Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another Look At Intel's Lynnfield Linux Performance

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

  • Another Look At Intel's Lynnfield Linux Performance

    Phoronix: Another Look At Intel's Lynnfield Linux Performance

    Earlier this month we provided a launch-day preview of the P55 Chipset on Linux along with benchmarks from the Core i5 750 and Core i7 870, which are the new quad-core Lynnfield processors. We noticed some odd performance issues under Linux when testing out these new processors, but Intel has since chimed in and we are in the process of running an updated set of tests.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14203

  • #2
    Good to see someone doing reviews on these processors on gnu/linux.

    Personally I'm a little confused by the i7/i5 series on our platform. Are these cpu's optimised for the kernel? Why si that major distros force people on AMD64 opcodes when both AMD and Intel have unique abilities that surely can make a difference in cpu operations.

    Maybe someday I'll have to learn how to build my own kernel, like I did in early days when I tried linux.

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi Phoronix men,

      It's my first post and it's a pleasure to visit you almost every day.

      I have just a remark about the test suite articles : they miss a summary graphic at the end to recall all tests in a quick view look...

      I hope you will provide this one day.

      Thanks for your work !
      Good luck !

      Comment


      • #4
        It probably doesn't mean what you think it does. AMD64 pretty much means "the 64bit CPU architecture that AMD designed and which Intel's desktop 64bit CPU's are based on too" afaik. It has nothing at all to do with CPU optimizations. It just says that the system is 64bit x86 computer (and not Itanium or Sparc64 or whatever), nothing more.

        Comment


        • #5
          Yep, AMD64 is just AMD's brand name for the x64 architecture, which Intel calls IA64. Both have the exact same intsruction set, just like they both implement the same x86 instruction set to remain compatible with each other. AMD64 is sometimes used instead of x64 simply because they were the ones who designed it and were the first to implement it. IIRC, Intel was thinking of creating their own competing 64bit architecture, but MS had already started working on an AMD64 port of windows and said they wouldn't support a 2nd 64bit architecture.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
            IIRC, Intel was thinking of creating their own competing 64bit architecture, but MS had already started working on an AMD64 port of windows and said they wouldn't support a 2nd 64bit architecture.
            Not exactly accurate, I think. Intel had 64bit Itanium processors long before AMD thought of doing 64bit. The problem was that Intel's processors couldn't run 32bit code as far as I've heard.

            Comment


            • #7
              Does anyone who has this board know if you can put a raid controller in the adjacent x8 slot?

              Comment


              • #8
                In the manual:

                • Intel® Core™ i7 and Intel® Core™ i5 processors in an LGA1156 socket:
                ― 1 x16 PCIe 2.0 Graphics interface (operates in x8 mode when second slot
                is populated)
                ― 1 x8 PCIe 2.0 Graphics interface

                So one would presume(?) that the x8 slot cannot be used for anything else but a graphics card?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                  Yep, AMD64 is just AMD's brand name for the x64 architecture, which Intel calls IA64. Both have the exact same intsruction set, just like they both implement the same x86 instruction set to remain compatible with each other. AMD64 is sometimes used instead of x64 simply because they were the ones who designed it and were the first to implement it. IIRC, Intel was thinking of creating their own competing 64bit architecture, but MS had already started working on an AMD64 port of windows and said they wouldn't support a 2nd 64bit architecture.
                  No that is wrong. IA64 is Itanium. Intel's AMD64 implementation is called EM64T.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Those vendor provided results look resonable, the others have been really to slow to show the real speed of the cpu.

                    Comment


                    • #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

                              Working...
                              X