The Truth: i5 750 vs Phenom II 965 -Updated

[AMW1011]

Hello
There has been a lot of heated debate and arguing on these forums about which is better, a Phenom II 965 or an i5 750. On both sides, everyone has failed to back up their point and have posted one or two links at best which is inadequate to answer such a question. I am here to answer that question. The scientific method tells us to do everything in, at least, threes. Three sources, three experiments, three variables, ect. Well I have compiled 8 different sources. None were picked and chosen except for the Lost Circuits article since it keeps getting thrown around.

I must remind everyone that this is a thread to inform those who are trying to choose between the two, I'm not here to settle any vendettas or disputes, I don't give a rats ass about that.

Alright let us discuss Turbo mode. Turbo Mode is where, with 1-2 cores under load, the CPU clocks those cores to 3.2 GHz and with 3-4 core under load the CPU clocks to 2.8 GHz. With Turbo mode enabled, which it is in all the below benchmarks, the i5 750 clocks at 2.8 GHz for most of the app benchmarks, which is 600 MHz (2.8GHz vs 3.4 GHz) lower than the Phenom II 965. In most games the i5 750 is clocked at 3.2 GHz or 2.8 GHz which is 200 MHz or 600 MHz (3.2GHz/2.8GHz vs 3.4 GHz) lower than the Phenom II 965. A reader must take this into account with the below results.

Links:
http://www.techspot.com/review/193-intel-core-i5-750/
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634
http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-750-core-i7-860-870-processor-review-test/
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_corei5750_corei7870/
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/lynnfield/
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2009/09/08/intel-core-i5-and-i7-lynnfield-cpu-review/1
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i5,2410.html
http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid=42

Note: No synthetics were listed here, though I think that they have some merit, the majority opinion is that they do not and therefor they are not included.

Here we go: (continued on next post)

2/24/2010 I have updated the pricing section and some facts. If I'm asked I will add some more articles that are more recent.

 

[AMW1011]

Please expound on how my posting Linux benchmarks is in any way "ignoring results". I'm sorry but you won't be able to do that since those two actions have nothing to do with each other.

You seem to want to put your head in the sand and pretend that Linux results do not reveal anything and that Windows is the only important operating system. This is because the Linux results do not mirror your opinion. Do you understand that your opinion does not allow you to completely denigrate and ignore anything you do not like? When you do that you actually define the term "fanboy".




If Intel is forced to fix their libraries and play on a level playing field... I will be nourished by the tears of the whining fanboys.



Linux is not "obscure" as you seem to think.

Regardless: I thought the goal was to actively investigate comparative performance between brands. Ignoring results you don't like is not a good tactic if you seriously have that goal. If I told you to ignore some of your results you would have an aneurism. But somehow you find it acceptable to do the same in reverse and don't consider that to be seriously fanboyish.

Wow, common. Holding 1.02% of the global marketshare is definitely obscure. I also pointed out that the article is only relevant to Linux and not Windows, I never said that the article is flat out wrong. You like to call everyone a fanboy, but you are the one refuting hundreds of results with a source that has totally different results in a totally different, and yes obscure, operating system. Before you call others a fanboy Keith, make sure that your points are relevant and that you know who you are talking to.

You are the fanboy, you are the one who must support their opinion instead of truth. I have spent hours creating a thread to guide people in their purchase and have recommended the AMD system along side the Intel system and given plenty of evidence to help others decide which is best for themselves. That is not good enough, you must try to convince yourself and others that it is completely one sided and that the AMD system is completely superior, but you only have a some irrelevant article that does not pertain to the actual market, to support that false notion. You are the one making up facts and numbers. You are the one ignoring the truth and trying to bend it to mirror your opinion. You are the one who is displaying a huge amount of arrogance by telling others that they are biased as they show you sources and articles that tragically outnumber your own less reputable ones.

In short, you are an idiot.

 

[roofus]

You are completely wasting your time arguing here AMW. Any site that doesn't say what they think it should say is on Intel payroll. Any site that does, no matter how obscure or unreputable is the gospel. You aren't going to convince them and they sure cant convince anyone else of their opinion because of the manner they express it. I would leave it at that.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

OK, add that 1% to jennys 10%, or it least it makes it closer to 10% doesnt it? In other words, where Intels compilers are used, your apt to run into lessor perf using other cpus

 

[keithlm]

Wow, common. Holding 1.02% of the global marketshare is definitely obscure. I also pointed out that the article is only relevant to Linux and not Windows, I never said that the article is flat out wrong. You like to call everyone a fanboy, but you are the one refuting hundreds of results with a source that has totally different results in a totally different, and yes obscure, operating system. Before you call others a fanboy Keith, make sure that your points are relevant and that you know who you are talking to.

You are the fanboy, you are the one who must support their opinion instead of truth. I have spent hours creating a thread to guide people in their purchase and have recommended the AMD system along side the Intel system and given plenty of evidence to help others decide which is best for themselves. That is not good enough, you must try to convince yourself and others that it is completely one sided and that the AMD system is completely superior, but you only have a some irrelevant article that does not pertain to the actual market, to support that false notion. You are the one making up facts and numbers. You are the one ignoring the truth and trying to bend it to mirror your opinion. You are the one who is displaying a huge amount of arrogance by telling others that they are biased as they show you sources and articles that tragically outnumber your own less reputable ones.

In short, you are an idiot.

Apparently if I do not espouse your post and your opinion completely I am an idiot and a fanboy even though I haven't mentioned anything negative about your post or the links you provided in that post. Apparently because I posted results that contradict your results that somehow makes you crazy and you believe that resorting to personal attacks will further your cause.

Let me be a bit more specific: You are working hard at reading things into my post that I never said. You spent hours creating your post. I spent hours creating my benchmarks. Big deal. Neither of those facts actually mean anything. BTW: I didn't make up those numbers as you yet again incorrectly claim, I ran the actual benchmarks.

By your actions you are revealing your inner fanboy core and an amazing amount of bias. You also do realize that you are being utterly pathetic.

I won't lower my standards enough to start calling you names. But you are definitely not revealing a great deal of maturity in your post.

 

[bystander]

Let me end this. Linux works better on the AMD chip, Windows works better on the Intel chip. Now kiss and make up 😉

 

[bystander]

And what is your thoughts on these Benchmarks, Keithlm (I really like they way they are layed out and how clearly it shows the GPU bottlenecks and when there isn't one)?
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd5870-cpu-scaling.html

I've heard a few people make note of how the 965 was faster at high resolutions before or at least very close. After seeing these benchmarks, it's made clear why.

 

[fazers_on_stun]

And what is your thoughts on these Benchmarks, Keithlm (I really like they way they are layed out and how clearly it shows the GPU bottlenecks and when there isn't one)?
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd5870-cpu-scaling.html

I've heard a few people make note of how the 965 was faster at high resolutions before or at least very close. After seeing these benchmarks, it's made clear why.

Clearly Xbit is an Intel shill paid pumper compiler-cheating wife-beating web site since they don't show the absolute truth that AMD is always 200% better than Intel's next-gen CPU!! 😀

 

[randomizer]

Hold the phone. Are we arguing about which CPU is really faster or what CPU appears faster due to the software environment in which it runs? It appears as though keith is running with the former, while the rest of you are arguing the latter. If this is true then it's the same as arguing whether a Ferrari is faster than a Landcruiser or whether a Ferrari is faster than a Landcruiser at scaling mountains.

 

[smithereen]

I know! I know! Why don't we argue over which CPU performs better in specific situations?

Oh wait, this thread isn't about one specific situation, it's an informative thread covering a wide variety of applications.

Carry on.

 

[keithlm]

And what is your thoughts on these Benchmarks, Keithlm

Concerning the xbit review: using a DDR3 motherboard with PCIe at x16/x16 against a DDR2 motherboard that has PCIe at x16/x8 in an article about Crossfire scaling is not very professional. Or intelligent. Makes you want to wonder what the reviewer was thinking HELLO.. ANYBODY HOME?

Sure the x16/x16 vs x16/x8 only makes a few percent difference but when doing comparative benchmarks for GPU scaling ANY handicap is something to reconsider. A professional reviewer would have used a motherboard capable of x16/16 with DDR3 ram.

Another thing bad practice that is often done is "masking" things by being obscure. For example: in an article about GPU scaling the 3dMark Vantage GPU score would be MUCH MUCH MUCH more important than the overall score. If you go and review the 3dMark ORB you will find that GPU scores for the AMD chips are generally higher for the same CPU frequencies. Looking at the overall scores masks that fact.

LET ME BE CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING: The things I pointed out above have NOTHING to do with which brand CPU a person might prefer. If I saw somebody do a review where the AMD chip had a x16/x16 motherboard and the Intel chip had x16/x8 or x8/x8 then I would be just as vocal. A bad review practice is the same no matter which brand it handicaps.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

But random, its due to Intels SW/code that makes all the difference to begin with

 

[bystander]

Concerning the xbit review: using a DDR3 motherboard with PCIe at x16/x16 against a DDR2 motherboard that has PCIe at x16/x8 in an article about Crossfire scaling is not very professional. Or intelligent. Makes you want to wonder what the reviewer was thinking HELLO.. ANYBODY HOME?

Sure the x16/x16 vs x16/x8 only makes a few percent difference but when doing comparative benchmarks for GPU scaling ANY handicap is something to reconsider. A professional reviewer would have used a motherboard capable of x16/16 with DDR3 ram.

Another thing bad practice that is often done is "masking" things by being obscure. For example: in an article about GPU scaling the 3dMark Vantage GPU score would be MUCH MUCH MUCH more important than the overall score. If you go and review the 3dMark ORB you will find that GPU scores for the AMD chips are generally higher for the same CPU frequencies. Looking at the overall scores masks that fact.

LET ME BE CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING: The things I pointed out above have NOTHING to do with which brand CPU a person might prefer. If I saw somebody do a review where the AMD chip had a x16/x16 motherboard and the Intel chip had x16/x8 or x8/x8 then I would be just as vocal. A bad review practice is the same no matter which brand it handicaps.

Forgive me for not being able to find the kind of specific tests you'd like, as not many reviewers like to compare with dual 5870's vs not with both CPU options. I would like to show you how little difference if any an AM2+ mobo is compared to a AM3 mobo when it comes to gaming: http://www.guru3d.com/article/ecs-a790gxmad3-socket-am3-ddr3-motherboard-review/19

The two green bars are performed on AM2+ and AM3 machines.

And as to the 8/8 vs 16/16, look at this for a comparison as to what is lost: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/p55-pci-express-scaling,2517-7.html

Noticed that the P55 (8/8 pcie lanes) performs almost identical to the x58 (16/16 pcie lanes).

While there may have been a slight performance loss as a result of using the AM2+ board, you should be able to see that it would not make up the huge differences in gaming performance the i7 gains when the GPU is not the bottleneck in the other benchmark.

EDIT: Just so we can save flames and arguements here. This is not really for you, but for others who are geniunly interested in knowing what is best for their gaming rigs. You will likely just ignore or try to poke holes in it. Don't bother, unless you want talk to yourself.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

i7 does have a better or higher IPC, and is reflected where and when it can in games, and its nothing more than that. This small perf increase isnt much compatively, 15-20%. If gaming is your main usage for such a PC, then a costs to benefits must apply. I wont go into it, but to me, thats where the decision should lay as to purchase, because some may choose perf over any costs, depending.

 

[bystander]

i7 does have a better or higher IPC, and is reflected where and when it can in games, and its nothing more than that. This small perf increase isnt much compatively, 15-20%. If gaming is your main usage for such a PC, then a costs to benefits must apply. I wont go into it, but to me, thats where the decision should lay as to purchase, because some may choose perf over any costs, depending.

It seems to be potentially much higher, but do to many games being GPU bottlenecked, it is closer to your numbers. Where the advantage lies is that it should have a longer life before needing to upgrade. Down the road, when you can get GPU's that won't bottleneck the system, then the i7 would continue to work well.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

No, Id wager if you look into which drivers are being used, youll see, adding turbo as well, that the IPC advantage is all that exists, when it does at all

 

[bystander]

Well, it's a nice advantage, it shows up very well when the GPU isn't bottlenecking on those charts.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Well, as allthings, its not a straight advantage all the time, even when it seems it should.
But this of course enters into arch and other abilities vs demands put on them etc.
If the IPC advantage is only say 8%, even in a cpu limited game, then as I said, it comes down to price perf.

 

[EXT64]

Excellent (original) post AMW1011, that was a lot of work (with a very useful result). And I agree with your conclusion as well, both are great chips. In fact, when I built my i5 rig, I did so mainly because I hadn't built an Intel rig in years (and hadn't done an LGA at all) and wanted to try something different.

 

[Geoube]

I wish I had found this 2 weeks ago! ive essentially done the same amount of research as you (though i wasnt kind enough to actually type it all out for everyone )
much thanks AMW1011
(ps going for i5)

 

[jennyh]

You might want to wait another week before buying that i5.

 

[mushroomking]

This thread was a good read. All those benchmarks you found AMW made me proud I used an i5-750. I feel for those people who do not live near a microcenter, they are right there in competition with newegg's prices and cheaper in quite a few areas including processors. I also read somewhere in this thread that microcenter once had the i5-750 for $150 which is crazy compared to now(screw supply and demand).

Truthfully you cant really base value upon price in this instance because both of these processors are now virtually the same price, and you get what you pay for in a motherboard. However open box deals are the great equalizer .

 

[Misko195]

I never said i5 is better than PII-955 in the cost-performance ratio except in the US.

You just showed how ignorant the AMD fanboys(such as jennyh) are by saying PII-955 is better than i5 in PERFORMANCE.

Probably it's a same guy jenny with another nick. This tell us how is desperate this guy with AMD.

Don't be silly jenny, i5 have a better benchmark tests. But probably just a kid, who don't know much about CPU.

 

[Misko195]

99% who buys AMD, buys becouse AMD is cheaper CPU. Not about performance...

And this is a question without answer...........

 

[Misko195]

So basically if Joe says the 965 is faster than the i5-750...........

And Richard says the i5-750 is faster than the 965........

Then technically they are both right...???...I mean I saw some benches where the 965 was 20% faster and vice versa.....

It just depends on what app/game your talking about..........

Yes this should calm the flames......NOT

LOL

Here link and see who is the better.......

http://anandtech.com/bench/Product/102?vs=109

 

[warmon6]

Here link and see who is the better.......

http://anandtech.com/bench/Product/102?vs=109

You do know that your responding to some post that are 4 months old?