Intel Lynnfield Core i5-750 & Core i7-870 Processor Review

[MAC]

Synthetic Benchmarks: Memory

Synthetic Benchmarks: Memory

Lavalys Everest Ultimate v5.02

Everest Ultimate is the most useful tool for any and all benchmarkers or overclockers. With the ability to pick up most voltage, temperature, and fan sensors on almost every motherboard available, Everest provides the ability to customize the outputs in a number of forms on your desktop. In addition to this, the memory benchmarking utility provides a useful tool of measuring the changes to your memory sub-system.

Now before anyone asks, we selected DDR3-1066 for the Bloomfield setup because that is the highest officially supported memory speed on that platform. We could have selected DDR3-1600 for both P55 and X58 setups, but that would not have been representative of the platforms in their reference design.

Aside from the i7-975 which boasts very high write and copy speeds due to its 2666Mhz Uncore, all the i5 and i7 performs are roughly in the same ballpark. All the hysteria over the cut-down memory interface was for nothing. Lynnfield's dual-channel DDR3-1333 memory sub-system may only achieve 21.2GB/s of memory bandwidth, compared to Bloomfield's triple-channel DDR3-1066 25.6GB/s interface, but it is inherently more efficient. Those of you who own Core i7/X58 systems should try benchmarking them with only two modules installed, you will be surprised by the results. The i7-870 has a good bit more bandwidth compared to the i5-750, but that is largely due its faster Uncore (2400Mhz vs. 2133Mhz).

As you can see, one of the benefits of a dual-channel memory interface, especially when combined with an integrated memory controller, is low memory latency. Both the Lynnfield and Phenom II AM3 setups feature a dual-channel DDR3-1333 7-7-7-18-1T memory sub-system, which partly explains why their results are so similar. The 870 takes the lead from the 750 by a healthy margin due its faster Uncore.


Now let's see if ScienceMark echoes these results.

ScienceMark v2.0

Although last updated almost 3 years ago, and despite its rudimentary interface, ScienceMark v2.0 remains a favorite for accurately calculating bandwidth on even the newest chipsets.

ScienceMark reveals the i7-975 as having the greatest memory bandwidth, which is true if you average out the read/write/copy bandwidth figures found in the above Everest chart. Once again though, the non-Extreme Edition Core i5 and Core i7 processors are all revealed to have roughly the same memory bandwidth.

ScienceMark is evidently not a fan of AMD's Phenom II AM3 chips, but it definitely loves Lynnfield. With their low latency dual-channel memory interface, Intel's new mainstream offerings easily slides past the Bloomfield models, with the i7-870 even breaking 30 second mark.


Based on these results, we have to conclude that Lynnfield has a very robust memory sub-system. When you combine 21.2GB/s of memory bandwidth with an integrated memory controller's low memory latency, you have a winning solution. There is nothing to criticize here. In fact, we think most consumers will be glad to be able to settle for cheaper and plentiful dual-channel memory kits.

 

[MAC]

System Benchmarks: SuperPI 32M / Cinebench R10

System Benchmarks: SuperPI 32M / Cinebench R10

SuperPi Mod v1.5

When running the SuperPI 32MB benchmark, we are calculating Pi to 32 million digits and timing the process. Obviously more CPU power helps in this intense calculation, but the memory sub-system also plays an important role, as does the operating system. We are running one instance of SuperPi via the HyperPi 0.99b interface. This is therefore a single-thread workload.

Do we have a new challenger to the stock clock SPi 32M crown? Almost, but not quite. Both the i7-975 and i7-870 Turbo Boost up to 3.59Ghz during this workload, and perform within 8 seconds of each other (1.8% difference). The i5-750 puts up a very respectable performance as well, landing smack in middle between the i7-920 and i7-950. With their raw computing throughput and integrated memory controller, the Nehalem-based chips really put a waste to the rest of field. As always, AMD's Phenom II processors embarass themselves in this popular benchmark...

Cinebench R10

Cinebench R10 64-bit
Test1: Single CPU Image Render
Test2: Multi CPU Image Render
Comparison: Generated Score

Developed by MAXON, creators of Cinema 4D, Cinebench 10 is designed using the popular Cinema software and created to compare system performance in 3D Animation and Photo applications. There are two parts to the test; the first stresses only the primary CPU or Core, the second, makes use of up to 16 CPUs/Cores. Both are done rendering a realistic photo while utilizing various CPU-intensive features such as reflection, ambient occlusion, area lights and procedural shaders

The Cinebench results are as expected, and it really comes down to Turbo Boost. In the single-threaded test, the i7-975 leads the way since it was crunching at 3.59Ghz. On the other hand, the i7-870 wouldn't stick to its highest speed bin, instead running at 3.46Ghz most of the time. The i7-950 which runs at 3.33Ghz in single-threaded scenarios just managed to squeak by the i5-750, itself running at 3.2Ghz. Not too shabby for a $199 chip. In the multi-threaded test, the i7-975 established its dominance by running at 3.46Ghz, while the Core i7-950 and Core i7-870 were both running at 3.2Ghz. With its lack of Hyper-Threading, the i5-750 falls behind the other Nehalem-based models in this benchmark, but it still dominates its rival Phenom II X4 945 and Core 2 Quad Q9550.

 

[MAC]

System Benchmarks: PCMark Vantage / HDxPRT

System Benchmarks: PCMark Vantage / HDxPRT

PCMark Vantage x64

PCMark Vantage Advanced 64-bit Edition (1.0.0.0)
PCMark Suite / Default Settings
Comparison: Generated Score

The main focus of our General Tasks category lies with the most recent installment of the PCMark series, Vantage. While still classified under the description of a Synthetic benchmark, PCMark Vantage uses many of Vista's (Note - Vantage is Vista-only) built-in programs and features along with its own tests, so it is "real-world" applicable in regards to CPU performance. The following is a general list of the tests in the PCMark suite, very much in line with tasks of an average user: Data encryption, Data compression, CPU image manipulation (compression/decompression/resize), Audio transcoding,Video transcoding,Text editing,Web page rendering, Windows Mail, Windows Contacts, and CPU game test.

In PCMark Vantage, the two Lynnfield chips put up a very strong showing, besting all but the Core i7-975. Clearly, the Lynnfield/P55 platform is very competitive from an overall system point-of-view.

HDxPRT 2009

HDxPRT 2009, otherwise known as the Intel High Definition Experience and Performance Ratings Test 2009, is a new platform evaluation tool for measuring digital media experience. HDxPRT evaluates the capabilities of a media PC using real world usage scenarios and popular media applications. The benchmark's results are illustrated in the Create HD Score, which represents the overall digital media creation performance of a test system.

HDxPRT 2009 workloads are based on usages performed with popular programs, like: i. DivX encoder to create videos for YouTube, ii. MainConcept H.264 encoder to create videos for Blu-ray discs, iii. Sorenson Squeeze 5 for Flash videos, iv. Adobe Photoshop Elements 7 for Photo editing v. Apple iTunes to convert music for portable media players vi. Cyberlink PowerDVD 8 and Windows Media Player to play H.264 videos vii. On2 Flix 8 Player and Windows Media Player to play Flash videos.

These two supposedly mainstream parts are doing a commendable job of encroaching on high-end territory. Not only does the i7-870 tie with the i7-950, but the i5-750 squeaks by the i7-920. The one general conclusion we can derive from this benchmark is that if you are heavily involved in the creation of digital media content, you want a Nehalem-based platform. The i5-750 is 16% faster than the rival Core 2 Quad Q9550 and 28% faster than the Phenom II X4 945, both priced within the i5's segment.

 

[MAC]

System Benchmarks: Photoshop CS4 / Lame Front End

System Benchmarks: Photoshop CS4 / Lame Front End

Photoshop CS4

For the image editing portion of this review, we will use Photoshop CS4 in coordination with Driver Heaven’s Photoshop Benchmark V3, which is an excellent test of CPU power and memory bandwidth. This is a scripted benchmark that individually applies 15 different filters to a 109MB JPEG, and uses Photoshop’s built-in timing feature to provide a result at each test stage. Then it’s simply a matter of adding up the 15 results to reach the final figure.

Continuing a trend, the i7-870 trails only the i7-975, while the i5-750 further establishes its dominance over the i7-920. We suspect that the i7-860 would likely rival the i7-950, maybe being a tiny bit slower. Either way, at $284 it will provide undeniable Bang for the Buck compared to the $560+ Bloomfield chip.



Lame Front End

Lame Front End v1.0 is a single-threaded application, which means that it only utilizes a single processor core. This will obviously limit performance but it will allow us to see the benefits of Lynnfield aggressive Turbo Boost with single-threaded loads. We will be encoding a WAV rip of Santana’s Supernatural album and converting it to MP3 using the highest fidelity VBR 0 quality preset.

As a single-threaded app, LFE allows the i7-870 to flex its Turbo Boost might, beating the equally clocked i7-975. The i5-750 falls inline right behind i7-950, is 1 second faster worth the $360+ premium? Certainly not.

 

[MAC]

System Benchmarks: x264 HD / WinRAR

System Benchmarks: x264 HD / WinRAR

x264 HD Benchmark

x264 HD Benchmark v1.0
Test: MPEG-2 HD 720P Video Clip Conversion to x264
DVD Video Length: 30 Seconds
Comparison: FPS of Second Pass

x264 is quickly becoming the new codec of choice for encoding a growing number of H.264/MPEG-4 AVC videos. Think of it as the new Divx of HD and you can understand why we felt it critical to include. Tech Arp's recent development of the x264 HD Benchmark takes a 30 second HD video clip and encodes it into the x264 codec with the intention of little to no quality loss. The test is measured using the average frames per second achieved during encoding, which scales with processor speed and efficiency. The benchmark also allows the use of multi-core processors so it gives a very accurate depiction of what to expect when using encoding application on a typical full length video.

Hyper-Threading rules the way in the x264 HD Benchmark, with the HT-enabled chips posting substantially higher scores than all other processors. Even the plucky i7-750 is 29% slower than the i7-920. It is scenarios like this one that justifies spending the extra $80ish dollars on the i7-860 compared to the i5-750.

WinRAR

WinRAR 3.8.0
Test: Compression of 1GB of Assorted Files
Comparison: Time to Finish

One of the most popular file compression/decompresion tools, we use WinRAR to compress a 1GB batch of files and archive them, timing the task until completion.

Another highly multi-threaded application, WinRAR makes good use of the Core i7 series Hyper-Threading functionality. Despite this, the i5-750 is very competitive as usual, being a good bit faster than either the Phenom II X4 945 and Core 2 Quad Q9550.

 

[MAC]

Gaming Benchmarks: 3DMark06 / 3DMark Vantage

Gaming Benchmarks: 3DMark06 / 3DMark Vantage

Futuremark 3DMark06

3DMark06 v1.1.0
Graphic Settings: Default
Resolution: 1280X1024

Test: Specific CPU Score and Full Run 3Dmarks
Comparison: Generated Score

The Futuremark 3DMark series has been a part of the backbone in computer and hardware reviews since its conception. The trend continues today as 3DMark06 provides consumers with a solid synthetic benchmark geared for performance and comparison in the 3D gaming realm. This remains one of the most sought after statistics, as well as an excellent tool for accurate CPU comparison, and it will undoubtedly be used for years to come.

Clearly, in a single graphics card configuration, the new integrated PCIe controller is certainly not acting as a bottleneck of any sort. In fact, both Lynnfield chips posted excellent 3DMark06 overall scores. When it comes to CPU score, the i7-950 nudged by the i7-870, while the i7-920 outperformed the i5-750 thanks to Hyper-Threading.

Futuremark 3DMark Vantage

3DMark Vantage v1.0.1
Graphic Settings: Performance Preset
Resolution: 1280X1024

Test: Specific CPU Score and Full Run 3Dmarks
Comparison: Generated Score

3DMark Vantage is the follow-up to the highly successful 3DMark06. It uses DirectX 10 exclusively so if you are running Windows XP, you can forget about this benchmark. Along with being a very capable graphics card testing application, it also has very heavily multi-threaded CPU tests, such Physics Simulation and Artificial Intelligence (AI), which makes it a good all-around gaming benchmark.

It's a tight race to the top in 3DMark Vantage. All four Core i7 processors performed within 4% of each other, with the i7-870 landing between the i7-950 and i7-920. 3DMark Vantage has a highly multi-threaded engine, which explains why the i5-750 falls back a little and is even threatened by the Core 2 Quad Q9550.

 

[MAC]

Gaming Benchmarks: Crysis / Far Cry 2

Gaming Benchmarks: Crysis / Far Cry 2

Crysis

Crysis v1.21
Resolution: 1680x1050
Anti Aliasing: 0
Quality Settings: High
Global Settings: DX10 / 64-Bit

Test 1: Ice benchmark_CPU2 demo
Comparison: FPS (Frames per Second)

Still one of the most hardware intensive game on the market today, Crysis has been chosen for its obvious ability to be able to showcase the differences between platforms and to showcase just how far one will need to go in the quest for maximum performance. The game also features the renowned CryEngine, the power behind the incredible graphics, which is expected to be foundation of future titles.

At these real-world settings, in a game as graphically demanding as Crysis, the processor just doesn't matter all that much. Although the Lynnfield chips achieve impressive results, even a lowly dual-core E8400 is within 2FPS of the mighty i7-975.

Far Cry 2

Far Cry 2 1.02
Resolution: 1680x1050
Anti Aliasing: 0
Quality Settings: Very High
Global Settings: DX10 Enabled

Test 1: Ranch Long Demo
Comparison: FPS (Frames per Second)

Far Cry 2 is the hot new new first-person shooter from Ubisoft's Montreal studio, and the first game to utilize the new visually stunning Dunia Engine, which will undoubtedly be used by numerous future games. Using the included Benchmarking Tool, we ran the Long Ranch demo in DX10 mode at 1680x1050 with all settings set to very high.

AMD comes in from left field! For some reason, the Dunia engine performs exceptionally well on Phenom II processors. It also loves L2 cache, hence why the Core 2 Quad Q9550 and its 12MB L2 cache performs so well. The Core i5 and Core i7 chips with their small 1MB L2 cache take a slight beating in this game. Nevertheless, both Lynnfield models slot in between the i7-950 and i7-920.

 

[MAC]

Gaming Benchmarks: Left 4 Dead / Particle Simulation

Gaming Benchmarks: Left 4 Dead / Particle Simulation

Left 4 Dead

Left 4 Dead (Latest Update)
Resolution: 1680x1050
Filtering: 4X MSAA / Anisotropic 8X
Graphic Settings: High
Shader Detail: Very High
Test 1: HWC Custom Timedemo
Comparison: FPS (Frames per Second)

Left 4 Dead is the latest disorienting, fast-paced zombie apocalypse mega-hit from Valve. L4D uses the latest version of the Source engine with enhancements such as multi-core processor support and physics-based animation. We test here at 1680x1050 with in-game details set to their highest levels, with MSAA 4X and AA 8X. For benching, we used a pre-recorded 20 minute timedemo taken on the No Mercy campaign during The Apartments mission.

CPU scaling has always been a strong point of the versatile Source engine, and we are pleased to see this characteristic maintained and enhanced in this latest iteration of the engine. Once again, we have the new Lynnfield models making a strong showing. Not only do we have the i7-870 edging the i7-975, but even the $199 i5 model is within a frame and a half of the $560+ i7-950. The i5-750 is also a very respectable 30% faster than the venerable Core 2 Quad Q6600, which is arguably the most popular quad-core chip ever.

Valve Particle Simulation Benchmark

Valve Particle Simulation Benchmark
Default
Comparison: Particle Performance Metric

Originally intended to demonstrate new processing effects added to Half Life 2: Episode 2 and future projects, the particle benchmark condenses what can be found throughout HL2:EP2 and combines it all into one small but deadly package. This test does not symbolize the performance scale for just Episode Two exclusively, but also for many other games and applications that utilize multi-core processing and particle effects. As you will see the benchmark does not score in FPS but rather in its own "Particle Performance Metric", which is useful for direct CPU comparisons.

VPSB is more a theoretical benchmark, but it represents one of the most highly threaded pieces of gaming-related software that we know of, as demonstrated by the massive 433% scaling from the lowly Pentium Dual-Core E5300 to the i7-965 Extreme Edition. While the i7-870 is a mere percetange point slower than the i7-950 in this benchmark, the i5-750 falls behind a bit due to its lack of Hyper-Threading.

 

[MAC]

Gaming Benchmarks: Street Fighter 4 / World in Conflict

Gaming Benchmarks: Street Fighter 4 / World in Conflict

Street Fighter 4

Street Fighter 4 Demo
Resolution: 1680x1050
Anti-Aliasing: 0X
Graphic Settings: High
Test 1: Built-in Timedemo
Comparison: FPS (Frames per Second)

Street Fighter IV is a 2008 arcade game produced by famous developer Capcom, that has finally been released on the PC platform. This game has not been 'ported' since the Street Fighter IV arcade machines actually have PC internals, with circa 2005 components. As a result, the version of the game released on the PC is considered the definitive version. With fully multi-threaded engine and an astounding hybrid 2D/3D graphics style, this game is sure to please all fans of the Street Fighter series.

This is a good example of a game that is multi-threaded, but only up to 4 threads. As you can see, there is very little performance variation between all the modern quad-core processors in our lineup.

World in Conflict

World in Conflict v1.010
Resolution: 1680x1050
Anti-Aliasing: 4X
Anisotropic Filtering: 4X
Graphic Settings: Very High
Test 1: Built-in Benchmark
Comparison: FPS (Frames per Second)

One of the most visually stunning real-time strategy games in recent history, World in Conflict can really push systems to the brink, which is what we attempt by running the game in DirectX 10 mode at 1680x1050 with all settings maxed out. For this test we used the in-game benchmarking tool.

 

[MAC]

Power Consumption / Temperature Testing

Power Consumption / Temperature Testing

Power Consumption

Although improved performance is obviously a cornerstone of this new mainstream platform, Intel have also promised substantially better power efficiency than what we have previously seen with Core 2 chips. Can they deliver as promised? That's what we are here to find out.

For this section, every energy saving feature was enabled in the respective BIOSes and the Windows Vista power plan was changed from High Performance to Balanced.

For our idle test, we let the system idle for 15 minutes and measured the peak wattage through our UPM EM100 power meter. Here are the results:

We are very, very impressed with what Intel have accomplished here. These Lynnfield processors have a 40-45% lower idle power consumption than either of our Core 2 Quad models. The i5-750 uses a remarkable 56% less power at idle than the i7-920. Clearly, Lynnfield's Power Control Unit (PCU) is much more aggressive in downclocking, undervolting, and simply disabling unused cores than any other mainstream or high-end processor.


For our CPU load test, we ran Prime 95 In-place large FFTs on all available threads for 15 minutes, measuring the peak wattage via the UPM EM100 power meter. Here are the results:

Here we have a tale of two processors. The i5-750 doesn't have the power-hungry Hyper-Threading feature, so it has a very impressive full load result. Compared to the i7-920, we are seeing a remarkable 42% reduction in full load power consumption. While the i7-870 is a noticeable 12% more power hungry than the i5 model, it is still about equal to current Core 2 Quad models, while offering vastly better performance. Clearly, Lynnfield's performance-per-watt is unprecedented, and this is saying a lot since the Bloomfield processors had set the new benchmark in that regard when they were first released.


For our overall system load test, we ran Prime 95 In-place large FFTs on all available threads for 15 minutes, while simultaneously loading the GPU with OCCT v3.1.0 GPU:OCCT stress test at 1680x1050@60Hz in fullscreen mode.

All you folders out there should love these results! The Lynnfield/P55 platform has up to 23% lower full system load power consumption than Bloomfield/X58, that's almost 90W from the wall when comparing the i5-750 and i7-920. Clearly, the removal of the X58 IOH, which itself was a 24W part, and the integration of the PCIe controller into the processor, combined with other energy-saving features, have resulted in a very tangible drop in overall power consumption. This is definitely the greenest high performance platform out there right now.

Temperature Testing

For the temperature testing, we had both the stock Intel Core i7 CPU cooler and a Thermalright MUX-120 at our disposal. The system was left to idle for 15 minutes, and then we ran Prime 95 In-place large FFTs for 15 minutes. The ambient temperature was 23°C/73.4°F.

i5-750: Stock Intel cooler on the left, MUX-120 on the right

i7-870: Stock Intel cooler on the left, MUX-120 on the right​

Needless to say, the horrendously dinky little stock cooler that Intel have bundled with the Core i5-750 and Core i5-860/870 is mediocre at best and insulting at worst. The Thermalright MUX-120 on the other hand is a pretty damn good cooler, which is obviously not surprising since it is based on the proven Ultra-120 Extreme design. It is hard to give an objective opinion regarding whether Lynnfield runs cooler than current Core i7's since we don't yet have the ability to test an identical cooler on both platforms. Having said that, we can say that the i5-750 runs a fair bit cooler than the i7-870, and this is because it lacks the heat-spewing Hyper-Threading feature.