Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Core i5 750, Core i7 870 Linux Benchmarks

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    "Intel Turbo Boost Technology was disabled during our testing due to the aforementioned problems." - i did not get to the point in the article where the problems are mentioned, but disabling the feature that makes the i5 a better choice than other intel quads in comparision with higher clocked duals is somehow stupid. Basically the idea behind it is really good, as when you manually oc then you would need more power for the cpu all the time and there it oc only when needed - and still does check the power consumption which is of course needed to be cooled. As Intel ships really small default coolers the limits could be more restrictive than they would be, but you always oc manually, just that this is guaranteed. Why would you use lower speed if not needed?
    Last edited by Kano; 09-10-2009, 06:47 AM.

    Comment


    • #47
      I received an i5 750 today, together with an GBT P55-UD4 mobo. I compared it with my 955BE + GBT GA-MA785GMT-UD2H. Only mobo and cpu differ between setups. Both used 4GB OCZ Plats at 1333MHz CL7 and an nvidia 8800GT 1GB gfx. As os I choose sidux 2009-2 dist-updated. I left all power saving features on and also enabled turbo on the 750. cpufreq-acpi seems to ignore the two and one core increases. The chip ran at 2.8GHz most of the time.
      http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...5168-12682-147
      I plan to run the full universe suite and more clock vs. clock comparisons in the next days.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by justapost View Post
        I received an i5 750 today, together with an GBT P55-UD4 mobo. I compared it with my 955BE + GBT GA-MA785GMT-UD2H. Only mobo and cpu differ between setups. Both used 4GB OCZ Plats at 1333MHz CL7 and an nvidia 8800GT 1GB gfx. As os I choose sidux 2009-2 dist-updated. I left all power saving features on and also enabled turbo on the 750. cpufreq-acpi seems to ignore the two and one core increases. The chip ran at 2.8GHz most of the time.
        http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...5168-12682-147
        I plan to run the full universe suite and more clock vs. clock comparisons in the next days.
        Similar results with Michael's tests which show Phenom to beat i5 in general, whether the windows' benchmarks shows the opposite...

        Comment


        • #49
          Well maybe you need a much better cpu cooler to enable higher turbo boost or the bios is bad. Maybe there is a newer beta one.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Kano View Post
            Well maybe you need a much better cpu cooler to enable higher turbo boost or the bios is bad. Maybe there is a newer beta one.
            Well cpufreq-info only shows speeds up to 2.8GHz. Maybe turbo works better if I disable EIST and do not use cpufreq-acpi at all.
            I tried to log the cpufrequency during the test but only one core appeared. As for cooling, I'm currently only using the stock cooler because I do not have the proper clips for my other ones. I expect an Corsair Hydro H50 in the next few days but I thought I only need it to reach ~4GHz and not at stock.
            Can be it's a bios issue with the linux acpi tables, under windows I already saw above 3GHz.
            Will do more testing tomorrow, preparing universe will take a while.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Kano View Post
              Well maybe you need a much better cpu cooler to enable higher turbo boost or the bios is bad. Maybe there is a newer beta one.
              since you meantioned you didn't read what the problem was

              enabling turbo boost led to erratic/poor performace, test results varied greatly from one run to the next and all of them were worse then with it off. also the cpu wasn't actually scaling up like it should (thats what micheal had happen any)

              Comment


              • #52
                Thats not really logical to me when this would be a Win only feature. That is not really predictable that is partly clear as it depends on the core temp.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Updated the bios to the lates available version..

                  Then I played with Turbo, C-State and Eist settings. For the higher turbomodes in windows all C-State options must be enabled. Without turbo behaves like I thought it behaved under linux yesterday and the max multi was 21x (2.8GHz).
                  Looking at the linux results it seem higher multis where in effect yesterday but the correct frequencies are not reported under /proc/cpuinfo.
                  With EIST/Turbo and CS off the result looks like 2.66GHz. Once I enable Turbo but leave C-States disabled it looks moore like 2.8GHz and with C-States enabled the frequency should have been 3.2GHz.

                  11.46*2.66GHz = 30.48
                  10.91*2.8GHz = 30.54
                  9.55*3.2GHz = 30.56

                  A sidenote, results are repeatable here.
                  Last edited by justapost; 09-18-2009, 08:10 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Could you do 7zip benchmarks? I like those as they are really fast to test - maybe with EIST on too.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      The system is busy running universe-cli here atm, but 7zip already ran.

                      i5 750 Turbo/CS/Eist On: 8647,66 MIPS
                      955BE CnQ On: 7553.00 MIPS

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        64 bit i guess, that's intersting my 3.16 s775 cpu beats that.

                        http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...23-26178-18490

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          He He you ran the pts-livecd. Can it be your test file was on a ramdisk.

                          Update: Can't be looking at the second result. 8GB may have an impact.

                          Found those intel results.
                          http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...06-11719-16230

                          I need 3.8GHz on the 955BE with 8GB ram to reach your results.
                          http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...42-23762-13556
                          Last edited by justapost; 09-18-2009, 12:27 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            That was a test PTS vs. Kanotix 64 Excalibur. Kanotix was faster in that one, but slower in some others. Btw. i have got results with 3.8 GHz too.

                            http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...32-23210-22346

                            http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...27-14842-17066

                            To be fair, the EIST was enabled in BIOS, but Linux was set to use performance mode.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Thank you for the 3.8GHz data, I like comparisons.

                              Here are a few more results, this time universe-cli.
                              http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...358-5083-22089

                              Currently I run the first serie again with C-States And C-Satetes+Turbo disabled. Will have to rerun the test with both enabled because the newer bios runs with an slightly higher BCLK (~136MHz vs. ~133MHz).
                              One of those nas benchmarks (IS.c) cause the system to hang, once during the 955BE test and once during the i5 750 test with C-States disabled.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Enough for today.

                                http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...8550-16695-143

                                I ran with Turbo and C-States enabled twice, to show the results are consistent. Also I ran with C-States disabled, which means the cpu ran at 2.8GHz and also in addition with turbo disabled.

                                In the comparison I used the reciprocal for time results and calculated the score increase over the 955 results for each test and average over all results.



                                Overall with that selection of benchmarks an 955BE performs like an i5 750 at ~2.75GHz. I do not think this selection is representative for daily usage.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X