Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Core i5 750, Core i7 870 Linux Benchmarks

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

  • Intel Core i5 750, Core i7 870 Linux Benchmarks

    Phoronix: Intel Core i5 750, Core i7 870 Linux Benchmarks

    Now that we have provided a brief overview of the Intel P55 and how it functions under Linux, our larger area of concentration is looking at the Linux performance of the P55 with the new Core i5 750 and Core i7 870 processors. We have a number of benchmarks in this article along with more information on these Lynnfield processors.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14174

  • #2
    Awesome Thanks for the review..

    So it seems my Phenom II X4 will have significant lead over these i5 and i7

    Could you please include some Phenom II X4 955 benchmarks.

    Comment


    • #3
      What sense in comparing Intel quad core CPU to AMD tri core CPU?

      You should at least include Intel Core 2 Quad CPU (to compare architecture improovements) and AMD Phenom II X4 (to compare new Intel CPUs to REAL competiotion, not to some weaker and cheaper tripple core Phenom II X3).

      These whole benchmarks just compare Intel i5 to Intel i7 CPUs performance and nothimg more ... really disapoining.

      Why waste time at all for such uncomplete tests?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by vermaden View Post
        These whole benchmarks just compare Intel i5 to Intel i7 CPUs performance and nothimg more ... really disapoining.

        Why waste time at all for such uncomplete tests?
        From my point of view, I can se Phenom X3 710 kicking Intel into his core i5 butt

        Comment


        • #5
          I have ask amd senior executive to send some CPUs to Phoronix. But I would suggest you to ask your hardware vendor to lend them for testing.

          A Quad should be tested with Quad.

          Comment


          • #6
            The benchmarks are interesting, where is the pts code to compare against? Also adding Phenom II X965, Intel Q9550, would be interesting, as they are from the same price range, i7 860 instead of 870 would be more logical too, as 870 is much more expensive than i7 920/860.

            Comment


            • #7
              Dear God, putting AMD's tricore against Intel's newest quads? Poor AMD. Michael you should hit them up for a 955 at least! Very surprised to see the X3 outperforming the Nehalems in places.

              Comment


              • #8
                Nice review, I'm guessing you only had that tricore at hand. But it really did do well. I was very impressed with its performance compared to Intel's i5 and i7.

                Any chance you could add a Top of the range Phenom II X4 in there?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Looks like phenom is very fast core but lags in memory bandwidth so test that are memory limited are lose to AMD processors.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think the only thing these benchmarks show is that Stream is the only software that accurately represents the performance of these processors over the AMD. I don't dislike AMD but I find it highly unlikely that it out performs ANY i7 processor on the market. If that is the case then Phoronix is the only review site I've ever seen that has come to this conclusion.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Conclusion, new core i5/i7 work terribly under Linux. Least that's the only conclusion I can draw compared to everything I read at Anandtech.

                      Here's their main conclusion:
                      "I'll start this conclusion with what AMD must do in response to Lynnfield. The Core i5 750 is a great processor at $196, in fact, it's the best quad-core CPU you can buy at that price today. In nearly every case it's faster than AMD's Phenom II X4 965 BE, despite the AMD processor costing almost another $50." (...) "The Core i7 870 gets close enough to the Core i7 975 that I'm having a hard time justifying the LGA-1366 platform at all."

                      In short, the results I'm seeing here do not make sense. There's not a single case of the many, many Windows benchmarks where the i5 would lose to an triple-core processor.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by vermaden View Post
                        These whole benchmarks just compare Intel i5 to Intel i7 CPUs performance and nothimg more
                        That's the title of the benchmark after all. i5 750 vs i7 870 and not Intel vs AMD.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Phoronix is probably also the only site benchmarking on Linux? And using GCC instead of the Intel C compiler? I don't know if ICC still does dodgey stuff with checking CPU vendor strings etc, or if the version of GCC used doesn't properly support Nehalem ... but the results here should be a genuine representation of what they are. I doubt anyone went to any length to rig these results.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            What is important to keep in mind though is that Intel Turbo Boost Technology was disabled on the processors during testing, since this functionality had not worked under Linux for increasing the clock frequency but instead appeared to cause some sporadic performance problems.
                            Err.. what?

                            Turbo mode does not really depend on the OS, and works fine on my i7 920.
                            And of course without turbo mode the single threaded performance is not quiet as good as it supposed to be, also comparing apples with oranges (quad vs. triple core) does not make the test very useful.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by lem79 View Post
                              Phoronix is probably also the only site benchmarking on Linux? And using GCC instead of the Intel C compiler? I don't know if ICC still does dodgey stuff with checking CPU vendor strings etc, or if the version of GCC used doesn't properly support Nehalem ... but the results here should be a genuine representation of what they are. I doubt anyone went to any length to rig these results.
                              I wouldn't be surprised if icc is still doing some Intel only optimizations. It would be interesting to see difference wiht icc compiled tests to gcc compiled with all icc optimizations enabled. (I think some of optimizations would require some compiler switches.)

                              gcc has many contributions from amd while Intel only recently started contributing to gcc.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X