Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Core i5-750S: 82W TDP

Intel Core i5-750S: Since When Does The S Mean Slow?
By

Based on exactly the same silicon, the S-model looks and feels like the regular Core i5-750. The main difference in everyday operation is its maximum power, which is limited to 82W instead of the regular 95W. This 13W reduction isn't nearly as impressive as the 30W drop it ensured with the Core 2-class equivalents.

Core i5-750S: 82 W TDP instead of 95 W.Core i5-750S: 82 W TDP instead of 95 W.

Most likely, the new specifications will limit power consumption and thermal dissipation to levels suited to components created for a 65W power envelope. Idle power isn’t an issue, and system peak power consumption is clearly lower on the Core i5-750S than on the regular model. From this perspective, Intel’s S-model lives up to expectations.

However, Intel doesn't seem to have introduced any special options that would allow these processors to run at decreased voltage levels. Ultimately, such options are what made all of the existing Core 2 S-class CPUs more efficient.

Intel instead applies a much simpler tweak to bring power down. It reduces the nominal clock speed by 266 MHz and disables the Turbo Boost feature when three or four processing cores are under load. Fortunately, the acceleration feature remains active when only one or two cores are taxed. All voltage levels seem to remain identical, at least on our test system.

We found that the performance impact from reduced clock speeds is pretty noticeable. On one hand, quad-core performance is impacted a bit, which alone isn’t much of an issue. The trouble with Turbo Boost only working with one or two cores, though, is that modern operating systems will aggressively distribute threads across all available cores, meaning that in many workloads you will get average workloads on multiple cores. The end result is Turbo Boost staying inactive. Only manual adjustment of thread affinity or true single-threaded applications will yield the Core i5-750S running on par with the regular i5-750. This isn't a caveat we were forced to make previously in analyzing the Core 2s.

This is the Core i5-750S model at 2.40 GHz nominal clock speed.This is the Core i5-750S model at 2.40 GHz nominal clock speed.And this is the regular Core i5-750 at 2.66 GHz nominal clock speed.And this is the regular Core i5-750 at 2.66 GHz nominal clock speed.

Display all 60 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 27 Hide
    Bluescreendeath , March 3, 2010 5:15 AM
    Basically, the i5-750S is an overpriced and totally useless product.
  • 25 Hide
    requiemsallure , March 3, 2010 5:14 AM
    i dont quite understand who would buy this with it being so worse than the normal i5-750 and close in price to the i7-920...
  • 18 Hide
    noob2222 , March 3, 2010 5:16 AM
    The S stands for $, its a little more suttle to use an S instead. Just buy a 750 and undervolt it like the last SBM builds. All just another way for Intel to price gouge when they feel like it.
Other Comments
  • 25 Hide
    requiemsallure , March 3, 2010 5:14 AM
    i dont quite understand who would buy this with it being so worse than the normal i5-750 and close in price to the i7-920...
  • 27 Hide
    Bluescreendeath , March 3, 2010 5:15 AM
    Basically, the i5-750S is an overpriced and totally useless product.
  • 18 Hide
    noob2222 , March 3, 2010 5:16 AM
    The S stands for $, its a little more suttle to use an S instead. Just buy a 750 and undervolt it like the last SBM builds. All just another way for Intel to price gouge when they feel like it.
  • 6 Hide
    nonxcarbonx , March 3, 2010 5:17 AM
    That's absolutely ridiculous that Intel would expect consumers to pay upwards of $70 more for a lesser product. Especially because generally, the people that buy these individual models aren't stupid. I'm just looking forward to AMD 6 cores...
  • 4 Hide
    anamaniac , March 3, 2010 5:18 AM
    BluescreendeathBasically, the i5-750S is an overpriced and totally useless product.

    Yeap...

    Atleast the C2Q S models were cherry binned models.
    Houw abut some cherry binned i5 750's? I'm sure they could do a lot better than 82W...
    (Such as some of the LGA 1366 Xeon models being only 80W, while having pimp performance still, assuming you can ignore a price tag that rivals the i7-975).

    How about a refresh of all your current lines for 32nm? Or are you still having issues with yields or something on 32nm?

    DO NOT WANT!
  • 2 Hide
    quantumrand , March 3, 2010 5:51 AM
    I would hope it's a lot cheaper than the i5-750. It really just looks like the 750S is made up of the reject chips that couldn't hold their temperatures well enough.
  • 8 Hide
    digitalrazoe , March 3, 2010 5:54 AM
    I will stick to my AMD CPUs .. thank you ..
  • 12 Hide
    digitalrazoe , March 3, 2010 5:56 AM
    The "S" means .. wait .. kids may be reading this...
  • -5 Hide
    jsowoc , March 3, 2010 6:32 AM
    There is only one case where someone would use a 750S, and they mentioned it in the article. If you have a small power supply, or for other reasons cannot ever go above 83W for your CPU, this processor is for you. Otherwise, don't buy it.
  • 0 Hide
    evolve60 , March 3, 2010 6:54 AM
    the S stands for Shitty this time, not Savings like it did on the C2Qs.
  • 11 Hide
    shubham1401 , March 3, 2010 8:10 AM
    Totally useless CPU for totally useless price...
  • 1 Hide
    Anonymous , March 3, 2010 8:33 AM
    Phenom II x6 please =)
    I'm sure this CPU would have some potential if it was the same price as the stock i5-750.
  • -1 Hide
    mfarrukh , March 3, 2010 9:36 AM
    I don't see the point as its price is too close to original one.
    It'd been good if it was around $140
  • -1 Hide
    Sihastru , March 3, 2010 9:47 AM
    Question regarding this CPU vs. anything AMD has to offer. Is the 750S still overall faster then anything AMD has to offer in an 90W - 140W power envelope?
  • 3 Hide
    JPForums , March 3, 2010 11:15 AM
    The "S" is for Sucks. (See Strong Bad E-Mails)
  • 8 Hide
    JPForums , March 3, 2010 11:33 AM
    Quote:
    Question regarding this CPU vs. anything AMD has to offer. Is the 750S still overall faster then anything AMD has to offer in an 90W - 140W power envelope?


    Doesn't matter. Being better than AMD's competition still wouldn't make it a viable product. The regular 750 still outperforms it for less money and at better efficiencies. So again, it doesn't matter. Unless, of course, your motive was to rub it in the face of AMD Fanbois by saying even this failure of a product is better than theirs. Regardless, I doubt many people in the know will see value in this product while the regular 750 remains.

    Quote:
    There is only one case where someone would use a 750S, and they mentioned it in the article. If you have a small power supply, or for other reasons cannot ever go above 83W for your CPU, this processor is for you.


    Or you can get out of the habit of cutting cost on the PSU. If 12W is the difference between stable and not stable, your selection of PSUs was inappropriate in the first place.
  • -1 Hide
    nukemaster , March 3, 2010 11:37 AM
    i7/i5 under volt very well, so get a good board that supports that feature(without turning off speed step) and your good to go.
  • 3 Hide
    babybeluga , March 3, 2010 12:03 PM
    notty22Where were all the brain dead comments yesterday when AMD released a 150 dollar m/b with worse performance than its predecessor. And with the news you suckers will need it to run the hexacore you kiddies can't afford anyways. Its why you SETTLE for AMD to begin with ? Catch22 lol


    Meh...first round bios.

    I don't "settle" for AMD. I don't do anything taxing enough on a processor to warrant spending over $200. I picked up an MSI G55 mobo and a Phenom II x4 925 from fry's for $165. If you want to show me a better intel deal than that, be my guest. Have fun paying 50% more for the similarly spec'd intel components.
  • 0 Hide
    Ciuy , March 3, 2010 12:18 PM
    intel frucked up? :o 
Display more comments