Intel Reference P55 MB + Lynnfield 2.66G Test

**sxs112** · 05-23-2009, 07:21 AM

Intel Reference P55 MB

CPU-Z

More Test and pic

**haschioz** · 05-23-2009, 07:49 AM

i always thought lynnfield didnt have ht. but in cpuz that it has 8 threads, some error or what?!

**Shintai** · 05-23-2009, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by haschioz

i always thought lynnfield didnt have ht. but in cpuz that it has 8 threads, some error or what?!

It does have HT and also turbomode. However it can be different with some models.

**G.Foyle** · 05-23-2009, 07:53 AM

Weaker than 920 in Vantage CPU by around ~1000 pts.

**sxs112** · 05-23-2009, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by haschioz

i always thought lynnfield didnt have ht. but in cpuz that it has 8 threads, some error or what?!

**perkam** · 05-23-2009, 07:55 AM

Cinebench from the site.

i7 920 STOCK Cinebench: 15.2K
PII 925 STOCK Cinebench: 11.8k
Core i5 2.66Ghz STOCK Cinebench: 11.4k

Considering that the 2.66Ghz Lynnfield will be in the same price range as the PII 925, it looks like Intel has made it very clear what the purpose or the i5 will be: to keep PII in check.

Perkam

**Shintai** · 05-23-2009, 08:00 AM

The turbomode on Lynnfield is brutal. I guess we will see very high game performance.

Originally Posted by xoqolatl

Weaker than 920 in Vantage CPU by around ~1000 pts.

Maybe due to singlechannel memory? I wonder why only 1 stick in the picture hehe.

**haschioz** · 05-23-2009, 08:07 AM

perkam, the cinebench had only 4 threads enabled.
whats the points of an i5 with all 8 threads?

**Shintai** · 05-23-2009, 08:32 AM

I´m quite sure all the benches run is with single channel. A 2.66Ghz i5 will be almost identical to a i920. They use the exact same core. Only difference is dualchannel vs tripplechannel and ondie PCIe vs QPI+X58.

And a beefier turbomode on i5.

Cinebench is also abit proving of this. i7 gets way higher multiprocessor speedup. And they are identical.

**bowman** · 05-23-2009, 08:40 AM

I wonder what the flash modules that fit in the little DIMM slot will cost. And what the speeds will be like for those.

**Shintai** · 05-23-2009, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by bowman

I wonder what the flash modules that fit in the little DIMM slot will cost. And what the speeds will be like for those.

I would be bold to say its useless for desktops. Its the robson flash cache for HDs. And depending on size I say 10-25$.

Unless you hook up some 4200rpm 2½" disk I doubt it will give much. And since we stand in front of the SSD revolution I say its dumb.

But again, its a reference/validation board that also applies to laptop designs. But even with intels 80GB SSD to cost something around 150$ at christmas time. Aint it time for robson to die?

**Boissez** · 05-23-2009, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by Shintai

I´m quite sure all the benches run is with single channel. A 2.66Ghz i5 will be almost identical to a i920. They use the exact same core. Only difference is dualchannel vs tripplechannel and ondie PCIe vs QPI+X58.

And a beefier turbomode on i5.

Cinebench is also abit proving of this. i7 gets way higher multiprocessor speedup. And they are identical.

You seem to be forgetting that the 2,66 i5 won't have hyperthreading...

Also the multiprocessor speedup seems way low - is this just a testament of lack of bandwith or something else?

**saaya** · 05-23-2009, 09:06 AM

well, intel CLAIMS robson boosts hdd speeds to that of SSD's...

their cinebench are a tad slow, but its not sc mem... for me sc is faster in cinebench than dc for some reason... not surprising, its the same on i7 iirc
must be really slow mem or the bios is really really untweaked, which wouldnt be surprising for a ref board...

lynnfield perf is nothing extraordinary at all...

how fast is a core i7 at 2.66 in superpi 1m with ddr3 1066 777 dual channel?

**[XC] gomeler** · 05-23-2009, 09:07 AM

Core i7 with trip channel and dual channel has been shown to be within a few percentage points of each other in most applications.. so Core i5 will cannibalize Core i7 sales with it's lower price point and similar performance. Core i5 will be great for crunchers and such

**ajaidev** · 05-23-2009, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Shintai

I´m quite sure all the benches run is with single channel. A 2.66Ghz i5 will be almost identical to a i920. They use the exact same core. Only difference is dualchannel vs tripplechannel and ondie PCIe vs QPI+X58.

And a beefier turbomode on i5.

Cinebench is also abit proving of this. i7 gets way higher multiprocessor speedup. And they are identical.

Yes they use the same core but the internal interconnects "DMI" are way slower than the i7 QPI as you mentioned.

If anything this is more comparable to the Phenom II and Core Quad's.

The turbomode is beefier because i think the TDP is lower than i7's.

**saaya** · 05-23-2009, 09:13 AM

seeing the huge turbo boost speeds, i wouldnt be susprised if i5 even beats i7 in some tests since most apps are still single threadded...
of course, when overclocking this wont matter, but for stock performance turbo really makes i5 a whole lot more attractive

btw, did anybody else notice that westmere only supports ddr3 1066? 0_o

**ajaidev** · 05-23-2009, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by saaya

seeing the huge turbo boost speeds, i wouldnt be susprised if i5 even beats i7 in some tests since most apps are still single threadded...
of course, when overclocking this wont matter, but for stock performance turbo really makes i5 a whole lot more attractive

btw, did anybody else notice that westmere only supports ddr3 1066? 0_o

I think its got something to do with the reason why intel does not wanna sport a higher than 1066 speed on the i7.

Odd that i7's shrink cant officially support more than 1066 same as i7. Maybe a QIP thing or Triple channel thing who knows...

**saaya** · 05-23-2009, 09:23 AM

i think its cause it takes a lot of time to test and tweak the mrc code for 1333 and up... and they think its not needed...
but weird, i think 6 cores and 12 threads will def benefit from ddr3 1333 and up...

**Shintai** · 05-23-2009, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by ajaidev

Yes they use the same core but the internal interconnects "DMI" are way slower than the i7 QPI as you mentioned.

If anything this is more comparable to the Phenom II and Core Quad's.

The turbomode is beefier because i think the TDP is lower than i7's.

i7 uses the same DMI interface between ICH10R and X58.

i5/i3 uses DMI between PCH and the CPU. And PCH=ICH10R in functionality. X58 is simply a PCIe switch for 36 PCIe lanes. i5 got an ondie PCIe x16.

Also the performance wouldnt matter a single bit in those tests. The only outside thing that matters is memory.

Nope, its a good classic single instead of dualchannel

Originally Posted by Boissez

You seem to be forgetting that the 2,66 i5 won't have hyperthreading...

Also the multiprocessor speedup seems way low - is this just a testament of lack of bandwith or something else?

I compared it to an i7 with HT disabled. With HT on the multiprocessor speedup would be above 4x (I think it was 4.15x with HT on and 3.55x without HT).

Originally Posted by saaya

i think its cause it takes a lot of time to test and tweak the mrc code for 1333 and up... and they think its not needed...
but weird, i think 6 cores and 12 threads will def benefit from ddr3 1333 and up...

The tripplechannel seems to outpace it and Intel selected memory timings for speed due to that. For Xeons only the higher end with fast QPI got 1333 to fuel the NUMA.

**ColonelCain** · 05-23-2009, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by [XC] gomeler

Core i7 with trip channel and dual channel has been shown to be within a few percentage points of each other in most applications.. so Core i5 will cannibalize Core i7 sales with it's lower price point and similar performance. Core i5 will be great for crunchers and such

I agree. Though, GPU folders/crunchers, in that price range, will probably stay with PII or C2Q. If they have a bit higher of a budget, then i7.

**Shintai** · 05-23-2009, 10:05 AM

The original board back in october 2008 havent changed much

**saaya** · 05-23-2009, 10:24 AM

wow pciE is that small huh? makes it obvious again that x58 was NOT just a pciE hub

wtf is wrong with intels board btw?
green pcb? 4 pin cpu pwm plug? no 90 degree angle sata slots?
not a single solid cap, 2+1+1 analog cpu pwm, cheap components, terrible slot layout, fugliest heatsink ever, not to mention the slot colors

**Shintai** · 05-23-2009, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by saaya

wow pciE is that small huh? makes it obvious again that x58 was NOT just a pciE hub

wtf is wrong with intels board btw?
green pcb? 4 pin cpu pwm plug? no 90 degree angle sata slots?
not a single solid cap, 2+1+1 analog cpu pwm, cheap components, terrible slot layout, fugliest heatsink ever, not to mention the slot colors

Its validation boards