Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

General discussion AMD vs Intel, LGA775, Nehalem, etc

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • FPS
  • Intel i5
  • Gigabyte
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
August 26, 2009 10:33:23 PM

Here are some benchmarks from an i5-750. The set up is as follows:

i5-750 2.55GHz 8MB L3
Gigabyte GA-P55M-UD2
4 x 2GB Corsair XMS3 1600C8
XFX GTX285 1GB
SuperTalent UltraDrive ME Series 64GB 2.5" MLC SSD
Gigabyte ODIN 800W PSU

Windows XP SP3 32-bit to start with, 64-bit might be later. The memory stays at 8GB for all tests (no need to point out the memory limit with 32-bit).

Results:

3D Mark 06 17,098
SM2.0 6,910
SM3.0 7,971
CPU 4,691

PC Mark 05 12,562

Crysis benchmark tool

DX9 1400x960 Medium
AA=No AA, Last Average FPS: 72.43
AA=2x, Last Average FPS: 64.75
AA=4x, Last Average FPS: 61.63
AA=8x, Last Average FPS: 59.88
AA=8xQ, Last Average FPS: 51.69
AA=16x, Last Average FPS: 58.71
AA=16xQ, Last Average FPS: 47.95

DX9 1400x900 High
AA=No AA, Last Average FPS: 54.90
AA=2x, Last Average FPS: 52.23
AA=4x, Last Average FPS: 49.43
AA=8x, Last Average FPS: 47.96
AA=8xQ, Last Average FPS: 41.87
AA=16x, Last Average FPS: 46.91
AA=16xQ, Last Average FPS: 39.22

PC User - UserBench Encode 2009 score 50.05
Audio 1m36s, 6.78MB/s, score 29.68
Video 0m42s, 178.41fps, score 50.055

More about : general discussion amd intel lga775 nehalem

August 26, 2009 10:56:17 PM

Nice results... the i5 is out though? I wasn't aware..
August 26, 2009 11:53:57 PM

it's not officially available as a Retail yet but of course reviewers can always get there hands on reference design alpha parts.
Regards :D  .
Related resources
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 2:51:28 AM

there r 1 0r 2 retail outlets in europe and japan selling already
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 3:44:15 AM

This cpu is from a retail box and is not a reference design alpha parts or similar, just to clarify.

Label on the retail box indicates the following:
Prod code: BX8060515750
MM#: 903877
FPO/Batch#: L925B626
S-spec: SLBLC
EAN: 5032037009737
UPC: 735858210485
Ver#:E73051-001
Pack Date: 08/07/09
Made in Malaysia

These are available in retail box now in Australia and are selling at about $333.00 (USD273.00) and the i7-860 at about $440.00 (USD360.00). I've not found any i7-870 available as yet.

Some further benchmarks running at 3.2GHz:

3D Mark 06 19,019
SM2.0 7,883
SM3.0 8,545
CPU 5,363

PC Mark 05 13,800 (nice, neat number).

I'll post the Crysis results at 3.2GHz soon.
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 8:56:54 AM

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.
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 10:17:01 AM

Lastly, some pics:

motherboard







retail box


motherboard with memory modules


cpu in socket


The end.
August 27, 2009 1:41:58 PM

It looks pretty sweet.
BTW how did you get it. Is it better than the Phenom2 X4 965
August 27, 2009 1:44:55 PM

does anyone happen to know how say the i7 920 or phenom ii x4 955 performs on these benchmarks? It's hard to judge how good this chip is without a reference point?
August 27, 2009 2:28:23 PM

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) :p 
August 27, 2009 5:53:27 PM

i knew it would pay off to wait for the lynfields :) 
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 10:04:18 PM

@ 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/forum/253894-29-4ghz-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.
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 10:23:29 PM

Hmmm...good results.
August 28, 2009 1:00:04 AM

Impressive. Looks like another good CPU by intel.
August 28, 2009 1:12:05 AM

yea another good one by intel, i liked this one the only thing that it lacks is memory triple channel, why they made dual channel?
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 1:52:34 AM

Mediocre.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 2:39:47 AM

Would be nice to see some screenshots......

not convinced yet......
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 3:10:38 AM

Screenshots at 3.4GHz



a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 3:40:26 AM

AMD is on the BRINK

WHERE IS BULLDOZER?!?!
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 3:54:10 AM

jennyh said:
Mediocre.


like your posting skills?
August 28, 2009 4:48:35 AM

^haha, that cpu looks almost two good to be true, a quad core beating a dual "quad" core, in a synthetic, man.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 12:38:14 PM

Ok repeat after me...

"CORE2 REBRAND"

It never ceases to amaze me how many people get suckered by intel's yearly rebranding scheme.
August 28, 2009 12:54:01 PM

Hey Seabreeze can you tell me if your gigabyte motherboard when it is not overclocked and turbo is on, what speed the cpu stays at?
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 12:54:19 PM

Upendra09 said:
AMD is on the BRINK

WHERE IS BULLDOZER?!?!


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!).
August 28, 2009 2:06:33 PM

jennyh said:
Ok repeat after me...

"CORE2 REBRAND"

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


How is it a core 2 rebrand, ( well it partly is, I agree with you) but it's a different chip and a different size chip, 45nm vs 32nm (?).
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 2:12:52 PM

Core I5 doesn't have 32nm.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 2:23:12 PM

cryslayer

but will AMD be able to release it is my point.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 2:24:41 PM

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.
August 28, 2009 3:28:52 PM

Not exactly. Core i5 covers a swath of sub-products. The 7xx series is four-core 45nm monolithic with no HT, the 6xx series is two core 32nm with HT and graphics (on 45nm).

If by "a couple of architecture revisions" you mean "the addition of an entire northbridge", then I suppose you're somewhere in the ball park. Way out in left field, though.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 4:28:05 PM

jennyh said:
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 :sarcastic:  ), 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.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 5:06:48 PM

Ok seriously. Turbo mode? That's as plain a marketing trick as I've seen.

Let's get down to the real fact here - this i5 750 is no more powerful than what intel and AMD already have. End users don't care about northbridges on cpu's, but that's one sure way of getting them to have to buy a new mobo also isnt it?

It's not rebranding? It's worse than rebranding imo. It's selling the same powered cpu with stuff nobody needs and marketing ploys. Why? Because intel *need* to sell chips and they will stoop to any level in order to do it.

I5 750 = what, Q9450 with turbo? Overclock your 9450 and save yourself from needing to buy a new mobo too.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 5:08:51 PM

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.
August 28, 2009 5:14:59 PM

Thank you, jennyh. Always entertaining.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 5:21:39 PM

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?
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 5:26:53 PM

I can explain Ovrclkr.

It exists to give a tiny performance increase over what intel already have available at the price point, however it will cost you a new mobo if you want it.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 5:28:12 PM

jennyh said:
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.

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.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 5:40:26 PM

I guess what he was trying to point out is the fact that if you are going to buy an i5 you end up in the same situation as the i7 where you have to buy a new mobo and ram.....

Far different from AMD's perspective of price to performance, where all you have to do is buy a new CPU and slap it on the mobo..... AM2/AM2+/AM3 mobos.....

If intel would have done exactly the same as AMD did, AMD would be a thing of the past and Intel would be our only option.......
August 28, 2009 5:41:26 PM

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.
August 28, 2009 5:47:04 PM

Some of the i5s are 32nm, just not all. Confusion reigns. :( 

i5 has a "mainstream" target market, yes.

Laptops are a whole different story, with their own levels of i7, i5, and i3.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 5:57:11 PM

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.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 6:28:46 PM

why is intel keeping pentiums tho?? i don't get iot, the get rid of superior processors but keep the lower end ones just to add even more superior procs so it goes

Pentium dual cores/i3/i5/i7/i9

why?
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 6:42:18 PM

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.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 6:48:08 PM

so are celeries finally gone?!?!?!?!?
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 9:34:00 PM

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.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 9:38:58 PM

Would be nice to see Intel keep a socket for a couple of years, then once it is time to upgrade all we have to do is buy another CPU and not a CPU/RAM/MOBO combo.....
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 9:44:12 PM

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.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 9:48:22 PM

Yea but just cause the mobo is LGA775 does not mean ALL 775 chips are compatible on that same mobo and that is where Intel dropped the ball.... Like I said If Intel would have done the same as AMD as far as the CPU/RAM/MOBO compatability then AMD would be toast by now......

For example : My 780a board uses any and I say ANY AM2/AM2+/AM3 CPU..... Intel mobos are not capable of such a thing......
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 9:51:32 PM

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....
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 9:56:35 PM

Well lol yes thats true. I keep forgetting that 775 and 775 are two completely different things, depending on when you bought them.

The best cpu my friends mobo could take was a q6600 i think. She'd have been happy with that but instead opted for a 940 BE which she plugged into my 1 year old AM2 mobo. 2 years down the line she will probably be able to do the same, or at least add a better cpu to an old system.

With intel? Nope, you're stuck with what you had at the start, and you get a few upgrades if lucky. Then a new socket comes out and you're forgotten about.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 10:02:54 PM

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.
    • 1 / 10
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!