Page 1 of 12 123411 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 299

Thread: LGA 1156 Core i7s & Core i5s Reviews

  1. #1
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    3,237

    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
    Last edited by onethreehill; 09-19-2009 at 11:27 PM.

  2. #2
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    So near, yet so far.
    Posts
    737
    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?
    [[Daily R!G]]
    Core i7 920 D0 @ 4.0GHz w/ 1.325 vcore.
    Rampage II Gene||CM HAF 932||HX850||MSI GTX 660ti PE OC||Corsair H50||G.Skill Phoenix 3 240GB||G.Skill NQ 6x2GB||Samsung 2333SW

    flickr

  3. #3
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    France
    Posts
    8,829
    Quote Originally Posted by labs23 View Post
    I wanna read it, but is it my net. or their site is running slow?
    Works very fast for me.
    Let's keep news section clear guys. Don't make any new topics for s1156 reviews.
    Donate to XS forums
    Quote Originally Posted by jayhall0315 View Post
    If you are really extreme, you never let informed facts or the scientific method hold you back from your journey to the wrong answer.

  4. #4
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ankara Turkey
    Posts
    2,657
    for my opinion x58 is the worst chipset intel did.


    When i'm being paid i always do my job through.

  5. #5
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    5,485
    Quote Originally Posted by kromosto View Post
    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 ing about high power consumption of nehalem now?
    Last edited by Hornet331; 08-18-2009 at 02:57 AM.

  6. #6
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ankara Turkey
    Posts
    2,657
    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.


    When i'm being paid i always do my job through.

  7. #7
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    5,485
    Quote Originally Posted by kromosto View Post
    what exactly bad is its gaming performance. you can see it from any test comparing 920 to phenom2 or q9x50 series.
    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

  8. #8
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ankara Turkey
    Posts
    2,657
    try comparing the gaming tests with non gaming tests.


    When i'm being paid i always do my job through.

  9. #9
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    228
    Every early review showed the same thing: The LGA1156 platform has excellent power consumption.



    .

  10. #10
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    5,485
    Quote Originally Posted by kromosto View Post
    try comparing the gaming tests with non gaming tests.


    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?

  11. #11
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ankara Turkey
    Posts
    2,657
    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.


    When i'm being paid i always do my job through.

  12. #12
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,806
    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.

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornet331 View Post


    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?
    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.

  14. #14
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Spain, EU
    Posts
    2,946
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornet331 View Post
    Uh and btw wheres the ing about high power consumption of nehalem now?
    Here?
    Friends shouldn't let friends use Windows 7 until Microsoft fixes Windows Explorer (link)


    Quote Originally Posted by PerryR, on John Fruehe (JF-AMD) View Post
    Pretty much. Plus, he's here voluntarily.

  15. #15
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    5,485
    Quote Originally Posted by kromosto View Post
    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

    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 View Post
    you know.. i5 is also based on nehalem...
    Last edited by Hornet331; 08-18-2009 at 04:06 AM.

  16. #16
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ankara Turkey
    Posts
    2,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornet331 View Post
    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 .


    When i'm being paid i always do my job through.

  17. #17
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Spain, EU
    Posts
    2,946
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornet331 View Post
    you know.. i5 is also based on nehalem...
    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.
    Friends shouldn't let friends use Windows 7 until Microsoft fixes Windows Explorer (link)


    Quote Originally Posted by PerryR, on John Fruehe (JF-AMD) View Post
    Pretty much. Plus, he's here voluntarily.

  18. #18
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    5,485
    Quote Originally Posted by kromosto View Post
    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 View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Hornet331; 08-18-2009 at 04:28 AM.

  19. #19
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Shimla , India
    Posts
    2,624

    Direct Comparision to the 955

    Direct Comparision to the 955:-










    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....
    Last edited by ajaidev; 08-18-2009 at 07:25 AM.

  20. #20
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ankara Turkey
    Posts
    2,657
    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


    When i'm being paid i always do my job through.

  21. #21
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    3,237
    Quote Originally Posted by ajaidev View Post
    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

  22. #22
    Xtreme Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    4,326
    Is this site running on a 56k modem or what? Takes ages to load pics, so long I didn't bother with it.
    Intel? Core i5-4670K @ 4.3 GHz | ASRock Extreme6 Z87 | G.Skill Sniper 2x8GB @ DDR4-1866 CL9 | Gigabyte GTX 970 OC Windforce 3x | Super Flower Titanium 1000W | ViewSonic VX2268wm 120Hz LCD | Phanteks PH-TC14PE | Logitech MX-518 | Win 7 x64 Professional | Samsung 850 EVO & 840 Pro SSDs

    If all people would share opinions in an objective manner, the world would be a friendlier place

  23. #23
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    3,237
    Quote Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD View Post
    Is this site running on a 56k modem or what? Takes ages to load pics, so long I didn't bother with it.
    No problem here

  24. #24
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Finland, Eura
    Posts
    1,744
    Those pics take ages to load indeed :o


    http://mato78.com - Finnish PC Hardware news & reviews
    BulldogPO @ Twitter


  25. #25
    Xtreme Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    4,326
    Quote Originally Posted by BulldogPO View Post
    Those pics take ages to load indeed :o
    China must be boycotting Finland.
    Intel? Core i5-4670K @ 4.3 GHz | ASRock Extreme6 Z87 | G.Skill Sniper 2x8GB @ DDR4-1866 CL9 | Gigabyte GTX 970 OC Windforce 3x | Super Flower Titanium 1000W | ViewSonic VX2268wm 120Hz LCD | Phanteks PH-TC14PE | Logitech MX-518 | Win 7 x64 Professional | Samsung 850 EVO & 840 Pro SSDs

    If all people would share opinions in an objective manner, the world would be a friendlier place

Page 1 of 12 123411 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •