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
moronsworld - Saturday, September 26, 2009 - link
To all you morons that don't understand economics. amd gone = intel monopoly = intel processors overpriced. Plain and simple. Take an economy class or 2, you morons. AMD is a good company, just that Intel's processors are better at the moment. God too many morons in this world that are allowed to vote. We live in a society ruled by morons.TA152H - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Actually, you don't really know what you're talking about.On-die memory controllers are nothing new. The Nexgen 586 had it in the mid-90s. Intel just knew when to add it, and when not to. That's why the Core 2 blows AMD processors away, while being significantly smaller.
AMD instruction schedulers were behind Intel's Pentium Pro from 1995 until the Phenom II came out. It still doesn't have full memory disambiguation like Intel introduced with the Core 2, but at least the memory scheduling is now on par with the Pentium Pro. I'm not sure that something they like brought up though.
64-bit processing is also old hat, and really was just an extension of the 386 protected mode anyway, with a lot of Microsoft input.
The K8 wasn't really much of an architecture, it was a K7 with a memory controller, and a couple of extra stages for better IPC, that most idiots thought was for higher clock speeds. It was a failure, and was what put AMD in the situation where they are now. It was, generally, better than the Netburst, but then, is that such a high bar to get over? The problem was, they actually believed it was a good processor until the Core 2 relieved them of that misapprehension. The reality is, Intel's mobile chips were always better than the K8, but the damn fools made us buy the Pentium 4 for the desktop. To AMD's credit, at least they never made anything horrible like that, but, really, their primary claim to fame was based more on the terrible Intel design than a great processor of their own, and the fact Intel wouldn't let us use the mobile chips for desktops.
JonnyDough - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Please work on your English before replying to me in the future. Thanks.Aenslead - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
So you *must* have perfect english to reply in these forums?Gosh, never saw that in the Terms and Conditions agreement when I created my account. So that means that anybody (or a nobody, like you) have a say on what other races and people from other countries that don't speak English as their first language, that LIKE READING and giving their opinion in a FREE MOFO OPEN FORUM, must do to post here?
You and your kind are pathetic.
JonnyDough - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
I didn't say anything about having perfect English. You sir, are a troll. I just wanted his reply to be coherent. This is the ENGLISH version of DailyTech, there are other language versions. His post didn't even make sense, and yours was just trolling.ginbong - Wednesday, September 9, 2009 - link
I understood what he said, maybe you need to sharpen up your analytical skills and stop being a dlckhead on this hardware analysis website.Better yet, how about taking the money you have saved for your next PC upgrade and enrolling into Grade 1 again.
dastruch - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
and you don't get it too... patheticjigglywiggly - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
This is a hot cpu, except I want 6 cores + HT. 32nm... quads ahh yeah. I still don't like the i5, because I don't want two sockets on one brand at the same time. It just limits options, I am only looking at i7/i9, because I bought this qx6700 in 2006 for 1000$. It was a good purchase, because q6600s were a while away and they were 500$. I got my qx6700 to 3.85ghz, now it's at 3.5ghz stable. Curse you electromigration! Also curse you economy! I don't have enough money for a 6core+6HT 1000$ cpu again.JonnyDough - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
*Laughs at the moron...Go buy a Ferrari and then wreck it and sell it for parts. That's essentially a larger scale version of what you did.
Lifted - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Huh? Buying a $1000 CPU is like wrecking a Ferrari?"Laughs at the moron"