Core i5 / P55 Lab Update
by Gary Key on September 11, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Gary's First Looks
This has been an interesting week to say the least for those of us stuck in the labs and not at AMD's DX11 GPU press briefings. Based on feedback from the Lynnfield launch article we have spent the last couple of days running additional benchmarks to address overclocking and clock for clock requests. Yes, we do listen and respond to the comments no matter how outlandish (you know who you are) some may be at times.
I will interject a personal note here, the emails/private messages that outlined a strong case for additional research and testing certainly held a lot more weight than comments like "You are on Intel's payroll...", "Worst review ever...", and the moonshot , "Illegal benchmarking methods..". First off, if we were on Intel's payroll we would not be working here (a logical conclusion, right? ;) ) As for the other comments, everyone is entitled to their opinions. We do our best to keep an open forum and let the comments fall where they may, but offering constructive criticism and facts to back up those comments is what actually causes change, not endless shock posts or attention grabbing statements. I still have hope in people abiding by the rules of Internet Etiquette, but apparently we are still a long ways off from that happening. I will step off the soap box, well, until the next article....
Just to set this up now, our overclock comparisons will be at 3.8GHz for the Core i5/i7 and Phenom II x4 965BE processors. Why 3.8GHz, well it is an easy number for all of our processors to hit on fairly low voltages with retail or mid-range air coolers. It is also an ideal clock range for the "set it and forget crowd" interested in 24/7 overclocking. Certainly we could go higher on air or water cooling and actually ran most of our Core i5/i7 numbers at 4.2GHz for the motherboard roundups. Our Phenom II x4 965BE is the hold up for higher numbers in our clock for clock comparisons.
AMD continues to have serious problems with their Phenom II processor range clocking above 3.8~4GHz on air with a 64-bit operating system. Unfortunately, there is nothing AMD can do to correct this in the current stepping, but they are actively working on improvements with each processor release. In fact, the latest Athlon II x2 processors are the first products we have that allow for 24/7 stable operation at 4GHz under Windows 7 x64. The quad cores are still lagging although our latest retail 965BE is showing promise around 3.92GHz in early testing. I state this now so it does not come as surprise later.
I will post several benchmark results later today based on our motherboard test suite. Anand will provide a more in-depth analysis next week along with an updated look at the Core i7/860. He might even have a surprise announcement from AMD. In the meantime, I have just about completed this additional testing and will return my focus on completing the first (of many) P55 motherboard article(s) that will be up in a couple of days. Our first review will cover the Gigabyte GA-P55M-UD2 among others. We recently received several other micro-ATX P55 motherboards and will look at those shortly. For now, this board is a perfect match for the Core i5/750 for our mainstream audience looking to upgrade an older platform.
Our graph below is an example of the information we will provide late today. Hopefully, this type of information will be useful for your purchasing decision along with our commentary about the results. I know there is not a Core 2 product listed, that will be forthcoming in the near future.
9/11 Update - I am still working on the FarCry 2 and H.A.W.X. benchmarks so the short update will be delayed until tomorrow morning.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
159 Comments
View All Comments
Nich0 - Friday, September 11, 2009 - link
Regarding Anand's OC numbers (with Turbo) in the main article, something is off for the 860 and the 750. I posted in the comments to the main article (around page 32/33!?!) about it. For example the Turbo 1C number would be 26 BCLK, ie a turbo of 6. Am I missing something?jonup - Friday, September 11, 2009 - link
Thanks buddy!goinginstyle - Friday, September 11, 2009 - link
If the rest of the results are like this one then I have a bad feeling the comments are going to get worse. These results do not bid well for those who asked for this information. Pulls up a chair and grabs the popcorn, just waiting on SnakeOil and the other nut jobs to show up.snakeoil - Friday, September 11, 2009 - link
here we can see that a phenom 2 965 annihilates the lynnfield 750 at stock speed, that is lynnfield without overclocking.and this is just one test, remember that this render test favors intel. there are many others tests where phenom 2 beats lynnfield by higher margins.
now the truth is surfacing.
we the people demand that you repeat all the tests of your lynnfield review without the auto overclocking at stock speed.
just to be fair..
Fohtey - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
I'm not sure 19 seconds is an annihilation, but at "stock" speeds the Phenom II 965 does do better than Lynnfield 750 at stock.1) Aren't "stock speeds" determined, in part, by where the manufacturer sees there product's niche? In the past, parts of processors have been disabled for the very same reason. So it stands to reason this may be the case here. I guess we'll see. I recall a feature or two offered in the i7 series are not available in the i5. Again, I'm guessing it's marketing IMHO.
2) These tests determine a processor's capability. If you're complaining that we don't see "apples to apples" comparos between AMD and Intel, it's because Intel processors are more stable when over-clocked at higher speeds. So if AMD is competing with Intel for fastest processor, AMD is likely to set its "stock speed" closer to its stability threshold than Intel will with theirs.
So insisting that "stock speeds" are a relevant measure is like comparing two runners when they're jogging and determining who would win a given race. It's only when they're really pushing the limits of their abilities do we see who the best runner really is.
It is the same here. So based on the information we see, i5 clearly is a better performing processor for this application.
These arguments are only relevant to us system tweakers anyway. The average Joe couldn't care less. All he's interested in is realized speed and not the barely perceptible differences between two closely matched processors.
poppyharlow - Monday, September 14, 2009 - link
Hi,Could you explain to me how you call it fair when you compare
the Phenom II 965 BE which runs at 3.4Ghz (stock speed) to the Lynfield I5 720 that runs at 2.66Ghz (stock speed, turbo off) which
makes it 27% (740Mhz) slower in terme of clock speed?
If you take this clock speed into account (just to play fair like you want) then we should compare the PII 965 BE to a Lynfield I5 720 overclocked to run at 3.4Ghz also right?.
If you apply this 27% difference in clock speed to the Lynfield I5 750 (with turbo mode off) then I'm not quite sure that it's still slower than the PII 965 BE...(245 - (245 * 27%) = 178 compared to 188 on PII 965 BE).
Please explain.
Regards,
maxxcool - Monday, September 14, 2009 - link
Do you realize what you just sail OilySnake, you just said:"our biggest most expensive chip can beat up you SMALLEST SLOWEST CHEAPEST CHIP"
Thats also like saying :
"My 12grader can beat up you're toddler"
Do you LIKE beating toddlers? is that what you are saying OILYsnake?
Your just as much of a troll and waste of skin here as you are on Techreport. Why don't you step into traffic and do the world a favor?
The tests are 100 VALID.
At stock settings, the tests reflect exactly what every intel user will get. if you dont like that.... stop reading the reviews you pathetic little meat sack.
or better yet, go design a CPU... that is if you can leave your mom's basement long enough....
OH and don't forget you IDIOT, you are the moron that was swearing up and down that I5 would not support virtulization...
tool.... no wait... your not good enough to be a tool.... your a tool-bag.
Anand, Gary.... ignore this idiot. talk to damage on Techreport... this guy is a complete douche.
SlyNine - Friday, September 11, 2009 - link
This is stupid, The 750 with turbo boost is NOT an overclock. Its simply how the CPU manages thermal distribution. You may not be happy with the results. But until you can provide you're own data that is repeatable and doesn't cripple Core I5/7 CPU's, by say disabling turbo boost. Then you're just grasping at straws.Face it AMD cannot currently compete in the high end. Get over it.
You make some pretty far fetch accusations, with no backing. At this point you're just trolling. It's to bad I fill the need to feed your ridiculous comments.
snakeoil - Friday, September 11, 2009 - link
turbo is overclocking. if you are going to benchmark using an overclocked processor then that is cheating. and that's illegaldo you think people is stupid?
Kaleid - Sunday, September 13, 2009 - link
Sigh. There is nothing illegal about it. Its a built in feature.If the turbo mode is a success expect AMD to do something similar.