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
Multi-GPU SLI/CF Scaling: Lynnfield's Blemish
When running in single-GPU mode, the on-die PCIe controller maintains a full x16 connection to your graphics card:
Hooray.
In multi-GPU mode, the 16 lanes have to be split in two:
To support this the motherboard maker needs to put down ~$3 worth of PCIe switches:
Now SLI and Crossfire can work, although the motherboard maker also needs to pay NVIDIA a few dollars to legally make SLI work.
The question is do you give up any performance when going with Lynnfield's 2 x8 implementation vs. Bloomfield/X58's 2 x16 PCIe configuration? In short, at the high end, yes.
I looked at scaling in two games that scaled the best with multiple GPUs: Crysis Warhead and FarCry 2. I ran all settings at their max, resolution at 2560 x 1600 but with no AA.
I included two multi-GPU configurations. A pair of GeForce GTX 275s from EVGA for NVIDIA:
A coupla GPUs and a few cores can go a long way
And to really stress things, I looked at two Radeon HD 4870 X2s from Sapphire. Note that each card has two GPUs so this is actually a 4-GPU configuration, enough to really stress a PCIe x8 interface.
First, the dual-GPU results from NVIDIA.
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275 | Crysis Warhead (ambush) | Crysis Warhead (avalanche) | Crysis Warhead (frost) | FarCry 2 Playback Demo Action |
| Intel Core i7 975 (X58) - 1GPU | 20.8 fps | 23.0 fps | 21.4 fps | 41.0 fps |
| Intel Core i7 870 (P55) 1GPU | 20.8 fps | 22.9 fps | 21.5 fps | 40.5 fps |
| Intel Core i7 975 (X58) - 2GPUs | 38.4 fps | 42.3 fps | 38.0 fps | 73.2 fps |
| Intel Core i7 870 (P55) 2GPUs | 38.0 fps | 41.9 fps | 37.4 fps | 65.9 fps |
The important data is in the next table. What you're looking at here is the % speedup from one to two GPUs on X58 vs. P55. In theory, X58 should have higher percentages because each GPU gets 16 PCIe lanes while Lynnfield only provides 8 per GPU.
| GTX 275 -> GTX 275 SLI Scaling | Crysis Warhead (ambush) | Crysis Warhead (avalanche) | Crysis Warhead (frost) | FarCry 2 Playback Demo Action |
| Intel Core i7 975 (X58) | 84.6% | 83.9% | 77.6% | 78.5% |
| Intel Core i7 870 (P55) | 82.7% | 83.0% | 74.0% | 62.7% |
For the most part, the X58 platform was only a couple of percent better in scaling. That changes with the Far Cry 2 results where X58 manages to get 78% scaling while P55 only delivers 62%. It's clearly not the most common case, but it can happen. If you're going to be building a high-end dual-GPU setup, X58 is probably worth it.
Next, the quad-GPU results from AMD:
| AMD Radeon HD 4870 X2 | Crysis Warhead (ambush) | Crysis Warhead (avalanche) | Crysis Warhead (frost) | FarCry 2 Playback Demo Action |
| Intel Core i7 975 (X58) - 2GPUs | 25.8 fps | 31.3 fps | 27.0 fps | 70.9 fps |
| Intel Core i7 870 (P55) 2GPUs | 24.4 fps | 31.1 fps | 26.6 fps | 71.4 fps |
| Intel Core i7 975 (X58) - 4GPUs | 27.0 fps | 57.4 fps | 47.9 fps | 117.9 fps |
| Intel Core i7 870 (P55) 4GPUs | 24.2 fps | 50.0 fps | 36.5 fps | 116 fps |
Again, what we really care about is the scaling. Note how single GPU performance is identical between Bloomfield/Lynnfield, but multi-GPU performance is noticeably lower on Lynnfield. This isn't going to be good:
| 4870 X2 -> 4870 X2 CF Scaling | Crysis Warhead (ambush) | Crysis Warhead (avalanche) | Crysis Warhead (frost) | FarCry 2 Playback Demo Action |
| Intel Core i7 975 (X58) | 4.7% | 83.4% | 77.4% | 66.3% |
| Intel Core i7 870 (P55) | -1.0% | 60.8% | 37.2% | 62.5% |
Ouch. Maybe Lynnfield is human after all. Almost across the board the quad-GPU results significantly favor X58. It makes sense given how data hungry these GPUs are. Again, the conclusion here is that for a high end multi-GPU setup you'll want to go with X58/Bloomfield.
A Quick Look at GPU Limited Gaming
With all of our CPU reviews we try to strike a balance between CPU and GPU limited game tests in order to show which CPU is truly faster at running game code. In fact all of our CPU tests are designed to figure out which CPUs are best at a number of tasks.
However, the vast majority of games today will be limited by whatever graphics card you have in your system. The performance differences we talked about a earlier will all but disappear in these scenarios. Allow me to present data from Crysis Warhead running at 2560 x 1600 with maximum quality settings:
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275 | Crysis Warhead (ambush) | Crysis Warhead (avalanche) | Crysis Warhead (frost) |
| Intel Core i7 975 | 20.8 fps | 23.0 fps | 21.4 fps |
| Intel Core i7 870 | 20.8 fps | 22.9 fps | 21.5 fps |
| AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE | 20.9 fps | 23.0 fps | 21.5 fps |
They're all the same. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, it's always been the case. Any CPU near the high end, when faced with the same GPU bottleneck, will perform the same in game.
Now that doesn't mean you should ignore performance data and buy a slower CPU. You always want to purchase the best performing CPU you can at any given pricepoint. It'll ensure that regardless of the CPU/GPU balance in applications and games that you're always left with the best performance possible.
The Test
| Motherboard: | Intel DP55KG (Intel P55) Intel DX58SO (Intel X58) Intel DX48BT2 (Intel X48) Gigabyte GA-MA790FXT-UD5P (790FX) |
| Chipset: | Intel X48 Intel X58 Intel P55 AMD 790FX |
| Chipset Drivers: | Intel 9.1.1.1015 (Intel) AMD Catalyst 9.8 |
| Hard Disk: | Intel X25-M SSD (80GB) |
| Memory: | Qimonda DDR3-1066 4 x 1GB (7-7-7-20) Corsair DDR3-1333 4 x 1GB (7-7-7-20) Patriot Viper DDR3-1333 2 x 2GB (7-7-7-20) |
| Video Card: | eVGA GeForce GTX 280 |
| Video Drivers: | NVIDIA ForceWare 190.62 (Win764) NVIDIA ForceWare 180.43 (Vista64) NVIDIA ForceWare 178.24 (Vista32) |
| Desktop Resolution: | 1920 x 1200 |
| OS: | Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit (for SYSMark) Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit Windows 7 64-bit |
Turbo mode is enabled for the P55 and X58 platforms.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
343 Comments
View All Comments
7Enigma - Wednesday, September 9, 2009 - link
"What you are doing is cheating, and people is not stupid."Hand meet Face..... Gentleman we have a winner! Could you please post a picture of yourself so I can make a T-shirt?
james jwb - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
i wouldn't go that far at all, but look a few comments above for my feelings on this. The honest way to go about this, Anand, was to do this review as you have done, but have a page or two dedicated to clock for clock, and to state in bold letter that turbo mode was on for the benches in the current review. Do this and all is forgivenHave you stopped to think how well Turbo mode in Lynfield has boosted benchmarks compared to bloomsfield?
As i said, yep, nice feature, but i do not expect a site to fall for stuff like this, i'd do stock (turbo-crap) results like you have, because this feature is there and cannot just be ignored, but my interest would have been to present clock for clock results on other pages, and it should have been yours as well. You've done a disservice to the enthusiast here. I was loving Lynnfield in your review until i realised turbo was on, then i felt this review was 100% useless to what i care and want to know about - clock for clock, and it must be the same for a huge percent of your readers, who at this stage, some probably haven't even realized turbo was on in your results and are still salivating. All enthusiasts who like to overclock themselves and not have turbo trying to trick us in reviews want clock for clock, you left them out, that is serious cause for questioning what the hell is going on at Anandtech. Sure, for those here who run stock, the review suffices, but, well, i've made my point now i think...
This is the first real blunder i've seen on this site, but imo its a big one, and that blogger who hates you guys and posts up lots of stuff about your contradictions (to which so far i find all his posts false, the server blog guy, you know who i mean), today he'll have a field day on this one.
Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, September 9, 2009 - link
I can add a disclosure saying that turbo mode was enabled, but this has always been the case for our Nehalem reviews. We always try to review products with all of their features enabled as long as they ship that way and they don't reduce quality (e.g. certain GPU driver optimizations in the past).While I'll gladly add a clock for clock against Bloomfield in a few tests, flip back to our Lynnfield preview if you want a preview of that (that chip could only turbo up by 1 multiplier - effectively making it a clock-for-clock comparison to Bloomfield).
Turbo mode in Lynnfield does help it against Bloomfield in the lighter threaded apps, do keep in mind that Bloomfield has turbo as well.
It seems like what you're saying is that you want the maximum overclock possible for all cores and as such you will definitely disable turbo mode. In that configuration, the only difference between Lynnfield and Bloomfield (from a purely CPU standpoint) is one channel of memory. As I've mentioned before, that one memory channel is not going to make a tremendous difference for the vast majority of users. But if this is what you're asking for, I can definitely provide it. I'm out in California this week for an unrelated product, let me get back and I'll include that data in my Core i7 860 review.
Take care,
Anand
james jwb - Wednesday, September 9, 2009 - link
thanks for the response, it's appreciated. I hold anandtech on a pedestal, and was just surprised not to see some clock for clock stuff for the overclockers out there. I haven't used a CPU at stock for 6+ years for my main rig, so clock for clock is very important, though as you've said, there won't be too much difference between bloomsfield and lynnfield, i'd still like to see it, though :)As for your comment below about how intel and amd will be changing things soon for the stock users out there, well, i think clock for clock will become very important for overclocker then in these reviews, more so than ever to find out how each cpu performs, or maybe i'm wrong!
ClownPuncher - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Why would they turn off a product feature when reviewing said product? Because PhII doesn't have it? That is like not including DX10.1 results for AMD in HAWX. Consumers usually buy products based on features, this product has an aggressive turbo boost.Gary Key - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
"there you go, finally you said it.all the benchmarks have at least 600 mhz over the processor's stock speed.
that is outrageous, then if you want to compare the result with phenom 2 you have to overclock phenom 2 at least 600 mhz over stock speed.
just to be fair "
First off, it is fair as that is how Intel ships the CPU, turbo is an integral part of the CPU's operation and is a major feature, end of subject.
Second, the 965 BE is not going to run stable at 4GHz under a 64-bit OS without near or sub-zero cooling. The Phenom IIs continue to have a problem when approaching 4GHz with a 64-bit OS. AMD has not fixed it yet.
james jwb - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Sorry, but i disagree. You seem to have swallowed some genious Intel marketing crap here. Yes, it's a nice feature, but any CPU can overclock, all overclockers will overclock, and your results gloss over that benchmarks were using turbo. This is bad, and the first time i've really seen this site do something really biased, or just stupid, not sure which...I'm telling you now, a big percentage of your readers will see the results for the 920 and 750 as clock for clock comparisons and think its a very close game here, and it's not.
I'll forgive you once you do a clock for clock comparison, but i won't forget that you pushed turbo results and nothing else, and didn't put a warning big bold statements like you normally do for important info stating these are with turbo on. Watch all excitement for this review from overclockers dwindle if you do.
goinginstyle - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
They had an entire section discussing turbo mode, comments were made in the results about the turbo advantage,and their system setup page clearly states turbo in turned on for both lynnfield and bloomfield. Read the article.james jwb - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
the look at turbo is rubbish, we need clock for clock against bloomsfield.It's not in bold, its of that importance to state this for those who flick through, which you'll find many do.
And still, i have no gripe with the data presented so far (aside from it not being very, very clear that turbo was on), my problem is what has been left out, and that is - a lot of important stuff for the enthusiast who control his own overclock.
goinginstyle - Wednesday, September 9, 2009 - link
Look on page 9 under the system setup, it clearly states that turbo is enabled. It is mentioned several times in regards to the performance results. If you could read, you would have understood that TURBO was ON. Several pages of the article discussed the new Turbo mode and how important it is to the performance of the processor.I suppose because you have labeled yourself an enthusiast that means you should be treated special. I guess between you, SnakeOil, TA152H, and a couple of others we could hold a special Olympics in your honor. Wouldn't that be special?
What is amazing, is that after reading several other reviews, it appears only Snakeoil at Tech Report is posting the same crap there as he did here. Everyone used Turbo mode in testing so why are you not posting at the other sites about how mistreated you are as an enthusiast.
Probably around 98% of computer owners do not overclock so why is it so hard to understand the testing methodology used here and elsewhere. For those of us that do not overclock, this article was perfectly suited for us and shows that we can get similar performance without opening up the box. Even for those who do overclock, they at least showed clock results and I am sure we will see more based on Anand's comments this morning.