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
Oh so were going for the "you must be an XXXX" tactic..... Implied bias if you cant actually argue the point. Ok then.No, actually I run multiple PCs, a Q6600 a 920, a C2D and a phenom 2 for a variety of purposes (server, gaming x2, work and multimedia), I also do some system building (and pre sale overclocking). I dont intend to change machines personally in the next few months so consider me an interested observer.
What I object to is simply the supposedly unbiased reviewer making such a retarded statement.
I totally agree that the new chips are pretty good. However the review makes it sound like theyre a huge leap forward when infact theyre simply intel realising they have headroom in their architecture.
Hell, Im much more interested in the integrated PCI-E than the gimmick of turbo mode.
As for the semantics thing. Yes it is semantics. Hence why Im bothered about anand making a such a song and dance about it. The new i7s are damn good cpus but to suggest the performance increase is due to anything other than the "overclock" of the aggressive turbo mode (which is something attainable EASILY by the old i7s) is totally fanciful.
Inkie - Sunday, September 13, 2009 - link
Turbo Mode is not a gimmick. It offers real world benefits in real world situations, without exceeding the specifications of the processor.Ann3x - Monday, September 14, 2009 - link
Look, I totally agree an aggressive turbo mode is a good thing for the average consumer. The merits of turbo mode are not in debate. Its unequivocally a good thing for the average buyer.The ONLY thing I disagree with about the review is the massive amount of guff thats been put out making out that turbo mode is a revolution. Its really not.
Its quite simply intel realising the headroom they have in their architecture and cleverly doing something useful with it (coincidentally exactly what overclocking also does).
The assessment of this is what I disagree with.
When a review site is aiming at a tech audience (like anand does) surely there has to be some differentiation between the audience and the average consumer? If the review had said something like "For the non technical user the new CPUs offer much more than the current i7 lineup" Then Idve totally agreed with it. As it was the review uses the emotive and totally wrong assertation that "there no point in any i7 below the 965". Thats just stupid.
Imo actually the real situation at enthusiast level is that there is NO justification (unless money is genuinely no object) in any i7 except the new CPUs (for people who dont know how/are unwilling to overclock) and the 920 (as it pretty much always clocks to similar levels as the 965 anyway).
So, to me, anand totally missed the point (given the audience) with the inital assessment. This is what disappointed me, this is what Im bothering to argue about.
And for the record its highly ironic that the people calling others "fanboys and morons" tend to be the ones who dont back up theri points. Take a step back, THINK and perhaps youll see that some of us are actually talking sense rather than blindly reading a review and cheer leading.
Inkie - Monday, September 14, 2009 - link
Not quite sure why that was a reply to me. Apparently you agree with what I said. You called Turbo Mode a gimmick. Now you say it is not a gimmick. End of story.Ann3x - Monday, September 14, 2009 - link
It is a gimmick in that it is just what we had before (overclocking) wrapped up in marketing speak. Nothing new just assistance for the brain dead.It is however a useful gimmick as the majority of consumers are retarded and dont know how to get the most from their CPUs.
Clear enough for you smartass?
Inkie - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
So, before we could selectively increase the clock on particularly cores according to core loading conditions? Perhaps looking at the Xeons will help you understand. One model is a 45W TDP model with a 1.86GHz clock. However, it has the ability to Turbo past 3GHz, all within the specifications of the processor.Nich0 - Monday, September 14, 2009 - link
I don't know if your last paragraph was aimed at me, but I didn't call YOU a fanboy. OK maybe categorizing you as a 920 owner might have been a 'cheap shot' but it sure did hit the target.Now to come back to matters at hand. Nobody denies that the 920, 750 and 860/870 are based on the same micro-architecture. And Gary's preliminary results of these CPU OC'd at the same frequencies show near identical performance. But the main difference is that now we have a mainstream processor as opposed to an enthusiast, which means that in a lot of cases it's going to be left in its stock state: large OEMs like Dell or HP, people who can't or won't OC, etc... And for these situations, it seems that for example, the 860 is a better processor than the 920. Sure it's a close match but at least the 920 keeps its dignity. Imagine if Intel had come out with the 860 at 3.06GHz with no Turbo in 3/4C and just a 3 Turbo in 1/2C. It would have been a massive slap in the 920 owners face. Also the Turbo allows Intel to keep the TDP to reasonable levels. The 860 is probably more often than not a 3.06GHz (minimum) processor but you can't call it that because it will throttle back to 2.8GHz in some circumstances. And it's OC'd performance is almost identical to that of the 920 (it would appear). Again there are some cases where you are better served by the 920. Clearly. But the fact remains that soon enough you will have combos mobo+860 a good deal cheaper than 920+mobo and for 'better' performance. Hence Anand's statement.
Roland00 - Saturday, September 12, 2009 - link
this is exactly what i was looking for, I am waiting for the other tests you will post later.I sell prebuilt oem computers, hp/compaq, gateway/acer, lenovo, etc so the first article is what I need to know for my business.
At the same time, I build my computer as well as several of my friends so what a cpu oc to matters a lot and what I recommend on that front.
setzer - Saturday, September 12, 2009 - link
I know this might come too late for this specific review, but maybe you guys could do this one later.Okay, most of the reviews seen for the i5/i7 cpus are compared to amd's top of the line Phenom II X4 965 BE, while this is perfectly valid to compare top of the line cpu's, it's also a 140W processor, and the power consumption tests show that, also the board used to test said cpus is also a top of the line board which in my opinion doesn't compare well with P55 based boards and their moto.
So what I'm asking is if it's possible to compare offers from AMD and Intel in their usual configurations as in, mid-range.
This would probably be a 785G board paired with a 65w (P2 x4 905e/x3 705e) or 95w processor (P2 x4 945/P2 x4 720).
For the intel camp, this would be a P45 board with the usual suspects (up to the Q9550 and their low power versions if you have them around).
As for the new brothers in arms, the i5 750 and i7 860 would be my choices (even if the 860 has a current asking price a bit out of the league of the previous cpus, it's the only new one with ht enabled).
Don't take me wrong, I, like most of the readers, like to see new hardware pushed to the limit, but at the end of the day my personal computing goals are much more mid-range oriented and I just don't see justification in passing the monetary range of the choices I listed above.
Think of it as AT for the masses of poor economy people that still want something new :P
coconutboy - Saturday, September 12, 2009 - link
Saw the drama queens throwing their hissy fit over how things "should" be tested. Those clowns need to realize they do NOT speak for most users, they're just a vocal minority. I skipped most of the remaining comments so sorry if I missed something.I'm building two new systems, one w/ a i7 920 and another with a either an i5 750 or i7 860. My lady and I want these specifically for gaming and plan on doing mild OCing w/ minimal voltage increase (preferably none, but looks like p55-based cpus demand at least a tad extra voltage). Gaming benchmarks showing this scenario are helpful and I look forward to updates/articles comparing p55 versus x58.
More wish list: with the lowered power draw of p55 setups, I'd love to see what's being sucked outta our wall outlets under OC'd/SLI/Xfire setups since this can mean an extra ~$50 for a beefier power supply.