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
Jamahl - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Digusting! How much money did intel bung you for this disgrace?strikeback03 - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
How is that disgusting? It is the stock configuration of the processor. They are not doing all this testing as an e-pissing contest of who has better performance per clock, it is a comparison of retail products in real-world applications. If (and according to the review, when) AMD has something similar, I'd imagine they will test with that turned on too.Jamahl - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Why not benchmark the Phenom 2 with fusion for gaming anand???Gary Key - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
"Why not benchmark the Phenom 2 with fusion for gaming anand??? "Have you actually tried using Fusion with Windows 7 x64? It is a total mess. I will be happy to show some results with it, most will say DNF, but that might not make you happy. ;) That said, AMD is working on it, especially trying to get it to play nice with AOD.
In the meantime, here is the current list of items to watch out for - http://game.amd.com/us-en/drivers_fusion.aspx?p=3&...">http://game.amd.com/us-en/drivers_fusion.aspx?p=3&... .
Jamahl - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
What? It's AMD's fault that an unreleased 64-bit os is causing issues with their software?How many people are using Window 7 64 bit who visit this website?
Gary Key - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
It is just as bad in 64-bit Vista. I imagine a fair amount of people that visit the site are using the RTM version of Win7.Jamahl - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
were you benchmarking a processor at 2.66 gigahertz or a processor at 3.2 gigahertz?Gary Key - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Do you and SnakeOil live in the same house or is the IP address just that similar? LOL.. The processors were benched as they come out of the box. For Lynnfield that means turbo was on as we stated in the article and here in the comments. For Bloomfield, that also means turbo was on, just as it comes out of the retail box.If you check all the other reviews on the web at the main sites, everyone tested with turbo on in the primary benchmarks. So I guess you can say there is a huge conspiracy between us to actually utilize the processors as Intel intended for the users.
Apparently, we all failed at covering it up, so congratulations on discovering the Freeturbomasons. A now not so secret fraternal organization bent on world domination through the use of turbo frequencies inside processors carrying the blue "i" logo.
For the AMD Phenom II x4 series, they were benched with all cores enabled just as they come out of the box, even though you can disable each core in the BIOS just like you can disable turbo on the i7/i5. I guess to make things fair, we should disable the cores on the 965 BE as having that "feature" turned on is cheating.
Anyway, thanks for making my day, I needed some much deserved laughter. :)
Chlorus - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Seeing as how Fusion isn't even out yet, that would be hard to do...go troll somewhere else. What is with the idiots coming out of the woodwork on this post? You've got the standard fanboys, as well as insecure LGA-1366 owners who feel the need to defend their purchase, and insecure purchasers of 1156 products who are afraid their choice might be bested in a benchmark somewhere.Roland00 - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Would you please rerun page 9 with an overclocked 975 and the 870. I am wondering how much the difference will grow when the gpus are fed more information due to the faster cpus. Something like 3.8 to 4.0 ghz on both cpus with turbo off (a good overclock yet not in the unreasonable area)If you are investing 400+ dollars in gpus, and you are building it yourself you are probably going to overclock.