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
Lynnfield's Un-Core: Faster Than Most Bloomfields
A few years ago I had a bet going with AMD's Ian McNaughton. We were at an AMD event where the Phenom architecture was first being introduced and he insisted that the L3 cache was part of the memory controller. This didn't make any sense to me so I disagreed. Minutes later a presentation slide went up on a projector talking about how the L3 cache and memory controller were on the same voltage plane; that's what he meant. Ian laughed a lot and to this day he holds it over my head.
The moral of the story is in Phenom and later in Nehalem, the processor is divided into two parts. Intel named them the core and the un-core. The "core" of these multi-core processors is made up of each individual processor core and its associated private caches (L1/L2). The "uncore" refers to everything else: PCIe controller, memory controller, DMI/QPI and the L3 cache.
The uncore isn't as critical for performance but is made up of a ton of transistors; roughly 400 million in the case of Lynnfield/Bloomfield (more if you count the PCIe controller). In order to save power, Intel uses slower transistors that have lower leakage for the un-core. As a result, the un-core can't clock up as high as the core and runs at a lower multiplier.
Take the Bloomfield Core i7 975 for example. The core runs at 25x BCLK (25 x 133MHz = 3.33GHz), but the un-core runs at 20x BCLK (20 x 133MHz = 2.66GHz). The rest of the chips, including Lynnfield, have slower un-cores:
CPU | Socket | Core Clock | Un-Core Clock |
Intel Core i7 975 Extreme | LGA-1366 | 3.33GHz | 2.66GHz |
Intel Core i7 965 Extreme | LGA-1366 | 3.20GHz | 2.66GHz |
Intel Core i7 950 | LGA-1366 | 3.06GHz | 2.13GHz |
Intel Core i7 940 | LGA-1366 | 2.93GHz | 2.13GHz |
Intel Core i7 920 | LGA-1366 | 2.66GHz | 2.13GHz |
Intel Core i7 870 | LGA-1156 | 2.93GHz | 2.40GHz |
Intel Core i7 860 | LGA-1156 | 2.80GHz | 2.40GHz |
Intel Core i5 750 | LGA-1156 | 2.66GHz | 2.13GHz |
Here's another area where Lynnfield is better than the lower end Bloomfields: its uncore runs at 2.40GHz instead of 2.13GHz. The exception being the Core i5 750, its uncore is stuck at 2.13GHz as well. Once again, only the "Extreme" Bloomfields have a faster uncore.
Lynnfield's Memory Controller: Also Faster than Bloomfield
Intel only officially supports two memory speeds on Bloomfield: DDR3-800 and DDR3-1066. Obviously we're able to run it much faster than that, but this is what's officially validated and supported on the processors.
Lynnfield is a year newer and thus gets a tweaked memory controller. The result? Official DDR3-1333 support.
Three Lynnfield memory kits (left to right): OCZ, Patriot and Kingston
The same sort of rules apply to Lynnfield memory kits that we saw with Bloomfield. You don't want to go above 1.65V and thus all the kits we've seen run at 1.5V for the stock JEDEC speeds or 1.65V for the overclocked modules.
Like Bloomfield, 1.65V is the max we'll see on Lynnfield
343 Comments
View All Comments
Griswold - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
You definitely ARE stupid.dragunover - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Readers aren't, but you didn't read...snakeoil - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
wow, this lynnfield is expensive, and the motherboards are expensive too.this is a crippled core i7 and you will have problems because the northbrige only have 2 x 8 pcie express electrical.
so if you are going to buy a new directx 11 video card don't commit the mistake of buying a lynnfield which is crippled.
without hyperthreading in some cases is a 40% slower than core i7
Eeqmcsq - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Anand, can't you just ban this guy? He's always trolls against Intel here, TechReport, and a couple other tech sites.JonnyDough - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
I second the notion.Chlorus - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Thirded.maddoctor - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Your comment will not affect people whose committed to bought these. I think it is more valuable than any AMD platform. I don't think AMD will survive next year.TA152H - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
From a purely processor perspective, I'd agree, but AMD platforms are pretty strong when you compare IGPs. The G45 compared to the 790GX is worse comparison than the Phenom II compared to the Nehalem.Don't forget IGPs are a HUGE market, so it's not an unimportant consideration.
PassingBy - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Yes, the IGP market is huge and Intel dominates that market as it is. If Intel can get its drivers right, then it looks like the IGP on Clarkdale/Arrandale will extend that domination. If you want to game seriously on graphics intensive games, then don't use an IGP.ash9 - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
broaden your horizons; the real money is in corporate retooling- that said AMD's platform is without question offer more bang for the buck, considering corporate needs...most corporate folk have gone blind because of Intel's IPG's (laptops and desktops)Anand how bout running the tests that addresses that issue (IPG's and eye strain)