Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another Look At Intel's Lynnfield Linux Performance

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

  • #11
    So, I'm confused looking at the charts there- is the i5 actually the successor to the i7 or a cheaper counterpart? If it's the cheaper counterpart, it's doing a fine job, because it's beating the i7 in a number of tests.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by dashcloud View Post
      So, I'm confused looking at the charts there- is the i5 actually the successor to the i7 or a cheaper counterpart?
      Cheaper counterpart: for example, the i7 has hyperthreading, so it can run 8 threads on 4 cores, the i5 doesn't.

      In the benchmarks I've seen it's generally behind the i7 870, ahead of the i7 920 on single-threaded tasks and behind the i7 920 on multithreaded.

      Note that you can't directly compare the Intel i5 results to the i7 results in this article because they're using a different BIOS. I'll be interested to see how they do compare once Phoronix has the same configuration.

      Comment


      • #13
        i5 and i7-8xx is for dual channel boards (currently only P55) and i7-9xx is for triple channel boards (X58). i5 has got no HT while i7 has it.

        Comment


        • #14
          Hmm their apache benchmark results are much lower than mine, can it be that ext4 is slower than ext3 here? Or is it the Intels SSD beeing lower than the OCZ vertex?
          Also their stream results are lower, i used DDR3 1333 CL7 dunno what intel used.
          Their EIST and Turbo off results are all much lower than mine, as if they ran at sub 2.66GHz.
          Beside that turbo on results look valid.
          http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...176-4674-30777

          Comment


          • #15
            justapost, what sort of cooling are you using? Curious about this turbo thing with the stock cooler in a closed case. Intel sending out monster coolers in the review kits is kind of questionable too, says to me "hey our stock cooling is crap, you'll have to buy something better if you want results like you see here".

            Comment


            • #16
              Benchmark result oddities

              Does anybody else find it extremely strange that a few benchmark shows about double performance improvement from enabling turbo mode which is at most ~30% increase in clock speed (nas, lame, john the ripper md5)?

              Comment


              • #17
                Thats easy, only with good cooling and 2 cores in sleep mode the max turbo is activated. Apps which are accellerated with turbo mode use 1 core only in most cases. I don't know if there are apps with 2 threads hardcoded.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by Kano View Post
                  Thats easy, only with good cooling and 2 cores in sleep mode the max turbo is activated. Apps which are accellerated with turbo mode use 1 core only in most cases. I don't know if there are apps with 2 threads hardcoded.
                  That's not my understanding of what I have read from the reviews. Turbo mode can be enabled anywhere from 1-4 core active, table being below for the i750 (stock/4/3/2/1)

                  2.66GHz 2.80GHz 2.80GHz 3.20GHz 3.20GHz

                  So it should never happen to have benchmark that produce double performance improvement from just having turbo enabled since from stock to the maximum turbo scaling possible is about 30% increase in clock speed.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Kano that's not right for Lynnfield. There's this table on Anandtech detailing Lynnfield's turbo modes.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Why does it have to be BIOS-controlled? Give us back the Turbo button or at least bring back the tacky LCD MHz readouts

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X