# Core i5, i7 - Gaming Benchmarks for Crysis, Far Cry 2, Left 4 dead



## Jamin43

The Core i5 does seem to lose it's MOJO in various rendering benchmarks.  More Complete Info at Tech Report linked below



			
				Tech Report Conclusion said:
			
		

> The Lynnfield chips*' combination of price, performance, and power efficiency effectively clears the field in the desktop CPU market*, leaving little room for competition from the Phenom II or older, cheaper Core 2 Quad processors—or even faster, pricier Core i7s.
> 
> Not only does the *Core i5-750 outperform* its like-priced would-be competitor, *the Phenom II X4 955, but it also beats out the Phenom II X4 965 overall.* That reality hit home most acutely, perhaps, in our gaming tests, where the Lynnfield chips simply excelled. Nah, you don't need the fastest CPU to run most games well these days, but Intel's new processors have a distinct advantage on this front. A*MD will have to slash its prices further to remain competitive from a price-performance standpoint*, but even then, the Phenom II X4 965 has a 140W TDP and the i5-750 has a 95W TDP. That 45W difference is reflected almost precisely in our peak system power draw results. At idle, the Phenom II X4 965 draws 22W more, as well. AMD is unlikely to field a truly attractive alternative to this $199 processor without dipping below the $150 mark. Otherwise, how could one avoid the temptation to step up?
> 
> Meanwhile, the* Core i7-870 performs at least as well as the Core i7-950 overall,* and it does so on a cheaper, more power-efficient platform. *I could see Intel killing off everything in the Core i7-900 series except for the 975 Extreme, leaving the LGA1366 socket as an ultra-high-end, botique kind of offering*. I doubt anyone would mind. The Core i7-870 is all the processor any enthusiast needs, except for the crazy people with credit card limits much higher than their IQs. (No offense, crazy guys. Just joshing, you know. No stalky-stalky, please.)
> 
> Speaking of crazy things, after seeing our test results, I'm puzzled by the fact that Intel didn't choose to put its best foot forward by offering us a peek at the Core i7-860. I think its higher Turbo Boost speeds, faster uncore clock, 1600MHz memory capability, Hyper-Threading, and $285 price tag are likely to make it the best overall value of the nascent Lynnfield lineup. One way or another, we'll have to get our hands on one soon. You may have to, as well, if you know what's good for you.
> 
> http://techreport.com/articles.x/17545/1


----------



## Bodaggit23

Who cares?

You can get an i5 for $209 and a P55 mobo with a single PCI-E slot for around
$100

Perfect builds for people who could not care less about SLI or Crossfire.


----------



## Jamin43

True, 

For gaming - initial looks look like a great value for performance.  Just pointing out - for those who don't follow the additional Link to the full review article - that the core i7 still has some advantages outside of gaming.


----------



## Bodaggit23

I meant no disrespect, I was just saying. 

Thanks for keeping us updated. I can't wait to build
one.  :good:


----------



## CdnAudiophile

I am impressed that they are even with the 1366 i7's in gaming. The only thing though is that having the northbridge on the CPU seems to not have given any boost so that is disappointing.


----------



## Twist86

So glad I didn't buy I7 when I had the chance....id be so pissed so see a cheaper chip perform on par with gaming.

Thanks for the update.


----------



## Bodaggit23

Twist86 said:


> So glad I didn't buy I7 when I had the chance....id be so pissed so see a cheaper chip perform on par with gaming.
> 
> Thanks for the update.



I'm not upset in the least. That's the way it goes.

There's no disappointment in owning an i7 system, I assure you.


----------



## linkin

I want to see how AMD responds to these new intel processors. They will probably be able to design something a little bit better for a little bit cheaper, that's always how it goes with AMD.


----------



## Gooberman

or just cut their Phenom II's price in half


----------



## Bodaggit23

linkin93 said:


> I want to see how AMD responds to these new intel processors. They will probably be able to design something a little bit better for a little bit cheaper, that's always how it goes with AMD.



Eventually I suppose.

They're only one generation behind.


----------



## CdnAudiophile

Although they are on par in gaming there are many other things that the 1366 i7 performs much better in than the i5. It is awesome that they introduced this line. AMD will not have much going for them now as these will be priced very competitively.


----------



## Aastii

THERMAL-REACTOR said:


> Although they are on par in gaming there are many other things that the 1366 i7 performs much better in than the i5. It is awesome that they introduced this line. AMD will not have much going for them now as these will be priced very competitively.



they may be priced similar, but they have 0 upgradability what with there now being what, 5 different chipsets?


----------



## Fatback

THERMAL-REACTOR said:


> Although they are on par in gaming there are many other things that the 1366 i7 performs much better in than the i5. It is awesome that they introduced this line. AMD will not have much going for them now as these will be priced very competitively.



I would still buy a Phenom II over a i5 and wouldn't think twice about it. Intel has probably just ruined the sales of the i7. If the i5 performs so close to the i7 in games then why would any body buy an i7.


----------



## Bodaggit23

Aastii said:


> they may be priced similar, but they have 0 upgradability what with there now being what, 5 different chipsets?



Now you can go from an i5 to an i7 on the same board.

How is that not upgradeable?


----------



## Twist86

Bodaggit23 said:


> Now you can go from an i5 to an i7 on the same board.
> 
> How is that not upgradeable?


Who would upgrade to a I7 from I5 though ^-^


I think it was a stupid move to make the I5 even remotely close to the I7...destroy AMDs current to keep the business but don't make your most advanced chip worthless for half the price or more.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

I am still trying to figure out why Intel called it the i5 processor.  Why didn't they just call it the i7 with a lower model number?


----------



## tlarkin

benchmarks do not reflect real world performance, so your mileage may vary on many different configurations.  However, benchmarks do give you a focal point of comparisons.  Just keep that in mind, and take some of them with a grain of salt.

If you can run a game on max settings and get 100fps versus 150fps the difference is nil.  If you are doing some photoshop rendering that is a different story.


----------



## Cromewell

Fatback said:


> I would still buy a Phenom II over a i5 and wouldn't think twice about it. Intel has probably just ruined the sales of the i7. If the i5 performs so close to the i7 in games then why would any body buy an i7.



You have to understand the workings of the chip to really understand the difference. The non-core parts of the i5 are clocked slower than that on the i7. Keep in mind that the PCIe controller on the 1156 i5/i7 is on the CPU and is part of the 'non-core' clock group.

Another feature of i7 over i5 is hyperthreading. I know that's not a big deal yet, there's very few places for 8 threads to be running right now but they'll come in time I'm sure. And one more thing: turbo mode. The i7s can disable unused cores on the fly and get a higher single (or dual or triple) core clock speed than the i5.


----------



## tlarkin

Cromewell said:


> You have to understand the workings of the chip to really understand the difference. The non-core parts of the i5 are clocked slower than that on the i7. Keep in mind that the PCIe controller on the 1156 i5/i7 is on the CPU and is part of the 'non-core' clock group.
> 
> Another feature of i7 over i5 is hyperthreading. I know that's not a big deal yet, there's very few places for 8 threads to be running right now but they'll come in time I'm sure. And one more thing: turbo mode. The i7s can disable unused cores on the fly and get a higher single (or dual or triple) core clock speed than the i5.



I believe they have different L1 and L2 cache sizes as well, which makes a huge difference.


----------



## Jamin43

2048Megabytes said:


> I am still trying to figure out why Intel called it the i5 processor.  Why didn't they just call it the i7 with a lower model number?



I dont' care about Numbers, I just wanted them to keep the 1366 Socket.  Oh well.


----------



## Fatback

Cromewell said:


> You have to understand the workings of the chip to really understand the difference. The non-core parts of the i5 are clocked slower than that on the i7. Keep in mind that the PCIe controller on the 1156 i5/i7 is on the CPU and is part of the 'non-core' clock group.
> 
> Another feature of i7 over i5 is hyperthreading. I know that's not a big deal yet, there's very few places for 8 threads to be running right now but they'll come in time I'm sure. And one more thing: turbo mode. The i7s can disable unused cores on the fly and get a higher single (or dual or triple) core clock speed than the i5.



Like I said I was talking about games not other stuff you might do with it. If someone was looking to build a gaming computer then it would be best to go with the i5. The i7 is not going to give you much more in games and you would just spending more money.

Like I said though I don't care about the i5/i7.IMO If I where to build a $1500 gaming rig I would still go with AMD without putting a second thought into it.


----------



## linkin

Fatback said:


> Like I said I was talking about games not other stuff you might do with it. If someone was looking to build a gaming computer then it would be best to go with the i5. The i7 is not going to give you much more in games and you would just spending more money.
> 
> Like I said though I don't care about the i5/i7.IMO If I where to build a $1500 gaming rig I would still go with AMD without putting a second thought into it.



I wouldn't just rush into it with AMD until they release a new line of processors and see how they stack up against the i5/i7's, then i would decide which is a better price/performance ratio.

Has anyone heard anything about the i9's yet?


----------



## Bodaggit23

Fatback said:


> If I where to build a $1500 gaming rig I would still go with AMD without putting a second thought into it.



That's like saying, "I have enough money to buy a Ferrari, but I'll settle for a corvette".

Makes no logical sense. Most consumers want the most for their money.


----------



## Fatback

linkin93 said:


> I wouldn't just rush into it with AMD until they release a new line of processors and see how they stack up against the i5/i7's, then i would decide which is a better price/performance ratio.
> 
> Has anyone heard anything about the i9's yet?



That is just you as for me I quite Intel when the Phenom II's came out. When Intel comes out with a Socket that can fit 20+ different CPU's then maybe I will give them another chance.




Bodaggit23 said:


> That's like saying, "I have enough money to buy a Ferrari, but I'll settle for a corvette".
> 
> Makes no logical sense. Most consumers want the most for their money.



Your right I won't the most for my money the most upgrade ability. Intel just doesn't have that with the new sockets/chipsets. Until Intel can figure out how to make one socket universal to any of there CPU'S like AMD as mostly done. Then I will give them another try.


----------



## Cromewell

Fatback said:


> That is just you as for me I quite Intel when the Phenom II's came out. When Intel comes out with a Socket that can fit 20+ different CPU's then maybe I will give them another chance.



If you want to rag on them for a new socket that's fair enough I suppose but don't act like AMD hasn't done the same thing. How many different sockets has AMD put out since Socket A? Now compare that to Intel since the Pentium 4.


----------



## tlarkin

Cromewell said:


> If you want to rag on them for a new socket that's fair enough I suppose but don't act like AMD hasn't done the same thing. How many different sockets has AMD put out since Socket A? Now compare that to Intel since the Pentium 4.



Hmm lets see, how many configs have I had?

Intel:

Slot 1


sockets:

370
423
478
775

goes on and on


----------



## Cromewell

What about AMD then? I agree there have been a lot of sockets but to say AMD is innocent is a stretch.

Like I said, starting at the Pentium 4 (desktop only, for AMD and Intel):

S423
S478
LGA775
LGA1366
LGA1156

AMD:
Socket A
S754
S939
S940 (Athlon FX)
AM2
AM2+
AM3


----------



## tlarkin

Cromewell said:


> What about AMD then? I agree there have been a lot of sockets but to say AMD is innocent is a stretch.
> 
> Like I said, starting at the Pentium 4 (desktop only, for AMD and Intel):
> 
> S423
> S478
> LGA775
> LGA1366
> LGA1156
> 
> AMD:
> Socket A
> S754
> S939
> S940 (Athlon FX)
> AM2
> AM2+
> AM3



LOL, no sorry I was agreeing with you, those are just what I personally have had with Intel, and I must have forgot to add in the AMD....got busy at work

I had a Slot A Athlon hehe


----------



## linkin

If you guys have seen my case, it's from my old Socket A system. Don't go bashing the 90's/retro look now 
Anyway, has AMD mentioned anything about new processors for AM3 or possibly a new socket? (probably not going to be a new AMD socket for a while... 3 years or more)


----------



## tlarkin

linkin93 said:


> If you guys have seen my case, it's from my old Socket A system. Don't go bashing the 90's/retro look now
> Anyway, has AMD mentioned anything about new processors for AM3 or possibly a new socket? (probably not going to be a new AMD socket for a while... 3 years or more)



I would say 90s processors were Slot processors because they only existed in the 90s.  They went from socket to slot, and then back to socket because of all the issues slot based processors had.

Apple used their own weird connection, it reminded me of a scsi connection but their processors were built on daughter boards that plugged into the logic board.


----------

