i5 / P55 Lab Update - Now with more numbers
by Gary Key on September 15, 2009 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
i5 / P55 Lab Update -
We welcomed Anand back into the office with open arms this past weekend. He immediately started working on an in-depth analysis of clock for clock comparisons for several processors as a follow up to our Lynnfield launch article (among many other things). This analysis along with a quick i7/860 performance review will be available in the near future.
In the meantime, I have additional performance results using the P55 motherboard test suite along with some unusual results from our gaming selections. I am not going to dwell on with commentary in this short update. We will let the numbers speak for themselves at this point. Let’s get right to the results today, but first, the test setup.
Test Setup-
For our test results we setup each board as closely as possible in regards to memory timings and sub-timings. The P55 and 790FX motherboards utilized 8GB of DDR3, while the X58 platform contained 6GB. The P55 and X58 DDR3 timings were set to 7-7-7-20 1T at DDR3-1600 for the i7/920, i7/870, and i7/860 processors at both stock and overclocked CPU settings.
We used DDR3-1333 6-6-6-18 1T timings for the i5/750 stock setup as DDR3-1600 is not natively supported in current BIOS releases for this processor at a stock Bclk setting of 133. We had early BIOS releases that offered the native 1600 setting but stability was a serious problem and support was pulled for the time being. Performance is essentially the same between the two settings. When we overclocked the i5/750 to 3.8GHz, we utilized the same DDR3-1600 7-7-7-20 1T timings as the i7 setups.
The AMD 790FX setup is slightly different as trying to run DDR3-1600 at CAS 7 timings on the 1:4 divider is extremely difficult. DDR3-1600 is not natively supported on the Phenom II series so this divider is provided with a caveat that you are overclocking the memory bus. The same holds true for the Lynnfield (i7/8xx, i5/7xx) processors as DDR3-1333 is officially the highest memory speed supported and it is DDR3-1066 for the Bloomfield (i7/9xx).
Without resorting to some serious overvolting and relaxing of sub-timings, we set our AMD board up at DDR3-1600 8-8-8-20 1T timings. The difference in performance between C7 and C8 DDR3-1600 is practically immeasurable in applications and games on this platform. You might pick up an additional few tenths of second in SuperPi or a couple of extra points in AquaMark or 3DMark 2001SE, but otherwise performance is about equal.
However, in order to satisfy some of our more enthusiastic AMD supporters, we also increased our Northbridge speed from 2000MHz to 2200MHz to equalize, if not improve, our memory performance on the AMD system. Yes, we know, further increasing the NB speed will certainly result in additional performance but the focus of this short article is to show clock for clock results at like settings. Personally, I would run DDR3-1333 C6 with 8GB as this platform favors tighter timings over pure bandwidth.
Last, but not least, I only ran the i5/750 without turbo enabled and the P45/C2Q setup is missing. I am still completing those numbers. Anand will be providing additional analysis on the other Lynnfield processors in his update. The image gallery below contains our Everest memory results with each processor overclocked at similar memory settings along with voltage/uncore/subtiming options. I will go into these in more detail once the motherboard roundups start. For the time being, the 860/P55 offers slightly better throughput and latency numbers than the 920/X58 when overclocked. At stock, the numbers favor the Lynnfield, but primarily due to the turbo mode.
Other than that we are in a holding pattern on the P55 roundups at this time trying to figure out some unusual game and 3D Render results with our GTX275 video cards. I will discuss this problem in the game results.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
77 Comments
View All Comments
Gary Key - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
I tried renaming the exe files, no go, anyway, testing with the 4890s now and will be finished shortly so we can move on.Ocire - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
Do you have a link to a recent article showing the PCIe-bandwidth usage of different games? The most recent article doing something related I could find in a quick search was some test over at Tom's hardware testing x1900xtx vs. 8800gts on different bandwidths. ;-)Renaming the .exe would be fun though to see whether some strange optimization causes this effect.
Eeqmcsq - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
Thanks for the update and including Turbo off numbers for the i5 750. So at its baseline, the i5 750 is about the same or worse than the Phenom II 965. But the Turbo mode either brings the comparison closer or tips the scales in i5's favor in individual tests.As for the multitasking tests, I can understand why the i5 750, even w/Turbo, fell behind the 965. The i5 was already behind in the Lightwave 3D and Cinema 4D individual benchmarks. Combining them together would certainly "worsen" the difference, as shown by the multitasking charts.
Also, looking at the Cinema 4D test, I noticed how the Turbo boost was much less of a boost during the multitasking test compared to the individual test. This is the predicted effect as heavy multitasking pushes the CPU TDP up, leaving less room for Turbo. As a result, the i5 Turbo performance approaches that of its baseline, which is generally equal to or worse than the Phenom II 965.
Individual test, i5, lower % means better Turbo Boost effect:
Cinema 4D - Turbo finished in 84.5% of the baseline time
Lightwave 3D - Turbo finished in 96.5% of the baseline time
Multitasking test, i5:
Cinema 4D - Turbo finished in 95.3% of the baseline time
Lightwave 3D - Turbo finished in 95.6% of the baseline time
Total time - Turbo finished in 95.4% of the baseline time
So thanks again to Gary for providing the baseline Turbo numbers as well as the multitasking tests. It certainly paints a more complete picture of how to measure Turbo capable CPUs.
Requests: I'd still like to see 1x, 2x, 3x, 4x concurrent instances of the same single threaded test just to further demonstrate the variableness of Turbo compared to its baseline.
Malhandir - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
One aspect of the new 1566 i5/i7 processors I love is the more intelligent turbo boost, if only because it achieves its goals so well. Have there been any indications of this being introduced into new 1366 processors in the future or are there technical limitations to its introduction keeping it to the 1156 platform? Of course any future 1366 CPUs are, well… future! But I’m interested in the answer nevertheless, since the most obvious tweak that could be done on the 1366 CPU lineup is the introduction of this core management ability.Mastakilla - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
Great article once more!I think it is clear in meanwhile that the 920 offers less value for the money than a 860 in almost all the cases (except extreme benchmarking)
one use case however isn't covered yet (and that is exactly the use case that Intel said the 920 would be better for):
How do they compare with a decent OC? (meaning 4Ghz+)
Do the 920s reach 4Ghz+ easier?
I am talking about a fully stable 24/7 watercooled setup than (cause you can't decently aircool at that speed except for some short benching)
cause that is exactly what I have in mind for my next system ;)
Ann3x - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
You need less volts to stabilise 920s than lynnfields (due to the pci-e stabilisation issues) therefore they run a little cooler at load therefore *should* overclock better.I say should as the lynnfields havent been around long enough to say 100%.
The opinion about the 920 being worse vfm is subjective. Atm the 920 is actually cheaper than the 860 in most places, this is offset tho by x58 vs P55. Its a close thing either way. The P55s are certainly a good bet if you dont want to push overclocks (and tweak a lot) and dont want a multi GPU setup. If you do want either of these the 920 is probably better.
Alberto - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
I don't understand the botton line of the article. We can not make a comparison between available cpus and unavailable ones. Phenom II 3.4 Ghz is an exotic and hot cpu, moreover it's pretty rare to find in stores, same thing for the 3.2Ghz incarnation.A real apple to apple comparison would be between Phenom II X4 2.8/3Ghz and i5/720...both 95W and available cpus.
Gary, you can't say "in multitasking my chose is......". The real story is that you can't find a Phenom II X4 965/955 Black configured machine from a good OEM. These are exotic cpus for expensive gaming systems and AMD isn't able to make many of them.
Core i7 is everywere on big OEM sites.
Makaveli - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
Alberto Who the Fu*k buys OEM systems on this site?I can find both those cpu's at any local stores in my area.
Please put the pipe down!
Alberto - Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - link
Anyway these Amd cpus are marginal and rare around the world. They don't make good revenue for a Red company like Amd. Maybe you don't have a real job, without the on site assistance of a big OEM i'd be ruined.coconutboy - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
Anandtech tends to be an enthusiast site where (I assume) a heavy percentage of the readership builds their own computers by handpicking their parts. This means OEM machines are not the main focus. As for your claim that some of those AMD cpus are not easy to find, perhaps you do not live in the USA. Otherwise, I see the AMD 965, 955, 720 etc for sale at every one of the 4 retailers I just checked.newegg
mwave (I can walk into this store locally for purchases)
microcenter (another walk-in store)
zipzoomfly
I'll bet Fry's and bucketloads of other walk-in retailers offer them as well. Now we just need AMD to drop the prices to compete more evenly with Intel (although the x3 720 is quite inexpensive)