Lynnfield benchmarks up

[jennyh]

Yep - your fellow fanbois over at AMDZone already picked up on that line several hours ago . And of course Lostcircuits is the only trustworthy review site because the reviewer works for OCZ - all the rest -which just about uniformly show the i5 as equal or exceeding the P2-965 - are just paid Intel pumpers 😛.

However I believe Intel does not want to kill off AMD yet - they easily could have enabled hyperthreading and 32 PCIe lanes in the on-die controller, at the expense of higher power usage of course and maybe more real estate usage. Instead they are sticking the knife in just far enough to bleed AMD again. Eventually AMD will either fold or get bought out, in which case no more x86 license, and no antitrust actions...

Oh yes because it's not praising i5 it must be because it's AMD biased right? 😀

Rofl, you sure do take the biscuit fazers.

 

[jennyh]

Yep - your fellow fanbois over at AMDZone already picked up on that line several hours ago . And of course Lostcircuits is the only trustworthy review site because the reviewer works for OCZ.

I'm sure you have a comment to make about this tinfoilhatism TC? 😀

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Overclock any Phenom II by 600mhz and it will lay the smackdown on this i5. That's all that is happening here...core2 with 'turbo' is still core2...

If you're going to overclock one, why not overclock both? Let's go to a 64-bit OS, OC a 965BE to the max, and then OC a i5 750 to the max.

That would be interesting and I think you know what the result would be. They'd probably both max out in or near the 4ghz mark, but the i5 with a much higher IPC would destroy the 965BE. (Annand took the i5 to 3.52 on stock air and 4.2 on aftermarket air.)

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Why not? TURBO IS OVERCLOCKING.

NO IT'S NOT!

Overclocking is overclocking.

Turbo is a feature, just like hyperthreading, but it works in a different way. Should we turn off hyperthreading on all Intel CPUs to give charity to AMD?

We shouldn't be disabling features of CPUs to give charity to the technologically disadvantaged.



Here's a challenge to you JennyH, find a single review that indicates that Turbo mode doesn't fully work on stock air. I dare you to find one.

The answer, you can't!

So if Turbo will reliably work on virtually every single i5 750 sold, why shouldn't the benchmarks include it?

Face it, every i5 750 owner is going to be using and enjoying Turbo, even if it gets AMD's panties in a wad. There's no tweaking to be done, it just works.

 

[jennyh]

NO IT'S NOT!

Overclocking is overclocking.

Turbo is a feature, just like hyperthreading, but it works in a different way. Should we turn off hyperthreading on all Intel CPUs to give charity to AMD?

We shouldn't be disabling features of CPUs to give charity to the technologically disadvantaged.

how come the i7 benches had 'with turbo' and 'without turbo' yet the i5 benches dont....hmmm.

 

[jennyh]

Turbo is overclocking, plain and simple.

How bloody hard is that to comprehend? Take a 2.66ghz cpu and 'overclock' it to 3.2ghz.

Just because the cpu does it itself does not mean it isn't overclocking. Explain to me exactly what the difference is between this and AMD overdrive?

What is the difference between this 'turbo' and me running AMD overdrive?

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

how come the i7 benches had 'with turbo' and 'without turbo' yet the i5 benches dont....hmmm.

Massive Intel conspiracy.

 

[jennyh]

You know I can run AMD overdrive, click 'auto clock' and get the same effect as this 'turbo' right?

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/4528/overdrive.png

 

[jennyh]

Massive Intel conspiracy.

You keep saying that as if it's amusing or something...but seriously.

How come the i7 benches had turbo on and off? How come the i5 benches don't?

When was the last time you saw any review site use AMD overdrive as part of a benchmark? Do you seriously believe there is any real difference between that and the i5's overclocking?

TURBO IS OVERCLOCKING plain and simple. You can't be so damn green that you actually believe it's something else? Lol please tell me you don't actually think it's some great new thing intel conjured up...IT'S OVERCLOCKING.

 

[mindless728]

price wise:

AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE - $245
ASUS M4A78T-E AM3 AMD 790GX - $140
Total - $385

Intel Core i5 750 - $210
ASUS P7P55D LE LGA 1156 Intel P55 - $135
Total - $345

i guess the only good thing going on for the PII is that you MAY be able to drop it in your current board

and intel has made this a little confusing like the S939/S940 days

 

[fazers_on_stun]

So fazers, turbo mode is showing a 10% increase or so on those overall? (just a quick guesstimate at a glance).

Anand claims that turbo mode gives a 17% increase for the i5.

No - I think X-bit said about 8% average. And Anand said "up to 17%" boost (WoW) on the i7-870, not the i5-750. Sysmark got 13.1%, Dawn of War II 9.0%, Sacred 2 14.9%.

How much 'faster' was it overall compared to the 965 BE? 5-10% mby...so the reality is it's 7-12% slower than a 965 BE at stock?

Again I have to say...TURBO IS NOT A GUARANTEE

And as the above review sites mentioned - Turbo mode max boost works only with one core actively working - it gets downgraded to 3.06 GHz with 2 working, or 2.93 with 3 or 4 working. In contrast, stock 965BE is 3.4GHz and still can't beat the 750 😀.

However I'd agree that it would have been nice if X-bit (or Anand) had included the non-Turbo benches along with the others in the reviews. They've done that with HT and Turbo modes for the i7-9xx series IIRC, so why not with the i5 & i7-8xx CPUs? Maybe when the rush to publish mode is over and more thorough reviews come out...

 

[jennyh]

The reason they didn't do it without turbo is the i5 gets obliterated by phenom II at stock, and I'm pretty sure it would end up not much better vs the Q9650 intel already has.

I mean how many sites and none of them gave oc'd benches, or stock i5 benches...tinfoilhat time!

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

TURBO IS OVERCLOCKING plain and simple.

No, it's not. Apparently you didn't read any of the reviews where they explain what Turbo is and what it does.

Saying that "Turbo is overclocking plain and simple" demonstrates your lack of knowledge about CPUs.

Turbo keeps the processor under its designed power and thermal limits, so results are going to be consistent and reliable.



I agree that benchmarks with Turbo off would be interesting, but they would also be irrelevant, as it's going to be a feature that is on when people buy and use it.

 

[jennyh]

No, it's not. Apparently you didn't read any of the reviews where they explain what Turbo is and what it does.

Saying that "Turbo is overclocking plain and simple" demonstrates your lack of knowledge about CPUs.

Turbo keeps the processor under its designed power and thermal limits, so results are going to be consistent and reliable.



I agree that benchmarks with Turbo off would be interesting, but they would also be irrelevant, as it's going to be a feature that is on when people buy and use it.

No, turbo is overclocking plain and simple.

Does i5 guarantee against crashes or something? I must have missed that part if so. What's the story on i5 turbo mode and warranty etc? What if it crashes while turbo'ed? Was it you or was it intel that overclocked it?

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

No, turbo is overclocking plain and simple.

Does i5 guarantee against crashes or something? I must have missed that part if so. What's the story on i5 turbo mode and warranty etc? What if it crashes while turbo'ed? Was it you or was it intel that overclocked it?

You've mistaken Turbo for overclocking. They may seem similar, but it's an easy mistake to make if you don't have a lot of knowledge about computers. You should read up on it, there's a lot of links at the top of the thread that explain it for you.

Once you educate yourself you'll understand why your above statements are not correct.

You might want to worry more about thermals, power, and CPU damage on your 140 watt Phenom II X4 965BE when overclocking, which is different than Turbo mode.

 

[fazers_on_stun]

Overclock any Phenom II by 600mhz and it will lay the smackdown on this i5. That's all that is happening here...core2 with 'turbo' is still core2....

And Core2 still beats the pants off K8 😀. What do you think Phenom 2 is?? Same old 3-issue, sub-par OoO K8 core but with a big L3 cache and improved hypertransport. And AMD has been flogging that tired old horse for 6 years now! In contrast, the Core2 horse is not yet tired 'cuz it's only 3 years old now 😀.

And BTW, 'any' 965 is not "GUARANTEED" to oc by 600 MHz 😀. And it still would not hold its own against a 4GHz i5 which is with Turbo turned off.

Intel realised that they were losing the performance crown at the mainstream market, so they did what they could to get it back...ie invent a new name for 'overclocking' that idiots would believe is something entirely different. It's not, it's overclocking plain and simple.

Let's face it -- the official reviews are in now, you've had to recant your original "mediocre - no need to wait for the reviews" statement, and you're just grasping at anything you can to stay afloat while your ship sinks beneath you.

I'm waiting to see how you react in January after AMD fails to post that "guaranteed" profit in Q4 😀. Better start working on your excuses now - only 4 months left, and it's gonna take a boatload of rubber bands to stretch that one! [:thegreatgrapeape]

 

[Newf]

...because everyone knows Australians haven't invented air conditioning yet. Rumor has it their power grid involves treadmills, bunches of carrots, several donkeys, and the odd illegal immigrant...

rave (rãv) vi. raved, rav'ing, 1. to talk incoherently or wildly...

 

[jennyh]

No really it's overclocking lol.

2.66ghz > 3.2ghz...not possible without an 'overclock'.

Overclocking is anything above the advertised speed. If you think otherwise you're just...I dunno even worse retarded than usual.

Typical of intel to realise they were losing the mhz war, so the best way to deal with it is to offer 'turbo' on their already mediocre cpu's - ie overclocking with a different name.

 

[Newf]

i7 920 LGA1366 @ Microcenter, $199 on sale for months now...

 

[B-Unit]

Turbo and overclocking are very different.

Overclocking is taking a chip beyond the clockspeeds it was sold to operate at by MANUALLY adjusting system settings, resulting in higher temperatures and generally improved performance.

Turbo turns off unused cores, then mildly overclocks remaining cores AUTOMATICALLY while not increasing the amount of heat that needs to be removed and improving performance on the remaining cores.

The CAPS give it away, overclocking is done by hand, turbo is built in.

 

[fazers_on_stun]

Oh yes because it's not praising i5 it must be because it's AMD biased right? 😀

Rofl, you sure do take the biscuit fazers.

Isn't it close to midnight over in leprechaun-land? About time for the banshees to come out 😀. And actually if you quote the entire Lost Circuits conclusion, it is praising the i5.

We'll see what AMD thinks of it if and when they lower the 965 price to match (which was your prior point at one time before your ship capsized). That would be tacit admission that yes AMD is worried, fanbois rantings to the contrary.

 

[Newf]

No really it's overclocking lol.

2.66ghz > 3.2ghz...not possible without an 'overclock'.

Overclocking is anything above the advertised speed. If you think otherwise you're just...I dunno even worse retarded than usual.

Typical of intel to realise they were losing the mhz war, so the best way to deal with it is to offer 'turbo' on their already mediocre cpu's - ie overclocking with a different name.

If I were to buy a Phenom II Xx instead of a Phenom, wouldn't one good reason be that it overclocked really well instead of...well, not much at all?

 

[jennyh]

Isn't it close to midnight over in leprechaun-land? About time for the banshees to come out 😀. And actually if you quote the entire Lost Circuits conclusion, it is praising the i5.

We'll see what AMD thinks of it if and when they lower the 965 price to match (which was your prior point at one time before your ship capsized). That would be tacit admission that yes AMD is worried, fanbois rantings to the contrary.

I'm not Irish, but it's amusing to see you being wrong in everything you type so I let it go 😀

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Overclocking is anything above the advertised speed. If you think otherwise you're just...I dunno even worse retarded than usual.

EXACTLY. Turbo mode is stock, is designed stock, and works, stock, automatically. Turbo is the manufacture's specification for the processor.

Now if you turn turbo off and start raising the bus speed, that's overclocking!


You're almost to the point of understanding Jenny! Do a little more research and you'll get there!



Now if you wanted to call a 140 watt Phenom II 965 @3.4 a "stock overclock" I might be convinced to agree with you!

 

[jennyh]

If I were to buy a Phenom II Xx instead of a Phenom, wouldn't one good reason be that it overclocked really well instead of...well, not much at all?

Phenom I's overclock fine. The problem was with the southbridge, since that got rectified most Phenom I's will overclock a good 500-700mhz over stock.