Core i5 / P55 Lab Update
by Gary Key on September 11, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Gary's First Looks
This has been an interesting week to say the least for those of us stuck in the labs and not at AMD's DX11 GPU press briefings. Based on feedback from the Lynnfield launch article we have spent the last couple of days running additional benchmarks to address overclocking and clock for clock requests. Yes, we do listen and respond to the comments no matter how outlandish (you know who you are) some may be at times.
I will interject a personal note here, the emails/private messages that outlined a strong case for additional research and testing certainly held a lot more weight than comments like "You are on Intel's payroll...", "Worst review ever...", and the moonshot , "Illegal benchmarking methods..". First off, if we were on Intel's payroll we would not be working here (a logical conclusion, right? ;) ) As for the other comments, everyone is entitled to their opinions. We do our best to keep an open forum and let the comments fall where they may, but offering constructive criticism and facts to back up those comments is what actually causes change, not endless shock posts or attention grabbing statements. I still have hope in people abiding by the rules of Internet Etiquette, but apparently we are still a long ways off from that happening. I will step off the soap box, well, until the next article....
Just to set this up now, our overclock comparisons will be at 3.8GHz for the Core i5/i7 and Phenom II x4 965BE processors. Why 3.8GHz, well it is an easy number for all of our processors to hit on fairly low voltages with retail or mid-range air coolers. It is also an ideal clock range for the "set it and forget crowd" interested in 24/7 overclocking. Certainly we could go higher on air or water cooling and actually ran most of our Core i5/i7 numbers at 4.2GHz for the motherboard roundups. Our Phenom II x4 965BE is the hold up for higher numbers in our clock for clock comparisons.
AMD continues to have serious problems with their Phenom II processor range clocking above 3.8~4GHz on air with a 64-bit operating system. Unfortunately, there is nothing AMD can do to correct this in the current stepping, but they are actively working on improvements with each processor release. In fact, the latest Athlon II x2 processors are the first products we have that allow for 24/7 stable operation at 4GHz under Windows 7 x64. The quad cores are still lagging although our latest retail 965BE is showing promise around 3.92GHz in early testing. I state this now so it does not come as surprise later.
I will post several benchmark results later today based on our motherboard test suite. Anand will provide a more in-depth analysis next week along with an updated look at the Core i7/860. He might even have a surprise announcement from AMD. In the meantime, I have just about completed this additional testing and will return my focus on completing the first (of many) P55 motherboard article(s) that will be up in a couple of days. Our first review will cover the Gigabyte GA-P55M-UD2 among others. We recently received several other micro-ATX P55 motherboards and will look at those shortly. For now, this board is a perfect match for the Core i5/750 for our mainstream audience looking to upgrade an older platform.
Our graph below is an example of the information we will provide late today. Hopefully, this type of information will be useful for your purchasing decision along with our commentary about the results. I know there is not a Core 2 product listed, that will be forthcoming in the near future.
9/11 Update - I am still working on the FarCry 2 and H.A.W.X. benchmarks so the short update will be delayed until tomorrow morning.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
159 Comments
View All Comments
crimson117 - Friday, September 11, 2009 - link
I'm torn... AMD 965 BE for the most part beats Intel i5 750 non-turbo, but costs $50 more.But with turbo, they're about even.
But turbo is just single-core on-demand overclocking, right? Doesn't AMD have some utility (Overdrive or Fusion?) that automatically OC's a bit?
It think that'd be a more fair comparison: Auto-mobo-OC'd AMD 965 BE vs Turbo-enabled Intel i5 750.
MadMan007 - Friday, September 11, 2009 - link
As part of your decision process I think you should note that this particular test, whlie no doubt one of just many, was of a pretty well threaded application. Turboboost *still* provides a notable benefit in even well threaded apps. Turboboost is more complex than you implied, just check the main review it's more than single-core oc'ing on demand.Nich0 - Friday, September 11, 2009 - link
What's fair and what's not leaves a lot to interpretation it seems. To me a fair comparison would be:1- 965 stock vs 750 stock (ie Turbo is on because that's the way the CPU is regardless of the motherboard). People who won't/can't change BIOS settings. Let's say they bought a DELL, for example.
2- 965 3.8GHz vs 750 3.8GHz (Turbo off to get there). Gary did it. Check.
3- 965 Auto OC vs 750 Auto OC (Turbo off). WHy not.
4- 965 Best OC vs 750 Best OC (Both on air, closed box). Similar to 2-, wouldn't you say?
The point is, there are a lot of ways to do these comparisons, and Gary is doing a pretty decent job to cover most of the bases IMHO.
jonup - Friday, September 11, 2009 - link
What happens if you are running a nVidia mobo?See, Turbo mode is not like a regular oc. It does not affect other component, power consumption, heat, etc. It really does not have the drawbacks of oc. I thank Anand for explaining it. If you want to do an OC some of the P55 boards come with utilities that will oc the system by a small percentage at windows start up. This will be equivalent to the AOD.
snakeoil - Friday, September 11, 2009 - link
no, turbo is just overclocking.Stradigos - Friday, September 11, 2009 - link
You are seriously retarded. Please go play in traffic. Turbo is not overclocking, and your ignorance is getting really tiring on this matter."Overclocking is the process of running a computer component at a higher clock rate (more clock cycles per second) than it was designed for or was specified by the manufacturer"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overclock">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overclock
Did you completely miss the part where he explained why single cores clock higher than quad cores? It has to do with the amount of voltage that can be used. If you have a process that isn't using all four cores, why use them? So shut them off and pump the voltage through to the other cores. This is not overclocking. This is meant to happen by the designers, creators, and manufacturers.
MadMan007 - Friday, September 11, 2009 - link
As a corollary to your last paragraph I think we can conclude that snakeoil's brain, in addition to being a low neuron wet state device in the first place, permanently has turboboost turned off as well so most of his brain is permanently shut off and he can never perform mental processes well.coolcatmatt - Saturday, September 12, 2009 - link
What is turbo boost? Intel has answered that question for us.http://www.intel.com/technology/turboboost/">http://www.intel.com/technology/turboboost/
"It automatically allows processor cores to run faster than the base operating frequency if it's operating below power, current, and temperature specification limits."
Looks like overclocking to me too.
Ann3x - Saturday, September 12, 2009 - link
No.....Intels marketing department says its not overclocking (yay) so people who actually believe everything is true in a marketing speil get suckered into it.
Turbo mode is just manufacturer stamped overclocking with some bells and whistles. Snakeoil is actually right but guess its easier to flame him because of the other things hes written.
So much missinformation around on overclocking (increase thermal envelope, increase power consumption etc etc) most of the points only apply IF you overvolt. Which you really dont need to do on most i7s.
But hey overclockings bad mkay (unless its written in a fancy marketing name on the side of the box, in which case its revolutionary).
Inkie - Sunday, September 13, 2009 - link
That would be a neat trick: increasing clockspeed on all 4 cores, thereby doing more work per unit time, yet consuming no more power because you didn't overvolt? So much misinformation around on overclocking.....