LGA 1156 Core i7s & Core i5s Reviews

Updated on Sep 11

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

Core i5, Core i7, CrossFire, And SLI: Gaming Paradise, Redux?
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ming,2403.html

Intel Core i5 And Core i7: Intel’s Mainstream Magnum Opus
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...e-i5,2410.html

Intel's Core i7 870 & i5 750, Lynnfield: Harder, Better, Faster Stronger
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634

Intel Core i5 750 Core i7 870 Review
http://www.overclockersclub.com/revi...750_corei7870/

Intel Core i7-870 & i5-750
http://techgage.com/article/intel_co...he_mainstream/

Core i5-750 and Core i7-870 Processors Review
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/801

Intel Core i5 750 Processor Review
http://www.techspot.com/news/36131-i...or-review.html

Intel Lynnfield Core i5-750 & Core i7-870 Processor Review
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...or-review.html

Finnish Core i7 870 review out:
http://mato78.com/artikkelit/prosess...p55-piirisarja

Intel Core i5 750, Core i7 860 and Core i7 870 Review
http://lab501.ro/procesoare-chipsetu...eld-in-actiune

Intel's Core i5-750 and Core i7-870 Processors
http://techreport.com/articles.x/17545

Intel Core i5-750, Core i7-860 and Core i7-870
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...d-cpu-review/1

Intel Lynnfield: Details and Architecture
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...architecture/1

Intel Core i5, Core i7 800 Processors and P55 Express
http://hothardware.com/articles/Inte...d-P55-Chipset/

Intel Core i5 750 Processor
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.ph...=361&Itemid=63

Intel Core i7 870 Processor
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.ph...=362&Itemid=63

Intel Core i7 870/Core i5 750/P55 Express chipset Review
http://www.motherboards.org/reviews/...re/1942_1.html

Intel Core i5 750 CPU Review
http://www.elitebastards.com/index.p...iews&Itemid=27

Intel's Lynnfield Processors
http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//i...id=63&Itemid=1

Intel's Core i7/Core i5 Lynnfield Processors
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...d_performance/

Intel Core i7-870 & i5-750 and P55 MBs
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=837

Intel Core i7-870 and Core i5-750 Processors
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/dis...re-i7-870.html

Intel i7 870 & i5 750 CPUs
http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1673

Intel Lynnfield : Core i5 750, Core i7 860 and Core i7 870
http://www.pcworld.fr/article/materi...0-banc/445781/

Intel i7 870
http://translate.google.com/translat...istory_state0=

Intel Core i5 750, Core i7 870 Linux Benchmarks
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...ynnfield&num=1

Intel Core i5 750 and Core i7 870 Processors
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1060/1/

Intel Core i5 750
http://www.chw.net/2009/09/intel-core-i5-750/5/

i5 750 vs i7 870 vs i7 920 vs X4 965
http://www.techspot.com/review/195-m...u-performance/

Lynnfield PCI-Express Gaming Performance
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...-performance/1

The Lynnfield Followup: Turbo Mode and Overclocking Investigated
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3640

The Intel Core i7 860 Review
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3641



Inpai - Intel Core i5 750

PCOnline - Intel Core i7 870 Tested

PCOnline - Intel Core i5 750 Tested

EXPreview - Core i5 750

PCCentre - Core i5 750 vs X4 955 and X4 965

Chiphell - Core i5 750 & i7 870 Review

LOL. Now that's a full review already! Poor useless NDA.

I wanna read it, but is it my net. or their site is running slow?:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by labs23

I wanna read it, but is it my net. or their site is running slow?:shrug:

---

Works very fast for me.
Let's keep news section clear guys. Don't make any new topics for s1156 reviews. :)

for my opinion x58 is the worst chipset intel did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kromosto

for my opinion x58 is the worst chipset intel did.

---

and what exactly is bad.. it doesn't behave bad i any way, if anything its the highest qualtiy chipsset ever made for consumers, since the X58 is nothing more then a renamed i5520...

Uh and btw wheres the :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:ing about high power consumption of nehalem now? :p:

what exactly bad is its gaming performance. you can see it from any test comparing 920 to phenom2 or q9x50 series.

renaming a server chipset doesnt mean it will be the highest quality chipset ever made to every consumer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kromosto

what exactly bad is its gaming performance. you can see it from any test comparing 920 to phenom2 or q9x50 series.

---

:confused: lol did i miss something... gaming performance bad?

Yeah its so bad that a 2.66ghz cpu only can keep up with a 3-3.2ghz cpu.. really bad....

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3619&p=7

try comparing the gaming tests with non gaming tests.

Every early review showed the same thing: The LGA1156 platform has excellent power consumption. :clap:

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...onsumpti-1.png

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...nsumption_.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kromosto

try comparing the gaming tests with non gaming tests.

---

:confused:

so you want to tell me i should compare performance gains on tests that are 100% cpu dependent and propably have superior multithreading performance (like 3d rendering), to gaming tests that are mostly gpu dependent and often have embaracing multithreading support, to each other... and the conclusion of that is, that the X58 chipset is bad? :wth:

ok my bad i am at work and trying to state myself with short meaningless sentences :(

actually you got what i mean but not exactly. yes i am saying you should compare that tests but take single threaded ones. also gaming tests are mostly gpu dependent but if you use same gpu with same drivers you can count it as a constant so gpu dependency is not important.

so when we look at the tests lests say super pi (just for example super pi name is not important) a single threaded non gaming tests i920 with 2.66 ghz speed can easily own phenom 2 955 3.2 ghz with %10 (again just for example not the actual values) but when it comes to games 920 can easly owned by 955 with lests say %5. so we know 920 cpu is more powerful then 955 and as the driver and the gpu is same we take it as constant so which component can make this diff. only chipset is left.

Yeah, and i5 offers the same or worse gaming performance. Nothing is wrong with X58, Phenom just performs well in games. That is where it competes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

:confused:

so you want to tell me i should compare performance gains on tests that are 100% cpu dependent and propably have superior multithreading performance (like 3d rendering), to gaming tests that are mostly gpu dependent and often have embaracing multithreading support, to each other... and the conclusion of that is, that the X58 chipset is bad? :wth:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

Uh and btw wheres the :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:ing about high power consumption of nehalem now? :p:

---

Here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kromosto

ok my bad i am at work and trying to state myself with short meaningless sentences :(

actually you got what i mean but not exactly. yes i am saying you should compare that tests but take single threaded ones. also gaming tests are mostly gpu dependent but if you use same gpu with same drivers you can count it as a constant so gpu dependency is not important.

so when we look at the tests lests say super pi (just for example super pi name is not important) a single threaded non gaming tests i920 with 2.66 ghz speed can easily own phenom 2 955 3.2 ghz with %10 (again just for example not the actual values) but when it comes to games 920 can easly owned by 955 with lests say %5. so we know 920 cpu is more powerful then 955 and as the driver and the gpu is same we take it as constant so which component can make this diff. only chipset is left.

---

nice theory but if you remove the GPU complelty form the equation, Ci7 stomps every other cpu, can bee seen by a) reducing resolution or b) going SLI/CF.

If the chipset would be bad you wouldn't have that sort of scaling.

Also there games that behave quite funny, espcial when reviewers measure that a PII 3ghz is faster then a PII 3.4ghz :cool:

There are some games where i7 consistantly lags behind, but that has nothng to do with the Chipset but more with Hyperthreading:
http://vr-zone.com/articles/does-cor....html?doc=6160
http://hwbox.gr/showthread.php?t=3253#content_start
There are games out there that just simply hate HT. If your a seriouse gamer -> HT off is the better choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Here?

---

you know.. i5 is also based on nehalem... :ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

if you remove the GPU complelty form the equation, Ci7 stomps every other cpu, can bee seen by a) reducing resolution or b) going SLI/CF.

---

i am not saying x58 is a bad chipset while handling cpu x58 is bad at gpu.

so what you said is also a good point for my theory.

when you lower the resolution and lower the load on gpu 920 starts to show its performance because when you lower the load on gpu load on x58 to handle gpu gets lower or lets say load on x58 to handle pci-ex 16x .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

you know.. i5 is also based on nehalem... :ROTF:

---

And? The i7 9xx platform sucks ass PC-wise, just like day one. If you're trying to be pedantic, the only Nehalem processors that were in the market back in the day when the claim was done were the 9xx series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kromosto

i am not saying x58 is a bad chipset while handling cpu x58 is bad at gpu.

so what you said is also a good point for my theory.

when you lower the resolution and lower the load on gpu 920 starts to show its performance because when you lower the load on gpu load on x58 to handle gpu gets lower or lets say load on x58 to handle pci-ex 16x .

---

then you would also see problems in 32x configuration, since it puts a lot more stress on the pci-e controller to handle 32 lanes instead of 16.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

And? The i7 9xx platform sucks ass PC-wise, just like day one. If you're trying to be pedantic, the only Nehalem processors that were in the market back in the day when the claim was done were the 9xx series.

---

yes and thats exactly my point, nehalem as cpu itself dont consumes much, but people always transfered platform energy consumption to cpu consumption. Even at the beginin you easly could show this when you pited the DX58SO against the rampage 2 (~15W less).

Or do you want to me to belive that a S1156 CPU is a complet different CPU then a S1336 one?

Direct Comparision to the 955:-

http://img.inpai.com.cn/article/2009...26e45ad27b.png

http://img.inpai.com.cn/article/2009...66d6654bec.gif

http://img.inpai.com.cn/article/2009...bf6aaae204.png

http://img.inpai.com.cn/article/2009...326c8d976a.gif


Waiting for the 860 review to come up if its lower to the 920, i will get the 955 or the 750. I know that P55 costs much less than the X58 and the P55+860 combo will save quite a bit even if it performs lower than the 920, but why not instead of that go in for a cheaper 750 that performs almost as good as the 920 on real world tests.... :rolleyes:

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

and about the 32x configuration you can see from the link you posted that performance drop of x58 it much much more then x48 or 680i when you increase resolution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

Direct Comparision to the 955:-

---

X4 955 vs i5 750 vs Q9550 vs i7 920
http://diy.pconline.com.cn/cpu/revie...7/1702311.html

i7 870 vs i5 750 vs Q9550 vs i7 920
http://diy.pconline.com.cn/cpu/revie...7/1717513.html

Is this site running on a 56k modem or what? :D Takes ages to load pics, so long I didn't bother with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD

Is this site running on a 56k modem or what? :D Takes ages to load pics, so long I didn't bother with it.

---

No problem here :)

Those pics take ages to load indeed :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BulldogPO

Those pics take ages to load indeed :o

---

China must be boycotting Finland. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kromosto

and about the 32x configuration you can see from the link you posted that performance drop of x58 it much much more then x48 or 680i when you increase resolution

---

Uhm again i already have said its not 2nd lvl cache alone, i guess you ignored the impact that HT has on game completely.

Also the huge drop you see is the gpu limitation that kicks in, there simply not enough power, even on sli, to get decent performance out of 2560x1600.

If they run into gpu limitaion they have the exact same framerate as any other system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onethreehill

X4 955 vs i5 750 vs Q9550 vs i7 920
http://diy.pconline.com.cn/cpu/revie...7/1702311.html

i7 870 vs i5 750 vs Q9550 vs i7 920
http://diy.pconline.com.cn/cpu/revie...7/1717513.html

---

pconline is a bit unfair... there is a difference of 700-800 points more in Cinibench R10 as compared to INPAI and also the score for the 955 in both remains unchanged "Almost"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

pconline is a bit unfair...

---

your screens were not unfair?

AMD System = ATI HD4890 & 1440x960 res.
Intel System = NV GTX280 & 1600x1200 res.

you can´t compare 2 total different systems :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

yes and thats exactly my point, nehalem as cpu itself dont consumes much, but people always transfered platform energy consumption to cpu consumption. Even at the beginin you easly could show this when you pited the DX58SO against the rampage 2 (~15W less).

Or do you want to me to belive that a S1156 CPU is a complet different CPU then a S1336 one?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kromosto

try comparing the gaming tests with non gaming tests.

---

You are confusing chipset performance with GPU limited results and other interactions of GPU/CPU stalling. Though I disagree with you that the x58 is the worst chipset intel ever made, you do have an argument that Intel's overall PCIe implementation is not as good as AMD or nVidia's.

Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

Uhm again i already have said its not 2nd lvl cache alone, i guess you ignored the impact that HT has on game completely.

Also the huge drop you see is the gpu limitation that kicks in, there simply not enough power, even on sli, to get decent performance out of 2560x1600.

If they run into gpu limitaion they have the exact same framerate as any other system.

---

ok some extreme cases may not fit but lets get it from the beginning with out any names just thinking generally for brainstorming

with single threaded applications and tests we know XXX cpu is better then YYY cpu. Also we know the capacity of GGG gpu by tests. In gaming tests we see that XXX is better then YYY cpu in less gpu dependent (low resolution low detail etc.) but more cpu dependent benchmarks. But when we increase gpu dependency with increasing details or resolution or etc YYY begins to perform better then XXX.

Now we cant say just YYY cpu is better then XXX in gaming (because of its ghz or its level 2 cache or anything) because we know that in gaming when it is more cpu dependent XXX performs better. The performance drop in XXX platform happens while gaming is more gpu dependent. So can we say it is because of GGG gpu no because we use the same GGG gpu in both XXX platform and YYY platform with same driver. So this is not about gpu limitation.

We know that it is not cpu or it is not gpu but there is something causing this performance drop in XXX platform.

My guess is it is CCC chipset (it might not be the pci-e controller) but as i said this is a guess. Any component in the XXX platform except cpu and gpu may doing this but my guess is CCC

At last work is over and i am at home :)

Trying to make the Nehalem platform look like not to be power sucking is kinda... weird. It uses quite some energy, it depends on what you prefer, more energy for a bit more power or simply not. But declining it, no way.

Not like I care about energy, wtf ever:p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chri$ch

your screens were not unfair?

AMD System = ATI HD4890 & 1440x960 res.
Intel System = NV GTX280 & 1600x1200 res.

you can´t compare 2 total different systems :rolleyes:

---

I was quite sure i deleted the Crysis and farcry 2 bench's... Ohh well did it now as far as i know GPU has quite a less impact on the CB R10 and the other one...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rammsteiner

Trying to make the Nehalem platform look like not to be power sucking is kinda... weird. It uses quite some energy, it depends on what you prefer, more energy for a bit more power or simply not. But declining it, no way.

Not like I care about energy, wtf ever:p:

---

i-7 IS pretty good on the old power, Try comparing a i7-920 vs a ph2-965 on performance per watt.

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.

---

Oh the X58 only failed because it cost so much, although much of the hate and sour comments comes from people who are on the fence but can't because of price issues.

Yeah Ferrari cars are a failure because they fail to meet the user's demands. Get over it. Most of the people who upgraded last yr are perfectly happy and are not missing any of the features that the i5 has to offer. Welcome to yesterday if u looking to upgrade to i5 because is just another i7 with missing features.

If you consider the i7 as a FAIL because is not selling like 775 or phII systems do then so be it but it is still the most powerful platform in the desktop market even after the i5 is released. If we had to go by your rule then any high end hardware is a failure.

Oh man, how about a rant without first understanding what you're ranting about, my post in this case...

The only i7 9xx processor Intel is selling right now in volume is the i7 920. Compared to an i7 860 it has two disavantages: less PCIe lanes and dual channel memory. None of them will affect the segment both are targeted on. 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.

Two radically different platforms aimed at the exact same price segment is a FAIL. Even more when you consider that the i7 860 has higher stock frequency, WAY higher turbo mode, probably (unconfirmed) more overclocking potential, less heat, less power consumption and you can buy it for the same price. Not to mention the other components will cost you less money too. Spending money for perfomance is OK. When you can get more perfomance for less money and you don't do it, it's insane.

i9 is the salvation of s1366 on the desktop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fafeifa

Oh the X58 only failed because it cost so much, although much of the hate and sour comments comes from people who are on the fence but can't because of price issues.

Yeah Ferrari cars are a failure because they fail to meet the user's demands. Get over it. Most of the people who upgraded last yr are perfectly happy and are not missing any of the features that the i5 has to offer. Welcome to yesterday if u looking to upgrade to i5 because is just another i7 with missing features.

If you consider the i7 as a FAIL because is not selling like 775 or phII systems do then so be it but it is still the most powerful platform in the desktop market even after the i5 is released. If we had to go by your rule then any high end hardware is a failure.

---

That's a bit harsh!

OK fair enough, failure is a bit of a harsh criticism, but there's no getting away from the fact that the platform as a whole was far too expensive from the outset. Even high-end Joe doesn't need Tri Channel ram in his home PC, that's madcap!

The fault lies with our old friend Intel. There should have been completely distinct home and server platforms for nehalam from the beginning. You can only sell products in volume if they are suitable for you're customers' needs at the right price point. i7 has not sold particularly well outside the business world, and I think Intel recognize that.

I've had the cash pretty much all along, but I've never been taken in by i7 as a good upgrade path until now.

To sum up, if you already have an s1633 platform, then you're already on a winner (or at least you can't loose).

But if you have €600 saved and ready (woohoo), then the obvious choice would be to look at the cheaper lga1156 platforms that are only 3 weeks away.

I dont get it, what happened to socket 1366?? Why a core i7 on 1156 now?

Should have included i7-860, i wonder if it's worth it for crunching or anything else...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AC3421

I dont get it, what happened to socket 1366?? Why a core i7 on 1156 now?

---

Yeah, nothing like bending you over huh. Something Intel is good at, they can gouge you with more board sales this way. But hey, as long as people are willing to bend over, Intel would be more than happy to ram it into ya. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AC3421

I dont get it, what happened to socket 1366?? Why a core i7 on 1156 now?

---

It's being rebranded to i9

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Oh man, how about a rant without first understanding what you're ranting about, my post in this case...

The only i7 9xx processor Intel is selling right now in volume is the i7 920. Compared to an i7 860 it has two disavantages: less PCIe lanes and dual channel memory. None of them will affect the segment both are targeted on. 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.

Two radically different platforms aimed at the exact same price segment is a FAIL. Even more when you consider that the i7 860 has higher stock frequency, WAY higher turbo mode, probably (unconfirmed) more overclocking potential, less heat, less power consumption and you can buy it for the same price. Not to mention the other components will cost you less money too. Spending money for perfomance is OK. When you can get more perfomance for less money and you don't do it, it's insane.

i9 is the salvation of s1366 on the desktop.

---

Just to words -> time frame

What you get now, other already got for 10 months. Everyone who jumped on s1366 right on the beginn lost nothing, and that gulftown is a nice bonus. -> again you get it way before "all others"

Just reminds me of the people who always :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: about the people who buy EE. But now they :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: about the platform... :rofl:

Yeh timeframe's like the only really big advantage 9xx have but I don't think Gulftown will be that interesting other than only for a little crowd which it's very welcomed for, crunchers with a huge budget. :D

That being said I personally didn't wait for Lynnfield because I'd think it had something better to offer or cuz of the lower cost, but because I didn't need to upgrade at the time socket 1366 was introduced. But I planned doing it yet this 2H of this year and looking what's gonna be offered now, then P55 + i7-860 looks more attempting than X58 + i7-920 mainy because:

1) Cost/performance ratio.

2) I never intend to use Crossfire/SLI.

3) I like the extra RAM OC capability dual channel P55 system seems to offer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

Just to words -> time frame

What you get now, other already got for 10 months. Everyone who jumped on s1366 right on the beginn lost nothing, and that gulftown is a nice bonus. -> again you get it way before "all others"

Just reminds me of the people who always :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: about the people who buy EE. But now they :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: about the platform... :rofl:

---

So now the argument is time frame?

Yep, people sure love being locked to 2 different CPUs: i7 920 and the future affordable i9 (if it even exist). Still you miss the point: i7 has been since the beginning a server platform offered to desktop users. If you're that 1% that benefits from server machines and you're proud of your e-peen having your super hot CPU 10 months earlier than the rest, you should be very happy now. Nobody here is saying the x58 platform is a failure by itself. It's a failure where Intel has put it. Anyway, s1156 is not going to last either. Sandy Bridge uses a new socket and it's 1 year away or less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Anyway, s1156 is not going to last either. Sandy Bridge uses a new socket and it's 1 year away or less.

---

Bingo.

In which case x58 and p55 will both allow at least one more drop in cpu upgrade before we look at the next big thing.

Since I'm looking to upgrade now, I'm inclined to look at the cheaper option.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Oh man, how about a rant without first understanding what you're ranting about, my post in this case...

The only i7 9xx processor Intel is selling right now in volume is the i7 920. Compared to an i7 860 it has two disavantages: less PCIe lanes and dual channel memory. None of them will affect the segment both are targeted on. 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.

Two radically different platforms aimed at the exact same price segment is a FAIL. Even more when you consider that the i7 860 has higher stock frequency, WAY higher turbo mode, probably (unconfirmed) more overclocking potential, less heat, less power consumption and you can buy it for the same price. Not to mention the other components will cost you less money too. Spending money for perfomance is OK. When you can get more perfomance for less money and you don't do it, it's insane.

i9 is the salvation of s1366 on the desktop.

---

Well tell me what was available from intel 10 or 11 months ago that rivaled the i7. Your whole point of comparing the i5 with i7 now after a yr is pretty pointless. Why don't you compare that PH2 beats the C2D while at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

So now the argument is time frame?

---

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.

i5 750 vs i7 920
http://en.expreview.com/2009/08/19/t...html#more-4834

Just a thought, why is that we get so much i5 love and so little of i7 860/870, I'm not interested in 750! xD They are meant to be released at same time, should be as huge focus on that or do they have stricter NDA or something. We even get Clarksdale reviews already but barely no 860/870.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kromosto

for my opinion x58 is the worst chipset intel did.

---

totally agree... all it does is add loads of heat and limit the bclock overclocking... well its really a server chipset and i guess for servers it does well...

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grimREEFER

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

---

yes sir, wait untill that gets unleashed!

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^^ !!

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

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

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?

nicely done reviews

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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:

Core i5 750 & i7 870 Review
http://www.chiphell.com/2009/0906/102.html
Translated

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.

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:

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

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!!!!!

Intel Core i5 750 Core i7 870 Review
http://www.overclockersclub.com/revi...750_corei7870/

Intel Core i7-870 & i5-750
http://techgage.com/article/intel_co...he_mainstream/

Core i5-750 and Core i7-870 Processors Review
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/801

Intel Core i5 750 Processor Review
http://www.techspot.com/news/36131-i...or-review.html

Intel Core i5 And Core i7: Intel’s Mainstream Magnum Opus
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...e-i5,2410.html

Intel Lynnfield Core i5-750 & Core i7-870 Processor Review
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...or-review.html

Finnish Core i7 870 review out:
http://mato78.com/artikkelit/prosess...p55-piirisarja

And extremely bad(like always) google translation

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i...review-test/16

Kribi?????

Why didn't they use Cinebench or a test scene from a major 3d package? I can understand if its just numbers they are after... but I liked tweaktown's real world vs. synthetic a LOT more.

Still churning through the data... THANKS Onethreehill!!!

HEAP's of praise on the new i5-750. Damn the lack of hyperthreading!!!:mad:

The lynnfield looks like an overclocking beast on air thus far!!!

nvm

God damnit it sucks in multigpu situations. :mad:

Loving the turbo though, way of the future! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geo

whats with everyone reviewing 870/ whatever happened to 860

---

Wondering the same myself. :shakes: I did see a few 860's in the mix and they did perform admirably. I'm too cheap to consider buying a chip over $300. I hope we see a lot more on the 860 vs. 920 in the near future.

Gulftown just isn't a big enough reason for me to go x58 at this point. So, I need more than that to justify the initial costs. No microcenter nearby...

Intel just announced the new Lynnfield processors and P55 Express chipset.

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articl...GKewfA_1_2.gif

One more to go :)

Intel Core i5 750, Intel Core i7860, Intel Core i7 870, Intel Core i7 975 and AMD Phenom II X4 965BE tested

Intel Core i5 and Intel Core i7 - Lynnfield in action | lab501

Ouch.

From anandtechs review, AMD needs to make imaginary 985 processor to match the i750(as it loses across the board) and price it down to 199 to have a product with parity to intels line up.

Even then, this processors going to have much much worse power consumption.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=3634&p=17

AMD is screwed either way unless they get something fast out the door.

If AMD releases a 985 at 199, they have to cut the rest of their processor down, and their goes their margins.

If they keep as is with no chip and just a price cut, they are forfeiting the 150-300 chip market because the general public does not buy AMD when it has worse performance(which Intel can get away with).

I expect the latter to happen because AMD cannot make release a 3.8 ghz processor with current yields in any significant quantities.

The graphic division won't be able to save AMD, as they need to make billions.

The only forseeable way out of this predicament is AMD turns phenom II tech into mobile tech ASAP. Bulldozers can't be finished anytime soon.

I think AMD profitability in 2009, is just as foolish a prediction as Shintai infamous, "2008 will be another year of nvidia dominance". Especially if profitability is actually supposed to come from products sales rather than asset sales.

Not a very happy situation since AMD needs money badly or signs of future income if they expect any more additional bailout money from their buyers or creditors.

Intel's Core i5-750 and Core i7-870 Processors
http://techreport.com/articles.x/17545

Intel Core i5-750, Core i7-860 and Core i7-870
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...d-cpu-review/1

Intel Lynnfield: Details and Architecture
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...architecture/1

Intel Core i5, Core i7 800 Processors and P55 Express
http://hothardware.com/articles/Inte...d-P55-Chipset/

Intel Core i5-750 Processor
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.ph...=361&Itemid=63

Intel Core i7 870/Core i5 750/P55 Express chipset Review
http://www.motherboards.org/reviews/...re/1942_1.html

Intel Core i5 750 CPU Review
http://www.elitebastards.com/index.p...iews&Itemid=27

Intel's Lynnfield Processors
http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//i...id=63&Itemid=1

I want to see the overclocking potential. To me that's the only way to compare it to the I7 920 D0 stepping, otherwise the I7 860 should perform better than a I7 920 at stock speeds and so forth. I am surprised more reviews are not looking at this aspect.

:fact:

Page 1 & Page 2

Core i5, Core i7, CrossFire, And SLI: Gaming Paradise, Redux?
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ming,2403.html

It is interesting to see how well the 920 keeps up to the 870 regardless of the clock speed differences. There were even a few cases in the THG review that show the 920 ahead by a slight amount.

I checked the prices here in Canada and although they only have the MSI P55-G80 in stock, going with a 4gb PC12800 kit and a 860, I'd have saved barely $100. That extra $100 to me was a low price to pay for triple channel and true dual 16x pcie. Yes, I'm a lot more impressed with 860/P55 power usage and temps but you can't win them all :cool: I don't think I'll regret my choice.

Quote:

---

One more thing: SLI versus CrossFire. Oy. In certain games, ATI simply kicks butt. Its performance with one Radeon HD 4870 X2 simply walks Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 285, despite the fact that the two models we used are priced similarly. But add a second, and in some cases SLI gets close to doubling performance, while ATI not only fails to scale well, but outright loses its lead. Left 4 Dead, Grand Theft Auto, and Crysis are three examples. ATI still wins out in S.T.A.L.K.E.R., but SLI buys more performance for Nvidia. ATI simply dominates Far Cry 2, no matter which way you cut it. Even still, we'd like to see ATI match the scaling Nvidia is getting from SLI. At least then our point that gamers are better off with a second graphics card versus a pricey CPU would be easier to drive home.

---

So according to this then SLI scaling is better than CrossFire with Core i7, Core i5? :confused:

Intel's Core i7/Core i5 Lynnfield Processors
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...d_performance/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onethreehill

Intel's Core i7/Core i5 Lynnfield Processors
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...d_performance/

---

Their conclusion was very weird IMO. Justifying the price of X58-platform by saying the i7-870 is 3% slower than i7-975EE (in FC2) is rather strange to me, and that was with CF or SLI (wasn't specified). But in Crysis the difference was a bit bigger, 5% slower than i7-920, wow.:rolleyes:

Intel Core i7-870 & i5-750 and P55 MBs
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=837

Intel Core i7-870 and Core i5-750 Processors
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/dis...re-i7-870.html

great CPU :up:
strong performance and "low" power consumption
to bad the multi gpu performance suffer a bit, but this is a so small part of the market... that... well, lga 1366...
to bad the ondie pcie controller affects OC to...

but... AMD situation is even worse now... who will spend like $150 in a am3 MB, and $ 200 in a am3 cpu now!? :shrug:

Most reviews are showing that i5 750 performs better than Phenom II 965 and consume way much less power. Moreover, 750 is cheaper than 965

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dartaz

Most review are showing that i5 750 performs better than Phenom II 965 and consume way much less power. Moreover, 750 is cheaper than 965

---

AMD is in a whole lot of hurt, Ph-2965 will need to drop to $150 which will reduce the price of every other cpu in there line up, Intel was smart with this i-5, I thought it was nonsense at the start but it has put AMD under a lot of pressure.

Great, I'm liking all those power consumption measurements that are being shown. It's obvious that performance wise the new Lynnfield based Core i7 is more or less at the same level than the old one (the loss of the SMT hurts the Core i5 at certain tasks), and the cost of the platform is a little lower. I have to study more carefully overclocking results (comparing clocks and voltages) to compare the overclocking potential and estimate the power consumption when overclocked (if P55 ones need more voltage, the difference in power consumption can be closer or even negated). Great product anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iTravis

So according to this then SLI scaling is better than CrossFire with Core i7, Core i5? :confused:

---

I think you're referring to the article of Tom's Hardware about gaming performance on the new platforms. If so, nope.

In that article, the ATi card they use is a HD4870 X2, while the NVIDIA one is a GTX285.

So obviously the NVIDIA scaling is better: the "one card solution", in the case of ATi, is already a CF of x2 chips, so the "two cards solution" is a quad CF of x4 chips, while the NVIDIA "one card" is only x1 chip and only the "two cards" is a SLI of x2 chips.

Everybody knows that x1 -> x2 chips scaling is much better than x2 -> x4 chips for both companies (the 2nd chip can give you much, the 3rd less, and the 4th, much less), so you can't use those results to compare (as they do in their conclusions) the scaling ability of CrossFire vs SLI as multiGPU systems.

Intel i7 870 & i5 750 CPUs
http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1673

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Farinorco

I think you're referring to the article of Tom's Hardware about gaming performance on the new platforms. If so, nope.

In that article, the ATi card they use is a HD4870 X2, while the NVIDIA one is a GTX285.

---

Tom's done two reviews on multi-GPUing with i5 vs i7 and because the idiot has used different settings in each review, you get a somewhat different impression depending on which review you read. :shakes: