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
Jeremiahx99 - Tuesday, February 16, 2010 - link
biased? they where comparing stock vs stock how can u call that biased, and people is not stupid lol whats that mean?BlueBlazer - Sunday, September 13, 2009 - link
Clock to clock comparison with turbo off..http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=776&type=...">http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=776&type=...
Phenom II 965 comes in last place, due to IPC differences which is why AMD had to release higher clocked (should I say "overclocked") Phenom II to compete against Core 2 and Core i5/i7 series.
MamiyaOtaru - Thursday, September 10, 2009 - link
Why compare to a Phenom OCd by 600mhz? The Phenom doesn't do it automatically like the i7ssj4Gogeta - Thursday, September 10, 2009 - link
It's biased because Intel is giving you more features?? The whole point of comparison is to determine which is better. Next you'll say it's biased because it's comparing a Nehalem to a Phenom II.ClownPuncher - Wednesday, September 9, 2009 - link
"people is not stupid. "Nice
goinginstyle - Wednesday, September 9, 2009 - link
Somebody ban this SnakeOil idiot.Etern205 - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
NDA is lifted! Huzzah!!!philosofool - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Now all I need is for Newegg to get in on the act!Casper42 - Wednesday, September 9, 2009 - link
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...tcool93 - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link
I'm posting this to an older review, but just wanted to make a comment. I noticed all the reviews that have the Q9650 included, compare it to the Phenom 965... which isn't a fair comparison at all, because the Phenom 965 is running at a considerably faster mhz than the Q9650 is. Plus the Q9650 can overclock much faster with no voltage increase. I would bet the Q9650 is faster than the Phenom 965 at the same clock speeds.