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
yacoub - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
lol, what a stupid comment. yes it's "cheating" to benchmark the processor the way it comes out of the box, which also happens to be how it is used in the real world environment.Voo - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Well there are many users who don't bother with overclocking so the tests aren't "illegal" or anything.But I tend to agree that most users who would be interested in buying an i7 920 or i7 860 would overclock it, so turbo mode wouldn't help at all, as we see with the OC results.
I'm curious if PCI-e on die is the only problem and if we'll see new chips who benefit from turbo mode even when overclocked. After all the principle behind turbo mode doesn't change if you overclock, does it?
james jwb - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
IF that's true, i'm not at all happy with this review. But i'll wait for someone else to confirm this for obvious reasons... anand, confirm!Voo - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
You read the text, didn't you? It was mentioned several times..james jwb - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
i don't have time to read through all of it right now, was just flicking through and immeditaly thought to ask the question. I will read it fully later on, though.Hence why i asked the question. You say "it", as in which way, benches had turbo, benches didn't?
snakeoil - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
yes again, turbo was on for all the benchmarks which is illegal and biased.maxxcool - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
yes, the federal government says making a feature that makes your product better is legal.JarredWalton - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
Illegal and biased? Yes, Intel is illegally making their CPUs run better at all workloads for normal users that don't overclock. Someone should arrest them! What would be biased is to test these CPUs in a fashion that artificially limits performance. Sure, it would be nice to see performance compared with and without Turbo enabled, but generally there's not enough time to run every potentially interesting test scenario.snakeoil - 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
Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - link
The processor's stock speed is variable according to the workload it's running, that's what turbo mode does. AMD will enable similar functionality in 2011. This is the out-of-box performance of Lynnfield. Turbo mode is a feature of the processor as it has been since the mobile Penryn days (and more recently Nehalem). There's no reason to disable it as no end user would, unless you want to make Intel look worse for some reason.We also ran Turbo on vs. off numbers in the review: http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=36...">http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=36...
Take care,
Anand