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
goinginstyle - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Really? SuperPi, WPrime, Everest, 3Dmarks and LN2 overclocking defines a better review? How does any of that correlate into real world applications and what 99% of people use their computers for on a daily basis. I counted a lot more than three tests in the AT review, go spam elsewhere.C'DaleRider - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Really. All I play is SuperPi, Everest and 3DMarks....oh, and Furmark and OCCT.Who would ever use their computer to encode video, run Excel spreadsheets, play games like Far Cry or Crysis or Left For Dead, or actually use any other real world application?
Don't you know? Real elite computer users just bench synthetic crap, over and over, for hours and hours, and scoff at anyone who dares do anything productive with their computer.
/sarcasm
geok1ng - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
I am not pleased by the news; i5 needs more juice for overcloking. Thats terrible: my E8600 is still on top: it runs at 4.0Ghz with 1.16v on a watercooled setup with 4x120mm fans at 1600rpm. we are talking less than 30dB of noise and less than 55w of power consumption. At 1.25v my E8600 reaches 4.25Ghz and would go a little further if wasnt for the 4 sticks of ram burning the NB. no reason to exchange systems before the 32nm parts arrive. The ability to achieve high clocks with low voltages is crucial for a good system: not only will it consume less power, but it will also be quieter, and that is a point for choosing sub-65w dual-cores in gaming rigs.papapapapapapapababy - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
honestly... i lol at all the core i7 core i5 "GAMERS"( and their punny 23 lcd with shitty TN panels) also LGA1366? LGA1156? and 285$ for a shitty motherboard? XD I have a better proposition for you INTEL. how about u SUCK MY BALLS XD. MKAY? the story: my old man needed a gaming setup ( mostly simracing) So i bought the cheapest E7200 i could find (oc3.2GHZ), 4gb of ram, the cheapest intel mobo i could find -g31- ( not even pcie2) and gave him my 4770 ... the price? ridiculously cheap... almost nothing. and with all that extra money i saved i got this > a nice 42" HDTV with a perfect s-ips panel and low 1366 X 768 resolution, and a g25 wheel.
btw, the framerates? i never, ever drop below 30fps. ALWAYS 60FPS NO MATTER WHAT, ( with nice 8xAA) XD so the best gaming cpu? the cheapest !
erple2 - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Interesting. Which 42" LCD TV did you get that has a S-IPS panel? Also, a 23" panel at about 3 feet looks bigger than a 42" screen at 6 feet.papapapapapapapababy - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
LG. btw a 23" TN lcd looks like shit no matter how you look at it.C'DaleRider - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
My, aren't you special?papapapapapapapababy - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
yes, i know! btw enjoy your small screen gaming, mr sheep XDchrnochime - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
I'd say the same about that barely big enough 42" LCD, but then again why bother...papapapapapapapababy - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
my bad i meant this > E7300 3.2ghz (+ a cheap 24$ modded heatpipe cooler... 14 dba XD)