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
erple2 - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
[quoting]Not only did the feature that provided the least benefit (triple vs. dual channel) drive the reason for the socket/pin count difference, they gimp the platform with superior tech by cutting PCIE lanes in half[/quoting]
I thought that the X58 has the PCIe controller on the mobo, and the P55 doesn't? That the Lynnfield CPU's had a built-in PCIe controller, whereas the Bloomfields lacked the built-in PCIe controller? That appears to be another reason why intel had to make 2 separate sockets/platforms.
Now, whether that was made intentionally to force this issue with multiple platforms is a side issue (IMO). I don't necessarily think that it's a problem.
JonnyDough - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
"Personally, from a consumer standpoint, I feel Intel botched the whole X58/P55 design and launch starting with the decision to go with 2 sockets. Not only did the feature that provided the least benefit (triple vs. dual channel) drive the reason for the socket/pin count difference, they gimp the platform with superior tech by cutting PCIE lanes in half."I believe it was intentional and not a botch. Intel was trying to separate a high and low end and to sell more chipsets. It's Intel being boss. It's what they do. Confuse the consumer, sell more crap, and hope that AMD stays a step behind. This is why we need AMD.
Intel is good at marketing and getting consumers to jump on the latest trend. Remember the Pentium 4? Why buy a lower ghz chip when the P4 clocks higher right?
The educated consumer waits and pounces when the price is right, not when the tech is new and seems "thrilling". This review is great but no offense it still almost seems to come with a "buy this" spin - which may be the only way a tech journalist can stay privy to getting new information ahead of the curve.
Comdrpopnfresh - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
You purposefully placing the possibility of overclocking solely in the hands of the lower chip, while completely disregarding the history and facts. This-or-that logical fallacy. Third option: You can overclock the higher-clocked chip too.Granted, I see your point about the hardware being of the same generation of the architecture; that lynnnfield is not the tock to bloomfield's tick (or the other way around if how you hear clocks starts mid-cycle) and therefore the silicon has the same ceiling for OC.
But bloomfield is a like a D.I.N.K. household; dual-income-no-kids. When you overclock bloomfield, not only do you have the physical advantage of lower heat-density due to a large die, but you also don't have the whiny pci-e controller complaining how timmy at school doesn't have to be forced into overclocking. The on-die pci-e controller will hinder overclocking- period.
Just like trying to overclock cpu's in nearly identical s775 motherboards/systems. The system with the igp keeps the fsb from overclocking too much. So then what- you buy a dedicated gpu, negate your igp you spent good money on, just to have your cpu scream?
Except in this case, if one were able to disable the on-die pci-e controller and plop a gpu in a chipset-appointed slot (sticking with the igp mobo situation in s775) you'd be throwing away the money on the on-die goodies, and also throwing away the reduced latency it provides.
Has it occured to anyone that this is going to open an avenue for artificial price inflation of ddr-3. Now the same products will be sold in packages of 3's and 2's? Sorry- just figured I'd change the subject from your broken heard still stick on overclocking.
chizow - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Actually in the real world, overclockers are finding the 920 D0s clock as well and often better than the 965s for sure (being C0), and even the 975s D0. You're certainly not going to see a 5x proportionate return in MHz on the difference spent between a $200 920 and a $1000 975. There is no third option because their maximum clock thresholds are similar and limited by uarch and process. The only advantage the XE versions enjoy is multiplier flexibility, a completely artificial restriction imposed by Intel to justify a higher price tag.
philosofool - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Not seeing it dude. A little overvoltage and LGA 1156 overclocks with 1366.chizow - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Yes and early reports indicate they will overclock to equivalent clockspeeds, negating any Turbo benefit Lynnfield enjoys in the review. That leaves less subtle differences like multi-GPU performance where the X58 clearly shines and clearly outperfoms P55.puffpio - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
In the article you refer to x264 as an alternative to h264in fact, h264 is just the standard (like jpeg or png) and x264 is an encoder that implements the standard. i wouldn't call it an alternative.
that would be like saying photoshop is an alternative to jpeg, becuase it can save in jpeg format
puffpio - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
"You'd think that Intel was about to enter the graphics market or something with a design like this."dun dun dun! foreshadowing?
----
and since these parts consume less power yet are built on the same process, I assume they run at lower voltage? If so, since they ARE built on the same process, I'd assume they can survive the voltages of the original Bloomfield and beyond? eg for overclocking...
Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Yes, Lynnfield shouldn't have a problem running at the same voltages as Bloomfield. The only unknown is the PCIe circuitry. I suspect that over time we'll figure out the tricks to properly overclocking Lynnfield.As far as Larrabee goes, I wouldn't expect much from the first generation. If Intel is *at all* competitive in gaming performance it'll be a win as far as they're concerned. It's Larrabee II and ultimately Larrabee III that you should be most interested in.
The on-die PCIe controller is a huge step forward though. CPU/GPU integration cometh.
Take care,
Anand
Comdrpopnfresh - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Have you seen bios implementations allowing for the controller to be disabled? Know if anyone intends to do this?