Intel Core i5 Performance

Printable View

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

12-10-2008, 03:25 AM
Hypediss

time to save $$$ for a new system : p
12-10-2008, 04:18 AM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemaster

Question is what about multiplier, can we expect higher multiplier than i7, or same like i7 for the start? 16 is ok, but 20, 22, 24 is more interesting for overclock. :)

Same 133 BCLK. So same multipliers. Thats actually something that is history I think. Lowend OCs via high multi.
12-10-2008, 05:12 AM
bowman

Quote:

Originally Posted by George_o/c

What's happening here ? Maybe these people aren't satisfied with the progress Intel made ? I mean it's clearly not the progress we noticed from Pentium D to Conroe, or Kentsfield to Yorkfield ...

That's because Pentium D was such utter :banana::banana::banana::banana: to begin with that it seemed like such a huge jump. This thing actually provides the same performance jump in many benchmarks, but obviously not all of them..
12-10-2008, 06:30 AM
Spacemaster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

Same 133 BCLK. So same multipliers. Thats actually something that is history I think. Lowend OCs via high multi.

I knew it is same the BCKL, but this is mainstream CPU, mainstream CPUs always have lower multi then high end CPUs. This ES have default 16 multi. So if new the i5 CPUs will have 20, 22, 24 and higher multi, that will be excellently for the overclock. :)
12-10-2008, 06:35 AM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemaster

I knew it is same the BCKL, but this is mainstream CPU, mainstream CPUs always have lower multi then high end CPUs. This ES have default 16 multi.

Only in the past. And you had that due to different FSB speeds (800, 1066, 1333, 1600). Now its all the same BCLK. No 80Mhz BLCK, 106Mhz BLCK, 133BLCK, 160Mhz BLCK etc.

Only 133.

So no. Its all a multi x of the BCLK.
12-10-2008, 06:41 AM
Spacemaster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

Same 133 BCLK. So same multipliers. Thats actually something that is history I think. Lowend OCs via high multi.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

Only in the past. And you had that due to different FSB speeds (800, 1066, 1333, 1600). Now its all the same BCLK. No 80Mhz BLCK, 106Mhz BLCK, 133BLCK, 160Mhz BLCK etc.

Only 133.

So no. Its all a multi x of the BCLK.

Ok, do you have any information that you can share about names of i5 models, and default clock frequency (multipliers)?
12-10-2008, 06:48 AM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemaster

Ok, do you have any information that you can share about names of i5 models, and default clock frequency (multipliers)?

Not really no.

I expect i5 to peak at 2.80Ghz or so. Maybe 2.93Ghz if lucky. And then else down in 133Mhz increments. Maybe as low as 2.00 or 2.13Ghz.
12-10-2008, 06:51 AM
Spacemaster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

Not really no.

I expect i5 to peak at 2.80Ghz or so. Maybe 2.93Ghz if lucky.

You think that clock can be default clock?
12-10-2008, 06:54 AM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemaster

You think that clock can be default clock?

Yes ofcourse. The roadmap also shows i5 rival lowend i7. Because their segments are different.
12-10-2008, 12:04 PM
Vozer

Could anyone confirm Lynnfield and Havendale are LGA1156 or 1160? :shrug:
12-10-2008, 12:07 PM
Donnie27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vozer

Could anyone confirm Lynnfield and Havendale are LGA1156 or 1160? :shrug:

1160
12-10-2008, 12:14 PM
Vozer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie27

1160

Thank you. :)

I'm too lazy to count the number of pins on Lynnfield CPU in this picture. :D

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g...ehalem/L_5.jpg
12-10-2008, 12:36 PM
STaRGaZeR

Lynnfield is 1156 actually.
12-10-2008, 12:56 PM
Donnie27

Quote:

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Lynnfield is 1156 actually.

Why do they keep calling it 1160, rounded?
12-10-2008, 01:00 PM
STaRGaZeR

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Why do they keep calling it 1160, rounded?

At the beginning it was 1160, but Intel made some changes and it is 1156 now. If you have seen 1160 in a recent article is because the autor is misinformed or something.
12-10-2008, 01:14 PM
Donnie27

Quote:

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

At the beginning it was 1160, but Intel made some changes and it is 1156 now. If you have seen 1160 in a recent article is because the autor is misinformed or something.

OK, thanks!
12-10-2008, 01:19 PM
JoeBar

Things look very promising. Especially for us 775 users... :D
12-10-2008, 01:43 PM
Nikolasz

Quote:

Originally Posted by sxs112

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3067/...e650a686_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3005/...914e8308_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3039/...fdb04788_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3289/...59da11e9_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3269/...95bccb83_o.jpg

CHIPHELL

IM curios, can you post upload i5 "MultiCore Benchmark" file/score to the site?
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=210021
12-10-2008, 07:36 PM
Donnie27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ego

IM curios, can you post upload i5 "MultiCore Benchmark" file/score to the site?

This close to Phenom II and there's more info on this thing thats at least 8 months from shipping:rolleyes:
12-10-2008, 07:59 PM
003

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie27

:rofl:

8 months retarded? Ooooo you just called all those folks talking about Deneb for the last 13 months or waiting even longer than 8 months retarded. Now you take it back right now:yepp::rofl:

Deneb will be the new top of the line from AMD, the i5 is a downgrade from what is already out, the i7. That is the difference here.
12-10-2008, 09:26 PM
T_Flight

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vozer

Thank you. :)

I'm too lazy to count the number of pins on Lynnfield CPU in this picture. :D

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g...ehalem/L_5.jpg

The miniaturization and those oval lands is just awesome. That thing looks so yummy in the foreground...it almost makes you wish they were edible. :D
12-10-2008, 10:45 PM
Mumak

Quote:

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

At the beginning it was 1160, but Intel made some changes and it is 1156 now. If you have seen 1160 in a recent article is because the autor is misinformed or something.

Not exactly - certain A0 samples (which this one actually is) were 1160-pin. All later parts will be 1156.
12-11-2008, 12:18 AM
Glow9

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemaster

You think that clock can be default clock?

better off going 775
12-11-2008, 01:58 AM
STaRGaZeR

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mumak

Not exactly - certain A0 samples (which this one actually is) were 1160-pin. All later parts will be 1156.

Interesting. Do you know the reasons for the change?
12-11-2008, 02:03 AM
Mumak

Quote:

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Interesting. Do you know the reasons for the change?

Yep - at least what Intel says ;)
But I suppose I can't say that...

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