General discussion AMD vs Intel, LGA775, Nehalem, etc

Nice results... the i5 is out though? I wasn't aware..

there r 1 0r 2 retail outlets in europe and japan selling already

Crysis at 3.2GHz:

DX9 1400x1050 Medium
AA=No AA, Last Average FPS: 92.81
AA=2x, Last Average FPS: 76.57
AA=4x, Last Average FPS: 70.06
AA=8x, Last Average FPS: 66.71
AA=8xQ, Last Average FPS: 56.84
AA=16x, Last Average FPS: 64.96
AA=16xQ, Last Average FPS: 52.80

DX9 1400x1050 High
AA=No AA, Last Average FPS: 64.03
AA=2x, Last Average FPS: 60.22
AA=4x, Last Average FPS: 55.05
AA=8x, Last Average FPS: 52.86
AA=8xQ, Last Average FPS: 45.76
AA=16x, Last Average FPS: 51.48
AA=16xQ, Last Average FPS: 42.81

PC User - UserBench Encode 2009 score 57.12
Audio 1m24s, 7.74MB/s, score 33.87
Video 0m36s, 203.49fps, score 110.13

Anyway, for those interested in any results from 3.3GHz onwards, I'll start another thread in the Overclocking->CPU section.

It looks pretty sweet.
BTW how did you get it. Is it better than the Phenom2 X4 965

Pictures on the benchies would have been nice This is very interesting, I will surely lay my hands on a P55 motherboard and a LGA1156 cpu, not sure if I will get one with HT though.

btw it is i5 750, isn't it?(it says 720)

@ Sean1234, these components were purchased through one of three distributors in Australia who currently have stock.

Is it better then the PII X4 965? With the i5-750 and i5-860 in stock I thought it possible the price of the X4 965 might drop, but it's not happening yet, if at all. The X4 965 is $350.00 here (USD287.00) while the i5-750 is $333.00 (USD273.00), making the X4 965 slightly more expensive to buy.

I do, however, have some benchmarks from the X4 940BE with 2 x HD4850 in crossfire.

at 3.0GHz
3D Mark 06 16,715
SM2.0 6,377
SM3.0 8,221
CPU 4,530
PC Mark 05 8,367

at 3.2GHz
3D Mark 06 17,394
SM2.0 6,723
SM3.0 8,404
CPU 4,785
PC Mark 05 8,734

at 3.36GHz (I don't have a 3.4GHz record to compare to the PII X4 965, but this is close)
3D Mark 06 18,098
SM2.0 7,033
SM3.0 8,673
CPU 5,016
PC Mark 05 8,845

at 3.5GHz
3D Mark 06 18,494
SM2.0 7,230
SM3.0 8,769
CPU 5,186
PC Mark 05 9,433

at 3.6GHz
3D Mark 06 18,632
SM2.0 7,167 (lower than previous)
SM3.0 8,924
CPU 5,258
PC Mark 05 9,369

This last speed was not as stable as I'd like, but it ran the benchmarks nonetheless. Notice the cpu score of 5,258 which is less than the i5-750 score of 5,363 at a slower speed (3.2GHz).

You can find over clocked results and screen shots in this thread =http://www.tomshardware.com/f [...] hz-onwards

I can appreciate that the Futuremark benching programs are not everyone's preference for bench testing, but they provide a starting point for comparisons.

Impressive. Looks like another good CPU by intel.

Mediocre.

Screenshots at 3.4GHz

like your posting skills?

Ok repeat after me...

"CORE2 REBRAND"

It never ceases to amaze me how many people get suckered by intel's yearly rebranding scheme.

Haha, on the brink why? Their 965 is a great competitor to Q9650 and I7 920, how will a medicore I5 change things? Bulldozer is coming in early 2011, will have 6-8 cores, hyperthreading (although it won't be called that way), DDR4, quad-channel memory and lots of other goodies. There will also be a bit weaker version with a graphics card onboard (finally, the darn fusion!).

Core I5 doesn't have 32nm.

Core i5 is a 45nm cpu with no hyperthreading. The only difference between it and old core2's is the 8mb cache (6mb on q9400, 12mb on higher q9 series) and a couple of architecture revisions.

It's a rebadged Core 2, dressed up intel fashion to make people believe they are buying something new when they really aren't.

On those posted benchmarks, it is no better than a 955 BE. This is intels top Core i5 and it's about as good as a Phenom II.

A couple of architecture revisions?

That's rich. The CPU core is changed fairly significantly (including new power capabilities and several new SSE extensions), the CPU has an IMC and integrated PCI-E controller (or was that available on the Core 2 line - I can't remember ), and the new CPU also has fairly extensive turbo mode capabilities. Just because the performance is similar in some tasks does not make this a rebranding any more than the 4670 was a rebranded 3870.

Now, if you want true rebranding, look at Nvidia.

As for your 4670 rebranded 3870 point, it's not the same because you didnt have to go out and buy a new mobo for the 'same' level of performance gains.

I really don't know what all the fuss is about.... it is clear that the 750 will not be as fast as the 920....Maybe a tad faster than an E8600 due to the DDR3, but thats about it.... I don't know why everyone is so hyped up about the i5's..... Basically a chip that finds itself in the middle... C2D / i5 / i7 .......... Can someone explain to me what will the i5 do that has not been done yet by any other current/comparable CPU?

Intel isn't forcing anyone to go out and buy a new mobo. The i5 isn't a bad choice though if it is priced well for someone who still has something like an old P4 or Athlon 64 and needs a replacement. They'll need a new mobo anyway.

Oh, and also, whether or not you need a new mobo is irrelevant for my point about rebranding. Despite their similar performance the 4670 isn't a rebranded 3870 because architecturally, they have differences. Fairly significant differences. The same is true of the i5. Value is irrelevant - Nvidia could price the GTS 240 as low as they want, and it's still basically a higher clocked 9800GT, which is itself a rebranded 8800GT. That's rebranding - a new name for what is essentially the same product. That is not at all what Intel is doing with the i5 - Intel is if anything somewhat following what the video card manufacturers used to do. The new low-midrange part is similar performance to what used to be a higher end part, at a lower cost, with a few more features, and slightly better power management.

Oops my mistake i thought that the i5's were 32nm CPU's my bad.

but besides that aren't the i5's and all of intel's new CPU's mareketed more toward, normal computer users, for laptops and home desktops not enthusiast. Basically aren't they going to be trying to make more money of OEM processors not retail.

My 1.5+ year old q6600 (stock 2.4ghz) is clocked at 3.2ghz right now and hits 5400 on 3dmark... (cpu part) its 14500 something but I've just got an old 8800gt video card.

The i5 is a good platform to build a new computer with.. its just not a good platform to "upgrade to" for a performance increase.

my 2 cents.

Actually, that's sort of the opposite of rebranding. They're keeping the Pentium name for the low end, but they are still changing the architecture. Current Pentiums are Core 2 dies, but with less cache and a lower clock speed.

Oh, new socket = new cooler too. I only realised that tonight when I read a fairly indepth review of it.

So basically, this will be yet another intel that can't be used for upgrading. When do you get tired of that?

Are people gonna be saying '1156 will be around for 5 years, it's really upgradeable' etc? Intel will not hold their own progress back by caring about upgrade paths etc - how many times do they have to prove it before you understand? How many different sockets do intel need to have going before you figure it out?

This cpu is no better than a Phenom II quad. It won't cost less no, because the Phenom II's will drop in price when it is released. You will still pay more for an intel mobo with igp's that cannot match AMD's, and your i5 setup will be useless in 2 years time because intel decided to add usb ports to their cpu's while people using AM3 mobos will still be plugging in the top end AMD cpu's.

No wonder intel make so much cash when their buyers buy what is practically the same performing cpu two-three times over. If you have *any* intel quad and 'upgrade' to this, you've just handed them money for next to nothing.

775 lasted 3 years, which is good...and amazing for intel.

Then again, the i5's aren't exactly any better than Q6600's. Nothing you'd actually notice except in your bank balance.

Think about that. Q6600 was released in January 2007. 30 months later, the i5 750 comes out and the difference is almost unnoticable except in synthetic benchmarks.

Another example : My Dell XPS 410 came with a pent D 2.8Ghz (LGA 775) CPU, but when it was time for an upgrade I tried installing a C2D (LGA 775) and to my surprise it was not compatible....lol that is just ridiculous..... the only CPU I could upgrade to was the pentium D EE and the price of that chip was ridiculous as well.... shame on Intel....

Jennyh stop putting down intel, they aren't bad, they are just faster and smarter than AMD, and not all mobos from AMD are upgradable, like am2/am2+ mobos can't have ddr3 neither can am2+/am3 it has to only be am3.

and i am not intel fanboy i just like whichever has better price/performance ratio.