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
3dsmax 9 - SPECapc 3dsmax CPU Rendering Test
Today's desktop processors are more than fast enough to do professional level 3D rendering at home. To look at performance under 3dsmax we ran the SPECapc 3dsmax 8 benchmark (only the CPU rendering tests) under 3dsmax 9 SP1. The results reported are the rendering composite scores:
And we're back down to utter dominance yet again. The i5 750 is 12.6% faster than the Phenom II X4 965 BE and 18.8% cheaper. Harder, better, faster stronger.
Blender 2.48a
Blender is an open source 3D modeling application. Our benchmark here simply times how long it takes to render a character that comes with the application.
To get Blender to perform right on Lynnfield we actually had to update our graphics drivers. It looks like the on-die PCIe does require the latest NVIDIA/ATI drivers to work properly. The results aren't unusual; Intel has done very well in these tests and Lynnfield continues to dominate. The i5 750 is a bit slower than the 920 (and Q9650) thanks to its missing HT support.
Cinebench R10
Created by the Cinema 4D folks we have Cinebench, a popular 3D rendering benchmark that gives us both single and multi-threaded 3D rendering results.
The single threaded benchmark tells us everything we need to know. The Core i5 750 and i7 870 are two of the fastest processors we've ever tested at single-threaded applications. Very few microprocessors will be able to retire instructions from a single thread as quickly as Lynnfield. This is actually very noticeable in simply using the OS. Many tasks still aren't multithreaded but they execute very, very fast on Lynnfield.
Crank up the threads and Lynnfield is still competitive. Because it's missing Hyper Threading, the i5 750 is barely faster than the Phenom II X4 965 BE. Although I understand Intel wanting to segment its product line, it seems that the i5's missing HT goes a bit too far.
POV-Ray 3.73 beta 23 Ray Tracing Performance
POV-Ray is a popular, open-source raytracing application that also doubles as a great tool to measure CPU floating point performance.
I ran the SMP benchmark in beta 23 of POV-Ray 3.73. The numbers reported are the final score in pixels per second.
We see the same results under POV-Ray. Regardless of thread count, Lynnfield delivers the best performance possible short of a $1000 CPU.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
343 Comments
View All Comments
snakeoil - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
and the cherry on top of the piecore i5 750 and core i3 don't support virtualization.
http://www.virtualization.info/2009/07/intel-core-...">http://www.virtualization.info/2009/07/intel-core-......
that's fantastic, colossal intel.
what's wrong with intel
Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Intel VT-x is supported by the Core i5 750:http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpe...">http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpe...
Take care,
Anand
snakeoil - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
sorry incomplete linkhttp://www.virtualization.info/2009/07/intel-core-...">http://www.virtualization.info/2009/07/...core-i3-...
AssBall - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
What are you talking about? These overclock FINE; read the article. 4 Ghz. Anyone that is gonna overclock bloomfield or lynnfield seriously is opting for an aftermarket HSF, so don't bother arguing that. Your comment doesn't make any sense.TA152H - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
You missed the point.When you overclock the processors, you change the characteristics of turbo mode. Consequently, the big advantage of the Lynnfield disappears, and they run at the same clock speed, instead of the Lynnfield at a higher clock speed.
Do you understand now?
eternalfantasy - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
lolemogoinginstyle - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
"There are better sites that have answered these questions. I used to like this site, but this review is another disappointment. "Just how is that Tom's Hardware gig working out for you? I noticed your name was not on any of their launch reviews since you seem to be an expert on the subject. Why is that?
TA152H - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Thanks for asking.When I have time, I will be writing another article, which they hopefully will use, but to be honest, the time it takes to write an article, at least a well-written one, takes an enormous amount of time and effort.
Getting and verifying data is only part of it. Writing it in an artistic an interesting way is very time consuming, and, at least for me, requires many rewrites of the same pages. Each page took me at least five hours, some many more, plus the upfront time of deciding which pages to write, which probably took at least 30 hours of research.
The editor of Tom's wrote their articles, and it's clear to see the much more thorough review he did. Personally, I like him and occasionally do communicate with him, and I probably would like Anand too, since he seems like a good fellow, but I have no real affiliation with their site. If I write an article they like, they might publish it. That's it.
But, honestly, if you do it for money, you're a fool. It takes WAY too much time for that. You really have to want to do it, and the money is secondary.
goinginstyle - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
So it took you five hours a page to do a copy and paste from Wikipedia on that so called article of yours? I read the Tom's P55 article, not seeing how it was any more thoughtful than the one here or at Tech Report. At least Anand did some searching and reported on items like PCIe clocking/voltage requirements that I noticed was not mentioned at Toms.Your only motive for these posts is to try and look impressive at Toms in hopes that they will publish another boring piece of dung from you. Otherwise, your complaints here are just as justified at Toms or TR, yet you are not posting at either site. That is why it is so obvious as to what you are up to with the flame bait comments.
TA152H - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
I never even looked at Wikipedia, since I don't consider it a valid source of information.Why do you talk about things you don't know about. In fact, some people used Wikipedia to argue some points with me. I made a point never to look at those pages.
But again, what have you done with your, except produce carbon dioxide and speed up global warming? You seem pretty worthless to me.