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
yacoub - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
We really need the P55 motherboard reviews. That's where we (hopefully) learn about temps, stability, power draw, features, etc. I certainly won't be buying until I read reviews for the P55 boards.Stradigos - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
I agree! I can't wait to read it. I won't be buying anything till I do.strikeback03 - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
I'm waiting on the same thing. The ~$50 difference between a P55/860 system and an X58/920 system isn't enough to affect my decision much, but this article mentions in passing that the P55/860 system uses 70W less, which would be a definite consideration for me. I'm waiting to see whether this is only in stock configuration or if there is also a difference when overclocked, temps on good air coolers, etc.jonup - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
I'm with you. I am upgrading within the next 6 months and if the i5/p55 is worth the money I will be jumping on it sooner rather than later. Microcenter has the i5 for $170 after MI sales tax. I would of pull the triger but there is not enough MB reviews yet.Gary Key - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
I am not going to wait much longer, just about every person I have contacts with is working on the NV problem. I just hate showing numbers with the knowledge that something is not right. It is not just games, the 3D Rendering apps like Cinema 4D are affected also. That said, I have spent the better part of the last three days testing with the HD4890. ;)CB434 - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
Gary, this GPU issue...Is it that the i5 and i7 is "underperforming" and is getting less FPS than it is expected to (relative to other benchmarks). Or is it simply that the AMD/275 combo is simply better then expected? Is there a "problem" with the i5/i7 and the 275GTX per se? If there was no AMD/275 test, would you have thought there was a problem?
I'm confused about which is which.
Are your contacts Intel people, trying to find a reason for the "problem" or are they AMD people trying to find an explanation for their "success"?
For the record I've been hunting down 275GTX reviews for quite a while and this is the first I've been able to find using a Phenom II and a 275GTX (no chance of ever finding 275GTX SLI on Phenom :(.. ) It's always an i7 in the GPU test rigs. So finding a frame of reference or baseline for how 275GTX is supposed to work with Phenom CPU's is hard because there is nothing out there.
GeorgeH - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
From other reports I've seen on this issue, it really is a problem and it's specific to 1136/1366 - a high-end 775 C2Q would have performed pretty much identically to the X4 965.Bottom line, LGA775+GT200 looks to be a superior gaming platform to a i7+GT200 right now.
Source (bottom of page):
http://techreport.com/articles.x/17545/6">http://techreport.com/articles.x/17545/6
yacoub - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
So is this issue unique to the P55 boards, or do the X58 (or whatever the i7 920 runs on) exhibit this same issue when running the same NVidia drivers and Win7?If the issue isn't unique to P55, it's not really a factor in which P55 motherboard to buy if they all exhibit the same behavior and the X58 boards do as well.
CB434 - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
That's why turbo mode is so cool.You can get all the upsides of a 24/7 3.8Ghz overclock without the extra heat and power usage. You can OC to 3.2 24/7 and let turbo do the rest. For single and dual core turbo it will shut off the other 2/3 cores, meaning more hz for less power consumed and heat generated. Turbo can give you all the upsides without the downsides, or at least the downsides are reduced.
jeffj29 - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
So it looks like OC'd at 3.8 GHz with HT on that it's a dead heat performance-wise between the x58/920 and then p55/860 platform.The 860 combo would have lower cost but the 920 combo have greater future upgrade performance potential (with a future 6-core processor). But here is the question I am most curious about... how much higher would a 920 (with D0 stepping) overclock to using air cooling than a 860? For example, if the 920 overclocks easily to 4.0 GHz but the 860 wouldn't OC stable past 3.8 GHz then the 960 would be the clear performance pick in my book.