Core i7 870 Tested

**onethreehill** · 08-03-2009, 02:46 AM

PCOnline - Intel Core i7 870 Tested

Translated

**Olivon** · 08-03-2009, 03:07 AM

Originally Posted by onethreehill

http://diy.pconline.com.cn/cpu/revie...7/1717513.html
Translated

Thanks onethreehill

**SoulsCollective** · 08-03-2009, 03:12 AM

No deeplinking allowed, apparently - pics aren't working.

**RPGWiZaRD** · 08-03-2009, 03:24 AM

There were really many graphs with exact same figure curve as FarCry 2 graph, prolly like 10 so at least results were quite consistent.

Power consumption was a nice suprise tho, 34W less load for 870 and 750 53W less than 920, so ~27% lower at same clock.

Doesn't seem to do any wonders for overclocking though, if I understood it right this with this poor automatic translation this sample needed like 1.42v for 4GHz and other ES results have shown similiar figures 1.4 - 1.42v or so, ie. pretty much same as Bloomfield.

**zalbard** · 08-03-2009, 03:43 AM

Not quite correct to compare 920 with 870, if 870's gonna cost twice more tbh...

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD

Power consumption was a nice suprise tho, 34W less load for 870 and 750 53W less than 920, so ~27% lower at same clock.

This is pretty good, yep. Not really a surprise for me, though. Maybe we'll see some decent DTR notebooks with Lynnfields.

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD

Doesn't seem to do any wonders for overclocking though, if I understood it right this with this poor automatic translation this sample needed like 1.42v for 4GHz and other ES results have shown similiar figures 1.4 - 1.42v or so.

Well, I guess those are early sampes / batches, if you check the early i7 920 and 965 reviews, they barely ever make it past 4 Ghz there.
On the other hand, somehow I'm not expecting much from Lynnfield OCing. I may be wrong ofc, just cannot see any possible breakthrough.

**sholvaco** · 08-03-2009, 03:54 AM

My favourite graph:

The measly sub 200$ Core i5 750 "clubbing" the 920 in GTA4. Granted it's just this one benchmark but at the price it's going for I think it nicely demonstrates how common users might benefit from expanded turbo mode over SMT.

The 870 generally left the 920 in a cloud of dust except in synthetic memory benchmarks (well duh!). Too bad that it comes with capped multis. Imagine the implications of Intel releasing an unlocked CPU at ~500$ (it will cost near 500$ within months eventhough it may launch @ ~560$, or at least it will in euros

). Eventhough it's basically still robbery people would be all over it. I know I would.

**BulldogPO** · 08-03-2009, 04:31 AM

Very interesting graph indeed.

**ajaidev** · 08-03-2009, 04:58 AM

wow as far as i can tell it need 2.9Ghz to compete against a i7 920 2.66Ghz successfully.... If you look at the Core i5 750 2.66Ghz its near to 9550's performance than i7 920's.

AMD can compete against the 750 with either 945/955 quite successfully but the i7 920/870 would be kings of synthetic benches for the time being. Even the 965 maybe a closer match for the i7 920 than the i7 870.

PS:- When is the i7 920 suppose to go EOL, as the i7 870 has almost arrived??

**labs23** · 08-03-2009, 04:58 AM

Nice find. Can't wait for some i7 860 review leaks.

**qurious63ss** · 08-03-2009, 05:10 AM

That GTA4 graph shows that the video card has become the bottleneck of the system for the Core iX. I bet that even if they oc the 920 to the 870 frequency that the 920 would also get 64.3fps.

**massman** · 08-03-2009, 05:14 AM

there's something odd about the 920 versus 750 scores as the memory frequency was exactly the same. I presume the 3D performance went up because of the integrated PCI-e controller?

**qurious63ss** · 08-03-2009, 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by ajaidev

wow as far as i can tell it need 2.9Ghz to compete against a i7 920 2.66Ghz successfully.... If you look at the Core i5 750 2.66Ghz its near to 9550's performance than i7 920's.

AMD can compete against the 750 with either 945/955 quite successfully but the i7 920/870 would be kings of synthetic benches for the time being. Even the 965 maybe a closer match for the i7 920 than the i7 870.

PS:- When is the i7 920 suppose to go EOL, as the i7 870 has almost arrived??

The 870 will not replace the 920. They are two completely different products. The 920 is an i7 socket 1366 aimed at enthusiast while the 870 will be an i5 mainstream product for socket 1156.

**qurious63ss** · 08-03-2009, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by massman

there's something odd about the 920 versus 750 scores as the memory frequency was exactly the same. I presume the 3D performance went up because of the integrated PCI-e controller?

My guess is turbo on the 750 goes up higher then 920.

**Vozer** · 08-03-2009, 05:25 AM

Well, here are all of their tests. I edited the graphs a bit for an easier look.

Conventional Software

Phenom II 955 3.2G: 10089
11064

Phenom II 955 3.2G: 8934
6740
10781

Phenom II 955 3.2G: 10497
2916

Phenom II 955 3.2G: 21.608
(lower is better)

Phenom II 955 3.2G: 7875

Phenom II 955 3.2G: 2421

Phenom II 955 3.2G: 69
(lower is better)

Games

Phenom II 955 3.2G: 77.8

Phenom II 955 3.2G: 53

Phenom II 955 3.2G: 60

Phenom II 955 3.2G: 63.5

Power Consumption

Phenom II 955 3.2G: 138
224
(lower is better)

Summary: Core i7-870 beat Core i7-920 in every test, except the Memory Benchmark ones while consumed less power than Core 2 Quad Q9550.

**qurious63ss** · 08-03-2009, 05:31 AM

The power consumption graph is interesting. Even though the 870 is clocked higher it still consumed less power then the 920.

**~~OBR~~** · 08-03-2009, 05:38 AM

Originally Posted by massman

there's something odd about the 920 versus 750 scores as the memory frequency was exactly the same. I presume the 3D performance went up because of the integrated PCI-e controller?

no, i bet it is because Turbo mode was ON, 750 has much higher Turbo mode clocks then 920 ...

**STaRGaZeR** · 08-03-2009, 05:41 AM

Originally Posted by massman

there's something odd about the 920 versus 750 scores as the memory frequency was exactly the same. I presume the 3D performance went up because of the integrated PCI-e controller?

Higher Turbo Boost and no HT: perfect for games.

**ajaidev** · 08-03-2009, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by qurious63ss

The power consumption graph is interesting. Even though the 870 is clocked higher it still consumed less power then the 920.

Ahhh the 955 @ 3.2Ghz eats less power than a i7 920 @ 2.66Ghz... i7 920 is different arc than the i7 870... also there were rumors that the i7 920 is going EOL after 870's arrival!!

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/a...4837/18914.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/a...4837/18913.png

Also does the higher stock speed and higher turbo mean bad for OCing??

**massman** · 08-03-2009, 05:46 AM

Originally Posted by OBR

no, i bet it is because Turbo mode was ON, 750 has much higher Turbo mode clocks then 920 ...

Thanks

**PatRaceTin** · 08-03-2009, 05:51 AM

hmmmm 750 is interesting

**labs23** · 08-03-2009, 05:53 AM

also there were rumors that the i7 920 is going EOL after 870's arrival!!

I've been hearing the i7 920 EOL for long now, but recently updated roadmaps shows it won't happen this year up to H2 next year. And if there'll be a S1156 i7 to cause EOL on i7 920 then it would be i7 860, because it is clocked higher than 920 and at the same price-level.

**Hornet331** · 08-03-2009, 05:55 AM

plus since when its it even worth discussing performance difference when the difference is smaller then +/-1fps, its within the margin of error.

**kl0012** · 08-03-2009, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by ajaidev

Ahhh the 955 @ 3.2Ghz eats less power than a i7 920 @ 2.66Ghz... i7 920 is different arc than the i7 870... also there were rumors that the i7 920 is going EOL after 870's arrival!!

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/a...4837/18914.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/a...4837/18913.png

Also does the higher stock speed and higher turbo mean bad for OCing??

According to your graphs 955 consumes more then Q9550 which consumes more then i7-870...
Also 955 barely faster (if at all..) then Q9550 which pats 955 in a weak position against the i5-750.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=3551&p=14

**Vozer** · 08-03-2009, 06:13 AM

Actually, in an other review, they also tested the Phenom II X4 955 (along with i5-750, i7-920 and Q9550) with exactly the same setup.

I will add the Phenom II results.

**saaya** · 08-03-2009, 06:31 AM

lol, you guys miss the point...
the 1156 cpus dont consume less power, the platform does.
1366 has an IOH, x58, while 1156 doesnt.
x58 is at least 25W, at least...

so yeah power consumption for 1156 systems will be lower, cpu power consumption eventually as well, but the latter will be minimal.

and overall looking at those graph, the advantage of 1156 over 1366 is a 50-75$ cheaper entry level cpu and 75$ cheaper boards with less features and slighlty less performance. 150$ at most... was it worth to wait for 1156 for 1 year? not really... everybody who gets an 1156 system soon and likes it, well, welcome to yesterday, you could have had this 1 year ago already :P

comparing those 1156 numbers with 775, i really dont see a reason to upgrade for normal end users and even frequent gamers...
what for? to go from 60fps to 70fps? and for that you need a new board and new cpu and hew heatsink and possibly new memory... nah, not worth it...

i think 775 will live on for a long time if intel doesnt kill it off actively, cause price perf wise its faring very very well.

Thread: Core i7 870 Tested

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Rate This Thread

Display

Core i7 870 Tested

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions