Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Lynnfield benchmarks up

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 4:06:45 PM

Also see these reviews out:

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/2909/intel_lynnfield_c...

http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_i7-870_i5-750_-_...

http://hothardware.com/Articles/Intel-Core-i5-and-i7-Pr...

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2352494,00.a...

http://www.techspot.com/news/36131-intel-core-i5-750-pr...

http://techreport.com/articles.x/17545

And from Dailytech's summary:

Quote:
Here's what some of the reviewers from around the web are saying about the we Lynnfield processors:

I'll start this conclusion with what AMD must do in response to Lynnfield. The Core i5 750 is a great processor at $196, in fact, it's the best quad-core CPU you can buy at that price today. In nearly every case it's faster than AMD's Phenom II X4 965 BE, despite the AMD processor costing almost another $50. Granted you can probably save some money on an integrated 785G motherboard, but if you're comparing ~$120 motherboards the AMD CPU is simply overpriced. -- AnandTech

Ultimately, Intel's has done what they set out to do with Lynnfield--bring Nehalem's features and benefits down into more mainstream price points. The new Core i5 and Core i7 800 series processors are excellent additions to Intel's already stellar CPU line-up and the P55 Express chipset is shaping up to be the darling of motherboard manufacturers and potentially the overclocking community at large. -- Hot Hardware

Intel's new Lynnfield Core i7 and Core i5 processors weren't intended to win overall performance crowns, but they came closer than many expected them to in our testing. Lynnfield indeed brings the features and performance of the Nehalem architecture to a new price point and market and in doing so will likely spark a wave of PC enthusiast upgrades this fall and winter. -- PC Perspective

a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 4:17:42 PM

Yeah, I love how some people who shall remain nameless, said that they were just rebranded core 2 775, lmao
Related resources
September 8, 2009 4:28:02 PM

Do not believe all of these evil Intel pumpers! Intel are teh evil and Evil Intel paid off all review sites to get extra FPS. Teh Lynnfield is teh evil stupid pumper because everyone wants to have dual video cards and it doesn't haven't true PCIe x16 dual lane platformance!

OMFG EVIL PUMPERS!




With all that out of the way, I am very pleased with Lynnfield. It's exciting to see that onboard PCIe controller, although it does have some limitations in dual-gpu setups, which is a niche market.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 4:55:24 PM

It's not bad, certainly better than the leaked benches suggested (yes that does make me question whether intel had to make a few payouts this week). I'll be waiting to see some european reviews before making my final decision though.

Dual gpu it's what, 20% slower at best? That is a big drawback for anyone considering it. While it's true that sli/xfire are still somewhat niche markets, i5 mobo's will have sli/xfire as standard. If you're buying for that, you've made a mistake as this cpu cannot handle two or more powerful graphics cards.

Phenom II will drop in price and the dragon will still be a far superior platform. For anyone who is not using discrete graphics or for anyone who is using multi gpu setups, there is only one system worth buying still.

If the i5 prices end up the way intel are suggesting, intel will also be losing quite a bit of money compared to what they were still getting for the ancient 775 btw. Intel throwing away money? Expect i5 prices to be a higher than advertised, no doubt intel will claim 'demand' for the reason why.
September 8, 2009 5:11:44 PM

jennyh said:
...yes that does make me question whether intel had to make a few payouts this week...

...Dual gpu it's what, 20% slower at best? That is a big drawback for anyone considering it...

...Phenom II will drop in price and the dragon will still be a far superior platform. For anyone who is not using discrete graphics or for anyone who is using multi gpu setups, there is only one system worth buying still...

...If the i5 prices end up the way intel are suggesting, intel will also be losing quite a bit of money compared to what they were still getting for the ancient 775 btw. Intel throwing away money? Expect i5 prices to be a higher than advertised, no doubt intel will claim 'demand' for the reason why...


#1 - Intel didn't pay off every i5 review in the world, get over it, i5 kicks ass no matter how green in the face you get when you scream.

#2 - GPU scalling is not a drawback for anyone considering i5, it's only a drawback for the niche market (and hopefully they'll go with a Phenom II X3 or X4, that'd be much less expensive than i7)

#3 - Dragon will be the superior platform? Please explain it's "superiority" over a similiarly priced Core i5.

#4 - Intel doesn't lose money. Look at their financials, they make money every quarter. Intel is not throwing away money, they are making money. At launch (now) i5 prices are close to what was advertised.

#5 - Socket 775 ancient? What are you smoking. Yes, it's been around for a while and is about to EOL, but calling a recent S775 "ancient" would be a misrepresentation.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 5:11:46 PM

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=19979&page=1

"Tentatively priced at £139, performance in our range of benchmarks is, somewhat surprisingly, on terms with the Intel Core 2 Q9650 (£240) and AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE (£160+)."

I guess it's all about the benchmarks you choose really. It's no worse than a 965 BE for sure but Anand's 'better in every bench' comment should be taken with a large pinch of salt.
September 8, 2009 5:15:34 PM

jennyh said:
Anand's 'better in every bench' comment should be taken with a large pinch of salt.


A pinch of salt..... Or optionally you coud look at their benchmarks and the benchmarks of other sites and see that in gaming the i5 is neck and neck and in non-gaming they pull away with definitive benchmarks wins. But that would involve bursting your AMD biased bubble.

I suggest you hide out at AMDZone.com for a while, I don't think they'll be mentioning i5 much, it's probably banned in their forum filter.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 5:17:11 PM

Quote:
#1 - Intel didn't pay off every i5 review in the world, get over it, i5 kicks ass no matter how green in the face you get when you scream.


It kicks ass? Did I see you saying that about the 965 BE?

Quote:
#2 - GPU scalling is not a drawback for anyone considering i5, it's only a drawback for the niche market (and hopefully they'll go with a Phenom II X3 or X4, that'd be much less expensive than i7)


What about people who are on the graphics forum every day asking 'should i get xyz new gpu or sli/xfire my current instead'? Most people do not buy multi-gpu setups at the start, it is something they consider later. With i5? Don't consider it and don't pretend it's as good. It isn't, the benches were pretty clear on that.

Quote:
#3 - Dragon will be the superior platform? Please explain it's "superiority" over a similiarly priced Core i5.


Far better graphics, similar cpu performance and price. How can't it be better?

Quote:
#4 - Intel doesn't lose money. Look at their financials, they make money every quarter. Intel is not throwing away money, they are making money. At launch (now) i5 prices are close to what was advertised.


I5 costs a *lot* more to make than core2.

Quote:
#5 - Socket 775 ancient? What are you smoking. Yes, it's been around for a while and is about to EOL, but calling a recent S775 "ancient" would be a misrepresentation.


It's a dead socket, on it's last legs since Phenom II and finally killed off by i55. Who would buy any Core2 now? Nobody.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 5:21:48 PM

jennyh said:
It's not bad, certainly better than the leaked benches suggested (yes that does make me question whether intel had to make a few payouts this week). I'll be waiting to see some european reviews before making my final decision though.

Dual gpu it's what, 20% slower at best? That is a big drawback for anyone considering it. While it's true that sli/xfire are still somewhat niche markets, i5 mobo's will have sli/xfire as standard. If you're buying for that, you've made a mistake as this cpu cannot handle two or more powerful graphics cards.

Phenom II will drop in price and the dragon will still be a far superior platform. For anyone who is not using discrete graphics or for anyone who is using multi gpu setups, there is only one system worth buying still.

If the i5 prices end up the way intel are suggesting, intel will also be losing quite a bit of money compared to what they were still getting for the ancient 775 btw. Intel throwing away money? Expect i5 prices to be a higher than advertised, no doubt intel will claim 'demand' for the reason why.


There's nothing preventing a mobo manufacturer from putting an i5 on a "performance" mobo with extra PCIe-16 lanes. However you yourself said SLI (and presumably Xfire) was a tiny percentage of the market, in another thread here. Sweet spot is single GPU, in which case i5 beats the pants off P2 :D . AMD will have to rename their platform as the "Draggin'", as in "draggin' your arse down" :) .

Also, you manage to contradict yourself inside of 3 sentences: "I'll be waiting to see some european reviews before making my final decision though" and 2 sentences later "there is only one system worth buying still".

In short, Badtrip is correct - your credibility just took another 16" naval gun broadside, and is listing to port rather badly now :) . I suggest breaking out the rubber life-rafts. Oh wait, we still have one more potential salvo - that little matter of AMD's return to profitability next quarter!! :D 

a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 5:22:07 PM

Megatasking beches - http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=19979&page=1...


CINEBENCH, POV-ray, and StaxRip X.264 - http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=19979&page=8

It's about the same as a 965 BE, it's not better...in fact overall the 965 BE is a tiny bit better. See this is what bugs me most about you lot, you read one review and automatically assume it's the same everywhere.

The very first site I read has the i5 almost on a par with the 965 BE. When I look closely at the benches? It's the 965 BE that is in fact, a little bit faster overall.

a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 5:25:28 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
There's nothing preventing a mobo manufacturer from putting an i5 on a "performance" mobo with extra PCIe-16 lanes. However you yourself said SLI (and presumably Xfire) was a tiny percentage of the market, in another thread here. Sweet spot is single GPU, in which case i5 beats the pants off P2 :D . AMD will have to rename their platform as the "Draggin'", as in "draggin' your arse down" :) .

Also, you manage to contradict yourself inside of 3 sentences: "I'll be waiting to see some european reviews before making my final decision though" and 2 sentences later "there is only one system worth buying still".

In short, Badtrip is correct - your credibility just took another 16" naval gun broadside, and is listing to port rather badly now :) . I suggest breaking out the rubber life-rafts. Oh wait, we still have one more potential salvo - that little matter of AMD's return to profitability next quarter!! :D 


You're a real twister of words fazers, but you ain't smart enough to catch me out.

I said that for people using igp's and muti-card setup's, there is only one platform worth buying. Once the 965 BE drops in price, it will be a superior platform overall...that's assuming the i5 platform actually ends up as advertised - and if that's the case then intel are losing money compared to what they were raking in on core2's.
September 8, 2009 5:31:15 PM

Jenny, even if you want to pretend that PII is on par with i5, there still is the issue of the i5 750 costing less, and using less electricity, plus it's a brand new socket.

We all know and acknowledge that you're not going put a dual-gpu setup into a cheap i5 board (the CPU supports 32 PCIe lanes, it's the motherboards that need to catch up). However, just like a true AMD fanboy, you now cling onto this one fact and everytime someone mentions i5 you say "BUT DOES IT SCALE WITH GPUS WELL!?!?" Get over it, most gaming rigs are not multi-gpu. And yes, if someone wanted to go multi-gpu I would probably recommend that they look at the top range of PII's X3 and X4's because of the price premium on Core i7.

People are going to stop taking you seriously because you can't give credit where it is due. You always try to defend\promote your AMD underdog at all costs, even where it is not merited.
September 8, 2009 5:33:24 PM

To be honest, on the two reviews I've read so far, the 965BE and the i5 750 were pretty neck-and-neck in almost everything. Granted, I skip synthetics and probably put more weight on gaming benches than on encoding and such.

But we've known it should be similar to this all along, when i7 came out a lot of people were upset that it's IPC wasn't much higher than C2Q, the only time it really wins out by a significant margin are highly threaded things, things where i7's HT is very useful. Take away HT for i5 and you have C2Q with some minor IPC improvements, and higher than advertised clockspeed (turbo boost).

I'm not saying i5 isn't a solid CPU, I'm just saying that it's really nothing revolutionary. It beats the 965BE fairly regularly, but by some awfully small margins most of the time. And thus far, I haven't seen why anyone says it's (better) than the i7 920, it still gets killed in highly threaded apps.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 5:39:39 PM

I did give it credit, saying it's better than expected and not bad, and certianly no worse than a 965 BE.

You lot saw anands review (how many intel ads are on that btw?) then immediately assumed it blew away the 965 in everything, when in fact, it *really* doesn't.

You know what TC, what *really* bugs me about people like you, badtrip and fazers? It's the way you said nothing about how much better the 965 was compared to the Q9650. If you assume the i5 will end up showing up better in most benches (it probably will), chances are it won't be at the same level of how much better the 965 BE was compared to the Q9650.

Now, do you want to talk about the respective prices of those 2 cpu's? No, of course you don't. It's quite amusing that you mention fanboism TC, because that is *exactly* what you are.

Where are your threads applauding the 965 BE??? Oh wait...why would intel fanboys do that huh?

Give me a break, do you think my head zips up the back?
September 8, 2009 5:54:42 PM

jennyh said:
Where are your threads applauding the 965 BE???


Wrong question. Where are my threads DISCREDITING it. You discredit Intel in almost every one of your posts. You said that Spider will be "superior" to an i5 system, but I haven't seen any superiority demonstrated.

i5 is on par with PII in gaming, but then pulls out an advantage in other benchmarks. i5 costs less, and uses less energy. It's in the sweet spot price range of ~$200. The only things it does not do is scale GPUs well or make you breakfast.

I'm not saying that AMD shouldn't be a choice, but I am saying that i5 > 965BE in nearly every situation, minus the niche of multi-GPU.

If someone was looking to spend less and still get good gaming performance I would tell them to take a look at the PII X3's. If someone was doing some heavy CPU intensive stuff and wasn't about to spend $200 on a processor, then a good PII X4 system with some AMD integrated graphics might be a good choice.

However, if you're building a gaming rig in the $600-1000 range Core i5 would be my current recomendation if AMD doesn't drastically lower prices. And even if AMD lowers prices, they still have to deal with i5 beating significantly it in many non-gaming benchmarks as well as the lower power requirements.


And your arguments trying to suggest that Intel is burning money to gain marketshare is utter BS, as Intel continues to profit and AMD is the one burning money to gain marketshare.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 5:57:25 PM

jennyh said:
You're a real twister of words fazers, but you ain't smart enough to catch me out.

I said that for people using igp's and muti-card setup's, there is only one platform worth buying. Once the 965 BE drops in price, it will be a superior platform overall...that's assuming the i5 platform actually ends up as advertised - and if that's the case then intel are losing money compared to what they were raking in on core2's.


LOL - sorry but it doesn't take a genius to catch you out. In fact, you do a very good job of it yourself, which just proved my point! :D .

Seriously - now who is gonna buy the Dragon platform with a P2-965 and use the IGP?? Oops, there went the first half of your statement - "Blub-blub -- the bow is underwater, Sir! Should we abandon ship yet?? Blub-blub..." :sol: 
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 5:59:40 PM

Where am I discrediting i5?

The only place i5 beats the 965 'significantly' is in synthetics. You know what sysmark is right?

As for the multi gpu thing, just wait until the 5800's are released in a couple of weeks and then we'll see how strained those 8x lanes are when xfired. It's a potential issue and one that needs to be made clear while you and fazers would much rather just brush it under the carpet.
September 8, 2009 5:59:54 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
Seriously - now who is gonna buy the Dragon platform with a P2-965 and use the IGP?? Oops, there went the first half of your statement - "Blub-blub -- the bow is underwater, Sir! Should we abandon ship yet?? Blub-blub..." :sol: 


But Fazers, over at AMDZone they like to pretend that people would actually play modern games at 15-20 FPS and be happy! Drink the koolaid!
September 8, 2009 6:18:05 PM

jennyh said:
The only place i5 beats the 965 'significantly' is in synthetics. You know what sysmark is right?



WRONG. More FUD. I didn't even look at synthetics. Take a look at real-world non-gaming benchmarks at any of these sites:

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/2909/intel_lynnfield_c...

http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_i7-870_i5-750_-_...

http://hothardware.com/Articles/Intel-Core-i5-and-i7-Pr...

http://www.techspot.com/news/36131-intel-core-i5-750-pr...

http://techreport.com/articles.x/17545



My threshold of signifiance starts at around 3%, although I'm sure you'll want to raise the bar of significance if you really read the benchmarks and see things like this:



AMD takes over 12% longer in that one. But maybe Tweak town is biased....




965BE takes over 25% longer... But of course that isn't significant to you... But Techgage must be biased.




Wanna unzip some files? Well be prepared to wait longer if you use a 965BE instead of an i5. But HotHardware must be biased....



Do I need to go on? Either every site is biased, or the i5 pulls ahead in both synthetic and non-synthetic CPU intensive tasks.



It's a WORLD-WIDE Anti-AMD CONSPIRACY!!! Either that or the i5 is a better CPU, especially outside of gaming, while at a cheap price and lower power requirements.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 6:19:59 PM

You keep going on about this cheaper price TC. Prove it.
September 8, 2009 6:23:47 PM

jennyh said:
You keep going on about this cheaper price TC. Prove it.


I'm glad you asked!

PII 965BE - 249.00USD on Newegg - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
i5 750 - 209.99 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I'll do the math for you too, AMD's product, while using more energy and being significantly slower in CPU intensive benchmarks costs 18.5% more on NewEgg.com!

Proven.





But it must just be a NewEgg thing, right?

WRONG.

i5 750 209.99 - TigerDirect - http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/ite...
PII 965BE - $249.99 - TigerDirect - http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/ite...


Double Proven.




But surely we can find the Phenom II 965BE cheaper elsewhere, right?

http://www.google.com/products?q=Phenom+II+965&aq=f

Wrong.

You fail.

You just in your mind pointed out the Ewiz.com (who the hell are they) listing with the 965BE for $239.99, but don't worry, click on it, it's actually 249.99.

You still fail.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 6:25:31 PM

And with mobo and cooler?
September 8, 2009 6:28:20 PM

jennyh said:
Megatasking beches - http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=19979&page=1...


CINEBENCH, POV-ray, and StaxRip X.264 - http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=19979&page=8

It's about the same as a 965 BE, it's not better...in fact overall the 965 BE is a tiny bit better. See this is what bugs me most about you lot, you read one review and automatically assume it's the same everywhere.

The very first site I read has the i5 almost on a par with the 965 BE. When I look closely at the benches? It's the 965 BE that is in fact, a little bit faster overall.



If we're talking about just which CPU is the fastest, from your benchmarks, they are basically even. The 750 pulls a lead in cinebench and StaxRip. The pII 965 gains a pretty good lead in Pov. In the Megatasking benchies, it's overall a 1 point difference.

If we're talking about price, they'll probably end up being a $80 difference once the pII drops in price for the first 3-4 months. But after that, the difference will probably drop to about $20-40.

Strictly in terms of which is the better architecture, the i5 wins. We're comparing a 2.66ghz cpu to a 3.4ghz cpu where it basically is even at this frequency. Even in single threaded applications where turbo for the i5-750 hits 3.2ghz, it is still at a clock disadvantage. Therefore I believe it is not incorrect in saying that the i5 is a superior CPU.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 6:32:33 PM

the above was for TC, not you dna.
September 8, 2009 6:32:37 PM

Oh crap I read the x264 wrong..... but I already acknowledged Pov-ray was significant...
September 8, 2009 6:32:56 PM

oh... again
September 8, 2009 6:35:53 PM

jennyh said:
And with mobo and cooler?


Motherboards are slightly more expensive for the i5 at launch (this will change as time goes on), but you can still come out cheaper at the end than a similiarly featured PII motherboard.

Both the AMD part and the Intel parts come with coolers, so no need to buy a cooler unless you're going to OC the crap out of it.


Getting into motherboard selection is a bit more subjective, so I'm not going to start putting together combos, but keep in mind that you're saving ~$40 on the CPU, you can afford to put a little more into the motherboard and still save money AND get a better lower power processor.



PS - Newegg just dropped the 965BE by $5 to $245.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 6:36:40 PM

jennyh said:
Where am I discrediting i5?

The only place i5 beats the 965 'significantly' is in synthetics. You know what sysmark is right?

As for the multi gpu thing, just wait until the 5800's are released in a couple of weeks and then we'll see how strained those 8x lanes are when xfired. It's a potential issue and one that needs to be made clear while you and fazers would much rather just brush it under the carpet.


Considering, by your own prior statements, just how big the Xfire or SLI multi-GPU market is, I'd say we're brushing it under the throw-rug, not a full-sized carpet :D .

Just wait - there'll be performance P55 mobos out catering to the 2x, 3x even 4x GPU markets, if not out already.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 6:38:24 PM

More likely it's better due to HKMG which AMD don't have yet.

Point is, AMD will lower the price of the 965 BE, probably within a week. Then you'll have what is a practically identically performing cpu for significantly less than the i5 when the entire platform is considered.

I'd also want to wait until ATI get the 5xxx radeon's out too just to see how much two of them will strain the 8x pci-e on these i5's.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 6:44:21 PM

Nice to see the anti Intel FUD machine is getting it's excercise today... Though I do note it's TDP seems to has gone up.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 6:46:27 PM

Wait a minute...

Anand benching with turbo enabled? ROFL. What do you have to say about that TC?

I'm looking to forward to this.
September 8, 2009 6:47:22 PM

jennyh said:
Point is, AMD will lower the price of the 965 BE, probably within a week. Then you'll have what is a practically identically performing cpu for significantly less than the i5 when the entire platform is considered.

I'd also want to wait until ATI get the 5xxx radeon's out too just to see how much two of them will strain the 8x pci-e on these i5's.



Ahhh, now that I've proven that the i5 is cheap you've gone 88 miles an hour into the future! Nice!


#1 - AMD will have to REALLY lower the price of the 965BE, down into the sub $200 USD basement. AMD's flagship processor, selling for $190-200 to be competitive.

#2 - We already acknowledge that gaming performance is near identical (no significant difference is there). However, non-gaming (including real world) performance is significantly better with i5 across many benchmarks done by many sites.

#3 - The i5 also uses less power




But if you do want to 88 miles an hour time-warp into the future then this would happen:
- AMD lowers pricing on products to better compete with i5 750
- More i5 motherboards are released and start to become more inline with the pricing of AMD motherboards (so the total cost of an i5 system is going to go down)
- i5 750 pricing goes down as initial demand starts to lower down into what the normal demand will be (this should shave $5-$10 off the cpu price)
- Better i5 motherboards are released that allow multi-GPU setups using two x16 lanes as the processor has 32 lanes available on the on-die controller (and as Fanboys always proclaim, an on-die control are teh superiority platformance megatasker)


You can't fast-forward into the future and only benefit your side of the argument and not the other.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 6:48:03 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
But Fazers, over at AMDZone they like to pretend that people would actually play modern games at 15-20 FPS and be happy! Drink the koolaid!


LOL - well I believe I'm allergic to green food coloring :) .

AMDZone is rapidly going downhill IMO, after making Abinstein a mod. Even the AMD fanbois who drink the koolaid, but dare question anything about AMD's product lineup or business acumen usually wind up getting the banhammer after a while.
September 8, 2009 6:49:35 PM

jennyh said:
Anand benching with turbo enabled? ROFL. What do you have to say about that TC?

I'm looking to forward to this.


Why wouldn't you benchmark with Turbo enabled? It's a true product offering and it comes out of the box like that. I'd be interested to see what the numbers are with it off, but who is going to buy an i5 750 and turn turbo off?


It would be like me saying, "Ha, benchmarking an AMD processor with the HT link at stock frequency. What do YOU have to say about THAT!?!?!"
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 6:52:13 PM

Rofl what a total fraud.

Benchmarks with turbo enabled, GG. Now tell me that these reviews weren't paid for out of intel's propaganda department.
September 8, 2009 6:59:36 PM

I mean, even with turbo at its highest (3.2ghz) it is still at a disadvantage clockspeed wise. But it manages to basically be even with the pII 965 which is at 3.4ghz.

Didn't anand explain turbo was going to be used throughout the review?
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 7:00:55 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Why wouldn't you benchmark with Turbo enabled? It's a true product offering and it comes out of the box like that. I'd be interested to see what the numbers are with it off, but who is going to buy an i5 750 and turn turbo off?


What about people in hot countries...with bad cases, or maybe they just have a hot room.

Is turbo guaranteed to work? What does it say about turbo on the warranty?

Are these benchmarks just an overclocked i5 vs a stock 965 BE?

The very nature of the turbo made makes it too difficult to say, but hell if turbo is working as it should, you're talking almost 600mhz above norm.

You want to OC the 965 BE to 4ghz then do those benches again?

Once again, intel prove that they are superb marketers, and a lot of people will fall for it.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 7:02:24 PM

jennyh said:
More likely it's better due to HKMG which AMD don't have yet.

Point is, AMD will lower the price of the 965 BE, probably within a week.


So will AMD be offering refunds to the OEMs stocking up on P2s who paid a higher price already? Not likely, considering their financial situation. So now HP will have to eat the higher CPU cost with their lower-priced systems...

This won't earn AMD much goodwill with said OEMs, who like to plan out their inventory purchases in advance and with knowing how much the components cost and how much they can sell their products for, in the all-important 4th quarter holiday season.

Nuttin' like getting blind-sided by your supplier, eh?? :bounce: 
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 7:05:49 PM

dna708 said:
I mean, even with turbo at its highest (3.2ghz) it is still at a disadvantage clockspeed wise. But it manages to basically be even with the pII 965 which is at 3.4ghz.

Didn't anand explain turbo was going to be used throughout the review?


The exact same could be said about the core2s. The intel's have a higher ipc, that's why they are faster clock for clock.

On the other hand, if this i5 could have been released at 3.4ghz, I'm sure it would have been (at a much higher price ofc).

Cpu's have to meet certain thresholds at certain temps etc. Turbo mode? Why not just release it at 3.2ghz?
September 8, 2009 7:06:15 PM

Hrmm I never though about it that way (as in I never thought of it as an oc over a feature).

Well looking at power consumption, even at max load (a 4 cores up to 2.93ghz) it's within its specifications.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 7:07:06 PM

Overclock your Q9650 (if you have one :p ) to 3.2ghz and see how your scores compare to this 'wonderful' i5. You might be quite suprised.
September 8, 2009 7:21:31 PM

jennyh said:
What about people in hot countries...with bad cases, or maybe they just have a hot room.


One second... Still laughing...
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 7:27:18 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
One second... Still laughing...


You know it's 3.2ghz *maximum* right TC?

Do you really believe that this turbo would go to 3.2ghz (on a stock cooler especially), in the middle of summer in someplace like Australia?

Or do you think it would decide to stay at 2.6ghz?
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 7:33:19 PM

...because everyone knows Australians haven't invented air conditioning yet. Rumor has it their power grid involves treadmills, bunches of carrots, several donkeys, and the odd illegal immigrant.... Puhleeeze - This entire line of questioning is asinine.

Quit whining: It's a stock feature of the chip. End of discussion.



{Edit to add the following. The reason why will become abundantly clear to any/all readers of this thread}


Thought the below might be helpful:

http://www.techterms.com/definition/overclocking

Quote:
Overclocking involves increasing the clock speed of the computer's CPU past the rate at which it was originally designed to run.



http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/o/overclock.html

Quote:
To run a microprocessor faster than the speed for which it has been tested and approved.




September 8, 2009 7:38:44 PM

jennyh said:
You know it's 3.2ghz *maximum* right TC?

Do you really believe that this turbo would go to 3.2ghz (on a stock cooler especially), in the middle of summer in someplace like Australia?

Or do you think it would decide to stay at 2.6ghz?



So let me get this straight, you're trying to diminish a Core i5 feature because someone might be operating it a condition with no climate control in 100F+ heat?



So your argument is that Phenom II is better if you shut off certain features of i5, must use multiple GPUs, must have the urge to run pov-ray, and must also have the urge to fly to the outback and run your machine outside in the middle of the freaking desert in a case of a former e-machine with the fans unplugged?



Scotteq said:
Quit whining: It's a stock feature of the chip. End of discussion.


+1


Still laughing...
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 7:49:42 PM

Lol whining? I'm the one laughing at you lot.

This is a step backwards from core2 lol. At 3.2ghz it barely beats the 965 BE at 3.4ghz. Even the core2's were better than that.

Sad, sad intel sycophants who would believe anything.

If you consider anand got theirs to 3.9ghz, and a 965 BE will reach 4ghz without breaking sweat...that's really close even at top overclocks.

So yep, can you say backwards step? I wonder how many of you will be 'upgrading' to this mediocre cpu?
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 7:53:13 PM

You realise I can 'turbo' my 940 BE by running overdrive and fusion for gaming right?

Wonder why we don't see those 'features' in reviews huh?

Complete farce, intel found out, intel fanbois proving they are as gullible as ever.
September 8, 2009 7:54:23 PM

jennyh said:
This is a step backwards from core2 lol. At 3.2ghz it barely beats the 965 BE at 3.4ghz.



LOL

Intel's brand new mid-range processors beats AMD's best processor which is clocked signifcantly higher? You do know that turbo doesn't run the entire chip at 3.2? And costs $40 less? And AMD somehow wins in your mind? Right? You're slinging more falsehoods and misinformation.

Just wait until Intel releases the next, higher clocked i5. AMD is already at 140 watts and is running out of headroom.



JennyH - Misrepresentations, lies, and complex "what if you needs to run multiple GPU's in the Aussie desert" scenarios. Another hopeless AMD FanTool.



ALL HAIL HECTOR!
!