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.
I plan to run the full universe suite and more clock vs. clock comparisons in the next days.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Intel Core i5 750, Core i7 870 Linux Benchmarks
Collapse
X
-
"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; 10 September 2009, 06:47 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by gost80 View PostCould you also post some Java benchmarks? Using the sun java compiler. This I feel provides a fairly good estimate of performance as the binary is provided by sun and is always the same and I assume is very well optimized by them for multiple architectures.
Before I saw these benchmarks, I was totally kicking myself for ordering a P II X4 955 for my lab. This makes me feel much better.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by djiezes View PostI thought the TurboBoost feature was OS-independent. It's a mainboard/BIOS setting isn't it? Why would linux not be able to handle this, while windows can?
Send a few lynnfields to a kernel maintainer or two with some docs and I'd expect it in a weekend.
Originally posted by djiezes View PostIs this only a problem for the new Lynnfield (i5 750, i7 860 & 870) series, or do the core i7-9xx cpu's also share the same issues? I'm asking since the Turboboost feature underwent some changes between these cpus.
Originally posted by djiezes View PostAnd what are the other linux+lynnfield problems you mention? Is it just the lm_sensors package that can't read the temps, or are there other problems at hand here?
Originally posted by djiezes View PostLike many others, I planned on buying a Lynnfield core i7-860 soon, but if even an AMD triple core performs better in many tests for more than half the money, I'd want answers to above questions before making that decision.
Thanks for the benchmarks, but now i'm a bit disappointed with these indications for bad linux performance.
However if you are really after the performance it seems that once linux is tuned for lynnfield it should be a good bit faster, especially in the case of the i7-860. It's hard to compete with, faster single thread because of slightly higher IPC, faster single thread because of turbo boost, and faster performance for threaded apps when using hyperthreading and 8 threads (unlike hyperthreading on the p4).
So all in all you have to ask your self do you want a great desktop system for $600-$800 that will be a pleasure to use for a wide range of uses or do you want to pay another $200 ish for the i7-860.
Granted the turbo boost will take some time to fix, but I'd expect it to be very small relative to the useful life of the system.
Leave a comment:
-
Java benchmarks?
Could you also post some Java benchmarks? Using the sun java compiler. This I feel provides a fairly good estimate of performance as the binary is provided by sun and is always the same and I assume is very well optimized by them for multiple architectures.
Before I saw these benchmarks, I was totally kicking myself for ordering a P II X4 955 for my lab. This makes me feel much better.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Ant P. View PostAtom can't compete with ARM at all - and both Intel and MS know that.
I'd also add that building an ARM system for home use is insanely expensive compared to building an Atom system; I looked at ARM boards for a home server and the cost would have been at least twice as much as the Atom I eventually bought, for less capability and more hassle (e.g. needing a source of ARM Linux).
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by BillBroadley View PostYes, triple channel.
Alas my machine is in production, so I can't easily try dual channel. I've seen dual vs tri channel stream numbers posted in a hardware review, alas I can't remember where.
Originally posted by BillBroadley View PostHrm, try this:
Code:opencc [B]-O4[/B] -fopenmp stream.c -o s-open64-4.2.2.1 -static
Code:Copy: 14486.5330 0.0025 0.0022 0.0031 Scale: 14246.6541 0.0026 0.0022 0.0046 Add: 14022.8872 0.0036 0.0034 0.0042 Triad: 14011.1763 0.0045 0.0034 0.0107
Leave a comment:
-
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.Update: after starting to see a flow of Windows-based reviews today, it looks like there are some more serious Linux + Lynnfield problems at hand, which we are currently investigating.
Is this only a problem for the new Lynnfield (i5 750, i7 860 & 870) series, or do the core i7-9xx cpu's also share the same issues? I'm asking since the Turboboost feature underwent some changes between these cpus.
And what are the other linux+lynnfield problems you mention? Is it just the lm_sensors package that can't read the temps, or are there other problems at hand here?
Like many others, I planned on buying a Lynnfield core i7-860 soon, but if even an AMD triple core performs better in many tests for more than half the money, I'd want answers to above questions before making that decision.
Thanks for the benchmarks, but now i'm a bit disappointed with these indications for bad linux performance.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by justapost View PostThose are triple channel results right?
Originally posted by justapost View PostMax possible with dual channel ddr3 1333 would be 21200MB/s. I'd be interested in dual channel results, I expect something around 17GB/s.
Originally posted by justapost View PostUpdate: Looking at your results it seemed to me open64 compilers generate as efficient code as icc 11.1 so I grabed the actual build and ran a comparison here.
PII 955BE 3.2GHz NB 2GHz MEM 2xDDR1333 Unganged CL7
ICC 11.1
Code:Function Rate (MB/s) Avg time Min time Max time Copy: 13223.4215 0.0026 0.0024 0.0150 Scale: 13261.3109 0.0025 0.0024 0.0090 Add: 13726.5011 0.0036 0.0035 0.0048 Triad: 13788.5482 0.0036 0.0035 0.0050
Code:Copy: 8859.2560 0.0036 0.0036 0.0037 Scale: 8712.0426 0.0037 0.0037 0.0037 Add: 9541.0925 0.0050 0.0050 0.0051 Triad: 9749.9439 0.0056 0.0049 0.0111
Code:gcc -O4 -fopenmp stream.c -o s-gcc-4.3.3 -static export PATH=/opt/pkg/gcc-4.4.1/bin:$PATH gcc -O4 -fopenmp stream.c -o s-gcc-4.4.1 -static export PATH=/opt/pkg/x86_open64-4.2.2.1/bin:$PATH opencc -O4 -fopenmp stream.c -o s-open64-4.2.2.1 -static
Code:$ ./s-gcc-4.3.3 | grep Copy: Copy: 8500.2266 0.0377 0.0376 0.0377 $ ./s-gcc-4.4.1 | grep Copy: Copy: 8492.3205 0.0377 0.0377 0.0378 $ ./s-open64-4.2.2.1 | grep Copy: Copy: 12487.2286 0.0258 0.0256 0.0258
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: