i5 / P55 Lab Update - Now with more numbers
by Gary Key on September 15, 2009 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Quick Thoughts-
After a lot of speculation, it is obvious that the Core i7/860 and i7/920 platforms perform equally for the most part when compared on an equal clock basis, otherwise the 860 in Turbo mode is a better solution in most cases at stock speeds. The X58/920 combination will offer a very slight improvement in performance when the data pipeline is full; however it is very small, even under heavy multitasking conditions. The X58/920 does offer improved graphics performance in SLI or CF configurations.
While the 965 BE is a very competent processor, it is overshadowed at times by the performance of the turbo enabled i5/750. In the 3D rendering applications, the sheer clock speed advantage of the 965 BE certainly comes into play when comparing it directly to the i5/750. When comparing clock for clock speeds at 3.8GHz, the Intel processors offer a clear performance advantage over the 965 BE, especially in the well threaded applications that take advantage of Hyper-Threading. If you overclock your system and want the absolute best performance, the Intel processors used in our article today are your best choice.
Even though our initial benchmark selection is fairly limited, the overall pattern continues in the balance of our benchmark test suite, even in those applications specifically suggested by AMD. However, it is different story in several of our game benchmarks when the AMD system is paired with an Nvidia GTX275 (other GTX2xx variants as well). Why this is, we do not know yet given the results of the AMD HD 4890 on either platform.
And now for the Hot Computer Opinion (HCO). The X58/920 and 790FX/965BE platforms seemed slow in daily usage compared to the P55/860 setup or even the P55/750 at times. I am talking non-overclocked standard issue setups running a variety of applications, especially when multitasking. Of course, the difference is due to the Turbo modes employed on the Lynnfield processors.
While the perceived difference in performance is not as drastic as when moving from a hard drive to a decent SSD, it certainly is there. The performance benchmarks might tell another story at times, but if you just sit down and use a P55/860 platform and then move to an X58/920, 790FX/965BE, or P45/C2Q setup, the performance differences are noticeable in day to day usage. Even the P55/750 has its benefits and generally felt very “snappish” when under heavy loads.
Honestly, I really never thought I would say that after using a 790FX/965BE setup for several weeks and thinking afterwards I would have a very hard time recommending an X58/920 platform for typical home and gaming usage. When overclocked, the Intel Bloomfield/Lynnfield platforms basically performed equally on a clock for clock basis. The only differences were with the i5/750 in well-threaded applications. With HT enabled, the 860 and 920 are in a dead heat, except the Lynnfield platform will use about 70W less power for equal performance.
Unless you are a benchmark jockey, the dual x8 PCIe setup on the P55 is not going to be a performance hindrance with today’s video cards if you must run CrossFireX or SLI. Neither will the slightly better data throughput capabilities of the X58/920 when under heavy load conditions. I guess that really is the crux of the matter, unless you are a benchmark jockey then justifying a Bloomfield platform over a Lynnfield or even AMD’s Dragon platform is very difficult.
However, there are those that demand every last ounce of performance and the Bloomfield platform is the best choice for these particular users. I still really like the 790FX/965BE platform; in fact I would certainly purchase it over a P45/C2Q setup without question. When comparing it to the i5/750, the decision becomes more difficult, especially based on price.
However, considering my multitasking habits and the fact I do not overclock my work systems, the 965BE becomes the clear choice for me, until I compare it to the i7/860. Therein lies the problem, you can play the “what if” game all day and it will get you absolutely nowhere. In the end, you have to choose a platform that best suits your needs and budget. I just happen to think the clear choice for my particular needs is the i7/860 processor on a mid-range or even budget P55 motherboard. We will soon see why.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
77 Comments
View All Comments
Gary Key - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
I tried renaming the exe files, no go, anyway, testing with the 4890s now and will be finished shortly so we can move on.Ocire - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
Do you have a link to a recent article showing the PCIe-bandwidth usage of different games? The most recent article doing something related I could find in a quick search was some test over at Tom's hardware testing x1900xtx vs. 8800gts on different bandwidths. ;-)Renaming the .exe would be fun though to see whether some strange optimization causes this effect.
Eeqmcsq - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
Thanks for the update and including Turbo off numbers for the i5 750. So at its baseline, the i5 750 is about the same or worse than the Phenom II 965. But the Turbo mode either brings the comparison closer or tips the scales in i5's favor in individual tests.As for the multitasking tests, I can understand why the i5 750, even w/Turbo, fell behind the 965. The i5 was already behind in the Lightwave 3D and Cinema 4D individual benchmarks. Combining them together would certainly "worsen" the difference, as shown by the multitasking charts.
Also, looking at the Cinema 4D test, I noticed how the Turbo boost was much less of a boost during the multitasking test compared to the individual test. This is the predicted effect as heavy multitasking pushes the CPU TDP up, leaving less room for Turbo. As a result, the i5 Turbo performance approaches that of its baseline, which is generally equal to or worse than the Phenom II 965.
Individual test, i5, lower % means better Turbo Boost effect:
Cinema 4D - Turbo finished in 84.5% of the baseline time
Lightwave 3D - Turbo finished in 96.5% of the baseline time
Multitasking test, i5:
Cinema 4D - Turbo finished in 95.3% of the baseline time
Lightwave 3D - Turbo finished in 95.6% of the baseline time
Total time - Turbo finished in 95.4% of the baseline time
So thanks again to Gary for providing the baseline Turbo numbers as well as the multitasking tests. It certainly paints a more complete picture of how to measure Turbo capable CPUs.
Requests: I'd still like to see 1x, 2x, 3x, 4x concurrent instances of the same single threaded test just to further demonstrate the variableness of Turbo compared to its baseline.
Malhandir - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
One aspect of the new 1566 i5/i7 processors I love is the more intelligent turbo boost, if only because it achieves its goals so well. Have there been any indications of this being introduced into new 1366 processors in the future or are there technical limitations to its introduction keeping it to the 1156 platform? Of course any future 1366 CPUs are, well… future! But I’m interested in the answer nevertheless, since the most obvious tweak that could be done on the 1366 CPU lineup is the introduction of this core management ability.Mastakilla - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
Great article once more!I think it is clear in meanwhile that the 920 offers less value for the money than a 860 in almost all the cases (except extreme benchmarking)
one use case however isn't covered yet (and that is exactly the use case that Intel said the 920 would be better for):
How do they compare with a decent OC? (meaning 4Ghz+)
Do the 920s reach 4Ghz+ easier?
I am talking about a fully stable 24/7 watercooled setup than (cause you can't decently aircool at that speed except for some short benching)
cause that is exactly what I have in mind for my next system ;)
Ann3x - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
You need less volts to stabilise 920s than lynnfields (due to the pci-e stabilisation issues) therefore they run a little cooler at load therefore *should* overclock better.I say should as the lynnfields havent been around long enough to say 100%.
The opinion about the 920 being worse vfm is subjective. Atm the 920 is actually cheaper than the 860 in most places, this is offset tho by x58 vs P55. Its a close thing either way. The P55s are certainly a good bet if you dont want to push overclocks (and tweak a lot) and dont want a multi GPU setup. If you do want either of these the 920 is probably better.
Alberto - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
I don't understand the botton line of the article. We can not make a comparison between available cpus and unavailable ones. Phenom II 3.4 Ghz is an exotic and hot cpu, moreover it's pretty rare to find in stores, same thing for the 3.2Ghz incarnation.A real apple to apple comparison would be between Phenom II X4 2.8/3Ghz and i5/720...both 95W and available cpus.
Gary, you can't say "in multitasking my chose is......". The real story is that you can't find a Phenom II X4 965/955 Black configured machine from a good OEM. These are exotic cpus for expensive gaming systems and AMD isn't able to make many of them.
Core i7 is everywere on big OEM sites.
Makaveli - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
Alberto Who the Fu*k buys OEM systems on this site?I can find both those cpu's at any local stores in my area.
Please put the pipe down!
Alberto - Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - link
Anyway these Amd cpus are marginal and rare around the world. They don't make good revenue for a Red company like Amd. Maybe you don't have a real job, without the on site assistance of a big OEM i'd be ruined.coconutboy - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
Anandtech tends to be an enthusiast site where (I assume) a heavy percentage of the readership builds their own computers by handpicking their parts. This means OEM machines are not the main focus. As for your claim that some of those AMD cpus are not easy to find, perhaps you do not live in the USA. Otherwise, I see the AMD 965, 955, 720 etc for sale at every one of the 4 retailers I just checked.newegg
mwave (I can walk into this store locally for purchases)
microcenter (another walk-in store)
zipzoomfly
I'll bet Fry's and bucketloads of other walk-in retailers offer them as well. Now we just need AMD to drop the prices to compete more evenly with Intel (although the x3 720 is quite inexpensive)