Intel's Core i7 870 & i5 750, Lynnfield: Harder, Better, Faster Stronger
by Anand Lal Shimpi on September 8, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Lynnfield's Turbo Mode: Up to 17% More Performance
Turbo on Bloomfield (the first Core i7) wasn't all that impressive. If you look back at our Core i7 article from last year you'll see that it's responsible for a 2 - 5% increase in performance depending on the application. All Bloomfield desktop CPUs had 130W TDPs, so each individual core had a bit more breathing room for how fast it could run. Lynnfield brings the TDP down around 27%, meaning each core gets less TDP to work with (the lower the TDP, the greater potential there is for turbo). That combined with almost a full year of improving yields on Nehalem means that Intel can be much more aggressive with Turbo on Lynnfield.
| SYSMark 2007: Overall | Dawn of War II | Sacred 2 | World of Warcraft | |
| Intel Core i7 870 Turbo Disabled | 206 | 74.3 fps | 84.8 fps | 60.6 fps |
| Intel Core i7 870 Turbo Enabled | 233 | 81.0 fps | 97.4 fps | 70.7 fps |
| % Increase from Turbo | 13.1% | 9.0% | 14.9% | 16.7% |
Turbo on Lynnfield can yield up to an extra 17% performance depending on the application. The biggest gains will be when running one or two threads as you can see from the table below:
| Max Speed | Stock | 4 Cores Active | 3 Cores Active | 2 Cores Active | 1 Core Active |
| Intel Core i7 870 | 2.93GHz | 3.20GHz | 3.20GHz | 3.46GHz | 3.60GHz |
| Intel Core i7 860 | 2.80GHz | 2.93GHz | 2.93GHz | 3.33GHz | 3.46GHz |
| Intel Core i5 750 | 2.66GHz | 2.80GHz | 2.80GHz | 3.20GHz | 3.20GHz |
If Intel had Turbo mode back when dual-cores first started shipping we would've never had the whole single vs. dual core debate. If you're running a single thread, this 774M transistor beast will turn off three of its cores and run its single active core at up to 3.6GHz. That's faster than the fastest Core 2 Duo on the market today.
WoW doesn't stress more than 2 cores, Turbo mode helps ensure the i7 870 is faster than Intel's fastest dual-core CPU
It's more than just individual application performance however, Lynnfield's turbo modes can kick in when just interacting with the OS or an application. Single threads, regardless of nature, can now execute at 3.6GHz instead of 2.93GHz. It's the epitomy of Intel's hurry up and get idle philosophy.
The ultimate goal is to always deliver the best performance regardless of how threaded (or not) the workload is. Buying more cores shouldn't get you lower clock speeds, just more flexibility. The top end Lynnfield is like buying a 3.46GHz dual-core processor that can also run well threaded code at 2.93GHz.
Take this one step further and imagine what happens when you have a CPU/GPU on the same package or better yet, on the same die. Need more GPU power? Underclock the CPU cores, need more CPU power? Turn off half the GPU cores. It's always availble, real-time-configurable processing power. That's the goal and Lynnfield is the first real step in that direction.
Speed Limits: Things That Will Keep Turbo Mode from Working
As awesome as it is, Turbo doesn't work 100% of the time, its usefulness varies on a number of factors including the instruction mix of active threads and processor cooling.
The actual instructions being executed by each core will determine the amount of current drawn and total TDP of the processor. For example, video encoding uses a lot of SSE instructions which in turn keep the SSE units busy on the chip; the front end remains idle and is clock gated, so power is saved there. The resulting power savings are translated into higher clock frequency. Intel tells us that video encoding should see the maximum improvement of two bins with all four cores active.
Floating point code stresses both the front end and back end of the pipe, here we should expect to see only a 133MHz increase from turbo mode if any at all. In short, you can't simply look at whether an app uses one, two or more threads. It's what the app does that matters.
There's also the issue of background threads running in the OS. Although your foreground app may only use a single thread, there are usually dozens (if not hundreds) of active threads on your system at any time. Just a few of those being scheduled on sleeping cores will wake them up and limit your max turbo frequency (Windows 7 is allegedly better at not doing this).
You can't really control the instruction mix of the apps you run or how well they're threaded, but this last point you can control: cooling. The sort-of trump all feature that you have to respect is Intel's thermal throttling. If the CPU ever gets too hot, it will automatically reduce its clock speed in order to avoid damaging the processor; this includes a clock speed increase due to turbo mode.
Lynnfield and its retail cooler
The retail cooler that ships with the Core i7 is tiny and while it's able to remove heat well enough to allow the chip to turbo up, we've seen instances where it doesn't turbo as well due to cooling issues. Just like we recommended in the Bloomfield days, an aftermarket cooler may suit you well.
Lynnfield: Made for Windows 7 (or vice versa)
Core Parking is a feature included in Windows 7 and enabled on any multi-socket machine or any system with Hyper Threading enabled (e.g. Pentium 4, Atom, Core i7). The feature looks at the performance penalty from migrating a thread from one core to another; if the fall looks too dangerous, Windows 7 won't jump - the thread will stay parked on that core.
What this fixes are a number of the situations where enabling Hyper Threading will reduce performance thanks to Windows moving a thread from a physical core to a logical core. This also helps multi-socket systems where moving a thread from one core to the next might mean moving it (and all of its data) from one memory controller to another one on an adjacent socket.
Core Parking can't help an application that manually assigns affinity to a core. We've still seen situations where HT reduces performance under Windows 7 for example with AutoCAD 2010 and World of Warcraft.
With support in the OS however, developers should have no reason to assign affinity in software - the OS is now smart enough to properly handle multi-socket and HT enabled machines.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
343 Comments
View All Comments
ash9 - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
As per Anand's article, "How Much Does it Cost to Build a P55 Motherboard?" Intel is getting around $50 min everytime a P55 board is sold with its new chips...nice, most folk wont link board prices to Intel..way to go Intel; so how much is Intel really making on its $196 i5??JonnyDough - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
I love you.Avalon - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Hey Anand, how did you test stability on your max i5 750 overclock with turbo mode enabled? You said your max overclock on your i5 75 with turbo was 3.2Ghz. Do you just simply run Prime or some similar burn in that runs on all 4 cores (which would have turbo'd you to 3.96Ghz), or did you actually check a single threaded run on a single/two core(s) at 100% while getting it to run at turbo speed of 4.16Ghz(4Ghz for 2) at the same time? Thanks!Gary Key - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Stability testing is accomplished by running large renders in Lightwave 3D 9.6 x64 and Cinema4D R11 x64 at the same time while playing FarCry 2 in a window, along with Espresso, Mainconcept Reference, Lightroom, several IE windows, and Maya opened in the background. Also, it was not shown but all of the overclock results were with an 8GB memory load at DDR3-1800 or above. We try to test them like you use them. ;)Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
When turbo mode was enabled we made sure the system was stable with 1, 2 and 4 cores active. It had to pass all tests to be considered stable.Take care,
Anand
chizow - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Comments like this make me think you're losing touch Anand.[quote] I'm going to go ahead and say it right now, there's no need for any LGA-1366 processors slower than a Core i7 965[/quote]
[quote]For $196 you're getting a processor that's faster than the Core i7 920. I'm not taking into account motherboard prices either, which are anywhere from $50 - $100 cheaper for LGA-1156 boards. I don't believe LGA-1366 is dead, but there's absolutely no reason to buy anything slower than a 965 if you're going that route.[/quote]
There's about 800 reasons I can think of for other LGA1366 chips besides the Core i7 965, and there was a time you tipped your hat to amazing value gained from overclocking. I guess you're too enamored nowadays throwing that money away on those overpriced $1500 Intel Nehalems on boring Mac platforms that aren't conducive to user modifications to begin with.
jordanclock - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
I fail to see how Anand is "losing his touch." He has a very valid point: Buying anything less than the highest range i7's doesn't make sense right now. Lynnfield is very competitive to the sub-965 i7's, but with a much lower price (for both the CPU and motherboard). The 965/975 have many situations where they out-perform the i5's by a great deal, but unless you're buying a CPU for extreme performance, the i5 is a much better deal no matter how you slice it.chizow - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
It seems you missed the point, entirely. Once you factor in overclocking, there is about 800 reasons to buy a cheaper LGA1366 CPU than the i7 965 because those cheaper processors tend to reach the same maximum clockspeeds as their overpriced siblings. Even a modest 500-600MHz overclock on a "pointless" $200 i7 920 surpasses the performance level you could buy with a $1000 stock XE part from Intel. Failing to acknowledge this reality tells me both you and he are losing touch....Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Forgive me as apparently I wasn't clear enough in what I was trying to say there.I would absolutely recommend the Core i7 920 over a $1000 Core i7 Extreme. In fact, I did back when the Core i7 first launched.
What I was trying to say in those sentences was Lynnfield changes all of that. Instead of buying a Core i7 920, I'd recommend a Core i5 750 (and saving money) or a Core i7 860 (and saving a bit less money). Those are both LGA-1156 processors.
The only reason anyone would want LGA-1366 is if they want to build something faster than a Core i7 870, which only leaves the Core i7 965/975.
My recommendation *isn't* to buy a $1000 CPU, it's to buy something much cheaper. Because of this, most of the LGA-1366 lineup is made obsolete by Lynnfield.
Does that make more sense?
Take care,
Anand
chizow - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
I see your point and thought it might be what you were hinting at, but the message did come off awfully distorted with the way it was worded. If there was a 3.2-3.3GHz Lynnfield I suppose that would have made the 965 XE obsolete as well? The reality of it is, if there weren't other options besides $1000+ XE CPUs, X58 would be a dead platform akin to other failed Intel efforts of the past like Skulltrail.But that's not the case. X58 still has a place even though performance overlaps with Lynnfield on the low-end. In multi-GPU and gaming situations there's still clearly a place for X58/LGA1366 as Page 9 indicates. In situations where the end-user intends to overclock, any of the artificial gains from Lynnfield's Turbo modes are going to be negated.
Personally, from a consumer standpoint, I feel Intel botched the whole X58/P55 design and launch starting with the decision to go with 2 sockets. Not only did the feature that provided the least benefit (triple vs. dual channel) drive the reason for the socket/pin count difference, they gimp the platform with superior tech by cutting PCIE lanes in half.
I would've much rather have seen a 32-lane integrated PCIE controller on X58 and have a unified LGA1188 socket instead of 2 sockets, both of which have blemishes and signficant downsides as we have now.