Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Core i5 2500K Linux Performance

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

  • Intel Core i5 2500K Linux Performance

    Phoronix: Intel Core i5 2500K Linux Performance

    Earlier this month Intel released their first "Sandy Bridge" processors to much excitement. However, for Linux users seeking to utilize the next-generation Intel HD graphics found on these new CPUs, it meant problems. Up to this point we have largely been looking at the graphics side of Sandy Bridge, and while we have yet to publish any results there due to some isolated issues, on the CPU side its Linux experience and performance has been nothing short of incredible. Here are the first Linux benchmarks of the Intel Core i5 2500K processor.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15648

  • #2
    Note about difference between 2500 and 2500K

    At the page nine of the article Intel Core i5 2500K Linux Performance it's said

    There is also the Core i5 2500 non-K processor that retails for about $10 less than the K version, with the sole difference being the 2500K being an unlocked processor so it will be able to overclock better. If doing any overclocking, you are best off with the K variant.
    This is a false statement and should be corrected ASAP, as the untrue info potentially affects many Linux users. The K version is better for overclocking, but it has some features crippled compared to the non-K version. It lacks trusted execution and VT-d support. See the product details of the 2500 and 2500K, the Advanced Technologies table.

    Especially the latter might be a deal-breaker. VT-d support allows a host machine to share physical PCI devices to guest hosts when running KVM based virtualization systems. With the new Sandy Bridge K processors you can't do that. Many people might want to experiment with this features as it's supported by modern Linux distributions. But you need the non-K processor for that.

    I guess Intel is crippling the overclockable processor because those interested in overclocking probably aren't interested in enterprise features (though people at this forum might make an exception to this assumption). This way they also prevent cheap-ass people from building servers with "too good" power/performance/price ratio using the over clocked K processors thus leaving room for their upcoming Sandy Bridge Xeons...

    Comment


    • #3
      Any chance you could do a little video test and check the cpu usage along with artifacts?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by TFA
        There is also the Core i5 2500 non-K processor that retails for about $10 less than the K version, with the sole difference being the 2500K being an unlocked processor so it will be able to overclock better. If doing any overclocking, you are best off with the K variant.
        Michael, this isn't 100% correct.

        The i5-2500 includes VT-d support, which the i5-2500K does not (in fact, none of the *K CPUs seem to do so). For most people this might not matter, but for those of us that would like to take advantage of all of the VT features in these CPUs, it does mean dropping features in favour of an unlocked multiplier.

        Comment


        • #5
          Page 2: World of Padman test.
          "In reality though these gains are not too beneficial because even with an Intel Core i5 750 the frame-rate at this resolution is nearly 400 FPS."
          Increase the screen resolution, or use a more objective test, such as CPU dependent game instead. As I've seen other games benchmarked, I'm looking forward to an article on Sandy Bridge's gaming performance.

          Overclocking:
          Why stop at 4.2GHz?
          Almost every review I've seen has a chip that happily goes to 4.4 or 4.5GHz.
          Intel officially state:
          1. Approximately 50% of CPUs can go up to 4.4~4.5 GHz
          2. Approximately 40% of CPUs can go up to 4.6~4.7 GHz
          3. Approximately 10% of CPUs can go up to 4.8~5 GHz (50+ multipliers are about 2% of this group)

          Comment


          • #6
            Did the test CPU only go as high as 4.2GHz or were you holding back?

            One reviewer happily ramped theirs to full voltage and over 50 multiplier (non booting), and reverted with no issue. The "K" series CPUs are designed and warranted for overclocking.

            Comment


            • #7
              Nice cut on your finger. Sharp motherboard / case?
              (Happens far too often.)

              Comment


              • #8
                Thanks for the good morning Monday read!

                Any thoughts on the somewhat poor PostgreSQL performance?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by tomm3h View Post
                  Michael, this isn't 100% correct.

                  The i5-2500 includes VT-d support, which the i5-2500K does not (in fact, none of the *K CPUs seem to do so). For most people this might not matter, but for those of us that would like to take advantage of all of the VT features in these CPUs, it does mean dropping features in favour of an unlocked multiplier.
                  Also the 2500K has the more advanced on-board graphics capabilities with 12 EUs vs the plain 2500 which has 6.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    No AMD comparison?

                    Again, no AMD comparison :-(.

                    From what I have read here, It is not Michael to blame but AMD. I do not understand, why the hell they refuse to borrow/give their CPU to test on Phoronix!

                    They send their processors to every looser using Windows/3DMark/syntetic_crap to produce zillion of the same useless reviews, but quite interesting and in fact uniqe benchmarking site is ignored? What is the sense of this?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by next9 View Post
                      Again, no AMD comparison :-(.

                      From what I have read here, It is not Michael to blame but AMD. I do not understand, why the hell they refuse to borrow/give their CPU to test on Phoronix!

                      They send their processors to every looser using Windows/3DMark/syntetic_crap to produce zillion of the same useless reviews, but quite interesting and in fact uniqe benchmarking site is ignored? What is the sense of this?
                      Yep, that's right
                      Michael Larabel
                      http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Michael View Post
                        Yep, that's right
                        What is typical AMD commentary, when you ask them for CPU?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by next9 View Post
                          What is typical AMD commentary, when you ask them for CPU?
                          The last time I asked was a response that they didn't have any CPUs available.
                          Michael Larabel
                          http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Michael View Post
                            The last time I asked was a response that they didn't have any CPUs available.


                            Joke of the year

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by tjormola View Post
                              At the page nine of the article Intel Core i5 2500K Linux Performance it's said



                              This is a false statement and should be corrected ASAP, as the untrue info potentially affects many Linux users. The K version is better for overclocking, but it has some features crippled compared to the non-K version. It lacks trusted execution and VT-d support. See the product details of the 2500 and 2500K, the Advanced Technologies table.

                              Especially the latter might be a deal-breaker. VT-d support allows a host machine to share physical PCI devices to guest hosts when running KVM based virtualization systems. With the new Sandy Bridge K processors you can't do that. Many people might want to experiment with this features as it's supported by modern Linux distributions. But you need the non-K processor for that.

                              I guess Intel is crippling the overclockable processor because those interested in overclocking probably aren't interested in enterprise features (though people at this forum might make an exception to this assumption). This way they also prevent cheap-ass people from building servers with "too good" power/performance/price ratio using the over clocked K processors thus leaving room for their upcoming Sandy Bridge Xeons...
                              Thanks for this information, much appreciated. Intel's market segmentation is getting worse. For me, no VT-d and/or locked clocks == no sell. AMD may lack raw speed at the high end, but if I buy a Phenom I rest assured that I'll get both VT and overclocking potential.

                              Originally posted by Lukian
                              Nice cut on your finger. Sharp motherboard / case?
                              (Happens far too often.)
                              If you don't shed blood over your new computer, it won't work. It's been proven time and time again.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X