http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3570
Printable View
Absolutely fast. Like the guy who wrote the article said, I don't expect huge overclocks without pushing the voltage.
great performance...
so Anandtech isn't under NDA?
wow, amd will need to pull some kind of magic rabbit out of it's @$$ to compete with this processor. much better performance than i had expected!
if true, this makes gigabytes 24 pwm mobo a useless pile of cheese.Quote:
2) More overclockable CPUs. The best yielding Nehalems (and highest clocked Nehalems) will be LGA-1366 processors. I wouldn't expect any 1GHz+ overclocks from LGA-1156 CPUs.
The idle power was amazing.
Quote:
Unfortunately this is the sample I tested with. Thankfully it was healthy enough for me to overclock the BLCK to 166MHz, resulting in a 2.66GHz frequency. Turbo mode was still stuck at a 1x increase over the stock frequency, so final Lynnfield performance should be much better in single and dual threaded apps than what you’ll see here today.
maybe i missed something. how do they have HT enabled in 2.66 Lynfield?
Its not even a 2.66Ghz but an Oced 2.13Ghz...also its an engineering sample. Turbomode doesnt work correctly etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by geo
what?Quote:
The price of Intel’s P55 PCH is also much lower than the X58 chipset, in fact P55 is expected to be price competitive with P45 + ICH10.
x58+ich10=~50$
p45+ich10=~40$
P55(ich10_2)=~40$
much cheaper than x58?
price "competitive" with p45?
it costs about the same while offering a lot less features... if there will be cheap P55 boards it will be thanks to mainboard makers, NOT thanks to intels chipset pricing!
and yes, eventually there will be 100$ and below p55 boards... eventually...
oh please :rolleyes:Quote:
The Lynnfield Preview: Rumblings of Revenge
wha? you tested with the first lynnfield ES chips intel ever sent out, what did you expect anand?Quote:
Based on what I've seen, Lynnfield isn't ready just yet - it's not an artificial delay.
The motherboards are in rough shape, CF/SLI isn't working and we're still at very early revs of the CPU's silicon. While I think that the chip will be ready far in advance of its rumored September shipdate, the CPU and motherboards aren't yet.
boards not beeing ready, im not surprised, but cpus? they are fine...
1) yesQuote:
Why would anyone want a LGA-1366 system then? I believe there are three major advantages to the LGA-1366 platform for single-socket desktops:
1) Support for Gulftown. You can only get 6-cores from the LGA-1366 platform in 1H 2010, Intel currently doesn't have any 6-core LGA-1156 parts planned.
2) More overclockable CPUs. The best yielding Nehalems (and highest clocked Nehalems) will be LGA-1366 processors. I wouldn't expect any 1GHz+ overclocks from LGA-1156 CPUs.
3) More bandwidth to PCIe slots. I don't see this as a huge advantage today, but there may come a time when having as much bandwidth to your GPUs as possible is important. I'm thinking general purpose GPU computing, DX11, OpenCL sort of stuff. But we're not there yet.
2) that doesnt make any sense whatsoever... 1366 and 1156 cpus are diferent silicon... the only part that makes sense is that 1156 will not overclock that well, but thats what intel wants, we will just see about that once 1156 mainboards come out :D
3) yes, but you might not only use that for gpus... raid plus sli is something i really wouldnt recommend on 1156...
and last but not least, you can get 50% more mem and probably clock it better on 1366 than on 1156 thanks to 3 channels and not 2.
so, 1156 will perform about the same as 1366 cpus, but overclock slightly worse. wow, who would have thought? :D
the really interesting part here is that 1156 will beat phenom2, but phenom2 is and will be a lot closer to intel than phenom1 ever was to c2q and i7.
intel and anandtech are beyond things like NDAs... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by johnp1983
i5 looks impressive, Would still rather get a i7920do today though, Amazing that it takes AMD to have a 1ghz advantage to remain competitive.
Honestly did some1 really expect worse performance than this? Personally I was expecting some 1-5% behind Core i7 at same clock depending on app. Was laughing at the comments on i5 is mostly competing with Phenom II and Yorkfield etc. lol
I want to see it binned and LN cold. I could care less about day to day performance.
1Ghz advantage ??Lynnfield is almost identical to i7 and i7 is on average 22% faster per clock than Deneb and C2Q...There is stuff that it is marginally faster or even slower and there are workloads(SMT aware-not that many of them) that are much faster than Deneb/C2Q.It boils down to what users mostly do on their PCs.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
One advantage that i5 may have over Deneb and C2Q is that high Turbo mode for 1/2 cores.Other than that,the 2.66Ghz model without HT will be roughly on par with 2.83Ghz 45nm C2Q with Turbo being its saving grace in mono and dual threaded apps.
edit:
For enthusiasts the "turbo mode" advantage i5 may have over c2q/deneb is not important since this group of users usually OCs their chips anyway regardless of CPU they use.The turbo thingie on i5 will be good for those retail systems that can't or won't be OCed by "normal" end users.
I would love to see some overclocking results. It seems like everyone always says you won't be able to overclock intel's new proc, but look how well i7 is faring
^ This. I'd hate it to be the case i5 would top out at like 3.6GHz in no-turbo mode on air. If the cheapest i5 that has HT does 4.0GHz on air it's i5 for me, otherwise i7 when I upgrade this summer/autumn. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by cobra_kai
When I got to the last page and started reading the Why would anyone want a LGA-1366 system then? , I got a nasty flashback. S939 vs S754: we all knew S754 was a dead end, right from the start; why o why is Intel taking this same decisions? Build one platform, let it scale all the way up and down; why force people to upgrade motherboard to upgrade their CPU :-/
if you didnt get a crap mobo :mad: like me then yes :)Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Well it was actually overclocked by 25% :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra_kai
Its a 2.13Ghz ES sample they OCed it to 2.66Ghz via 166Mhz BLCK. Its the first key to that you can easily OC them. I bet you can OC them almost as good/bad as i7 since they use the same methods.
Fish? LGA1366 and LGA1156 will run side by side with new CPUs for both. You can roughly translate it into that if you want multi GPus. Pick 1366. If you want single pick 1156.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke
Sorry, I was going off the numbers in this review, not the ones in your head.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
He's comparing the 2.13 GHz i5 to the 3.2 GHz X4 955. The i5 is better performing in 8 benchmarks, and the X4 is the faster one in 6 benchmarks.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Dunno if those benchmarks are well chosen, someone else have to comment on that.
And then you wonder why people call you a troll??:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
Chances of having a normal conversation with you are the same as winning the lottery.
Here you go,Deneb/Yorkfield/Bloomfield across a range of applications and summarized in one table.
Man, I am talking about the numbers in this review. WTF is your problem? And is that an AMD site you linked to? Are you not happy with anandtech numbers so insult me and link to a site that suites your opinion? That site is obviously AMD biased, 14 links to AMD related news, info and sites and 0 for Intel, Its even green FFS. You are just plane angry.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
I think we know what the problem is :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
no comment, i really dont like the mainstream cpu's (i5) reason being is that why dont they just leave the core 2 series in production and the still profit from it, i dont want average people having i7/i5s
only good thing i5 is good for is mobile
And AT is leaning towards intel ,so what?You missed the intel banners?Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
As for the site I linked,are you calling MusicIsMyLife a cheater or what?He is member here too,maybe you should ask him why he wrote a biased review?:rolleyes:
i5 numbers are no different than i7 numbers.In apps that can make use of multiple threads(>4) i5/i7 is faster than C2Q and Deneb.This is not an issue.Issue is that you claim than Deneb has to work at 1Ghz higher clock on average to be on par,which is bogus to put it mildly.
You can go and look at THG review of i7 965 and when they compare it to Yorkfield at 3.2GHz.Never mind the turbo,the i7 is 18% faster per clock than Yorkfield,which is around 5% faster than Deneb.So there you have the "same" 22%-23% or so.The "skewed" review in my link is 2 or 3% of from this number(margin of error) so you can see that it is not "biased" but pretty much spot on.
So anandtech is a reliable source of info when it suites your agenda (hint, Look at your sig) but if you want to counter the numbers you link to a biased site that does crazy :banana::banana::banana::banana: like give the i7 systemQuote:
Originally Posted by informal
* 2x 1 GByte Cellshock PC3-14400
* 1x 1 GByte OCZ PC3-16000
You seem desperate?