Power Consumption

I had to overvolt the sample to reach 2.66GHz and I didn't want to compare power of an overclocked CPU to other standard CPUs, so the table below uses the Lynnfield 2.13GHz chip with HT enabled. I also noticed some odd power readings which may be due to the early nature of the platform I was testing so I posted a range of power consumption values for the load.

Processor Idle Power Load Power (x264 1st pass)
Intel Lynnfield 2.13GHz 94.0W 160W - 173W
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 (2.66GHz) 126.3W 170.9W


In my limited amount of time with the test setups I didn't have any other lower clocked quad-core chips to compare to but these early results look promising. The idle power in particular is most impressive.

Thanks to Nehalem's ability to completely power down idle cores the Lynnfield sample delivers the lowest idle power of any quad-core CPU I've ever tested. I didn't have time to investigate it here but I suspect that in scenarios where only two cores are busy, Lynnfield will offer significant power savings compared to all older (non-Nehalem) quad-core CPUs.

Final Words

It really took me until I reached the very end of writing this article to understand Lynnfield and where it fits into Intel's lineup, but I think I finally get it.

The $284 Lynnfield 2.80GHz chip should be very powerful. If I'm guessing right, it'll be faster than any dual core Core 2 Duo in applications that spawn one or two CPU intensive threads, while being faster than a Core i7-920 in even heavily threaded applications.

The $196 Lynnfield 2.66GHz processor stops from being absolutely perfect by not having Hyper Threading enabled. While it performs very i7-920-like in many cases, highly threaded workloads favor the rest of the LGA-1156/1366 lineup. That being said, not having HT isn't the end of the world; in many cases it's just as fast as it would be with HT enabled.

What Intel has done with the entry level Lynnfield is piece together a Nehalem that's just good enough to compete with the high end Phenom IIs and give you more bang for your buck than the existing Core 2 Quads, while not being too good as to ruin the point of the midrange Lynnfield.

There's also a lot of flexibility in Intel's strategy. Intel could deliver lower clocked Lynnfields and enable HT to be competitive at lower price points. I suspect that the real strength of Lynnfield is in its turbo modes; they will give it the advantage of delivering maximum performance regardless of how threaded your workload is.

Why would anyone want a LGA-1366 system then? I believe there are three major advantages to the LGA-1366 platform for single-socket desktops:

1) Support for Gulftown. You can only get 6-cores from the LGA-1366 platform in 1H 2010, Intel currently doesn't have any 6-core LGA-1156 parts planned.

2) More overclockable CPUs. The best yielding Nehalems (and highest clocked Nehalems) will be LGA-1366 processors. I wouldn't expect any 1GHz+ overclocks from LGA-1156 CPUs.

3) More bandwidth to PCIe slots. I don't see this as a huge advantage today, but there may come a time when having as much bandwidth to your GPUs as possible is important. I'm thinking general purpose GPU computing, DX11, OpenCL sort of stuff. But we're not there yet.

Ultimately I'm going to stick with what I first said on the whole LGA-1156 vs. LGA-1366 topic last November:

"The breakdown seems pretty simple: if you’re the type of person who bought the Q6600/Q9300, then Lynnfield may be the Nehalem for you. If you spent a bit more on your CPU or are more of an enthusiast overclocker, the current Core i7 seems like the path Intel wants you to take."

Lynnfield, today, looks very good. Enable all of its turbo modes and I believe Intel has another winner on its hands. When Nehalem first launched I complained that the move to a smaller L2 cache kept it from significantly outperforming Penryn in some applications and games. With Lynnfield's turbo modes I believe my complaints will be addressed; need better performance in games? Turbo mode solves that. In many ways, Lynnfield could end up being even more significant than Core i7 ever was.

Penryn was always good, Bloomfield was nice to talk about but Lynnfield may end up being the one you marry.

Gaming Performance
Comments Locked

95 Comments

View All Comments

  • ssj4Gogeta - Friday, May 29, 2009 - link

    There's always the dual-core Nehalem Clarkdale for the mainstream market. And I think they'll launch lower clock Lynnfields too, like Anand said.

    I think Intel did a good job by separating its high-end processors from the mainstream ones and launching them as a different series. So now instead of having one $1200 extreme part, we have 3 high-end parts, with the lowest priced one a very affordable option for geeks who are on a budget.
  • ssj4Gogeta - Friday, May 29, 2009 - link

    Congratulations Intel, you've created a beast.

    What is AMD going to do now? I don't think they have any new cores ready for launch this year. If Lynnfield offers the same performance as i7 920 for Phenom II prices, AMD will either have to bump up their clock speeds ridiculously, or lower their prices yet again. Things aren't looking good for AMD. Lynnfield turns out to be better than I expected.


    And I HATE Intel and their tick-tock. Actually I can't decided whether to hate or like it. It's good that they're advancing our planet's technology at a really fast pace so we'll be prepared when aliens attack. But which damn processor do I buy??? They launch a new series every year, and a new stepping every few months. Which one to buy? WHEN to buy??? My parents won't buy me processors every 6 months!
  • MadMan007 - Friday, May 29, 2009 - link

    You could always do what people did back in the day - upgrade when your current hardware no longer does what you need it to do. I know, crazy right!?
  • Griswold - Friday, May 29, 2009 - link

    Its only a crazy concept if daddy is paying for those upgrades all the time - you and the rest of us know its the right thing to do. :]
  • Jaramin - Friday, May 29, 2009 - link

    Looking at AMD's roadmap, I fear this is going to hurt a lot :( If the pricing is good, it could confine AMD into the lower mainstream segment.
  • Hyperion1400 - Friday, May 29, 2009 - link

    That remains to be seen. Don't Istanbul heading for market at around the same time as Core-i5. There has been little information leaked about Istanbul and no performance numbers have come to light. So, as of now, it is impossible to predict how competitive AMD's offerings will be. Not to mention we have Magny Cours to look forward too in 1H 2010.
  • ssj4Gogeta - Friday, May 29, 2009 - link

    But Istanbul is just a 6-core Opteron. In other words, a server chip.
  • Hyperion1400 - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - link

    As was Barcelona and Shanghai. But, that didn't seem to stop them from releasing them on the main stream market.
  • Spoelie - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - link

    but costs would be too prohibitive
    PhII is already similar in die size as bloomfield, and is forced to be priced lower for competitive reasons.
    You think AMD won't be hurting if it sells an even larger die to compete with a smaller-than-bloomfield die, in a market where having more than 6 cores is questionable value at best?

    No, only thing amd can do is crank up clock speeds, try to get 3.4 and 3.6ghz models out the door
  • Spoelie - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - link

    Oh and up the uncore clock on them as well, preferably 2.4ghz, but might make them look worse in power consumption comparisons

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now