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
JonnyDough - Thursday, September 10, 2009 - link
Were you purposely reiterating my point? :DI don't think AMD ever much cared about what Intel was doing. In business class I was taught to keep an eye on a competitor but to really focus on what you are doing. I think AMD was planning their next move, and it had little to do with what Intel was doing or planned on doing, but rather the reaction of what Intel would do when they created Athlon and the next step to being a successful innovative company. Going graphics was just a logical step, since NVidia had no real competition in this space. They saw a market that was ruled by two giants, and decided to combine technology. I'm not so sure that Intel had the idea first. Don't forget, there are leaks in this industry, and people are getting paid to snitch.
tajmahal - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
This is the first time i've ever seen an article written using wholesale x 1,000 prices. Is there any reason you didn't take the trouble to post actual retail pricing?JonnyDough - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
He probably wrote this article prior to today and based it off Intel's pricing scheme...I would think you'd probably gather that. NewEgg is also not the only E-tailer/Retailer out there...ViRGE - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
The last time I checked, those are the only prices Intel gives out. The actual retail prices are a combination of what the retailer paid (buy more, spend less) and whatever markup they add. Intel doesn't have an MSRP.tajmahal - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
i5 750 = $210i7 860 = $300
i7 870 = $580
Just in case someone wants to buy just 1 instead of 1,000. Newegg prices
Gary Key - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
"i5 750 = $210i7 860 = $300
i7 870 = $580
Just in case someone wants to buy just 1 instead of 1,000. Newegg prices "
Retail prices fluctuate greatly at launch. This is what I paid for our retail processors with tax mind you. ;)
i5 750 = $205
i7 860 = $306
i7 870 = $564
cycleback - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Could you post some Linpack and finite element code benchmarks. This would approximate a larger number of HPC workloads. I would really appreciate this as it is difficult to find these sorts of benchmarks. It would also really test the difference in memory bandwidth between Bloomfield and Lynfield.tacoburrito - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
From the benchmarks, the i7 920 and the i5 seems to be even; each winning about half the benchmarks. If costs for both are the same (proc and mobo), I think I'd still go with the 920. Of course I can stop being a cheap bastard and spring for the i7 860.tacoburrito - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
I also meant to add that it should just be a matter of time before Intel cut the prices of the 920.TA152H - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
One thing that's obvious is, after reading this, that the esteemed reviewer modified his review in order to fulfill his preconceived ideas of what he wanted to say. It's really a terrible review.Most people know this site isn't technical, but still, I always thought it was unbiased. It's biased, big time, just not for a company. It's about making a review say what they want.
For example, I doubt Anand is really as stupid as he sounds in this article. LGA1366 has so many advantages, certainly he knows this. But why the idiotic remarks about asking why it exists?
Why did this review ignore the fact that most people here overclock? Why did it ignore that most people reading these reviews won't use DDR3 1066 memory? Did this site just try to become PC Magazine without the writing talent, and go stock? I think not. It was because they only wanted to give information that was consistent with their preconceived idea.
But, let's look closer. The memory controller on the Bloomfield is actually faster than the Lynnfield when using the same memory, even when running in dual channel mode. Why wasn't it mentioned here?
Why wasn't a clock normalized comparison between the LGA1366 processors and LGA1156 processors made, or even attempted, to get an idea of what the architecture changes accounted for? Strange that this very important data is missing? I think so.
Why weren't overclock processors compared? I mean, will anyone here buy an i7 920 and not overclock it? Probably not many. Since the only real advantage is the more aggressive turbo mode, this was what the article was based on. But, in reality, for readers here, it's not important, since people are going to overclock, and the i7 920 would wipe the floor up with the Lynnfields in the configuration that would be used. Why no mention of this?
There are better sites that have answered these questions. I used to like this site, but this review is another disappointment.
Let's be real though, it looks like the processor's horrible performance in the pre-release configuration is just a bad memory. It's not a bad part by any stretch, but it's hardly made the LGA1366 useless, or even the i7 920. The technical savvy will still opt for it in a lot of instances, since they will overclock it. If you have to recommend something for a friend that won't, these things are fine.
Another really stupid remark was how AMD processors would only make sense if they drop the price. Have you forgotten AMD processors are coupled with excellent IGPs? That's been the big selling point for a while, and this hasn't really changed that, too much. IGP platforms are really big in sales too, so, I'd agree with the premise that AMD probably should lower their prices a little, but not that they don't have advantages even where they are. The processors don't, but you can't get an Intel motherboard with the 790GX either. And if they come out with something better, as rumored, it's just going to give their platform another advantage to help counteract their horrible processors (yes, I agree they suck).