



Beginning with PCMark Vantage, we can already see the strength of Intel’s Core i7-870 processor. Remember, though, that just because it’s a Lynnfield part and purportedly mainstream doesn’t make it an affordable option. At $555, we actually think the Core i7-870 is overpriced, just like the Core i7-950. More notable is the triumph of the Core i5-750 against Intel’s Core 2 Extreme QX9770, a $1,000 CPU, and even more so versus the Core 2 Quad Q9550. As of the launch, the Core 2 Quad is priced $10 higher than the i5.



Synthetic benchmarks are especially prone to favoring Intel’s Hyper-Threading technology given an emphasis on parallelism in most future-looking tests. This would seem to be the case here judging from the CPU Suite and Overall benchmark scores that show Intel’s Core i7-870 and -920 as victorious.
The GPU Score reflects a more even playing field, though Bloomfield is still at a slight advantage. In the overall suite score, i5-750 again bests Core 2 Quad Q9550, pulling even to the 3.2 GHz Core 2 Extreme.



While the X48-based memory controller feeding Intel’s Core 2 Quad family pales in comparison to AMD’s integrated DDR3 memory controller, Lynnfield’s dual-channel arrangement armed with the very same DDR3-1333 modules running the very same timings realizes significantly more throughput. To that end, the Core i7-920 is even faster still.
- Introduction
- What’s In A Name?
- QPI, Integrated Memory, PCI Express, And LGA 1156
- Intel’s Turbo Boost: Lynnfield Gets Afterburners
- Hyper-Threading: Differentiating Core i7
- Memory Architecture: Does Losing One Channel Hurt?
- P55: The Chipset’s Responsibilities Dwindle
- Windows 7: Microsoft Listens To Intel, Finally
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- Benchmark Results: Synthetics
- Benchmark Results: Media Apps
- Benchmark Results: Productivity
- Power Consumption
- Conclusion
There is sooo much to learn and there is so much information here.... I feel confused!!
Since when has the I7-920 become an extreme?
Now the i5 750 on the other hand is great performance at a great price, and would certainly be the budget gamers new weapon of choice.
I currently have an i7-920 setup which is my main rig and am very happy with it and not at all upset to the see the 870 outperform it (since the 870 would cost me twice as much). I also have had an i5 750 setup now for over a week (the 1156 processors and motherboards have been available here in Australia for nearly 2 weeks now) and it is an amazing processor for the price of it.
So what am I trying to say? 1366 is still a good platform for the top end of the market. The i5 are fantastic new processors for their price, and the 1156 i7's are just confusing and I'm not really sure who they are going to appeal to? I could understand it if Intel launched the 1156 i7's in 6months time when alot of users are already using the 1156 platform and are looking to upgrade their CPU without a new mobo. But to anyone looking at getting a 870, just get an 920 and use the extra cash on the mobo and ram to go with it.
I would prefer a bench with HD4890. They scale better in CF.
There is sooo much to learn and there is so much information here.... I feel confused!!
This will also compel AMD to bring some more value to the market. Nice article.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/Turbo.zip
It uses the method that Intel recommends in their November 2008 Turbo White Paper.
Since when has the I7-920 become an extreme?
The power readings are for the whole system, not just the CPU. And their readings are a bit higher than yours because their video cards are almost certainly more power-hungry than yours, and they have a quad-core cpu, running significantly faster than your dual-core (4 cores at ~3Ghz vs. 2 at ~2Ghz, which SHOULD use more power?)
hey guys some tests done at the same cpu speed would be helpfull! thx!
Who was "worried"? It would've been AWESOME (although not to expect of Intel) if the lower-price platform would've outperformed the high-end item.
Typo--thanks for the catch evolve. Pulled that table from a previous review and missed the Extreme!
When you set up an i7 system you turn off the HT and turn up the speed! Turning off a core might even be an upgrade for some. But i agree, the i5 is really a good plateform the mid-mid high level people and at a lower price.
above - too long for intel? for main stream? you could buy a 8400 and run it 3.8 in any system and it rocks.
people have to learn that overclocking is not what it once was, intel does not build all that into the procesor and chipset for nothing so use it! core 2 is still a good main steam system, abit, no upgrading
Great read, by the way
All the mixed rumors were really misleading
http://bit.ly/Lynnfield
And a side-by-side comparison with all the key stats are here:
http://bit.ly/LFDcomparison
AMD is feature packed, Intel is feature lacked.
Intel make good chipsets yes, Intel make good reliable boards (proper intel boards) yes, intel make good CPU's yes.
But Intel have worthless motherboard line ups.... I am happily an AMD fan, I will take my Phenom II with the slower speed for the quality of board I can buy to run it.
Intel & Motherboards = Fail.
Until they improve there, numbers mean zero to me. Why pay more when you get less?
PS. We used to sell all Intel at my work, we now sell 99% AMD. Price, value as a packaged. If Intel had better feature motherboards things might change until then. AMD builds a platform not just a CPU.