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
Ann3x - Sunday, September 13, 2009 - link
Totally agree its great for mass market level (turbo mode).Virtually noone who buys a dell desktop is gonna want (or know how) to overclock.
I simply disagree that this makes 90% of the i7 line redundant, especially when youre talking to a tech audience. To an enthusiast (and most people whore going to buy x58 are going to be this level) the 920 is still imo, the best buy *in most cases*.
TA152H - Monday, September 14, 2009 - link
Ann,I've been saying that all along.
I completely agree. I'd much rather have the i7 920 than the brain-damaged Lynnfield platform. But, let's keep it in perspective. Say I don't have that much money to spend, and my choice isn't an i7 920, then the i5 750 comes into play. Only when the Lynnfield isn't competing with the Bloomfield does it make sense for the overclocking crowd. But, there are some price points the Bloomfield can't reach, but the Lynnfield can. At that point, you have to compare it against equal cost platforms, and in that context it could be an attractive processor even for people that are comfortable overclocking.
But, again, I am one of the biggest proponents of the i7 920 on these forums, so much so that people twist my words on it. Outside of my instinctive dislike of absolutes, I would say the 870 and 860 are essentially worthless processors for the technical savvy, as is the i7 950 (I still can't bring myself to putting the i7 before the brain-damaged Lynnfields). But, as easy as it is to say you're better off spending the extra $100 or $150 for the i7 920 rather than getting saddled with a castrated platform, that's an entirely specious argument if the person buying it simply can't pay it.
I would say the biggest problem with the i5 750 is the lack of IGP to go with it. It's a Celeron, without the platform to go with it. In the broader market, this might prove to be a bigger impediment to widespread adoption than the emasculation the chip suffered from. While you can add a discrete card, it adds cost, chews up a slot, and probably generates more heat. It's not horrible, but not ideal for the target audience.
Inkie - Monday, September 14, 2009 - link
"I would say the biggest problem with the i5 750 is the lack of IGP to go with it. It's a Celeron, without the platform to go with it."If you believe that a $200 processor is a Celeron then you seem to have little knowledge of current market conditions. That's without considering the excellent performance of Ci5. Clarkdale is what you are looking for, not that anyone will call Clarkdale a Celeron, except perhaps those that look down their noses on dual-core.
Ann3x - Monday, September 14, 2009 - link
Im not disagreeing with you in anyway way ^^. Totally on the same page here.Lynfields great.
Just not the revolution the reviews are making out that it is.
CB434 - Sunday, September 13, 2009 - link
"the core i5 750 has a rated clock speed of 2.66 ghz"The i5's rated speed is 2.66 stock. 2.93 4 cores active, 2.93 with 3 active, 3.06 with 2 active and 3.2 with 1 active. That's what it runs at "stock" with default BIOS settings. I don't know (or care) whether it's OC'ing or not, I just know that it runs at those speeds by default. And it does so in a very effecient manner.
The turbo isn't a gimmick. If it was I wouldn't be using it.
I will be buying i5 and Noctua cooler. If I was buying i7 or Phenom II (which was a big possibility) I would be overclocking it to 3.6-3.8 24/7 stability permitting.
With i5 turbo on, I can overclock to 3.4, consuming less power and still reach 4Ghz in single core apps. While running COOLER, and less VOLTAGE then the Phenom and i7 alternatives at this same speed. It handles all of this on the fly. Without needing different OC profiles for different games or apps. Do you know that when only only 1 or 2 cores are active the heat and voltage necessary is alot less? That's why the single core apps can run at 4 Ghz safely. Unlike the Phenom or i7, which can only get to 4Ghz while OC'ing all cores instead of 1. It's the same reason why you can OC a Phenom II 550BE higher then a 955BE. And why when you unlock the extra two cores on the 550BE, you have to reduce your OC.
This isn't a gimmick this is effeciency at it's best. I'm sure in the future there will be better solutions, but for now I am delighted with this. It's a powerful single core, duel core and quad core all in one. It's like a 550BE + a 955BE. You get the strengths of all of them with none the weaknesses. Since I am primarily interested in gaming, the lack of HT isn't an issue. And the AMDs don't even have HT anyway. With this, "turning turbo off to OC" becomes a thing of the past. Unless you like ineffeciency.
This i5 will be my first Intel CPU since Celeron 766mhz.
Eeqmcsq - Sunday, September 13, 2009 - link
"It's a powerful single core, duel core and quad core all in one."That's a great way to describe Turbo mode. It ends the question of whether to get a faster dual core or a slower quad core, since you can get both. I suspect you can also force the CPU to stay as a faster dual core by disabling 2 cores at the OS level.
snakeoil - Sunday, September 13, 2009 - link
No,turbo is just overclocking.I'm going to explain you the real story behind this intel turbo mode.
intel was having a problem with core i7 920, this processor was the only affordable core i7 but it was killing the more expensive core i7 (950,975) because can be overclocked to 4.0 ghz and obtain the same performance for less money even when it has a locked multiplier.
we need to kill overclocking before overclocking kills our profits intel thought.
So intel decided to create the turbo crap story, or auto overclock.
Instead of giving overclocking as a free bonus we will create this turbo feature and begin charging for it.
that's true intel is now charging their users for the overclocking which with amd phenom 2 is free.
So intel is using all the available overclocking the processor may have and call it turbo (like turbo time in toy story).
This way they can segment their lineup, how? because they make a model overclock 600 mhz, and they can make the turbo more or less aggressive depending on their marketing needs.
Turbo mode is just overclocking, is not fairy dust, is hocus pocus
intel uses to skin some intel ignorant users.
Intel never liked the idea of giving overclocking for free, now has decided to kill overclocking because turbo auto auto overclocking consumes all available overclocking headroom, and intel can use it to charge more for a processor and to segment properly their lineup.
what's wrong with intel?
Nich0 - Sunday, September 13, 2009 - link
In the end it doesn't matter if Turbo is overclocking or not. This is a silly argument about semantics. What matters is that in their stock configuration it's fair to compare the Lynnfield with other CPUs also in their stock configuration. Which means that it's reasonable to compare an i5 750 (stock, i.e. Turbo is left on) with an equivalent AMD processor. Question is: what is an equivalent AMD processor? DIfficult to say, really.Where I live, for example, the 95W version of the 3GHz 945 is priced similarly to the 750 (it's actually a bit more expensive, but I'm guessing that this might be different in other countries), so that would be a good candidate. Similar price, similar thermal enveloppe, similar frequencies (remember that Turbo will push the frequency of the 750 between 2.8 and 3.2GHz).
But I am tempted to say: who cares, apart from the fanboys?
Ann3x - Sunday, September 13, 2009 - link
It does matter if reviewers are going to completely dismiss CPUs with no or less aggressive turbo modes.The inital review said that there was no point in any i7 below the 955. This is clearly an absurd assertion.
It is basically just because of the higher turbo mode enabled results taht anand has made this statement. As weve discussed turbo mode is really manufacturer endorsed overclocking (with slightly more sophistication) so surely the review is flawed as youre not comparing like for like.
Anyway....
Nich0 - Sunday, September 13, 2009 - link
I take it you're one of the second group of people who take exceptions with the article: no not the AMD fanboys but the proud owners of a Bloomfield, probably a 920 - or about to get one? What's wrong? Overnight it didn't become a bad CPU. It's still a fantastic piece of silicon, I'd say. Anyone who says the contrary is deluded (snakeoil anyone?). What one need to understand is that Anand's statement implies something along the lines of: with all things being equal (like retail channels maturity, which at the moment gives Bloomfield an edge) and for prospective buyers that don't need the 32 lanes of PCIE, etc...Why get so upset?
So-called 'manufacturer endorsed overclocking' has very little relevance. It's semantics. AMD is doing exactly that with their Phenom2s. Ridiculous voltages that pushes the thermal enveloppe. So what? There are 2 states for a processor: its drop-in stock state and its altered (either manually or via an auto mobo thing), i.e. OC'd state. What's wrong with comparing CPUs in their stock config? WHat's wrong with comparing OC'd CPUs at similar frequencies? I don't see it.