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. :(