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
Final Words
I'll start this conclusion with what AMD must do in response to Lynnfield. The Core i5 750 is a great processor at $196, in fact, it's the best quad-core CPU you can buy at that price today. In nearly every case it's faster than AMD's Phenom II X4 965 BE, despite the AMD processor costing almost another $50. Granted you can probably save some money on an integrated 785G motherboard, but if you're comparing ~$120 motherboards the AMD CPU is simply overpriced.
Lynnfield (top) vs. Phenom II (bottom)
Luckily, the solution isn't that difficult. AMD needs to lower prices. The problem is that AMD has too many products below $200 already. The Phenom II X3 and X4 series both exist below $200 and rumor has it that AMD is also going to introduce a quad-core Athlon II somewhere down there. Lynnfield's arrival causes a lot of price compression on AMD's side. The most AMD should sell the 965 BE for is $199, but if it is to remain competitive the chip needs to be priced much lower. That doesn't leave much room for other AMD CPUs. On the bright side, this could force AMD to simplify its product lines again (similar to what it has quietly been doing already).
The next thing that the Core i5 750 does is it finally ends the life of LGA-775. Just as was the case with AMD, the Core 2 Quad Q9650 is easily destroyed by the Core i5 750 and at a lower price. With significantly lower motherboard costs than the LGA-1366 chips, the Core i5 750 can actually compete in the high end LGA-775 space. It's only a matter of time before the sub-$200 LGA-775 parts are made obsolete as well.
Lynnfield power consumption is just excellent, these are the most power efficient quad-core CPUs we've ever tested. They use less power at idle than similarly clocked dual-core processors and under load they deliver better performance per watt than any of their closest competitors. Later this year we'll see 32nm dual-core Westmere start to ship for notebooks. I don't have performance data but I'd expect that early next year will be the perfect time to buy a new notebook.
Can you tell that I like the Core i5 750? Again, at $196 you can't find a better processor. Intel did its homework very well and managed to deliver something that kept AMD in check without completely upsetting the balancing of things. There's no technical reason that Intel couldn't have enabled Hyper Threading on the Core i5, it's purely a competitive move. A Core i5 750 with HT would not only defeat the purpose of most of the i7s, but it would also widen the performance gap with AMD. Intel doesn't need to maintain a huge performance advantage, just one that's good enough. While I'd love to have a 750 with HT, I'd still recommend one without it.
The Core i7 870 gets close enough to the Core i7 975 that I'm having a hard time justifying the LGA-1366 platform at all. As I see it, LGA-1366 has a few advantages:
1) High-end multi-GPU Performance
2) Stock Voltage Overclocking
3) Future support for 6-core Gulftown CPUs
If that list doesn't make you flinch, then Lynnfield is perfect. You'll save a bunch on a motherboard and the CPUs start at $196 instead of $284. We didn't have enough time with our Core i7 860 to include performance results here but my instincts tell me that at $284 that'll be the Lynnfield sweetspot. You get excellent turbo modes and Hyper Threading, without breaking $300.
Speaking of turbo, I'd say that Intel is definitely on to something here. The performance impact was small with Bloomfield, but turbo on Lynnfield is huge. My tests showed up to a 17% increase in performance depending on the workload, with most CPU-influenced scenarios seeing at least 9 or 10%. The turbo mode transitions happen fast enough to accelerate even simple actions like opening a new window. OS and application responsiveness is significantly improved as a result and it's something that you can actually feel when using a Lynnfield machine. It all works so seamlessly, you just always get the best performance you need. It's like Intel crammed the best single, dual and quad-core processors all into one package.
Perhaps that's what kept me from falling in love with Bloomfield right away. It was fast but in the same way that its predecessors were fast. If you didn't have a well threaded application, Bloomfield wasn't any better than a similarly clocked Penryn. Lynnfield's turbo modes change the game. Say goodbye to tradeoffs, the Core i5 and Core i7 are now fast regardless of thread count. It speed that is useful, it speed that you can feel, it's what truly makes Lynnfield the best desktop microprocessor of 2009. It's not just faster, it's smarter, it's better. It's why today's title borrows from Daft Punk and not Star Wars; it's not more of the same, it's something futuristic and new.
Lynnfield shows us the beginning of how all microprocessors are going to be made in the future. Even AMD is embracing turbo, we'll see it with Fusion in 2011. Extend turbo to its logical conclusion and you end up with something very exciting. Imagine a processor made up of many different cores, large and small, CPU and GPU. Each one turning on/off depending on the type of workload, and each running as fast as possible without dissipating more heat than your system can handle.
My only two complaints with Lynnfield are that the chips do require additional voltage (above stock) to overclock and of course the lack of Hyper Threading on the Core i5. It doesn't ruin the processor, but it gives us something to wish for.
Our work is never over.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
343 Comments
View All Comments
7Enigma - Wednesday, September 9, 2009 - link
"What you are doing is cheating, and people is not stupid."Hand meet Face..... Gentleman we have a winner! Could you please post a picture of yourself so I can make a T-shirt?
james jwb - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
i wouldn't go that far at all, but look a few comments above for my feelings on this. The honest way to go about this, Anand, was to do this review as you have done, but have a page or two dedicated to clock for clock, and to state in bold letter that turbo mode was on for the benches in the current review. Do this and all is forgivenHave you stopped to think how well Turbo mode in Lynfield has boosted benchmarks compared to bloomsfield?
As i said, yep, nice feature, but i do not expect a site to fall for stuff like this, i'd do stock (turbo-crap) results like you have, because this feature is there and cannot just be ignored, but my interest would have been to present clock for clock results on other pages, and it should have been yours as well. You've done a disservice to the enthusiast here. I was loving Lynnfield in your review until i realised turbo was on, then i felt this review was 100% useless to what i care and want to know about - clock for clock, and it must be the same for a huge percent of your readers, who at this stage, some probably haven't even realized turbo was on in your results and are still salivating. All enthusiasts who like to overclock themselves and not have turbo trying to trick us in reviews want clock for clock, you left them out, that is serious cause for questioning what the hell is going on at Anandtech. Sure, for those here who run stock, the review suffices, but, well, i've made my point now i think...
This is the first real blunder i've seen on this site, but imo its a big one, and that blogger who hates you guys and posts up lots of stuff about your contradictions (to which so far i find all his posts false, the server blog guy, you know who i mean), today he'll have a field day on this one.
Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, September 9, 2009 - link
I can add a disclosure saying that turbo mode was enabled, but this has always been the case for our Nehalem reviews. We always try to review products with all of their features enabled as long as they ship that way and they don't reduce quality (e.g. certain GPU driver optimizations in the past).While I'll gladly add a clock for clock against Bloomfield in a few tests, flip back to our Lynnfield preview if you want a preview of that (that chip could only turbo up by 1 multiplier - effectively making it a clock-for-clock comparison to Bloomfield).
Turbo mode in Lynnfield does help it against Bloomfield in the lighter threaded apps, do keep in mind that Bloomfield has turbo as well.
It seems like what you're saying is that you want the maximum overclock possible for all cores and as such you will definitely disable turbo mode. In that configuration, the only difference between Lynnfield and Bloomfield (from a purely CPU standpoint) is one channel of memory. As I've mentioned before, that one memory channel is not going to make a tremendous difference for the vast majority of users. But if this is what you're asking for, I can definitely provide it. I'm out in California this week for an unrelated product, let me get back and I'll include that data in my Core i7 860 review.
Take care,
Anand
james jwb - Wednesday, September 9, 2009 - link
thanks for the response, it's appreciated. I hold anandtech on a pedestal, and was just surprised not to see some clock for clock stuff for the overclockers out there. I haven't used a CPU at stock for 6+ years for my main rig, so clock for clock is very important, though as you've said, there won't be too much difference between bloomsfield and lynnfield, i'd still like to see it, though :)As for your comment below about how intel and amd will be changing things soon for the stock users out there, well, i think clock for clock will become very important for overclocker then in these reviews, more so than ever to find out how each cpu performs, or maybe i'm wrong!
ClownPuncher - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Why would they turn off a product feature when reviewing said product? Because PhII doesn't have it? That is like not including DX10.1 results for AMD in HAWX. Consumers usually buy products based on features, this product has an aggressive turbo boost.Gary Key - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
"there you go, finally you said it.all the benchmarks have at least 600 mhz over the processor's stock speed.
that is outrageous, then if you want to compare the result with phenom 2 you have to overclock phenom 2 at least 600 mhz over stock speed.
just to be fair "
First off, it is fair as that is how Intel ships the CPU, turbo is an integral part of the CPU's operation and is a major feature, end of subject.
Second, the 965 BE is not going to run stable at 4GHz under a 64-bit OS without near or sub-zero cooling. The Phenom IIs continue to have a problem when approaching 4GHz with a 64-bit OS. AMD has not fixed it yet.
james jwb - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Sorry, but i disagree. You seem to have swallowed some genious Intel marketing crap here. Yes, it's a nice feature, but any CPU can overclock, all overclockers will overclock, and your results gloss over that benchmarks were using turbo. This is bad, and the first time i've really seen this site do something really biased, or just stupid, not sure which...I'm telling you now, a big percentage of your readers will see the results for the 920 and 750 as clock for clock comparisons and think its a very close game here, and it's not.
I'll forgive you once you do a clock for clock comparison, but i won't forget that you pushed turbo results and nothing else, and didn't put a warning big bold statements like you normally do for important info stating these are with turbo on. Watch all excitement for this review from overclockers dwindle if you do.
goinginstyle - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
They had an entire section discussing turbo mode, comments were made in the results about the turbo advantage,and their system setup page clearly states turbo in turned on for both lynnfield and bloomfield. Read the article.james jwb - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
the look at turbo is rubbish, we need clock for clock against bloomsfield.It's not in bold, its of that importance to state this for those who flick through, which you'll find many do.
And still, i have no gripe with the data presented so far (aside from it not being very, very clear that turbo was on), my problem is what has been left out, and that is - a lot of important stuff for the enthusiast who control his own overclock.
goinginstyle - Wednesday, September 9, 2009 - link
Look on page 9 under the system setup, it clearly states that turbo is enabled. It is mentioned several times in regards to the performance results. If you could read, you would have understood that TURBO was ON. Several pages of the article discussed the new Turbo mode and how important it is to the performance of the processor.I suppose because you have labeled yourself an enthusiast that means you should be treated special. I guess between you, SnakeOil, TA152H, and a couple of others we could hold a special Olympics in your honor. Wouldn't that be special?
What is amazing, is that after reading several other reviews, it appears only Snakeoil at Tech Report is posting the same crap there as he did here. Everyone used Turbo mode in testing so why are you not posting at the other sites about how mistreated you are as an enthusiast.
Probably around 98% of computer owners do not overclock so why is it so hard to understand the testing methodology used here and elsewhere. For those of us that do not overclock, this article was perfectly suited for us and shows that we can get similar performance without opening up the box. Even for those who do overclock, they at least showed clock results and I am sure we will see more based on Anand's comments this morning.