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
The Best Gaming CPU?
When I first previewed Lynnfield I theorized that its aggressive turbo modes would make it the best gaming CPU on the market. Most games these days use between two and four threads, not enough for Hyper Threading to be truly beneficial. As a result, Nehalem never really did all that well in games. It was generally faster than the competition, but not much and not on a performance-per-dollar basis.
I ran a few new game tests under Windows 7 to accompany our usual game benchmarks. The competitors here are limited to Lynnfield (of course), Bloomfield, Penryn and AMD's Phenom II.
Dawn of War II doesn't actually shatter any expectations. While turbo clearly benefits Lynnfield, it isn't enough to dethrone Bloomfield. The Core i7 920 is marginally faster than the new i5 750. Here's where things get interesting though: look at minimum frame rates. In both Lynnfield platforms, the minimum frame rates are higher than the competing Bloomfield system. That appears to be Lynnfield's aggressive turbo modes at work. While they're not constantly pushing Lynnfield to a higher clock speed, they do apparently help out when it matters the most.
The other thing to notice is the lowest Lynnfield is a faster gaming CPU than Intel's fastest dual-core: the E8600.
Sacred 2 is an example of performance standings in a more normal manner. Lynnfield can't seem to outperform Bloomfield, and the Core i5 750 actually falls slightly behind AMD's Phenom II X4 965 BE.
With World of Warcraft we're back to turbo mode having a very positive impact. The Core i7 870 is nearly as fast as the i7 975, while the i5 750 is a bit slower than the i7 920. Both are faster than the Phenom II X4 965 BE, which is in turn faster than the Q9650.
These three benchmarks seem to outline the three most realistic options for Lynnfield's gaming performance. In situations where its turbo modes can work, Lynnfield can be equal to if not faster than Bloomfield. In those situations where it doesn't kick in, Lynnfield is at least competitive with Phenom II and Bloomfield. In all situations the old Core 2 Quad Q9650 is at the bottom of the charts.
I'll throw in one more option just to complicate things. Have a look at this:
Not exactly the norm, but here we have the Phenom II X4 965 BE faster than everything - including the Core i7 975. Unfortunately there's no one benchmark that will sum up how these things perform, but overall it looks like Lynnfield is going to be one capable gaming 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.