good/bad as i7 since they use the same methods.
Fish? LGA1366 and LGA1156 will run side by side with new CPUs for both. You can roughly translate it into that if you want multi GPus. Pick 1366. If you want single pick 1156.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke
Sorry, I was going off the numbers in this review, not the ones in your head.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
He's comparing the 2.13 GHz i5 to the 3.2 GHz X4 955. The i5 is better performing in 8 benchmarks, and the X4 is the faster one in 6 benchmarks.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Dunno if those benchmarks are well chosen, someone else have to comment on that.
And then you wonder why people call you a troll??:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
Chances of having a normal conversation with you are the same as winning the lottery.
Here you go,Deneb/Yorkfield/Bloomfield across a range of applications and summarized in one table.
Man, I am talking about the numbers in this review. WTF is your problem? And is that an AMD site you linked to? Are you not happy with anandtech numbers so insult me and link to a site that suites your opinion? That site is obviously AMD biased, 14 links to AMD related news, info and sites and 0 for Intel, Its even green FFS. You are just plane angry.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
I think we know what the problem is :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
no comment, i really dont like the mainstream cpu's (i5) reason being is that why dont they just leave the core 2 series in production and the still profit from it, i dont want average people having i7/i5s
only good thing i5 is good for is mobile
And AT is leaning towards intel ,so what?You missed the intel banners?Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
As for the site I linked,are you calling MusicIsMyLife a cheater or what?He is member here too,maybe you should ask him why he wrote a biased review?:rolleyes:
i5 numbers are no different than i7 numbers.In apps that can make use of multiple threads(>4) i5/i7 is faster than C2Q and Deneb.This is not an issue.Issue is that you claim than Deneb has to work at 1Ghz higher clock on average to be on par,which is bogus to put it mildly.
You can go and look at THG review of i7 965 and when they compare it to Yorkfield at 3.2GHz.Never mind the turbo,the i7 is 18% faster per clock than Yorkfield,which is around 5% faster than Deneb.So there you have the "same" 22%-23% or so.The "skewed" review in my link is 2 or 3% of from this number(margin of error) so you can see that it is not "biased" but pretty much spot on.
So anandtech is a reliable source of info when it suites your agenda (hint, Look at your sig) but if you want to counter the numbers you link to a biased site that does crazy :banana::banana::banana::banana: like give the i7 systemQuote:
Originally Posted by informal
* 2x 1 GByte Cellshock PC3-14400
* 1x 1 GByte OCZ PC3-16000
You seem desperate?
Maybe you missed the irony in the sig's comment :confused:? It's there to remind people that AMD users are not crazy and that even an intel shill site (like AT) can point out the "phenomenon" if you can call it that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
And AT is biased unfortunately.That's my opinion it may be wrong,but that's what I think.
I provided another source of information on the i7 vs C2Q comparison at THG since they done clock for clock comparison too.Feel free and read it ,maybe you can see why your 1Ghz higher clock speed comment is meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
That is my point, You find anandtechs opinion valad if it suites your agenda, How can he be right about something (i.e pro AMD) and wrong about others (i.e pro intel) surely you se the hypocrisy here?Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
And about that toms review, You are always quick to point out that turbo mode will only work with 1/2 threads (as quoted above), But when it will suit your agenda, you assume turbo mode is running full speed even in 4thread software, Work out the toms review again showing the advantage in ipc without factoring turbo mode in 4thread software.
I guess there is this caveat from the preview "Turbo mode was still stuck at a 1x increase over the stock frequency, so final Lynnfield performance should be much better in single and dual threaded apps than what you’ll see here today.", but I remain underwhelmed by how Intel is sitting on it's hands and just dribbling out such minor performance increases. :upset:
By the time this comes out, it will be close enough to 12 months since i7 was launched and we get F#$% all improvement. :shakes:
Is i5 supposed to be an improvement in performance over i7? I was under the impression that these were the cheaper, cut-down, lower end parts :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
I think THG ran the i7 965 without [any] turbo mode and that how they got 18% over QX9770:shrug: Maybe I'm wrong,I will check it out again. If this is true(and I'm wrong and THG ran it with Turbo on<-edited for Shintai),than with turbo On it would be faster than 18%.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
You contradict your own statements. :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Take a rest and come back when you got your homework done.
Whether it is supposed to be that or not, as a consumer, the rate of improvement in Intel's offerings leave me underwhelmed, all things considered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xello
The slack bastards are going way too slow for my liking in improving performance available to desktop users.
I meant that if it indeed was with turbo On it would be faster than 18%.It's late and I'm sleepy.Stop being so picky :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Intel wants to have a cheaper CPU and platform to replace the s775. i7 is for high end and enthusiasts so i5 should be for more mid-range or mainstream users. Those who bought i7 will have an option to go 6 core 32nm i7 next year ,which is pretty good upgrade path IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
just some facts, the 2,13 also had Ht enabled, that is also few times the reason for its higher performance......Quote:
Originally Posted by Mats
for the rest very nice cpu, very good mainstream chip but intel is screwing up on:
1) platform with there low amount of pci-e lanes, x58 to expensive mobo while gaming performance is not changing much between single card on i5-i7-Q 775 and ph2 so its a loss when 775 is removed because performance difference between i5 and i7 will be more with cf/sli but i7 still to expensive for that, ph2 way better motherboards for that.
2) some Ht, some not, some less trbo etc... very confusing
3) will all these chips have VT or not :confused: or some or maybe or with new badge :rofl: (just a friendly poke to fanboys)
Nehalem/Westmere is mainly a platform simplication and server design. And it proved amazing in both. You also got abit of extra performance as benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
Alot of people just got too greedy in expectations after Conroe. AMD and Intel cant deliver that in the same segement each time.
I never expected miracles with Nehalem on the desktop, so that wasn't such a problem, but when you throw in that 12 months after Nehalem you get hardly any advancement and Intel's 32nm rollout is also doing F#$% all for desktop users who want a good boost via Quads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
There is c0 - d0 and the new cpu's that come with the d0 rev, that's enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
AMD needs to compete with i7 first, 'i5' fills in for c2q so they have their upper, mid and extreme end desktop tier covered. With amd announcing no more new cpu's for a while intel can just work towards their 'tock'. AMD might have to tweak their pricing again to bring the field level.
For 5% of users, yeah that's just wonderful :clap::clap::clap: :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by 3NZ0
well go show 'em how it's done! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
tbh i don't think there are any programs able to take full advantage of i7's memory bandwidth or 8 possible threads. ironically we won't know it's full potential for probably another year. personally, i'm waiting for gulftown to make the switch to 1366. :yepp:
You get 6 core Westmere(Gulftown) in about half a year. You get 32nm dualcores. And after that you also gonna get some 6 core Lynnfield replacements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
So again I dont get your point. You simply sound as you are overexpecting everything. You get a new uarch each 24 months. Not each 12. Also i7 aint 12 months old yet is it? i7 was released on november 17th 2008. In short i7 is about HALF A YEAR old.
Where did you pull that number from I wonder.......Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
I have to echo what Shintai is saying. People are getting too greedy when it comes to performance. They expect too much after the netburst - conroe transition, now some think that they should have performance jumps like that for each new gen/arch.
Which as a Desktop user is going to give me nothing and less than a higher clocked Westmere Quad would, but Intel isn't making available.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Which as a Desktop user are less useful to me than a Quad(what I believe to be the sweetspot for 2010 onwards, Duals would have been fine a while before)Quote:
You get 32nm dualcores.
Which wouldn't be as useful as a Quad that could clock higher in the same power envelope.Quote:
And after that you also gonna get some 6 core Lynnfield replacements.
Uhmm how about as I have stated more than enough times for you to understand now that as a Desktop user, Intel's efforts are pretty uninspiring.Quote:
So again I dont get your point.
Rubbish. You sound like you are wanting to be an Intel apologist for everything.Quote:
You simply sound as you are overexpecting everything.
What part of "by the time these get released", didn't you understand?Quote:
Not each 12. Also i7 aint 12 months old yet is it?
From a far more sensible place than you pulled "It is enough".Quote:
Originally Posted by 3NZ0
I have to echo what I have said many times, people need to stop being so emotionally attached to a semiconductor company and assess things rationally.Quote:
I have to echo what Shintai is saying. People are getting too greedy when it comes to performance. They expect too much after the netburst - conroe transition, now some think that they should have performance jumps like that for each new gen/arch.
Chad Boga we aint defending Intel or any other. You simply sound like some spoiled ADHD kid atm. Look in the past and you see an even slower development cycle. Its faster than ever and you want it like twice as fast? Plus westmere is an improved nehalem. not much 2 more cores for gulftown and abit of clock.
For AMD the next step is in 2011 because thats how it goes and its still a fast pace. You demand more than any company on this planet can give.
ATI and nVidia aint exactly jumping fast forward anymore either.
Good politicians answer there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
Quite clearly intel should have developed something that slaughters i7 already. I mean, its been out since November 2008 already, get a grip on reality and realise how fast things have moved recently from both camps. It can't keep up like that.
Emotionally attached to a semiconductor company, right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
Well for someone not defending Intel, it is amazing how you sound like someone in love with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
How far back do we have to go?Quote:
Look in the past and you see an even slower development cycle.
When Intel had the Inferno known as Prescott, they were rightly condemned, now we have apologists for their slow rate of improvements for desktop users.
When is the last time we will have encountered a 2 or more year window when so little extra value was given to desktop users. For my 2 year period look at say January 2008 to January 2010.
Nothing I have said would make your figure of "twice as fast" a reasonable conclusion to draw, so I don't know what your problem is, but I expect more than 10 to 15% a year improvement.Quote:
Its faster than ever and you want it like twice as fast?
When you get more cores for less clockspeed than you could have had, then it is pretty obvious that Intel's offerings of 6 core and Dual Core Westmere's won't offer what a Quad in the same power envelop could for desktop users.Quote:
Plus westmere is an improved nehalem.
AMD's rate of improvement is slow too because they made many missteps and have cut back on R&D.Quote:
For AMD the next step is in 2011 because thats how it goes and its still a fast pace.
As Intel could release a Westmere Quad at the same time as their Westmere 6 core, but are not doing so, then CLEARLY my demands are perfectly reasonable and you are blinded by your Intel love to see this.Quote:
You demand more than any company on this planet can give.
They are doing a SH1T load better than the CPU makers.Quote:
ATI and nVidia aint exactly jumping fast forward anymore either.
What percentage of users are such hard core overclockers that D0 alone as you laughably assert is "enough"Quote:
Originally Posted by 3NZ0
Try grasping the concept of incremental improvement that isn't at a snail's pace.Quote:
Quite clearly intel should have developed something that slaughters i7 already.
You want me to be grateful for CPU advancement that will offer me 0 to 5% improvement after 12 months? :shakes:
Yeah I'm curious about this too, maybe someone can explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xello
Ironically I didn't think Intel could put out a socket that would last as long shorter than AMD's 939 but they went ahead and created something that makes 939's look like they had a pretty good life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
AMD Phenom II X4 955 3.2GHz almost on par with i5 2.66GHz in many benchmarks
so, you do not need 1GHz advantage to remain competitive for AMD.
it looks ok, but again, i would rather have the core i7 920.
Pretty nice, performs quite close to the Core i7 920. Hope the price isn't too bad, definitely interested in this one.
lga1366 is the ENTHUSIAST segment and will remain that way for several years up until AT LEAST sandy bridge...
core i5 is designed to be the lga775 for a while...
lga1366 remains the top performer and choice for enthusiests with its added features and what not but
lga1156 is the choice for mid end even high-mid end builds
thats how I see it... Anything else is too stupid to even make sense
Intel has said from day 1 that i7 was the high end and i5 was mainstream...
Guess some people ITT have some reading to do. Maybe some opinions to reevaluate. :yepp:
So what's the price going to be like for i5? Say you're ugrading and just need mobo, ram, and cpu, how much would be saved vs i7?
Yet some 775's can beat i7s.... This is getting kinda dumb with some people saying i5's can beat i7's. Whats the point of having something in between 775's and i7's when 775's can again beat some i7's. Too me this just seems stupid it's a cash grab as far as I'm concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
I'm guessing an i5 will cost less then high end 775's. Which means people will opt out of going for $$ 775's and will go for i5's which also means they will buy P55's. If you ask me this is just a slap in the face to the consumer. I rather have P55's w/DDR3 & 775's.
Apparently, if P55 mobos are similar in pricing to the lower-end X58 mobos, not much.Quote:
Originally Posted by rk7p5
the qx9770, the fastest 775, is slower than the core i7 920, the slowest of the core i7.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glow9
Taking in account that P55 = P45 = $40 and P55 based mobos will be cheaper in production (because of less components and simplified layout) I expect very reasonable price for mid/low end boards (~$100-120). May be not immediatly after release, but at the end of the year I hope to see some P55 boards even cheaper then low end P45.Quote:
Originally Posted by CedricFP
I see tests where the i7 is far from dominatedQuote:
Originally Posted by grimREEFER
Yes, C2D / C2Q does match or beat I7 in some rare scenarios, but that is when using ancient software only.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glow9
I5 will beat I7 in some situations, simply because it will end up with higher clocks when not all cores are fully loaded due to turbo giving more than +1 multi.
Just because desktop software developers have not caught up yet with the fact that netburst and single cores are dead does not mean intel is not delivering enough improvement, look at some benches wth server software, nehalem wipes the floor with everything else, so really, it is just a question of time until I5 and I7 will be able to show the real power.
ive been warning people even before 1366 launch that they shouldnt wait for 1156 if they want perf...Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
but the 2.13ghz chip was oced to 2.66, thats quite important to mention :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Mats
huh? why?Quote:
Originally Posted by 3NZ0
no they dont, and they dont even try or plan to... i7 is a niche, theres not that much money to be made there, amd wants large volume, mainstream and entry level... so its clearly i5 vs phenom2
yepp, its possible to create x58 boards that cost around 100$ as well... basic entry level, same as p55 basic entry level for 100$...Quote:
Originally Posted by CedricFP
Thanks mate overlooked that part :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Have AMD confirmed they will be bringing out higher clocked PhII's on 32nm that will run in existing AM3 boards?Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
They have not confirmed anything,but you can bet they will not make Bulldozer as their first 32nm MPU.32nm is perfect for 6/8 core tryout on K10 before they go with the more complex and new design.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
A 32nm Quad PhII at 4.0Ghz stock standard retail release would be nice, very nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Dunno if it will eventuate, and I hope they don't just use their first 6 months of 32nm for Hex Core.
Anandtech uses three configurations for the i5: 2.13 GHz HT, 2.66 HT, and 2.66 GHz no HT.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
The i5 2.13 GHz is faster than the X4 3.2 GHz in 8 of 14 benchmarks.
LOOK AGAIN.;)
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/i...4222/19209.png
Yeah QC with high(er) clocks would be great,but 4Ghz is a bit too optimistic IMO,but not impossible of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
Somehow I think they will do just what you hope they don't,use it for hex core :).Server sales will need it badly and the chip will be rather small compared to Istanbul.
I think they will get 3.4Ghz out of 45nm, with 3.6Ghz an outside possibility(but I don't expect to see it), so eventually releasing a 4.0Ghz on 32nm doesn't seem that unrealistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Why can't they do both? Even if they spend the first 3 months on just Istanbul alone.Quote:
Somehow I think they will do just what you hope they don't,use it for hex core :).Server sales will need it badly and the chip will be rather small compared to Istanbul.
I personally think 3.4 before the end of the year (around launch of i7 I bet) , mayyybe 3.6 before 32nm IF they spin a new stepping before then (under the pressure of i5 especially).
I also think 6 core on the desktop is a possiblity for 32nm. They can use speed bumps to compete with non HT i5's (going by anand's review) but with HT on, contrary to what everyone insists performance is much higher in the types of benchmarks used by the likes of Anand.
The next person to tell me HT isn't the reason i7 owns in reviews can stfu.. Anand just put it to you in plain figures.. 18% faste averaged across all tests.
-edit, applogies, not all tests it seems. But i maintain HT is a big advantage
Don't confuse that with a reason i7 beats PHenom II.. clock for clock thread for thread its still some 20% faster
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by mAJORD
A simple calculation (based on Anand's tests) shows average 9% performance advantage of i5-2.66GHz-No-HT over PII-3.2GHz
Exactly, i5 won't even compete performance wise with AMD Phenom II like many presumed but I weren't one of them though and expected it to be just behind i7. I'm just confused why Intel even launched i5 tho and didn't offer some cheaper chipset than X58 for i7, for example P55. That had made more sense IMO. Well maybe if there's not gonna be any decent upgrade options for i5 so they get additional cash from people having to switch socket again but then again that would be tactically stupid move to upset so many customers. I cannot imagine they'd do such thing, that they haven't revealed its future plans for socket 1156 is probably to try make a better balance between i7 and i5 sales, revealing some planned future upgrades now for i5 would make i7 sales rockbottom when Lynnfield is launched. I'm pretty certain there will be some but the plans aren't revealed this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
They already revealed 32nm for both sockets. Not sure how far into the future you want? LGA1366 and LGA1156 follows hand in hand. LGA1156 will outlive LGA1366 aswell.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD
AMD won't have a chance in the high-end segment, the company has said so themselves. Until Bulldozer arrives AMD will be forced to rely on price/performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3NZ0
As usual it was driven by marketing reasons. But since S1366 targets high end (which was known for a long time) I didn't bother even think about buying I7 :). I think Intel defined pretty clear its market segments and it may be a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD
He is only under NDA when he obtains his samples directly from Intel and signs the NDA for that product.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnp1983
He did not sign an NDA for this sample, rather the person who supplied him the sample broke their NDA, hence the reason Anand blacks out the processor serial numbers and hides the capacitors.
On a side note -- the most interesting about this 'preview' isn't the performance, but the fact that he could OC with Bclk. Meaning the PCIe clock on the chip is independent. There was some rumor grumbling (Fuad of FUDzilla) that OC would be limited because the proc would clock to the PCIe clock. Which, of course, is now shown to be nothing but rubbish.
Ye the bogus info about no OC and that Intel would limit it was fun. Specially after the same people got caught wrong with i7.
9% faster is pretty impressive technologically, 2.66 GHz is 20% clock disadvantage, so ~ 30% clock for clock IPC advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
AMD's saving grace, from the enthusiast point of view, is the unlocked multiplier making it easier to OC as well as gaming being more a function of GPU where they run about even.
Still, if the rumored price is correct (~196, say retail 220-230ish), there will be some downward price pressure on the 955.
Dog? S754 and S939 also ran side by side new CPUs for both. So that's no argument. Having to upgrade motherboard AND CPU if you want to add a second card is insanely ineffective; let's say I buy one HD 4890 now, and don't consider buying a second, so I go out and get a S1156 system; 1 year from now I get my hands on a second HD 4890, I'll have to get another motherboard & CPU to be able to use it to fill potential... great. It never a good deal for the customer to have different categories they are put in; as it will cost more for them to move, and often times can backfire on the manufacturer, I'm sure than when AMD dropped S754 support, and released newer S939 CPUs, people who would have normally considered an upgrade for their CPU to a faster model, just stuck with their first purchase S754 system a while longer; If they only had S939 from the beginning then they would've made more sales over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Ah and aftermarket cooling hell for S775/S1156/S1366; why did they need to make the mounting on S1156 different :shrug: just use S1366 mounting holes and people can re-use their 3rd party cooling over and over :up:
LGA1156 supports 2 x8 slots by splitting the x16. So LGA1366 is more for those people with 3 cards...Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke
And before we get into a performance discussion about splitting it. Its no different than having a X2/GX2 card on x16.
oh... wow... did they update it? i could swear it wasnt there before... :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mats
impressive how well it performs even at 2.13gh!
what? since when? so 1366 will go EOL before 2012? that doesnt make much sense... :stick:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
pff... if only you knew what really went on back then...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
your next argument will be what? "it's more for people with N cards"
who cares about the cards; splitting up a generation with two different sockets is: :down: for the customer, pure and simple.
Downloading this now to see how my machine sits in that chart.:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
It was there from the beginning, BUT, the 2.13 GHz and the X4 isn't present in every benchmark.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
What about turbo impact?Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
If anandtech estimate is correct http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sho...spx?i=3570&p=4
i5 at 2.66, is running really at ~2.93 (4 threads) and ~3.33 (1-2 threads). Or something like that, If I am not missing something...
... how about the news that S1366 is server hardware... theres no more splitting in generations that was always there. HPC - Server/Workstaion - Consumer - Mobile -> S1567- S1366 - S1156 - S989, before it was S604 - S771 - S775 - S478 (socket P)Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke
Its maximum running at 2.83ghz (166BLCK) since the ES sample is locked to 1x turbomode only. Retail can only be better.Quote:
Originally Posted by PetNorth
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sho...px?i=3570&p=10
Why is it the X4 does just fine on both the first and third graphs but dives in the 2nd graph? Why is this? Isn't the third one more demanding?
And this? (I suppose i7 2.66 is running with Turbo ON = ~2.93):
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/i...4222/19212.png
cause farcry2 is the most multithreaded game of this 3 :p:
You mean the i5 got turbo on and i7 doesnt?Quote:
Originally Posted by PetNorth
No, both Turbo ON. i7 2.66 @~2.93
they are clearly targeting it as desktop system, otherwise they would not market it as "gaming CPU" and "desktop processor"; hence it is not solely server; so not server hardware;Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Quote:
With faster, intelligent, multi-core technology that applies processing power where it's needed most, new Intel® Core™ i7 processors deliver an incredible breakthrough in PC performance. They are the best desktop processors on the planet.¹
its target for consumers, but that still doesn't change the fact that it is server hardware.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke
Theres no difference between a Xeon and a i7, not on the boards and not on the cpu.
Its was the same for skulltrail, server grade hardware marketed for consumers. i7 just covers more different cpu types.
doesn't matter one iota that it is or isn't server hardware; they target consumers, I see in your sig you got Core i7 920, the entry level, the kind budget that would buy Core i5 if it had come out first; so now that same you has to choice between two platforms, whereas this is not good a policy; one platform / generation for consumers is best;
LGA1366 is just an extension of Skulltrail type platform basicly. Just as 1 CPU.
Just ran that bemchmark and got this..
Now I'm wondering if I got the right one.:rofl:
This is what I used:
http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.a...o=520#download
Results for x264.exe v0.58.747
encoded 1442 frames, 66.39 fps, 3903.23 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 73.01 fps, 3903.22 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 67.61 fps, 3903.22 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 69.29 fps, 3903.22 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 47.21 fps, 3995.75 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 47.01 fps, 3995.77 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 47.47 fps, 3995.77 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 47.35 fps, 3995.77 kb/s
This is the "2nd pass"
Results for x264.exe v0.59.819M
encoded 1442 frames, 75.64 fps, 3894.05 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 69.08 fps, 3897.09 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 70.72 fps, 3895.96 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 57.25 fps, 3896.56 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 52.59 fps, 4002.59 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 52.83 fps, 4002.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 52.65 fps, 4002.33 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 52.89 fps, 4002.44 kb/s
That's a good point, I always forget about Trubo (adds extra complexity)... but you are missing something from the Anand article, the engineering sample was locked at 1 step for the engineering sample.Quote:
Originally Posted by PetNorth
So even with a 166 Block with a 1x bump, Nehalem is still an impressive 20% clock for clock better on average. It is actually closer to 25-30% on a wider range of applications since I have both an i7-965 and a PIIX4-940 and have seen these type of discrepancies. If you throw SLI 295's (two cards 4 GPUs) or 4870 X2's the discrepancies grow even larger in quite a few (majority) of games.Quote:
Unfortunately this is the sample I tested with. Thankfully it was healthy enough for me to overclock the BLCK to 166MHz, resulting in a 2.66GHz frequency. Turbo mode was still stuck at a 1x increase over the stock frequency, so final Lynnfield performance should be much better in single and dual threaded apps than what you’ll see here today.
I know it is not something you like to think about, you are obviously a huge AMD supporter, but for the moment (and for a while longer, until at least bulldozer), AMD is playing the value card.
Personally, I don't think it makes a huge difference ... the 940 runs everything just fine, I gravitate to the i7-965 for heavy duty video encoding/editing work though.
Jack
I'm not sure that one platform is best for consumers (sure we don't want to see all cars using the same FIAT UNO platform /joke). I dont care how many platforms will be introduced by Intel. What really matters is a "consumer properties" of the platforms.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke
Your second pass is actually the first pass for the updated x.264 bench, notice the version numbers on each of your tests. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
Considering a vast majority of folks don't even consider upgrading their systems other than the enthusiasts of course, platform choice isn't really going to be major issue. General users buying prebuilt rigs are going to buy their i5, i7 or AMx based rig and run it until the wheels fall off so to speak without ever opening the case.
The difference I see with i7 & i5 vs s754 & s939 is that Intel released the high end platform from the start whereas AMD released the higher end platform later which left early adopter s754 users who might have wanted more performance with a limited upgrade path.