Anandtech i5 preview

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gallag

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 system
* 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.
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

One advantage that i5 may have over Deneb and C2Q is that high Turbo mode for 1/2 cores.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

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.
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.

---

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?

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chad Boga

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 gallag

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?

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 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 informal

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,than with turbo On it would be faster than 18%,but it won't be clock for clock then.

---

You contradict your own statements. :shakes:

Take a rest and come back when you got your homework done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xello

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:

---

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.

The slack bastards are going way too slow for my liking in improving performance available to desktop users.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

You contradict your own statements. :shakes:

Take a rest and come back when you got your homework done.

---

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 Chad Boga

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.

The slack bastards are going way too slow for my liking in improving performance available to desktop users.

---

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 Mats

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.
Dunno if those benchmarks are well chosen, someone else have to comment on that.

---

just some facts, the 2,13 also had Ht enabled, that is also few times the reason for its higher performance......

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chad Boga

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.

The slack bastards are going way too slow for my liking in improving performance available to desktop users.

---

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.

Alot of people just got too greedy in expectations after Conroe. AMD and Intel cant deliver that in the same segement each time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

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 Chad Boga

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:

---

There is c0 - d0 and the new cpu's that come with the d0 rev, that's enough.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3NZ0

There is c0 - d0 and the new cpu's that come with the d0 rev, that's enough.

---

For 5% of users, yeah that's just wonderful :clap::clap::clap: :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chad Boga

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.

The slack bastards are going way too slow for my liking in improving performance available to desktop users.

---

well go show 'em how it's done! :D

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chad Boga

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chad Boga

For 5% of users, yeah that's just wonderful :clap::clap::clap: :rolleyes:

---

Where did you pull that number from I wonder.......

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

You get 6 core Westmere(Gulftown) in about half a year.

---

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:

---

You get 32nm dualcores.

---

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:

---

And after that you also gonna get some 6 core Lynnfield replacements.

---

Which wouldn't be as useful as a Quad that could clock higher in the same power envelope.

Quote:

---

So again I dont get your point.

---

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:

---

You simply sound as you are overexpecting everything.

---

Rubbish. You sound like you are wanting to be an Intel apologist for everything.

Quote:

---

Not each 12. Also i7 aint 12 months old yet is it?

---

What part of "by the time these get released", didn't you understand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3NZ0

Where did you pull that number from I wonder.......

---

From a far more sensible place than you pulled "It is enough".

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chad Boga

From a far more sensible place than you pulled "It is enough".

---

Good politicians answer there.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chad Boga

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.

---

Emotionally attached to a semiconductor company, right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Chad Boga we aint defending Intel or any other. You simply sound like some spoiled ADHD kid atm.

---

Well for someone not defending Intel, it is amazing how you sound like someone in love with them.

Quote:

---

Look in the past and you see an even slower development cycle.

---

How far back do we have to go?

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.

Quote:

---

Its faster than ever and you want it like twice as fast?

---

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:

---

Plus westmere is an improved nehalem.

---

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:

---

For AMD the next step is in 2011 because thats how it goes and its still a fast pace.

---

AMD's rate of improvement is slow too because they made many missteps and have cut back on R&D.

Quote:

---

You demand more than any company on this planet can give.

---

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:

---

ATI and nVidia aint exactly jumping fast forward anymore either.

---

They are doing a SH1T load better than the CPU makers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3NZ0

Good politicians answer there.

---

What percentage of users are such hard core overclockers that D0 alone as you laughably assert is "enough"

Quote:

---

Quite clearly intel should have developed something that slaughters i7 already.

---

Try grasping the concept of incremental improvement that isn't at a snail's pace.

You want me to be grateful for CPU advancement that will offer me 0 to 5% improvement after 12 months? :shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xello

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:

---

Yeah I'm curious about this too, maybe someone can explain.
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

i5 looks impressive, Would still rather get a i7920do today though, Amazing that it takes AMD to have a 1ghz advantage to remain competitive.

---

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.