Power Consumption

If you'll remember back to last year's Nehalem coverage I made a point to mention that the Nehalem architecture, thanks to its PCU and power gate transistors, was the most power efficient of the high end options. The lower the TDP, the more important power efficiency is and thus it's no surprise to see Lynnfield truly impress when it comes to power consumption:

Idle Power Consumption

At idle the Core i5 and Core i7 870 use less power than any other processor we've ever tested. Note that these idle power figures include an idling GeForce GTX 280. With a lower power graphics card, you could easily get to idle power consumption around 60W. Once we start seeing on-package GPUs, total system power consumption should drop even further.

Load Power Consumption - x264 HD Bench Pass 2

Under load the Core i5 and Core i7 870 continue to impress. They both draw less power than a Q6600 or a Q9650, all the while outperforming the two. Power consumption is also noticeably lower than Bloomfield.

These things are fast and smart with power. Just wait until Nehalem goes below 65W...

Gaming Performance Overclocking: Great When Overvolted, Otherwise...
POST A COMMENT

341 Comments

View All Comments

  • jnr0077 - Thursday, July 26, 2012 - link

    well i have the better model i5 750 1156 socket gaming score is 5.9 on basic 500 gb hd 7200 with a ssd it hit 7.9 on a gigabyte GA-P55A-UD6 12gb ram. as for the price
    cost was cheep intel (R)quad core (TM) i5 750 @2.66 GHz 2.67GHz cost around £100 mobo cost me £100 i though it is a very cheep upgrade considering price i wood like to here what score any Pehnom II X4 965 hit
    Reply
  • Milleman - Sunday, September 13, 2009 - link

    The article itself is good. But Why on earth compare a standard clocked CPU (AMD) against overclocked ones (Intel). Makes no objective sense att all. I's like having a car test between a standard car and a tuned racecar. Of course the racecar will win in performance. The overclock results shouldn't be there at all. Maybe as a remark that tell what will happen if one would like to overclock. Looks rather unfair and biased.

    So... why??
    Reply
  • Nich0 - Sunday, September 13, 2009 - link

    All I saw in this article is comparison of CPUs in their stock configuration. What's wrong with that? Reply
  • Bozo Galora - Friday, September 11, 2009 - link

    I must say this was a very good logical coherent review with just about all the info one would require

    Good job - I had no intention of getting one of these, but now I may change my mind
    Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Thursday, September 10, 2009 - link

    http://www.intel.com/support/processors/sb/CS-0299...">http://www.intel.com/support/processors/sb/CS-0299...

    According to Intel...

    Core i7 870:

    5/4/2/2

    Core i7 860:

    5/4/1/1/

    Core i5 750:

    4/4/1/1

    So the i7 870 has higher Turbo mode for 3 and 4 cores than 860 does.
    Reply
  • Nich0 - Friday, September 11, 2009 - link

    Yeah and that means that the OC numbers for the 750 with Turbo don't make sense. For example 4160 / 160 = 26 which would be a Turbo of 6 BCLK.
    Same thing for the 860 OC 3C/4C Turbo number.

    Am I missing something?
    Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Friday, September 11, 2009 - link

    Its likely Anand has ES versions or such which allows multiplier adjustments. But at stock, the linked speeds are the Turbo Boost grades. Reply
  • Nich0 - Friday, September 11, 2009 - link

    Yeah obviously I am not disputing the stock OC with Turbo enabled (that sounds weird: stock OC?), ie 160*20= 3200, but just what it means in terms of Turbo: it 'should' read 3.36 for 3/4C and 3.84 for 1/2C if the 1/1/4/4 Turbo spec is correct. Reply
  • rdkone - Thursday, September 10, 2009 - link

    I don't like the fact that the BCLK directly and synchronously communicates with PCIe buss, thus affecting the videocard negatively (among other PCIe cards)... This is like overclocking years ago whereas the PCI bus would be affected in the same way and causing headaches... This is a major issue I feel for those wanting to push a fairly big overclock on these CPU's... Intel screwed the pooch for us overclockers I feel... Just more justification to limp along with my core 2 quad at 4.1Ghz rock solid... Like others have said, is funny how the articles don't show older CPU overclocks against all this new garb... In the past they used to... But that hurts sales : ) Reply
  • SnowleopardPC - Thursday, September 10, 2009 - link

    Ok, so what type of boost do I get over a Q6600 with 8gb of ram and windows 7 64?

    Is it worth upgrading or waiting for that 6 core 32nm to come out next year?

    To upgrade to any of these I will need to replace a motherboard and ram with the processor.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now