PAR2 Multithreaded Archive Recovery Performance
Par2 is an application used for reconstructing downloaded archives. It can generate parity data from a given archive and later use it to recover the archive
Chuchusoft took the source code of par2cmdline 0.4 and parallelized it using Intel’s Threading Building Blocks 2.1. The result is a version of par2cmdline that can spawn multiple threads to repair par2 archives. For this test we took a 708MB archive, corrupted nearly 60MB of it, and used the multithreaded par2cmdline to recover it. The scores reported are the repair and recover time in seconds.
Our Par2 test actually puts both the 860 and 870 slightly ahead of the Core i7 975. It's clear that anything faster than a Core i5 750 in this case basically performs about the same. It looks like we're starting to be bottlenecked by our SSD.
Microsoft Excel 2007
Excel can be a very powerful mathematical tool. In this benchmark we're running a Monte Carlo simulation on a very large spreadsheet of stock pricing data.
Sony Vegas Pro 8: Blu-ray Disc Creation
Although technically a test simulating the creation of a Blu-ray disc, the majority of the time in our Sony Vegas Pro benchmark is spend encoding the 25Mbps MPEG-2 video stream and not actually creating the Blu-ray disc itself.
Again the Core i7 860 pulls slightly ahead of the 920 and falls short of the 870, right where we'd expect it to land.
Sorenson Squeeze: FLV Creation
Another video related benchmark, we're using Sorenson Squeeze to convert regular videos into Flash videos for use on websites.
The 860 and the 920 keep trading positions, but as you'd expect given the similar price points - the two perform about the same.
WinRAR - Archive Creation
Our WinRAR test simply takes 300MB of files and compresses them into a single RAR archive using the application's default settings. We're not doing anything exotic here, just looking at the impact of CPU performance on creating an archive:
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
121 Comments
View All Comments
has407 - Sunday, September 20, 2009 - link
No, there's nothing "wrong" except maybe your assumptions or math?22x 133MHz = 2.93GHz. That's exactly what an 860 should be at with 4 cores active under full load.
An 870 would idle at 2.93GHz; with 4 cores active and under full load you should see 24x 133MHz = 3.20GHz.
yacoub - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
Go learn about TDP.hulu - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
" According to the Turbo charts, the slowest Turbo speed is higher than the stock speed. Why is that? "It's not only how many cores you use but also what instructions are being executed that contributes to whether turbo is used.
TemjinGold - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
I'm guessing it's because if you turn turbo OFF, it would be 2.66.I'm wondering though, if you need 2 cores on the 860, does it shut off 2 cores and use 2 physical ones or does it shut off 3 cores and use 1 physical plus 1 HT core?
TA152H - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
Despite your love affair for this chip, it's a solution in search of a problem.It's clearly inferior to the Bloomfield. Despite running at higher clock speeds, sometimes a lot, it actually loses to the i7 920. Overclock them, and there's just no comparison. The i7 920 is better. No one with any knowledge of computers would buy the i7 860. They'd get the real deal, the i7 920. This pertains even moreso for the i7 870. Basically, the Lynnfield is an idiot's procesesor, except for the i5 750.
If you can't afford a Bloomfield, that's really your best choice. Except, like I mentioned in a previous post, this is a Celeron, without the platform. If they coupled this with an IGP, you'd have something that would sell. The i5 750 is still not without appeal with a discrete card, but, then, most of the market likes IGPs. And if you know something, and have some money, you're not going to get the brain-damaged Lynnfield. You'll get the Bloomfield.
It's not a mystery, really. The mystery is why it would even sell marginally well. I think once they couple it with a decent IGP, it will really take off though. Until then, I think they'll be lucky to settle for mediocrity.
The Athlon stole the show. No one needs a brain-damaged version of a better chip, unless it breaks into a new market with price. Arguably the i5 750 did, kind of. Clearly the Athlon did. I think that's going to generate more real excitement, if less motherboard pictorals.
KoolAidMan1 - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
Incorrect, there are already benchmarks out there where the i5 720, i7 870, and i7 920 are all underclocked to 2.66ghz (the speed of the i7 920) and overclocked to 3.2ghz (a very attainable turbo speed by the i7 870 and i5 720). The difference in nearly all gaming benchmarks, using settings that takes the GPU out of the mix as a bottleneck, all at the same clock speeds, are within a very very tight percentage range, at the very most a 10% spread (with Crysis and Far Cry 2 it is closer to a 1% spread).http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/09/07/intel_ly...">http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/09/...ntel_lyn...
I think the lower price of motherboards makes the LGA 1156 CPUs very very attractive. I don't see any reason to get an LGA 1366 board unless you really want to futureproof yourself for six and eight core CPUs. That said, I don't see a point; most games still use single, maybe dual cores, and upgrading CPUs within a motherboard cycle almost never happens for me. By the time it is time to put together a new PC (average every two years for me) there is an entirely new ecosystem of CPUs, motherboards, and RAM that I need to get into and I end up keeping almost nothing from the old rig.
So yeah, I don't really agree with you.
chrnochime - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
Wouldn't it serve you better by creating your own website, instead of attacking Anand's articles and playing second fiddle here? You seem to think you know better than Anand does, so why don't you enlighten the rest of us with your better/correct knowledge at your own site? Or has that been done already?Just saying...
jordanclock - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
I'm currently in the process of putting together a new system and the choice between the i5 750 and the i7 860 is very hard. The 920 isn't even an option for me; The 860 outperforms the 920 in most scenarios, and when the 920 comes ahead, it's less than the margin of error.Are you looking at the same graphs I am? The ones that show the 860 performing better, or at worst identically, to the 920 over and over? For the same CPU price and lower motherboard price? This isn't a Celeron. This isn't something you pair up with an IGP. This is the current generations upper-end bang-for-the-buck champion.
Add in the 750, and I see no reason to get a 920. Two-thirds the price, with most of the benchmarks showing performance parity, sometimes a little less. Again, with a lower motherboard cost as well.
If anything, the 920 is the solution searching for a problem. The 860 just took over the job of the 920, except for a few cases. The 750 offers almost the same performance, but at an even lower cost.
These chips aren't brain-damaged; They just took out the cancerous tumors. Lower cost, lower power, and equal performance. The 860 stole the 920's thunder, and the 750 gives us a very complete mid-range.
the zorro - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
if you go to newegg you can see that lynnfield is not selling, because is crippled, expensive and phenom 2 wipes and mops the floor with core i5 750.KoolAidMan1 - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
You are either deluded or trolling. The i5 720 both costs less and outperforms the Phenom II X4 965 BE in pretty much every chart.