Anandtech i5 preview

[informal]

Sorry, I was going off the numbers in this review, not the ones in your head.

And then you wonder why people call you a troll??
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.

[gallag]

And then you wonder why people call you a troll??
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.

[Shintai]

Man, I am talking about the numbers in this review. WTF is your problem?

I think we know what the problem is

[informal]

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.

And AT is leaning towards intel ,so what?You missed the intel banners?
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?

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.

[gallag]

And AT is leaning towards intel ,so what?You missed the intel banners?
AS for the site I linked,are you calling MusicIsMyLife a cheater or what?He is member here to,maybe you should ask him why he wrote a biased review?

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.

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 like give the i7 system
* 2x 1 GByte Cellshock PC3-14400
* 1x 1 GByte OCZ PC3-16000

You seem desperate?

[informal]

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 like give the i7 system
* 2x 1 GByte Cellshock PC3-14400
* 1x 1 GByte OCZ PC3-16000

You seem desperate?

Maybe you missed the irony in the sig's comment ? It's there to remind people that AMD users are not crazy and that even an intel shill site (like AT) can point out the "phenomenon" if you can call it that way.
And AT is biased unfortunately.That's my opinion it may be wrong,but that's what I think.

I provided another source of information on the i7 vs C2Q comparison at THG since they done clock for clock comparison too.Feel free and read it ,maybe you can see why your 1Ghz higher clock speed comment is meaningless.

[gallag]

One advantage that i5 may have over Deneb and C2Q is that high Turbo mode for 1/2 cores.

Maybe you missed the irony in the sig's comment ? It's there to remind people that AMD users are not crazy and that even an intel shill site (like AT) can point out the "phenomenon" if you can call it that way.
And AT is biased unfortunately.That's my opinion it may be wrong,but that's what I think.

I provided another source of information on the i7 vs C2Q comparison at THG since they done clock for clock comparison too.Feel free and read it ,maybe you can see why your 1Ghz higher clock speed comment is meaningless.

That is my point, You find anandtechs opinion valad if it suites your agenda, How can he be right about something (i.e pro AMD) and wrong about others (i.e pro intel) surely you se the hypocrisy here?

And about that toms review, You are always quick to point out that turbo mode will only work with 1/2 threads (as quoted above), But when it will suit your agenda, you assume turbo mode is running full speed even in 4thread software, Work out the toms review again showing the advantage in ipc without factoring turbo mode in 4thread software.

[informal]

That is my point, You find anandtechs opinion valad if it suites your agenda, How can he be right about something (i.e pro AMD) and wrong about others (i.e pro intel) surely you se the hypocrisy here?

And about that toms review, You are always quick to point out that turbo mode will only work with 1/2 threads (as quoted above), But when it will suit your agenda, you assume turbo mode is running full speed even in 4thread software, Work out the toms review again showing the advantage in ipc without factoring turbo mode in 4thread software.

I think THG ran the i7 965 without [any] turbo mode and that how they got 18% over QX9770 Maybe I'm wrong,I will check it out again. If this is true(and I'm wrong and THG ran it with Turbo on<-edited for Shintai),than with turbo On it would be faster than 18%.

[Chad Boga]

I guess there is this caveat from the preview "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.", but I remain underwhelmed by how Intel is sitting on it's hands and just dribbling out such minor performance increases.

By the time this comes out, it will be close enough to 12 months since i7 was launched and we get F#$% all improvement.

[Xello]

By the time this comes out, it will be close enough to 12 months since i7 was launched and we get F#$% all improvement.

Is i5 supposed to be an improvement in performance over i7? I was under the impression that these were the cheaper, cut-down, lower end parts

[3NZ0]

By the time this comes out, it will be close enough to 12 months since i7 was launched and we get F#$% all improvement.

There is c0 - d0 and the new cpu's that come with the d0 rev, that's enough.

AMD needs to compete with i7 first, 'i5' fills in for c2q so they have their upper, mid and extreme end desktop tier covered. With amd announcing no more new cpu's for a while intel can just work towards their 'tock'. AMD might have to tweak their pricing again to bring the field level.

[saaya]

By the time this comes out, it will be close enough to 12 months since i7 was launched and we get F#$% all improvement.

ive been warning people even before 1366 launch that they shouldnt wait for 1156 if they want perf...

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.
Dunno if those benchmarks are well chosen, someone else have to comment on that.

but the 2.13ghz chip was oced to 2.66, thats quite important to mention :P

AMD needs to compete with i7 first

huh? why?
no they dont, and they dont even try or plan to... i7 is a niche, theres not that much money to be made there, amd wants large volume, mainstream and entry level... so its clearly i5 vs phenom2

Apparently, if P55 mobos are similar in pricing to the lower-end X58 mobos, not much.

yepp, its possible to create x58 boards that cost around 100$ as well... basic entry level, same as p55 basic entry level for 100$...