
Well-threaded, MainConcept gets a clear benefit from Hyper-Threading. Even without HT though, Intel’s Core i5-750 passes up the Core 2 Extreme. It’s not able to maneuver past AMD’s 3.4 GHz Phenom II X4 965 BE, though, which bests the $199 chip by two seconds.

Here’s where we’d expect to see Turbo Boost shine, and indeed the Core i7-870 and Core i5-750 both fly past the Core i7-920. The next-closest contender is the once-$1,000 Core 2 Extreme QX9770, though the fact that it’s being outclassed by a $199 Core i5 speaks volumes.

Our DivX transcode readily runs across eight threads, but seems to get a substantial boost from Turbo as the i7-870 and i5-750 both scoot past the Core i7-920. It’s great for AMD that its flagship is now able to topple the fastest Core 2-based chip here. But there’s a new mainstream sheriff in town and its name is Core i5.
Xvid is lightly threaded, so the fact that Intel’s Core i7-870 and Core i5-750 take first and second place is attributable to Turbo Boost yet again. Core i7-920 takes third, followed closely by Core 2 Extreme.

We weren’t seeing any benefit from the 64-bit build of Lame used in previous processor reviews, so we’ve switched to a newer 32-bit build here. Still single-threaded, Turbo Boost seriously bolsters the performance of the two Lynnfield chips, leaving Core i7-920 and Core 2 Quad Extreme behind.
- 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.