I doubt you will see a difference with the current generation of GPU's. More than likely it will be like the difference between the x48 and P45 comparison that was made where there was only a difference if you were using the HD4870x2 or the GTX295. Current GPU's really do not fully use the x16 bandwidth. Once the next generation GPU's start coming out it might be a different story, but at that point a single HD8570 may be better than dual HD4870's or even a HD4870x2.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Intel Core i5 Performance Preview @ [H]
- Thread starter FrgMstr
- Start date
I doubt you will see a difference with the current generation of GPU's. More than likely it will be like the difference between the x48 and P45 comparison that was made where there was only a difference if you were using the HD4870x2 or the GTX295. Current GPU's really do not fully use the x16 bandwidth. Once the next generation GPU's start coming out it might be a different story, but at that point a single HD8570 may be better than dual HD4870's or even a HD4870x2.
swatbat
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2001
- Messages
- 13,085
Interesting preview. Are you going to add in some benchmarks against a c2q clocked around the same speed? I'd like to see how the i5 and i7 compare to it.
There is already information concerning Core 2 Quad/Extreme vs. Core i7's performance. Obvisouly the Core i5 will be between the two of them.
Umm... you still can get a i7 920 from microcenter for 200$
That being said, I hope as part of the full preview you'll include an SLI or crossfire setup with more "real world" based gaming benchmarks. My understanding is the PCI-E controller got moved onboard with the i5 so they could include integrated graphics, I'm wondering how this affects both latency and SLI/crossfire preformance at high resolutions.
That being said, I hope as part of the full preview you'll include an SLI or crossfire setup with more "real world" based gaming benchmarks. My understanding is the PCI-E controller got moved onboard with the i5 so they could include integrated graphics, I'm wondering how this affects both latency and SLI/crossfire preformance at high resolutions.
BaldHeadedDork
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2003
- Messages
- 532
There's not a lot of room between the i7 and the C2Q, according to the real world gameplay CPU comparison Brent did last spring. The Q9650 performed very well against the i7-920, and even beat it in a couple of games. Also, as I noted in my last post, the P55 and P45 boards share the same memory and video bus limits. That might generate a better comparison for CPU performance than testing the C2Q or the i5 against the i7
When I saw Kyle's report that he was hitting 4.2 gig with the i5 on a jury-rigged heatsink, I wondered if I should ditch my plans for a Q9550/GA-EP45-UD3P system. But what does that performance translate into when the i5 is running at 4.2 and the Q9550 is at 3.6? Does the new architecture and improved features translate into better application performance?
I think cost is also a question when you compare the i5 to a C2Q. I expect prices for the C2Q and P45 prices to drop when the i5 and P55 parts hit the system. Given the similar performance the i5 is obviously a better value compared to the i7, but I think the answer is a lot less clear against the C2Q and P45. P55 boards are going to cost more even without a P45 price drop because of higher component and license costs. All of this is speculation for now, but I won't be surprised if we see a $75-100 difference between comparable C2Q/P45 and i5/P55 setups by the end of the year. And if you have a good C2Q system now, is the i5 a smart upgrade?
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 58,459
We are not going to start turning off HT. I will isolate the RAM channels though, so as mentioned specificially in the review, we will see the difference.
I will suggest from past evaluations that you will see no difference in gaming performance between 8x/8x and 16x/16x dual card configurations.
Yes, we will have full benchmarks at 3.2. You can already find a lot of the information you are looking for right here. http://hardocp.com/article/2009/02/08/phenom_ii_gets_affordable_ddr3_am3/1
Same set of benchmarks we still currently use.
If you are going to run stock speeds, I really think little will matter in gaming unless you have a powerhouse video card.
Had not seen that. Awesome, I think that is about it though. They must have hella stock. That is a deal that should be taken by anybody on the fence about i7/i5.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 58,459
I would say no it is not unless you are planning to be running your i5 processor at 500MHz + over your current setup's ceiling.
I built an i7 920 rig back in July with a $200 Microcenter special with an Asus P6T SE and 12 gigs of RAM. Back in July RAM was cheap. Makes for a nice ramdisk.
It amazes me how efficient the i7 is. Now when I encode movies the CPU doesn't even break a sweat. Blazing fast.
I'll be anxiously awaiting your full review to compare a stock i5 @ 2.66 to an i7 920 @ 2.66.
It amazes me how efficient the i7 is. Now when I encode movies the CPU doesn't even break a sweat. Blazing fast.
I'll be anxiously awaiting your full review to compare a stock i5 @ 2.66 to an i7 920 @ 2.66.
Syntax Error
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2008
- Messages
- 2,967
Thanks for the link, for some reason, I thought that deal was long dead.
Only problem is that the nearest MC is in Tustin, which would be a good 45 minutes away. Might be worth it considering that Amazon has the next best price (from an acceptable dealer that has good shipping with Prime).
90mins (round trip) to save 50$ and you have to think about it(after tax and gas)? I mean that's like 30$/hour+ for your time.
Only 78% efficiency????
When I had my Opteron 170 setup, I had the RAM throughput at slightly above 80% efficiency.... DDR-1 still kicks butt for efficiency with an IMC.
My overclocked DDR-1 memory kept up in throughput with DDR-2 on a Core2 system up till about DDR-2 800.
What is the efficiency on an AMD System with DDR-2 and/or DDR-3?
defaultluser
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 14,398
Thanks for the great preview Kyle. I have two requests for the full article:
1. Can you include a 45nm Core2 Quad of the same frequency?
2. Can you do a power "at the wall" comparison? Core i7 is notorious for being a power hog versus Core2 Quad, and I'd like to get a clearer picture of how much removing HT (and the thirsty x58 chipset) cuts power consumption.
The last thing we need is a mainstream CPU with a 100w+ TDP.
1. Can you include a 45nm Core2 Quad of the same frequency?
2. Can you do a power "at the wall" comparison? Core i7 is notorious for being a power hog versus Core2 Quad, and I'd like to get a clearer picture of how much removing HT (and the thirsty x58 chipset) cuts power consumption.
The last thing we need is a mainstream CPU with a 100w+ TDP.
Just make sure you don't forget that max rate of energy consumption (TPD) is not the same as energy consumed to do a specific task. If you take a 1KW CPU that can do a task in 1 ms and a 10W CPU the same task 1 second, the 1KW CPU is 10 times more efficient.
ha i have a 920 already from retail edge
Oops. I think Intel just got too competitive with itself. i5 looks strong. Maybe too strong.
I rather like the charts without numbers. It prevents me from thinking.
I5 was designed from the beginning to be an LGA775-killer (especially, surprisingly, Intel's own quads). In order to do that, they had to approach the raw poiwer of the i7-920 (as the benchmarks demonstrate, clock for clock, aside from those bencchmanrks that rely on specific 920 advantages, the two are pretty much dead-even).
This puts those of us looking at LGA1366, LGA1156, or even those of us that are still S478 (never mind the crossgraders from AMD to Intel) in a rather nasty dilemma, especially if looking to change sockets, or even upgrades within a socket, such as LGA775 upgraders from dual-core to quad-core). If it weren't for the fact that I can go from dual-core to quad-core by a straight CPU swap (I change no other hardware or software), I'd be in the same dilemma. However, I don't escape entirely (because where do I go after that?). Those coming from AMD or S478 have it far worse, as the one advantage LGA775 has is price (motherboiards and memory), and they have to decide if going with the moribundity that will be LGA775 is worth the savings. The ugliest of dilemmas are facing those that had been looking at LGA1366 (and i7-920 in particular) and are coming from LGA775. Because of i5-750's price (and that it takes dual-channel, not triple-channel, DDR3), i5 comes out cheaper than i7 to build or upgrade to. The only real tradeoffs (vs. i7-920) are memory bandwidth (dual-channel vs. triple-channel) and hyperthreading (i7 has it; i5 does not), and how many non-niche applicatioioons take advantage of those advantages? Again, that's a builder/user decision.)
I built a rig 4 or 5 months ago and went with a C2Q simply to save money, I don't regret it one bit. I've now put the money I saved (a lil' over $200, at the time) towards a SSD, which I think is well worth it. I could've gone for a 920 instead, or waited for i5, but frankly none of my most-demanding uses really warranted the extra investment (I just don't care all that much how fast I can encode something when I'm usually doing it overnight for instance), but I'm gonna reap the benefits of the SSD every single second that I'm using the system.