Intel's Core i7 870 & i5 750, Lynnfield: Harder, Better, Faster Stronger
by Anand Lal Shimpi on September 8, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
DivX 8.5.3 with Xmpeg 5.0.3
Our DivX test is the same DivX / XMpeg 5.03 test we've run for the past few years now, the 1080p source file is encoded using the unconstrained DivX profile, quality/performance is set balanced at 5 and enhanced multithreading is enabled:
And we're done. DivX, historically a stronghold for AMD's Phenom II processors (at least compared to their price-competitive Penryn counterparts) is faster on the Core i5 750 than on the Phenom II X4 965 BE. What's wrong with that?
The i5 750 costs $199, the 965 BE costs $245. Intel is selling you more transistors for less than AMD is for once.
x264 HD Video Encoding Performance
Graysky's x264 HD test uses the publicly available x264 codec (open source alternative to H.264) to encode a 4Mbps 720p MPEG-2 source. The focus here is on quality rather than speed, thus the benchmark uses a 2-pass encode and reports the average frame rate in each pass.
In the first pass AMD is quite competitive, outpacing the i5 750, but when we get to the actual encode:
It's close, but the cheaper i5 750 is faster than the Phenom II X4 965 BE once again; Hyper Threading keeps the i7 920 ahead.
Windows Media Encoder 9 x64 Advanced Profile
In order to be codec agnostic we've got a Windows Media Encoder benchmark looking at the same sort of thing we've been doing in the DivX and x264 tests, but using WME instead.
AMD is about 6% faster than the i5 750 here, it looks like the Phenom II does have some hope left for it. Let's see how the rest unfolds...
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
343 Comments
View All Comments
goinginstyle - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Really? SuperPi, WPrime, Everest, 3Dmarks and LN2 overclocking defines a better review? How does any of that correlate into real world applications and what 99% of people use their computers for on a daily basis. I counted a lot more than three tests in the AT review, go spam elsewhere.C'DaleRider - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Really. All I play is SuperPi, Everest and 3DMarks....oh, and Furmark and OCCT.Who would ever use their computer to encode video, run Excel spreadsheets, play games like Far Cry or Crysis or Left For Dead, or actually use any other real world application?
Don't you know? Real elite computer users just bench synthetic crap, over and over, for hours and hours, and scoff at anyone who dares do anything productive with their computer.
/sarcasm
geok1ng - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
I am not pleased by the news; i5 needs more juice for overcloking. Thats terrible: my E8600 is still on top: it runs at 4.0Ghz with 1.16v on a watercooled setup with 4x120mm fans at 1600rpm. we are talking less than 30dB of noise and less than 55w of power consumption. At 1.25v my E8600 reaches 4.25Ghz and would go a little further if wasnt for the 4 sticks of ram burning the NB. no reason to exchange systems before the 32nm parts arrive. The ability to achieve high clocks with low voltages is crucial for a good system: not only will it consume less power, but it will also be quieter, and that is a point for choosing sub-65w dual-cores in gaming rigs.papapapapapapapababy - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
honestly... i lol at all the core i7 core i5 "GAMERS"( and their punny 23 lcd with shitty TN panels) also LGA1366? LGA1156? and 285$ for a shitty motherboard? XD I have a better proposition for you INTEL. how about u SUCK MY BALLS XD. MKAY? the story: my old man needed a gaming setup ( mostly simracing) So i bought the cheapest E7200 i could find (oc3.2GHZ), 4gb of ram, the cheapest intel mobo i could find -g31- ( not even pcie2) and gave him my 4770 ... the price? ridiculously cheap... almost nothing. and with all that extra money i saved i got this > a nice 42" HDTV with a perfect s-ips panel and low 1366 X 768 resolution, and a g25 wheel.
btw, the framerates? i never, ever drop below 30fps. ALWAYS 60FPS NO MATTER WHAT, ( with nice 8xAA) XD so the best gaming cpu? the cheapest !
erple2 - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Interesting. Which 42" LCD TV did you get that has a S-IPS panel? Also, a 23" panel at about 3 feet looks bigger than a 42" screen at 6 feet.papapapapapapapababy - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
LG. btw a 23" TN lcd looks like shit no matter how you look at it.C'DaleRider - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
My, aren't you special?papapapapapapapababy - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
yes, i know! btw enjoy your small screen gaming, mr sheep XDchrnochime - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
I'd say the same about that barely big enough 42" LCD, but then again why bother...papapapapapapapababy - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
my bad i meant this > E7300 3.2ghz (+ a cheap 24$ modded heatpipe cooler... 14 dba XD)