• 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]

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
2FA
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
58,459
Intel Core i5 Performance Preview - We take our retail purchased Intel Core i5-750 out for a spin and pit it against Intel's Core i7-965, We tweak the i5-750 to run at the same processor and memory speeds. i5 at 3.2GHz/1600MHz vs. i7 at 3.2GHz/1600MHz.

From what we have seen here and from what we saw in our most recent Real World Gameplay CPU Scaling article, on the gaming front, HyperThreading needs in real gaming situations are minimal. For the most part, CPU frequency is still the most important factor way out in front of HyperThreading or memory bandwidth.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
That article needs some serious fixing. No scales at all on anything. Just some bars that mean just about absolutely nothing. What happened??? :mad:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ziddey said:
:mad:
Click to expand...

RTFA

So, while this week we will take a couple of looks at Intel new Core i5, we will not be sharing any actual benchmark numbers till the official launch date and time which is next week. Today we will be sharing with you our view of how the Intel Core i5-750 weighs in against a Core i7-965, clock for clock. You will of course notice the graphs do not have any numbers on them. We will publish the numbers next week at the official time of the launch. This way we get to give you a glimpse into what Core i5-750 is while we keep our relationship with Intel copacetic.
Click to expand...
 
Hmm interesting charts on the gaming section. I wonder what the resolutions on the other games are besides Lost Planet? Seems like a very very minor increase in fps if those resolutions are low :)
 
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. :D
 
aZn_plyR said:
Hmm interesting charts on the gaming section. I wonder what the resolutions on the other games are besides Lost Planet? Seems like a very very minor increase in fps if those resolutions are low :)
Click to expand...


To lead off with...

As always, these benchmarks in no way represent real-world gameplay.

The gaming tests below have been put together to focus on the processor power exhibited by each system and know that all game engines are not the same. All the tests below consist of custom time demos built with stressing the CPU in mind. So much specialized coding comes into the programming now days we suggest that looking at gaming performance by using real-world gameplay is the only sure way to know what you are going to get with a specific game. Our 2009 Real World Gameplay CPU Scaling article would be a great place to start.
Click to expand...

Lost Planet 640x480
Quake 4 640x480
FarCry 2 800x600
Crysis 800x600
 
Shotglass01 said:
Oops. I think Intel just got too competitive with itself. i5 looks strong. Maybe too strong.
Click to expand...

I don't thnk they could really do such a thing... Those that are interested in certain high-end features of the X58/LGA 1336 platform will still be swayed by it (full-speed SLI/CF configs, higher end mobos w/more features, 6-core Gulftown exclusivity next year, etc.). Those that just want the best bang for the buck on a budget will just go with i5, that's what it's intended for. There'll be some overlap in the middle, yeah, but i5 will also reach out far lower down the price scale than i7/LGA 1336 ever will.

From all the roadmaps leaked out there it looks like in addition to this HT-lacking quad-core Intel plans to release one or two faster quad core i5 w/HT; but also a whole bunch of dual core i5 with and w/o HT, those will fill up price segments from $75-300 I'm sure and will really give AMD hell as they're barely competing w/C2D/C2Q as it is. It's really gonna hit the fan when they start releasing 32nm i5 parts w/integrated GPU next year or at the end of this one, 'specially for the laptop market imo.

All those places is where i5 or LGA 1156 really fits in the grand scheme (and LGA 1336 doesn't), so a little overlap in the middle really hurts them very little and just gives enthusiasts more choices. Now if they were to somehow artificially limit their LGA 1336 lineup by pricing it way too high then they'd really hurt themselves, PR-wise more than anything. Most enthusiast will happily buy i5/P55 if it fits their budget, but they'll scream bloody murder if Intel prices all LGA 1336/X58 parts up into the $750+ realm, regardless of whether they actually plan to invest in it or not.

That's the real problem w/supporting two sockets, people wanna have a choice, even if they don't exercise it. :p
 
Last edited:
Good point. I didn't think about that. Although, I still think that will leave i7 with few adopters. But, as you point out, it is what Intel had already planned.

I sure hope AMD has something else on the table. And soon too.
 
I couldn't resist doing some number crunching!

1) Took the image of the memory bandwidth test.
2) cut out the forward face of the bars
3) measure the length in pixels;
i7 = 309 pixels long
i5 = 218 pixels long
4) 218/309 = 70%
5) take the memory bandwidth you already published from the P6T7 article for the ASUS II Gene and multiply by 70%
????
=19598mb/s

Am I close?
 
Can we PLEASE see some x264 benchmarks? Its one application that really can benefit from HyperThreading and 8 total threads.

This is all I'm really ever interested in :)

~MiSfit
 
themisfit610 said:
Can we PLEASE see some x264 benchmarks? Its one application that really can benefit from HyperThreading and 8 total threads.

This is all I'm really ever interested in :)

~MiSfit
Click to expand...

We already run two that are very aware. Do you think this is going to show us something other than what we see with TMPGEnc?
 
SO... motherboard aside...

Are you saying pick up one of those last i7-920 for 200 bucks if you can get it or wait for the releases on the i5's.

I always though you could get better gaming performance without HT and a higher overclock. Also are we seeing any added heat gain from the pci-e on-die???
 
Typo:
Possibly the reason is the more robust Integrated Memory Controller that is present on the Lynnfield core i5
Click to expand...
Typo fixed, thanks for the extra eyes! _ Kyle

Nice article. Nothing in there that really surprised me, but then again, I doubt anyone was all that surprised by the outcome. Memory and thread-limited apps did better on i7, and everything else was neck and neck.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
thanks kyle, hope you dont get in trouble :p,

so is there anyone sitting there like me, about to buy an i7-920, btu now realy confused by the new socket, it was always going ot be overkill somewhat but yer... would you reccomend not buying the i7 920 as of now? i just thought the price will get jacked because all these new i5/i7 models are coming and come very close to the 920 performance but for not much cheaper.
 
tlc4tvm said:
SO... motherboard aside...

Are you saying pick up one of those last i7-920 for 200 bucks if you can get it or wait for the releases on the i5's.

I always though you could get better gaming performance without HT and a higher overclock. Also are we seeing any added heat gain from the pci-e on-die???
Click to expand...

If you can still get a $200 i7-920, I would suggest that be the deal.

Overall heat on this CPU is way down. Would not have known PCIe was on it if you were blindfolded.

carnag3 said:
thanks kyle, hope you dont get in trouble :p,

so is there anyone sitting there like me, about to buy an i7-920, btu now realy confused by the new socket, it was always going ot be overkill somewhat but yer... would you reccomend not buying the i7 920 as of now? i just thought the price will get jacked because all these new i5/i7 models are coming and come very close to the 920 performance but for not much cheaper.
Click to expand...

If you can still find a good deal and think you can utilize the memory bandwidth, go for it. Otherwise, it is hard to argue i7 now for gaming value.
 
Thanks for the appetizer. i am happy to see its not a skullfail blunder. the socket arguments aside (i personally dont think it will be an issue), Intel seems to have covered all the bases. especially if 19598mb/s is low. a respectful number in and by itself.

i was surprised, encoding and gaming fair very well against the i7, as i would not spend extra on i7 for the gains shown. money that could be used for storage, RAM or video. i am interested to see what happens with encoding with a HT enabled i5.

seems my waiting may pay off.
 
Kyle - forgive me if this is a stupid question, but how much better (if any) is the i5/P55 than the C2Q/P45 combo that it is going to be competing against in price?
 
Sojuuk said:
How is the Intel IMC so much better than AMD's? AMD has been at it for years.
Click to expand...
Because Intel has been making memory controllers for much longer than AMD has; theirs just haven't all been integrated.
 
tlc4tvm said:
SO... motherboard aside... Are you saying pick up one of those last i7-920 for 200 bucks if you can get it or wait for the releases on the i5's.

I always though you could get better gaming performance without HT and a higher overclock. Also are we seeing any added heat gain from the pci-e on-die???
Click to expand...

Even tho there's always been evidence that disabling HT can net you a higher OC (and/or lower temps), I'm not sure it necessarily equates to better gaming performance if you can already get a decent enough OC with HT enabled (3.6-3.8GHz?)...

How would i5 change any of that regardless, it's got a more aggressive Turbo mode but I doubt the OC headroom is any higher... And any i5 part that's clocked faster by default (vs the 920) is also gonna cost more (than even the 920 at retail prices). If you don't care for the price difference in mobos, and you can actually grab an i7 for $200 (which negates much of the mobo cost difference anyway), I don't see why you wouldn't.

AFAIK retail-priced i7 920s are still gonna exist post-i5 tho, and the price isn't suddenly gonna go up because the i5 lineup overlaps with it to a certain extent... X58 mobos are still costlier and you still need to pay for an extra DIMM if you intend to run triple-channel. Intel intends for the lineup to overlap. You probably won't see very many budget priced LGA 1336 parts in the future tho.

Someone brought up the C2Qs... I doubt P55/i5 is gonna compete price-wise w/P45/C2Q stuff, by the time the full i5 lineup makes it's official debut all Core anything stuff is gonna have to plummet in price or simply be cleared out. I'm sure Intel's planned for this.
 
Sojuuk said:
You're just saying that to hurt me :(

How is the Intel IMC so much better than AMD's? AMD has been at it for years.
Click to expand...

Intel has actually been making memory controllers far longer than AMD has. They've been making memory controllers as part of their motherboard chipsets. One early example of this is their Neptune i486 compatible chipset. There was a memory controller in it supporting SIMM modules. I believe Intel has been making chipsets longer than that, but that's one of the oldest ones I remember working with.

Well the memory controller being better isn't the only reason why the Core i5/i7's are faster than their Phenom II counterparts. However in relation to the memory controller question, I have a few observations. First Intel's IMC is simply faster. It provides significantly more memory bandwidth than the Phenom II's controller can. The Intel IMC also doesn't have the same problem of signal degredation when the CPU and memory modules are too far apart. Or more to the point, if it does have this problem it isn't nearly as bad. DIMM slots on Intel CPUs are as far away as they were on previous X48 and P45 chipset based boards. AMD processor sockets are too close to their DIMM slots creating clearance issues with some cooling solutions.

Beyond those simple observations bear in mind that Intel's R&D budget is larger than AMD's is. In fact the Intel R&D budget is greater than the sum of AMD's total income over the course of a year. With those type's of resources it's not hard to see how Intel can do the things they do.
 
If I were planning a Nehalem build, I would definitely be looking i5. The way it worked out, though, I had the funds available for a major build when i7 launched, so I went for it. I paid the early adopter tax and have been enjoying i7 for 9 months. As long as Intel supports 1366 for a while, I figure I have no complaints.
 
Impulse said:
I don't thnk they could really do such a thing... Those that are interested in certain high-end features of the X58/LGA 1336 platform will still be swayed by it (full-speed SLI/CF configs, higher end mobos w/more features, 6-core Gulftown exclusivity next year, etc.).
Click to expand...
can anyone pls help me understand that
whats the difference between running SLI/CF on a x55 and x58 boards?
Thanks
 
good question, as far as i can see they re both 'full speed' 2x pciex 16 speed
 
Hornet said:
can anyone pls help me understand that
whats the difference between running SLI/CF on a x55 and x58 boards?
Thanks
Click to expand...

carnag3 said:
good question, as far as i can see they re both 'full speed' 2x pciex 16 speed
Click to expand...
LGA1156/P55 systems only have 20 PCI-E lanes, so they can only run 8/8 or 8/8/4 CF and SLI, whereas X58 systems have 36 PCI-E lanes so they can run 16/16 or 16/8/8 CF and SLI. Practically though, 8x slots don't limit current video cards, so if you aren't running a 3-way setup, you shouldn't have any issues with LGA1156/P55.
 
I keep thinking the 860 will be the chip for me. Since x264 seems to make use of hyperthreading, its worth it (and I encode a lot).
 
Dan_D said:
Intel has actually been making memory controllers far longer than AMD has.
Click to expand...

Was unaware. Just assumed this was their first foray into IMC since I hadn't seen it on their retail cpus.
also;
I ran more numbers(what else is there to do!)
ddr3 1600 bandwidth + controller efficiency:
20000mb/s~ actual
25600mb/s theoretical
= 78% efficiency!!

I am so used to 60% being good that this is pretty spectacular.
 
Sojuuk said:
Was unaware. Just assumed this was their first foray into IMC since I hadn't seen it on their retail cpus.
Click to expand...
The Nehalem architecture is indeed their first time using an IMC. What Dan and I were referring to is the fact that Intel has been making memory controllers for their chipsets for a very long time, so even though they haven't used an IMC before, they still knew what they were doing when they designed it.
 
Thanx for the creative thinking by giving a great preview while keeping NDA. Clock for clock reviews are what I've been looking for. The only minor suggestion is to have a third bar on every graph of i7 920 at the same seting with hyperthreading disabled to give a better idea of tripple channel versus a possibly more efficient dual channel's effect on real world performance.

I'm waiting past NDA to make a final platform decision to see if the higher "reported" fsb and memory overclocks of the p55 platform can overtake X58 for my general use. DDR3-1600 cl5 sounds tempting. I rarely do tasks that take advantage of 8 threads, but DX11 may make me wish for X16/X16 SLI.
 
Hmmm Looks like I might have to sell my P2 setup for Intel.

Might be finally worth going Intel for the first time in my life :p
 
Kyle, will you at any point be comparing multi-GPU performance on P55 vs X58? The dual vs. triple channel thing isn't a big deal to me, nor is hyper-threading. The real question that would affect my purchasing decision is: how will 8x/8x SLI and Crossfire work on the P55 versus the full 16x/16x on X58?
 
I am impressed by these benchmarks. I did not expect the core i5 to be so close in performance to the corei7. And to be so much cheaper. I would love to see some more real world benchmarks including more gaming and media encoding benchmarks using real world tests. I can't wait to see more int he coming weeks. There has to be a a major difference with the added memory channel and bandwidth of the corei7. I do beleive the benchmarks you have shown I am just a bit of a skeptic and need to see more. I love [H]ardocp. :D
 
There's one game that's still almost completely processor limited - Everquest 2. Even with an overclocked core i7 your processor limits you more than a modern videocard in raid environments with many player characters running around doing things.
 
Fortunately, I live near a Microcenter, so getting an I7 920 at $200 is fairly easy. In the last week or two you could also get the I7 920 from Tiger Direct for close to $200 after the Bing Cash back deal. That being said, I think the socket 1156 will be a great alternative for some that are not wanting the max performance or "Trus" SLI/CF. With the prices on x58 motherboards dropping recently, I think the enthusiast is still served better by going that route assuming SLI/CF is the goal with a large monitor or benching in mind. Otherwise, I think the new 1156 socket will be a very popular upgrade to those that still have C2D setups, regardless if it's a P35, P45, x38 or x48 setup.

Nice preview Kyle and I liked the overclocking preview also. Looks like the 1156 will be a viable upgrade for the majority of users. Makes you wonder what will happen to the support of the x58 once the 1156 socket comes out, especially if for the most part it is competitive with the x58.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top