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
Gary Key - Wednesday, September 9, 2009 - link
Actually the manufacturers wanted Clarkdale desperately for the school/holiday shopping seasons. It is delayed as they are still debugging the platform, unofficially I think that means the drivers are not ready. ;) Believe me, if we had a stable Clarkdale platform worthy of a preview, you would have read about it already.justme2009 - Wednesday, September 9, 2009 - link
You are incorrect sir. The manufacturers were complaining to Intel that they couldn't get rid of the current stock before Intel released mobile Nehalem, so Intel caved.http://techreport.com/discussions.x/16152">http://techreport.com/discussions.x/16152
http://www.techspot.com/news/33065-notebook-vendor...">http://www.techspot.com/news/33065-note...-pushing...
http://www.brighthub.com/computing/hardware/articl...">http://www.brighthub.com/computing/hardware/articl...
http://gizmodo.com/5123632/notebook-makers-want-in...">http://gizmodo.com/5123632/notebook-mak...o-delay-...
Needless to say, I'm waiting for mobile Nehalem (clarkdale/arrendale). With a 32nm manufacturing process, plus starting in 2010, Intel will begin to move both the northbridge and southbridge chips onto the processor die. The move should complete some time around 2011 as far as I can tell.
It will be far better than what we have today, and I'm really ticked off at the manufacturers for holding back progress because of their profit margin.
Gary Key - Wednesday, September 9, 2009 - link
I spoke directly with the manufacturers, not unnamed sources. The story is quite different than the rumors that were posted. I will leave it at that until we product for review.justme2009 - Wednesday, September 9, 2009 - link
Of course the manufacturers wouldn't fess up to it. It's bad business, and it makes them look bad. It already angered a great many people. I don't think they are rumors at all.justme2009 - Wednesday, September 9, 2009 - link
Personally I'm holding off on buying a new system until the northbridge/southbridge migration to the processor die is complete, ~2 years from now. That will definitely be the time to buy a new system.ClagMaster - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
“These things are fast and smart with power. Just wait until Nehalem goes below 65W...”I surely will Mr Shimpi with this exceptional processor. I am going to wait until the summer of 2010 when prices are the lowest, rebates are the sweetest, before I buy my i7 860. By that time, hopefully, there would be 65W versions available on improved stepping. It’s worth the wait.
I would wager the on-chip PCIe controller could use some additional optimization which would result in lower power draw for a given frequency.
Intel sure delivered the goods with Lynnfield.
cosminliteanu - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Well done Anandtech for this article... :)ereavis - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
great article. Good replies to all the bashing, most seem to have misread.Now, we want to see results in AnandTech Bench!
MODEL3 - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Wow, the i5 750 is even better than what i was expecting...For the vast, vast majority of the consumers, (not enthusiasts, overclocking guys, etc...) with this processor Intel effectively erased the above 200$ CPU market...
I hope this move to have the effect to kill their ASP also... (except AMDs...) (not that this will hurt Intel much with so many cash, but it is better than nothing...)
I see that the structure/composition in this review and in many others tech sites reviews is very good, maybe this time Intel helped more in relation with the past regarding info / photos / diagrams / review guide etc...
One question that i have (out of the conspiracy book again...) is,
if the integration of the PCI-Express controller in the CPU die on the mainstream LGA-1156 platform will be a permanent strategy from now on...
and if the recent delay for the PCI-Express standard 3.0 has a connection with the timing of the launch of mainstream LGA-1156 based CPUs with PCI-Express 3.0 controller integrated...
Sure, they can launch future LGA-1156 motherboard chipsets with PCI-Express 3.0 controller, but doesn't this contradict the integration strategy that Intel just started with the new processors?
MODEL3 - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
I can't edit...I just want to clarify that the PCI-Express 3.0 question is for LOL reasons, not taken serious...