LGA 1156 Core i7s & Core i5s Reviews

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

08-19-2009, 05:13 PM
purefun65

Quote:

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

We're talking about platforms here, whatever mobo you choose will behave very similar. Core i7 9xx means x58, triple channel, QPI, etc. This means ultra high PC for what it does, and don't even talk about OC. x58 is a failure as a desktop platform. Lynnfield just confirms it, same perfomance (except in bandwidth synchtetic test because of dual channel), way lower PC, lower cost, way higher turbo mode...

At the core level, both CPUs are the same except maybe ultra minor tweaks on the s1156 side.

we will see the difference when the new gpu's are starved for bandwith with this platform. sorry but 2 8x by lanes wont cut it. sli and crossfire will lose compared to x58 chipset.This is xtreme systems who wants less?
08-19-2009, 05:32 PM
grimREEFER

i still consider the x58 a better investment because of core i9
08-19-2009, 05:36 PM
purefun65

Quote:

Originally Posted by grimREEFER

i still consider the x58 a better investment because of core i9

yes sir, wait untill that gets unleashed!
08-19-2009, 05:44 PM
Xoulz

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfar

I think what he's getting at, is that the x58 chipset isn't particularly well suited to the home market. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great, but it's got expensive features that 99.99% of users/applications don't particularly need nor want. The tech was designed for servers and heavy processing after all. I think Intel recognise this, hence 1156 - a more realistic fit for 99% of the home market.

It's a different story if your an xtreme bencher, or you're into cad or big number crunching. x58 is wonderful for all that - but there aren't many of you out there...

For most of us, 1156 will be cheaper, more efficient, mature and just as powerful for what we're doing. Even big gamers who like to overclock will find a more than suitable system framework here.

This^^ !!
08-19-2009, 05:52 PM
purefun65

Then this is not the forum for you then. this forum has well respected world champion overclockers, that's why they come here.
08-19-2009, 06:28 PM
hollo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornet331

If the pci-e controller would be at its limit, you would see consistant bad results in all games, but you dont.
Thers also another point why Ci7 sometimes losses in games to C2 or PII, its 2nd lvl cache. Games that love huge 2nd lvl cache have the best prformance on C2 followed by PII and i7 (6mb > 2mb >1mb). You could agruue that i7 has more total cache, but 3rd lvl cache is never as fast 2nd lvl or offers the same bandwidth.

+1
it definitely looks more like a l2 bottleneck than a x58 PCI-e bottleneck when there are gaming benchmarks around where at low resolutions i7>p2>c2 and as resolution is increased c2>p2>i7

Quote:

Originally Posted by kromosto

i dont think this can only explained by second level cache. ifso why it loose performance when we increase resolution?

maybe GPU bound situations require larger amounts of data to be transferred to the GPU with the CPU cache acting as a buffer? just speculating, because i7 owns low res. it seems unlikely that intel would screw up their PCI-e controller, or their x58 chipset, but i always thought 256k l2 was skinny
08-19-2009, 06:34 PM
purefun65

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xoulz

This^^ !!

Quote:

Originally Posted by hollo

+1
it definitely looks more like a l2 bottleneck than a x58 PCI-e bottleneck when there are gaming benchmarks around where at low resolutions i7>p2>c2 and as resolution is increased c2>p2>i7maybe GPU bound situations require larger amounts of data to be transferred to the GPU with the CPU cache acting as a buffer. just speculating. it seems unlikely that intel would screw up their PCI-e controller, or x58 chipset, but i always thought 256k l2 was skinny

you are getting it. there is much speculation as to why this is occuring. we need the new arcs to confirm or deny why?
08-19-2009, 07:19 PM
Morais

nicely done reviews
08-19-2009, 08:52 PM
twwen2

Edit: I should read the thread first!

Seems like the i5 750 could be the bang-for-buck champ for those that don't require HT.
08-20-2009, 06:35 AM
STaRGaZeR

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornet331

No not now, it was the argument form the begin.

Everyone and dog here on the forum knew that i5 was coming and would offer the same architecture (and for that matter, the same performance) on a cheaper platform.

I never understood all the complaining about i7 and the platform. Intel never has hidden the fact that it is the server platform that would be sold here and comes with additional costs and is targeted normaly at another audience.

I upgrade my stuff once or twice a year, and depending on what is available at that time and offers a reasonable increase in performance over the stuff I own gets my money.

Ci7 already saved me days, if not week, of time for my work at the university. I was quite happy that i got it, else some of my work would have been draged out quite a bit.

What do you have to say about all the extreme editions? Remember the QX6700? A few months after it was released you could get the Q6700 that was basically the same for a cheaper price. Same for the QX9650 etc. The important thing here was again time. You could get top performance quite a time before it was availablefor mainstream. Its the exact same game for S1336 vs S1156.

So for you what's the purpose of the platform then? To please anxious people with "beta" products and act as a market and perfomance test platform? :nuts:

What do I have to say about something that becomes slower and replaced with something faster with time? I think that's obvious, but it's not the case here...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfar

Just as a matter of interest tho, what kind of memory is sandybridge (or even bulldozer for that matter) to be paired with? If it's tri-channel then that makes s1366 a little more interesting as the memory could be reused in the next platform.

Nobody knows yet, SB and BD should be all about serious core enhancements. No point in upgrading otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by purefun65

we will see the difference when the new gpu's are starved for bandwith with this platform. sorry but 2 8x by lanes wont cut it. sli and crossfire will lose compared to x58 chipset.This is xtreme systems who wants less?

In XS we can talk about the 99% of other people, the ones that give Intel money, you know.
08-20-2009, 06:52 AM
iTravis

So besides the cost and power consumption, X58 is still a better long-term investment? And that's why I decided to upgrade to the Core i7 920 instead of waiting for Core i5.
08-20-2009, 07:03 AM
bfar

Quote:

Originally Posted by purefun65

Then this is not the forum for you then. this forum has well respected world champion overclockers, that's why they come here.

Xtreme Overclocking on cheap platforms is still xtreme overclocking!
08-20-2009, 10:58 AM
Kingcarcas

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfar

Xtreme Overclocking on cheap platforms is still xtreme overclocking!

Yup, that's how i ended up here, yet again some elitist is trying to make a divide. :shakes: Alienate people and see how you end up with no forum, i've seen it other places on teh internetz.
08-20-2009, 03:43 PM
Chad Boga

Quote:

Originally Posted by grimREEFER

i still consider the x58 a better investment because of core i9

I would think that Sandy Bridge will be out and making i9 largely irrelevant within that time frame.
08-20-2009, 11:24 PM
Hornet331

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chad Boga

I would think that Sandy Bridge will be out and making i9 largely irrelevant within that time frame.

Sandy Brige is 2011, earliest. Gulftown is H1 2010.
08-20-2009, 11:49 PM
bakalu

1. 3DMark Vantage

core i7 920
http://forum.amtech.com.vn/attachmen...vantage-i7.jpg

Core i5 750
http://forum.amtech.com.vn/attachmen...vantage-i5.jpg

Core 2 Quad 9450 @ 9550
http://forum.amtech.com.vn/attachmen...ntage-quad.jpg

2. 3DMark06

Core i7 920
http://forum.amtech.com.vn/attachmen...50-3d06-i7.jpg

Core i5 750
http://forum.amtech.com.vn/attachmen...50-3d06-i5.jpg

Core 2 Quad 9450 @ 9550
http://forum.amtech.com.vn/attachmen...-3d06-quad.jpg

3. Cinebench R10

Core i7 920
http://forum.amtech.com.vn/attachmen...-cine10-i7.jpg

Core i5 750
http://forum.amtech.com.vn/attachmen...-cine10-i5.jpg

Core 2 Quad 9450 @ 9550
http://forum.amtech.com.vn/attachmen...ine10-quad.jpg

GTA 4 SETTING
http://forum.amtech.com.vn/attachmen...ta-setting.jpg

Core i7 920
http://forum.amtech.com.vn/attachmen...550-gta-i7.jpg

Core i5 750
http://forum.amtech.com.vn/attachmen...550-gta-i5.jpg

Core 2 Quad 9450 @ 9550
http://forum.amtech.com.vn/attachmen...0-gta-quad.jpg

Benchmark 1 RE5 All HIGH, AA=4X

Core i7 920
http://forum.amtech.com.vn/attachmen...re5-i7-vga.jpg

Core i5 750
http://forum.amtech.com.vn/attachmen...re5-i5-vga.jpg

Core 2 Quad 9450 @ 9550
http://forum.amtech.com.vn/attachmen...5-quad-vga.jpg

Benchmark 2 RE5 All HIGH, AA=4X

Core i7 920
http://forum.amtech.com.vn/attachmen...re5-i7-cpu.jpg

Core i5 750
http://forum.amtech.com.vn/attachmen...re5-i5-cpu.jpg

Core 2 Quad 9450 @ 9550
http://forum.amtech.com.vn/attachmen...5-quad-cpu.jpg

Source : http://forum.amtech.com.vn/reviews-z...-va-q9550.html
08-21-2009, 01:28 AM
Yakyb

hmm i think the 750 may be a better option for my home server than the originally planned 860
08-21-2009, 08:32 AM
sdsdv10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakyb

hmm i think the 750 may be a better option for my home server than the originally planned 860

Just wondering what you plan to do with your server that requires that kind of CPU power? Most commerical home servers (like from HP) only come with a Celeron (usually around 2GHz). For run file sharing and backup that should be more than enough. Are you going to use it for something more than this?
08-21-2009, 08:54 AM
Chad Boga

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornet331

Sandy Brige is 2011, earliest. Gulftown is H1 2010.

He's not looking to get i9 as soon as it comes out, but when it is a viable upgrade from Nehalem today.
08-21-2009, 09:04 AM
ajaidev

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakyb

hmm i think the 750 may be a better option for my home server than the originally planned 860

lol i use a P3 "Coppermine" @ 1Ghz as a server "File and wifi".... with 1TB HDD "Using a SATA PATA adapter" :rofl:
09-06-2009, 03:25 PM
onethreehill

Core i5 750 & i7 870 Review
http://www.chiphell.com/2009/0906/102.html
Translated
09-06-2009, 09:45 PM
Chickenfeed

Quote:

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Maybe some people will whine for a 1% perfomance decrease because of the lack of dual 16x lanes for CF/SLi configurations, and that's all.

Its a bit ignorant to say that. It would be stupid to do tri or quad sli on P55. We don't even know how future SLI / CF configs will perform on x8 in dual configs yet let alone tri / quad. That said, those of us who want to go nuts with these types of configs are clearly going to gravitate towards x58. Now again I'm not saying this makes everyone need it, its still a niche but there is still a demand and practical use for it regardless of your stance on it.

However if you don't plan on doing multiple gpus ever, now that P55 is out, I see no reason for going x58 as a gamer.
09-06-2009, 09:51 PM
Sly Fox

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chickenfeed

Its a bit ignorant to say that. It would be stupid to do tri or quad sli on P55. We don't even know how future SLI / CF configs will perform on x8 in dual configs yet let alone tri / quad. That said, those of us who want to go nuts with these types of configs are clearly going to gravitate towards x58. Now again I'm not saying this makes everyone need it, its still a niche but there is still a demand and practical use for it regardless of your stance on it.

However if you don't plan on doing multiple gpus ever, now that P55 is out, I see no reason for going x58 as a gamer.

:up::up::up:

And then there's cheap ass's like myself who will wait until some game force us to upgrade. :rofl:
09-07-2009, 07:46 PM
onethreehill

Intel 'Lynnfield' Core i5 750 and Core i7 870 Performance Testing
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/290...ing/index.html

Intel Core i5 and Core i7: Lynnfield CPUs Reviewed
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...iewed/Reviews/

Core i5 750 - Core i7 860 and 870 Processor Review
http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i...r-review-test/

Intel Lynnfield Core i5 750, Core i7 860 and Core i7 870 CPU Review
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=19979

Core i5 750, Core i7 860 and Core i7 870 CPU Review
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=855

Intel Core i5 750 & i7 870 Review
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Ha...ews/lynnfield/

Intel Lynnfield Core i7-870 and Core i5-750 Processor Review
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=776

Intel Lynnfield Core i5 and Core i7 Processors
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/..._i7_processors

In Theory: How Does Lynnfield's On-Die PCI Express Affect Gaming?
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ield,2379.html

Intel's Core i7 870 & i5 750, Lynnfield: Harder, Better, Faster Stronger
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634
09-07-2009, 08:15 PM
caffeine

Quote:

Originally Posted by onethreehill

Intel 'Lynnfield' Core i5 750 and Core i7 870 Performance Testing
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/290...ing/index.html

Intel Core i5 and Core i7: Lynnfield CPUs Reviewed
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...iewed/Reviews/

Core i5 750 - Core i7 860 and 870 Processor Review
http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i...r-review-test/

Intel Lynnfield Core i5 750, Core i7 860 and Core i7 870 CPU Review
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=19979

Core i5 750, Core i7 860 and Core i7 870 CPU Review
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=855

Intel Core i5 750 & i7 870 Review
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Ha...ews/lynnfield/

Intel Lynnfield Core i7-870 and Core i5-750 Processor Review
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=776

Intel Lynnfield Core i5 and Core i7 Processors
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/..._i7_processors

In Theory: How Does Lynnfield's On-Die PCI Express Affect Gaming?
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ield,2379.html

Here come the reviews!!!!!

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page