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
GeorgeH - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
*Puts on tinfoil hat*Intel won't let Nvidia make chipsets for 1156/1366.
Nvidia GPU's perform conspicuously poorly only on 1156/1366.
Coincidence???? You decide!!!!!!!
*Takes off tinfoil hat*
Random question: Does the Nvidia+Intel performance thing correlate at all to how multithreaded a game is?
CB434 - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
You know it's an honest review when unexpected results like this pop up.Purely coincidentally, I have emailed a few reviewers in the last few weeks about this..
All the video card reviews for the last 12 months show i7's as the test rig for all the video cards. It's so stupid that no one has ever thought to use an Nvidia card on a Phenom. Until now! Good work. It's always either AMD + Ati or I7 + Ati or Nvidia. All of the perceptions and ideas of performance for the current gen of Nvidia video cards is all based on how they work on an INTEL. Not overall.
It's just a shame the Phenom doesn't have SLI/CF in the same board. I'd be using Phenom II with 275GTX SLI and looks like it would be a kickass solution for gaming.
I don't think it's necessarily a bug or a problem. Maybe it's just the lottery/fluke of when you combine different parts that have different ways of working. Ati and Nvidia go two seperate ways to reach the same goal. Different memory bus bandwidth, shaders clocks etc and maybe something in there gels with the way the Phenom II works.
FlanK3r - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
AMD X4 965 with 2200 MHz uncore2200 MHz uncore is whorse than default 2000 MHz! Its one bad for review :(...I wrote review about Phenoms overcloking and made some comparsion uncores vs CPU cloks. In all performance, 2200 MHz uncore is very bad choice. More better is 2000MHz and of course 2400 Mhz or 2600 MHz (and higher for CPU clocks 3700 MHz up)
daydr3am3r - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
I have to ask, and pardon me for the triviality and/or ignorance but,why is the article title
Topic: Motherboard
Manufacturer: ASRock
?
The accompanying picture also displays an ASRock mobo..
Ben90 - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
uhh, so AMD pretty much wiped the floor BIG time with the gtx 275. Ive heard several reports that AMD chips perform better on higher resolutions then i7s, but after research i never found the results to be that drasticI hope to hear the answer, maybe Nvidia released a driver that absolutely loves the deneb architecture, or possibly AMD just got a lucky two games as the ones benched.
If its something like the first one, and phenom can do this consistently game to game, we might see some big changes soon.
MadMan007 - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
Thanks for the exploration of overclocks but unfortunately this article is worthless to me, and perhaps many others, without any Core 2 CPUs. Unless I want to try to extrapolate back to older articles, and that's a guessing game plus I'd need to find overclocked results, I am unable to tell how much benefit a new system would be.ggathagan - Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - link
As Gary clearly stated on the first page of the article and reiterated in the third comment, he had not yet finished with the P45/Q9550 testing at the time of his update.He also clearly stated that he would be adding those results at a later point.
coconutboy - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
Good update Gary, this is the kinda article/update I like to see. Comparisons are tough, but using dollar-for-dollar or clockrates helps me as a consumer.I notice that for walk-in customers, Microcenter (at least the one near me here in SoCal) has the following prices
$230 i7 860
$200 i7 920
$160 i5 750
I can get a 920 for less than an 860, then combine it with the ASRock X58 extreme that was recommended back in the July article ($170 at Newegg and it is getting high marks in the comments) and do a moderate overclock to 3.2-3.8GHz to achieve amazing performance for the price. Alternatively I can pick up the i5 750 and a ~$100-130 mobo and have a very low-cost outlay for a great gaming box. Hopefully AMD will also drop their CPU prices soon to give us yet another option.
With the new AMD and Nvidia cards coming out in the near future, all these choices are very inexpensive for the performance and will save $$ to be spent on a brand-spanking new vid card. In the meantime, an ATI 4850 or Nvidia 9600GT can be had for under $100 to conserve $$ and tide gamers over till the new hardware hits. I'm building two new systems in the next few weeks, and the above is my gameplan.
MadMan007 - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
Anyone who is a gamer/enthusiast who doesn't have at *least* an HD4850 or 9600GT shouldn't be buying either one right now. Only if they're building a complete new system and are too desparate to wait.cactusdog - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
Not worth running 3.8Ghz if your temps are 90 degrees with the best air cooler money can buy. The 1366/1156 are great but we are hitting a temp ceiling now. People should be made aware of this because they will buy it, take it home and realise they cant really run at those settings even with the best air cooler. If you cant run at those settings the gap widens between the 920.This issue is being completely ignored or glossed over.