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
DivX 8.5.3 with Xmpeg 5.0.3
Our DivX test is the same DivX / XMpeg 5.03 test we've run for the past few years now, the 1080p source file is encoded using the unconstrained DivX profile, quality/performance is set balanced at 5 and enhanced multithreading is enabled:
And we're done. DivX, historically a stronghold for AMD's Phenom II processors (at least compared to their price-competitive Penryn counterparts) is faster on the Core i5 750 than on the Phenom II X4 965 BE. What's wrong with that?
The i5 750 costs $199, the 965 BE costs $245. Intel is selling you more transistors for less than AMD is for once.
x264 HD Video Encoding Performance
Graysky's x264 HD test uses the publicly available x264 codec (open source alternative to H.264) to encode a 4Mbps 720p MPEG-2 source. The focus here is on quality rather than speed, thus the benchmark uses a 2-pass encode and reports the average frame rate in each pass.
In the first pass AMD is quite competitive, outpacing the i5 750, but when we get to the actual encode:
It's close, but the cheaper i5 750 is faster than the Phenom II X4 965 BE once again; Hyper Threading keeps the i7 920 ahead.
Windows Media Encoder 9 x64 Advanced Profile
In order to be codec agnostic we've got a Windows Media Encoder benchmark looking at the same sort of thing we've been doing in the DivX and x264 tests, but using WME instead.
AMD is about 6% faster than the i5 750 here, it looks like the Phenom II does have some hope left for it. Let's see how the rest unfolds...
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
343 Comments
View All Comments
Supershanks - Thursday, September 10, 2009 - link
Great Article Anand, I read it with great interest.However I found somthing that was strange and unexpected today
My I7-860 was running at 30x133 3990 when running nucleus, that's according to cPU-z I have a link , but can't post http in this comment ?
http://www.clunk.org.uk/forums/reviews/24295-asus-...">http://www.clunk.org.uk/forums/reviews/...-deluxe-...
I'd appreciate your insight ?
thanks
Gary Key - Thursday, September 10, 2009 - link
You need to change your version of CPU-Z. I have a screenshot somewhere around here of 48x133. ;)Scali - Thursday, September 10, 2009 - link
On a slightly related note... With these new P55 boards I see that especially Asus uses a new line of onboard audio chips from VIA.I haven't really been able to find much info on these chips. I'd like to know how they compare to Realtek and other onboard offerings.
Could you guys spend some time on reviewing the onboard audio next time you review one of these boards? Eg, what does the control panel for these chips look like, what features does it have (eg, can you have realtime encoding like DTS connect or DD Live?), what is the general driver quality like (proper support of 3d/eax effects etc)?
I think that's what's been missing in general, the past few years. Onboard audio has gotten quite advanced, to the point where most people no longer use a separate soundcard (some boards actually come with some sort of X-Fi card). However, I rarely see onboard audio reviewed, only audio cards.
agawtrip - Thursday, September 10, 2009 - link
for me, i find this review is misleading if you are not a gamer - for i5-750 and PII x4 965.why?
1. motherboard and video card - non-gamer dont buy sli/xfire board. onboard graphics is fine(780g/785g). for now, boards for i5 setup doesn't have onboard graphics. what will you do? you will be forced to buy a video card (maybe 4550/9400gt for $40).
i5-750 - $195, GIGABYTE GA-P55M-UD4 - $150, nvidi 9400gt - $40
--- TOTAL -------- $385
PII x4 965 - $245, GIGABYTE GA-MA785GMT-UD2H - $90, no video card
--- TOTAL -------- $335
AMD setup is actually cheaper but slower. it's all up to you.
2. power consumption - since you are forced to buy video card, it will consume additional power while AMD setup (780/785G) won't.
well that's just my opinion.
please inform me and the others if i given up wrong informatin
chrnochime - Thursday, September 10, 2009 - link
Or you can get a motherboard that's quite a bit cheaper:MSI P55-CD53
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...
which is 120..
or
GIGABYTE GA-P55M-UD2
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...
And yes I know these are NE prices, and that it might be more expensive/cheaper somewhere else
Hrel - Wednesday, September 9, 2009 - link
It DOES NOT have hyperthreading. Enabling it wouldn't increase the cost of the chip, it purely a political move. I HATE that! If a CPU maker has something that can increase the performance of my cpu, at no cost to them, then should enable it, at no cost to me. EVERY CPU should have unlocked multipliers. EVERY CPU should have hyperthreading.jnr0077 - Friday, July 27, 2012 - link
hyperthreading steal ram from your pc i have a i5 750 + radeon hd 4850 it plays crysis 2 maxed the witcher 2 maxed skyrim maxed i think you need to read up on it before you comment :)PhilTaylor - Wednesday, September 9, 2009 - link
FSX is well known as a CPU-limited game, it might be more interesting to test it then a GPU limited game like Crysis. For instance, the difference between 2 and 3 memory channels might have a greater impact on FSX, again due to its CPU-limited nature.cactusdog - Wednesday, September 9, 2009 - link
A very good, detailed bunch of tests but there is a surprising lack of information regarding temps? Other review sites have done the same thing but there IS temp issues with these CPUs as with i7 1366 ones. That CPU at 4.0 Ghz on air will be around 90 degrees but little is said.Anandtech is more honest than most review sites (most of which are really just advertisements) but sometimes i get the impression that nobody wants to upset Intel.
araczynski - Wednesday, September 9, 2009 - link
...bottom line to me, my E8500/crossfire setup still has plenty of gaming life left. I'll check back in a year.