I only stick a coputer together every several years so I have to do a lot of fast-track learning in order to keep up with the new razzamataz. Don't get me wrong, I've been fiddling with them since before the first Apples fell off the trees. Probably have more pounds of computer crap in my closet than anybody.
Now ignoring all the BS from these idiots trying to sell sneakers - I have to say that I ran out of steam somewhere in the middle of the 55 vs x58 and the Lynfield vs the Bloomfield family fued... Like some of you folks waste a whole lot of time bickering about who has the biggest IQ - or wingie. Yeah, well my dual-barreled, high-lift cam crankin hemi under glass will blow your doors off.
This is a good site. Why don't you friggen macho clowns restrict the chatter to the subject instead of comparing your gizmos.
I'm a bit confused about the uncore clock frequency. From what I've gathered from all the discussion about the Lynfield having an advantage from the 200 MHz higher uncore clock frequency, I've concluded that uncore clock is represented by the NB (North Bridge?) frequency in the CPU-Z screenshots. But when running at stock speeds, I can't get it to match for the bloomfield: For Lynnfield CPU-Z shows 2.4 GHz NB frequency, but for bloomfield it shows ~3.3 GHz NB frequency! However, according to one of the original articles http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?... (can't get the http link button to work) about Nehalem, the uncore clock should run at 20x the BCLK ~2.66 GHz.
So how does all this come together?
Is the NB frequency really the uncore clock?
And what about the QPI clock number for Lynnfield, why is that even shown - doesn't Lynnfield completely lack a QPI link, or is the QPI clock used for anything else than actual QPI interface?
A comment to Gary: I really enjoyed reading the article, but (and this might just show my ignorance because I haven't read every article about the Nehalem architecture) I would really appreciate some kind of walkthrough of the numbers shown by CPU-Z and Everest, where it is explained how the naming of different values relate to the names used in articles about CPU architecture.
Really nice testing and effort, but the only way to make such a compare complete is to really use all possible solutions, by adding a 790fx platform you would have brought some real value to all customers and finally get rid of all the possible biased/brand favor comments most sites (and so does anandtech) get all the time.
Gary, do you know if there are plans to release a pro equivalent of
these cards, ie. FireGL or somesuch? I've spent quite a lot of time
recently helping various places go through purchases of dual quad-core
i7 XEON systems with FX5800 cards. In every case, the overall focus of
GPU support from the supplier was on Quadro FX cards, eg. SGI's new
Octane III doesn't mention ATI FireGL cards at all:
I am waiting on an answer from AMD right now. I heard they would have a new line of Professional cards based on Cypress in Q1, just wanting them to confirm it again. Email me and I can answer you once I have the answer.
The results are not surprising. Given that the 5870 performs roughly at the level of a 4870x2 it's not surprising that the scaling is more or less the same the 4800 series.
I'm guessing that Lynfield will start to become a bottleneck with the 5870x2 quadfire/trifire (5870x2 + 5870) setups.
Personally I went for Bloomfield, because I had great success with my 4870x2 + 4870 setup. Had heat issues that were resolved by adding a better fan to my intake on the side panel. It's a tad noisy, but the performance is superb. So much so that I don't see myself upgrading to DX11 until mid 2010.
18 months of top notch performance is pretty good for fast moving tech like graphics cards.
I've still never seen this answered in any reviews:
If P55 only has 16 PCI-E lanes, does that mean it is impossible to have 2 GFX cards (2x8 lanes) AND have a 1X or 4X expansion card? E.g., RAID, USB/Firewire, TV Tuner etc...?
Kind of a big deal to have not been brought up yet.
If it had, then perhaps TA would have a point as regards Lynnfield being "brain-damaged" :) Hell, I'd probably pipe up and say it was a bad decision had they gone that particular route.
The X58 is a dead-end money pit. Gulftown will probably debut at $1k and will be out of reach for the majority of us so touting the 1366 platform as a good investment is bad advice. After the 920, Bloomfield offers little in return for the relatively high cost. TA is hoping to wait for Gulftown prices to fall under $300 but he should just give up. Look at Bloomfield... it's been out for a year and Intel would rather bump clock speeds to maintain prices rather than drop them. What makes TA think Gulftown will drop $700 before Sandy Bridge is out? It's a fool's hope.
TA is right about one thing though. There is a missing 32nm segment between Gulftown and Clarkdale, which is what the budget enthusiast PC gamer is waiting for: 4-core 32nm Nehalem for under $300 without on-board graphics and no plans to SLI. Intel has been silent but everything points to a 32nm die-shrink of Lynnfield some time in mid-2010 to replace the current Lynnfield lineup at the same prices. This will be a drop-in upgrade for the 1156 socket so that actually makes the p55 platform a better deal for the near future.
If you have to upgrade right now, you can find 750/1156 combos for around $300, which is a good deal. You can overclock this system and it should hold you over till Sandy Bridge. If Intel does come out with a 32nm shrink, then you have the option to drop it in for an upgrade.
"The X58 is a dead-end money pit. Gulftown will probably debut at $1k and will be out of reach for the majority of us so touting the 1366 platform as a good investment is bad advice. After the 920, Bloomfield offers little in return for the relatively high cost. TA is hoping to wait for Gulftown prices to fall under $300 but he should just give up. Look at Bloomfield... it's been out for a year and Intel would rather bump clock speeds to maintain prices rather than drop them. What makes TA think Gulftown will drop $700 before Sandy Bridge is out? It's a fool's hope."
I really don't know why you take every opportunity to assert that X58 is a "dead-end money pit" and that Gulftown is destined to be nothing more than a $1000+ boutique part. Such an assumption runs contrary not only to common sense but historical precedence. The best comparison would be the transition from the 65nm Kentsfield to the 45nm Yorkfield two years ago. It's true that the first Die-shrunk Yorkfield (The QX9650) did debut at the $1000 price point at the end of 2007. It was soon followed, however, by many other SKUs in early 2008 that hit the same price points that Intel has always liked to occupy, all the way down to $266 for the launch of the Q9300.
Intel knows the volumes on its most expensive parts are very low, which is why it arranges its launches in this manner; start with low-volume, high-cost parts as the new production process matures, then quickly follow with higher volume, higher value parts as yields and supply ramp up. There's no reason to believe that the transition from 45nm to 32nm will follow a different pattern. Gulftown will probably debut as an "Extreme Edition" part or whatever Intel is calling them these days, but it won't be long before more valuable models are introduced in the $300-500 price range. The only possible motivation Intel would have for keeping prices above $1000 would be a complete lack of competition from AMD. Thankfully, AMD is in a much better competitive position with Intel now (at least with regards to value if not bleeding-edge performace) than they were when Yorkfield debuted.
I guess the only real wrinkle is that technically Gulftown appears to be intended as a workstation/server part. (Hence the -town codename as opposed to the -field code names of previous consumer quad-cores.) Still, there tends to be just as much segmentation and pricing differential among current-gen Harpertowns, so again I'm not seeing any reason it will be any different with Gulftown.
I actually do like Bloomfield and consider it better than Lynnfield from a technical standpoint. In fact, I would love nothing more than for Intel to release <$300 versions of Gulftown at launch but we both know that probably won't happen. But unlike TA, I won't try to spread bad advice. For the mainstream gamer, Gulftown will not be a reasonable upgrade path and that's the main reason why I can't recommend the X58 platform to this segment.
The analogy you mentioned doesn't really apply since Intel has made it clear they want the p55 platform to occupy the "performance mainstream" market and reserve the X58 for the "extreme high-end" segment along with its higher pricing. It is much more likely they would shrink Lynnfield to 32nm than let i7 parts cannibalize the i5 lineup. In fact, you are seeing it already with Bloomfields maintaining the exact same price structure since release... even after one year. I wouldn't be suprised if Intel phases out i7 920 production very soon.
Given that Intel knows their sales numbers on the $1000+ processors, I wouldn't be surprised to see a ~$500-600 Gulftown at launch. Which is more than most of us are willing to pay, but if you are already considering $500+ in video cards, a processor in that range might not be bad either if the games can use it. Either way, I don't think you constantly calling X58 a dead-end money pit is any different than TA152H calling Lynnfield brain-damaged, both are exaggerations.
I also wouldn't be too surprised to see the 920 disappear, but only because it doesn't separate itself from the Lynnfields by much. Now that they have Lynnfield to fill that price bracket, they can position X58 further upmarket. Considering Intel has generally not dropped new stuff on the market that was not on the public roadmap (such as a 32nm Lynnfield) I would guess the rumors are more a result of wishful thinking than concrete information. Maybe Sandy Bridge will be released earlier in the year to absorb 32nm capacity. I'd guess the Bloomfield pricing never moved much because there wasn't competition to bring it down. The X58 motherboards dropped with competition, but when the only competition to the 920 is the 860 and 870 and Intel prices them all accordingly, prices don't move.
Gulftowns are supposedly -starting- at $1000 with upper-end parts going as high as $1500. Even at $500, that is still too high for the mainstream gamer. So is a $500 video card. If you have this much to spend, then you may as well spend extra for an X58 system.
I'm referring to the budget-enthusiast who will want to limit their purchase to <$300 for CPU or video card, not going to use SLI, but plans on overclocking to maximize value. This segment is more interested in running games fast, and less interested in folding projects or encoding video.
The difference between me and TA is that I don't hate the platform I am supposedly "against." If Intel replaced their entire Lynnfield lineup with Gulftown at the same prices, I would be very happy.
This may play into AMD's hands when they (eventually) launch the Thuban core. It's a drop-in replacement for AM2+/3 thanks to (I presume) a mere BIOS update. If people can get a 6-core CPU for relatively cheap, they won't bother with the far more expensive X58 path, unless Intel decides that it's worth it dropping the price quite a lot.
Thuban is due after i9, which is a bit of a worry.
A budget enthusiast setup is a mouthwatering prospect for those of us with bottoms in our pockets (and little jangling around in them).
I have added the CPUZ/Everest Screenshots to the gallery for the 920 overclocked at 4.2GHz. I also ensured that B2B settings were the same on both platforms with auto disabled and a setting of 4 enabled. This is it for additional testing. When it comes right down to it, both platforms have their advantages and disadvantages. So choose which one best suits your needs.
The short story to the new uncore testing is that it really does not make a real difference in general applications at these speeds. Of course, I have discussed this for more than a year but hey, why not run through it again. :)
I did gain 2/10ths of a second in SuperPi 8M with the higher uncore, the game scores were basically a wash as was a couple of applications although minimum frame rates suffered in FC2 and HAWX.
What does that mean to our top three favorite Core i7/X58 game benchmarks?
FC2-
1920x1080 2xAA HQ DX10 Ranch Small
uncore 3407 - 4.2GHz - HD 5870
CF- 137 minimum fps 173.3 average fps
SC- 77 minimum fps 95.3 average fps
uncore 3607 - 4.2GHz - HD 5870
CF- 134 minimum fps 173.9 average fps
SC- 75 minimum fps 95.1 average fps
World in Conflict-
1920x1080 2xAA/16xAF HQ Bench
uncore 3407 - 4.2GHz - HD 5870
CF- 42 minimum fps 103 average fps
SC- 33 minimum fps 58 average fps
uncore 3607 - 4.2GHz - HD 5870
CF- 42 minimum fps 103 average fps
SC- 33 minimum fps 58 average fps
HAWX-
1920x1080 2xAA HQ DX10.1 Bench
uncore 3407 - 4.2GHz - HD 5870
CF- 128 minimum fps 144.5 average fps
SC- 71 minimum fps 82.5 average fps
uncore 3607 - 4.2GHz - HD 5870
CF- 126 minimum fps 145.4 average fps
SC- 71 minimum fps 81.9 average fps
1. One other item that I answered earlier. The NV GTX275/285 cards perform better on Lynnfield than Bloomfield as does the HD 4890 in most cases. We are still investigating the differences with the HD 5870 on Lynnfield and AMD is trying to have an answer for us tomorrow after three days of marathon testing. It could be drivers, it could just be the architectural changes on the card or a conflict with the new PCIe setup on Lynnfield.
Thanks for clearing that up for me Gary. You have to remember that most readers do read more reviews than what is posted here at AnandTech and in doing do it becomes very difficult to remember so many obscure setting changes that have become available with the new chipsets and each of their overall affect on performance. That was the reason I spoke out against the changes in the default settings. With that in mind, we, (the readers) also noticed the strange behavior of the HD5890 on these platforms compared to previous benchmarking of other graphics cards on these platforms. I, for one, was concerned that the settings changes had produced these strange results. Thank you again for taking the time to remove that from the equation.
Shenanigans!!!! Thought you could pull the wool over our eyes, did you? Maybe you thought we wouldn't notice BOTH uncore speeds you selected for Bloomfield, 3407 and 3607, are PRIME NUMBERS!?!?
But oh, look at Lynnfield at 3602 – a speed that is clearly divisible by 2, and most definitely NOT PRIME. This is CLEARLY yet another example of your pro-Lynnfield bias!!!! Just how dumb do you think we are?!?!?
I'm starting to think that these trolls work here at AT. I've never seen AT staff respond to anyone so often, especially obvious trolls. Not only are the staff responding to the same troll(s), but they run their tests again and even publish new articles around the trolls comments. The whole situation just doesn't smell right to me. Seems a bit of rattling the cage is going on for obvious reasons.
"I'm starting to think that these trolls work here at AT. "
If you only knew how much I wished that were true. :)
1. TA152H (almost ready for a block based on personal attacks)is actually Rich A. who "was" a freelance writer at Toms Hardware. You can contact our good friends (seriously) Tuan or Chris over at Toms to verify.
2. the Zorro (almost there again) was thezorro (blocked for spamming) was SnakeOil (blocked for useless spamming). SnakeOil has been a fixture over at Tech Report and somehow found his way over here. You can view his comments at TR in the Intel/AMD articles to verify.
3. Our followups are not for the amusement of these commentators (being real nice here). We did receive a lot of requests for the followups and three (Clock for Clock OC / 860 review / P55 scaling) were already in the works. We are just trying to be accommodating here for follow up information when deemed necessary.
Honestly, I fully believe in trying to adhere to a no-ban policy as long as the discussions are constructive and do not turn into personal attacks. That said, SiliconDoc should be banned ASAP based on his "useless" spamming and he probably will be very shortly. His actions have ruined the last two articles.
Our favorite the zorro, thezorro, aka SnakeOil has and will continue to be banned if his actions continue. Eventually he will run out of IP addresses or will control the Internet. :)
TA152H is a different animal, instead of simple shock jock posting, he tends to get extremely personal in his attacks not only against me, but also Anand and now other readers. He has not done this at other sites, which makes me believe I ran over his dog and Anand took out his cat recently. He is on a very short leash.
If I screw up and get called out on it, fine, I deserve it and the comments section is a way for people to communicate it. We do care what is said and pay attention in order to improve our articles. If you have a personal agenda with me, well, use the email or PM system and we will try to work it out.
However, considering the fact that our testing methodology is extremely sound and we play by the book, I find his comments to be perplexing as he wants us to change system settings for one platform to make it look better but doing the same tuning on the other platform is forbidden. At first I thought he was just trying to drum up controversy or look good at Toms, until I spoke with the editors at Toms and lets just say, that was a conversation I cannot repeat in public. ;)
If people want to troll they'll troll, no matter how many times you ban an IP they've used to post.
Maybe you should consider making the registration process more rigorous, perhaps have it use forum accounts, and start moderating comments. More effort required to circumvent a ban, combined with less reward if your posts quickly get deleted may mean less incentive to troll.
At the moment it feels like it's open season for a small number of idiots to ruin the comments sections.
Gary, I don't know how you guys can read some of the comments and not want to just flip out sometimes. Maybe what you should do to make things a little more entertaining is this... Just like clubs have muscle around to work over annoying guys and toss them out on the street, you should hire a full time bully to verbally harass trolls before you ban them. It wouldn't really fix anything, but it would make my day more entertaining :)
Anandtech is a massive, respected technical site whose audience has always been well-rounded, unlike say, Engadget, who rely on fanboy comments to fuel large debate. This site has never been like this, it's not a core of anything around here.
Rudeness should not be tolerated, and ta152h is a piece of work imo. He deserves a ban on multiple levels. This guy has some issue with this site, it's that simple.
Maybe toleration of trolls like this can be left to their demise once you have a comment system where the audience can vote down idiotic comments, like engadget or dailytech.
I was hoping you'd have learned something about testing by now, but, apparently not.
For the rest of you, you'll notice Gary is up to his old tricks. He clocks the Lynnfield slightly higher, and, also, clocks the uncore considerably higher.
Keeping in mind this increases memory access, as well as L3 cache speed, this is a meaningful increase. Also keep in mind that the cores use this uncore to communicate with each other. So, the uncore clock speed isn't immaterial.
On the plus side, he did mention the fact the Lynnfield needs higher voltages to clock the same as the Bloomfield. Quite a bit higher. Makes you wonder why he never mentions maximum overclocks, since they would seem to favor Bloomfield.
This type of bad testing is shameful, for anyone who has any sense of shame. Even with his clear bias for the brain-damaged (yes, I know at least a few of you were waiting for me to say it) Lynnfield, with a higher clock speed (albeit slightly), and higher uncore, he still couldn't get it to go faster.
Don't waste your money on Lynnfield for gaming. In real world, where you weren't clocking the uncore much faster, the Bloomfield would win by more, can overclock higher, and has a six core coming out, compared to a two core. Yes, the six core will probably be too expensive, for now, but it's at least an upgrade, and will be cheaper in the future. It's hard to see moving from quad core to dual core as any upgrade.
By the way, is anyone else wondering what Intel will actually be making on 32nm? With only the Gulftown for x58, and only a dual core for P55, what are they going to do with all their 32nm capacity? The Gulftown is big, but shouldn't sell that great, the dual core with GPU should sell very, very well to the masses, but it's small, especially since it's only the processor that's 32nm. There's got to be something else that will be coming out we haven't heard of. There's too much capacity, and too few products.
Intel is doing a really bad job of things lately. They release a lobotomized processor that isn't segmented properly, still fail to release a decent chipset for Atom, don't announce a single quad core 32nm processor, and still haven't lowered the power use on the x58 chipset, which has been out for a year. They're so uneven.
"For the rest of you, you'll notice Gary is up to his old tricks. He clocks the Lynnfield slightly higher, and, also, clocks the uncore considerably higher. "
Looking at the screenshots both of the boards are at their stock ratios with their Bclk at 133.5, the 920 hits a 21x multi with turbo enabled and the 860 hits a 22x multi with turbo enabled, as designed and implemented by Intel. Or is that a concept that is above your head?
When overclocked, the p55 bclk is at 200.7 and the x58 is at 200.4. That is due to the clock generator. It would be impossible for them to change that and the resulting 5Mhz advantage does nothing for any score at 4.2GHZ. The uncores are set to stock ratios based on the screen shots. This means he did not tamper with the settings.
If you actually owned either system you would know a 200MHz uncore clock improvement does nothing for the benchmarks. Once again, you are grasping at straws here trying to defend a platform that is the electric companies best friend.
Where is that review of yours showing how any of your comments have validity? All you do is trash every article here and I hope they just ban you tonight for obvious flame baiting. None of your comments are true dude. So go back to doing your cut and paste articles over at Toms.
"If you actually owned either system you would know a 200MHz uncore clock improvement does nothing for the benchmarks."
That's where I have a problem.
We read these articles BEFORE making a purchase to aid us in making the correct choice for each of our needs. I felt that if these benchmarks were to be done as a comparison of platforms then there should be much fewer results to be published.
Consider a comparison of two platforms.
1. Platform A with single GPU
2. Platform B with single GPU
3. Platform A in CF/SLI
4. Platform B in CF/SLI
No CPU, Mainboard, or GPU settings changes.
K.I.S.S.
Yes, He has those results, maybe, but how do I know. Maybe he overlooked something when making changes back and forth between settings.
Not to say he did, but we are all human. Testing these platforms at their default settings is a TRUE comparison.
Who cares if there is a difference in CPU speeds at stock settings? Is this not what we will get out of the box? That is the difference in platforms. If you want to compare CPU differences then add more results with more STOCK CPUs added to the test with each platform.
What exactly is your beef?
He DID exactly that:
1. Platform A with single GPU
i920/HD 5870
2. Platform B with single GPU
i860/HD 5870
3. Platform A in CF/SLI
i920/HD 5870 CF
4. Platform B in CF/SLI
i860/HD 5870 CF
As a bonus, along with the stock CPU, Mainboard, and GPU settings that you crave, he also made an effort to minimize the differences between the two CPU's by matching their clock speeds at 4.2 Ghz.
After all, the question he was trying to answer is: Does it make a difference whether you use the X58 or the P55?
He even went one better: If you force the P55 into x8 PCIe mode with a single GPU, does it make a significant impact on performance?
Perhaps reading more closely would be helpful to you:
The P55 and X58 DDR3 timings were set to 7-7-7-20 1T at DDR3-1600 for the i7/920 and i7/860 processors at both stock and overclocked CPU settings.
That's not changing settings; both are using the same memory and same memory timings.
All power management features were enabled on each board and voltages were set at the lowest possible values when overclocking.
The only time settings were altered from their default was when overclocking.
Nowhere in the article is GPU overclocking mentioned.
The uncore on the Lynnfield is 3602. The Bloomfield 3406. Are you seriously that stupid that you think that doesn't have any performance impact? It has an effect on L3 cache speed as well as memory. Are you implying he can't get closer to 3602 than 3406? It's just not apples to apples. Compare apples to apples, and you get a bigger difference between the two. Not that they'd want to show that.
Overall, I agree with him the Bloomfield offers better performance, and that the brain-damaged Lynnfield is attractive in areas where you don't need absolute performance and the power characteristics are attractive. But, I hate the testing methodology. Originally, they were trying to convince us the Lynnfield wasn't any slower. Thank goodness they gave up that nonsense.
TA, for the longest time I couldn't figure out why you weren't banned from this site. Then I realized that they keep you around for pure entertainment value. But it really is getting old. I can pretty much sum up every one of your posts in a few short sentences:
@the person above me, You are a moron, you aren't half as smart as I am so don't even bother giving on opinion. Here is a bunch of old random facts that I will puke out to make myself feel superior. Also, lynnfield is brain dead and intel does not know how to market processors. Gary, you suck, my dog writes better than you, and does a more thorough job of research. Anyone who disagrees with me is a complete idiot, and so on and so forth.
TA, please feel free to cut and paste my above paragraph into any of your future responses. It will save you some time.
"The uncore on the Lynnfield is 3602. The Bloomfield 3406. Are you seriously that stupid that you think that doesn't have any performance impact? It has an effect on L3 cache speed as well as memory. Are you implying he can't get closer to 3602 than 3406? It's just not apples to apples. Compare apples to apples, and you get a bigger difference between the two. Not that they'd want to show that. "
I own both platforms and just ran the FarCry 2 bench they use but with a 4870x2. It makes no difference dude. If you think it does, then let's see your proof. The fact they left the uncore ratios at stock settings is apples to apples. Why do you want them changing settings so bad. So you can bitch about them changing settings. It is so obvious what you are trying to do here.
Gary stated in the last article that the uncore makes no difference at these speeds. It does not and looking around the web this evening it appears only uncore speeds above 4GHz make a difference and that is with the extreme guys on LN2 running things like superpi and 3dmarks.
Where is your article showing otherwise? When will it be posted at your site? Why do you not comment at Toms in the same way you do here. They have not provided this information and if they do I bet you do not comment on it. Why is that?
Why do all of your posts imply that Intel has absolutely no idea how to market segment its products or properly utilize its production, research and fabrication facilities to their maximum potential?
Most of your post is just speculation on your part and based on no actual evidence of anything. You do not know what Intel's 32nm roadmap is, what products will definitely be produced etc, and you certainly do not know how they will sell and how they will be priced.
And your comments about lobotomized processors is just nonsense. You seem to believe, based on technical shortcomings that you seem to think are important but do not translate into real world difference, that the i7/i5 generation is somehow crippled. Yet, benchmark after benchmark show you to be wrong, with the i7 platform on par with the i9 platform except in the areas of extreme high end systems like in this review. Additionally, your comments about market segmentation are equally nonsense. You do not have Intel's sales data. You do not work for Intel in a position of responsibility for shaping corporate decisions. Intel will segment in the way that makes them the most money. Your opinion as to what they "should be" are based on nothing more than your opinion unsupported by any actual facts.
In any event, you seem to crap on every review by Gary and the Anandtech staff based on these obscure technical issues that you think are important but have been shown not to be. Instead of coming in here and insulting the excellent work done by Gary and his staff, perhaps you could ask the question in a more constructive way and actually get one of them to respond to you as they do many others. Let me give you some examples:
1. Your Statement: "Another bad review by Gary. I was hoping you'd have learned something about testing by now, but, apparently not. For the rest of you, you'll notice Gary is up to his old tricks. He clocks..."
Better way of saying it: "Gary, thank you for taking the time to work on this review, I found the information to be interesting, but I do have some questions about some technical settings that you used specifically relating to your choice of uncore settings and the impact that would have on these benchmarks given its potential impact on memory access, latency and speed. Perhaps you could explain what your thinking was so that I better understand your decisions and why you made them"
Your way makes you sound like an arrogant jerk coming in here only to piss in the lemonade of everyone that enjoys coming to this site to talk hobby shop and discuss the article. Try some tack. Drop the attitude. Some of your arguments have some merit to them (or may have merit, I do not know), but most of us have summarily stopped reading your posts in the same way that we ignore the crazy guy on the corner preaching the end of the world every day for five years.
So, unlike the others, I want you to stay here. Make your points. Engage in discussion. Just drop the attitude, arrogance and derisions in your posts and try to be a decent member of this community. You have interesting things to say sometimes but your method of communicating makes anything useful you have to say fall on deaf ears.
Wow, I'm being patronized by someone with half my IQ. And not even well.
That's actually the worst attitude. That patronizing attitude like you're superior, and you're so kind as to want me to post. Should I be grateful for your magnanimity? How hypocritical.
Now, more to point. Intel did market this stuff wrong. Their sales say it. I only predicted it, and bring it up to prove a point. They're not omniscient. It's a fact that Intel does not use their resources perfectly, as no company possibly can. It's only a matter of degree of imperfection, and they're seeing some pretty good level of imperfection with their marketing right now.
Your line about their 32nm roadmap proves you're a complete moron and can't read. That's exactly my point. They're showing too few products, and must have something else unless they can sell the Clarkdale really well.
Again, you're misrepresenting me when you say I claim they can't make marketing decisions at all. You obviously shouldn't comment when you can't understand any of what I'm saying. I said putting the MMU on the GPU is BAD from a technical perspective. I also said I expect it will sell very, very well a number of times. Don't simplify what I say so you can understand it.
You're also simplifying when you call it the i7. I think the i7 is good; the Bloomfield version. Benchmark after Benchmark do not show that the Lynnfield is equal to the Bloomfield. Even with Gary skewing the results, the Bloomfield wins. How can you read this and still not see that?
Before you start patronizing, actually try to have a clue what you're talking about. Having vague notions without any substantive understanding doesn't quantify as proof.
And, if you noticed, I've at least got them to back off their horsecrap about Lynnfield having equal performance, and the PCIe being a better, faster implementation. That was making me crazy, it was so false. I can't expect them to admit they're wrong, because they're not, and I'm not. It's opinion about which is better, and also situational. But, saying it's as fast, and has a better PCIe implementation is just plain false. I can accept the current opinions, especially since he's dead on with the x58 being way too power hungry. It's a problem they should have taken care of a year later.
wats wrong wit sum dummerd critizing u wen hes rite. ur an ass. even a moron as you call it can see that. your big words were delivered like an ass. don't need to know the meaning of magnan..mag..whatever to know an ass said it.
"Wow, I'm being patronized by someone with half my IQ. And not even well. "
Man, do you ever have a high opinion of yourself. I guess being middle aged and still living with your mother will give you one hell of a superiority complex.
"You're also simplifying when you call it the i7. I think the i7 is good; the Bloomfield version. Benchmark after Benchmark do not show that the Lynnfield is equal to the Bloomfield. Even with Gary skewing the results, the Bloomfield wins. How can you read this and still not see that? "
Man, what benches have you been looking at or do you just imagine this stuff up. In applications it is Lynnfield ahead in just about every bench and in gaming it holds true with the nvidia cards. The ati cards produce a different result and that is about it. All of the review sites have the same results. They are not skewed here and apparently you have a personal vendetta against Gary. Once again, why do you not post at the other sites who have the same conclusions? What is your motive for spamming every article by Gary or Anand? Where is your P55 article dude?
"And, if you noticed, I've at least got them to back off their horsecrap about Lynnfield having equal performance, and the PCIe being a better, faster implementation. That was making me crazy, it was so false."
They have not backed off anything, their message from the first article to this last one has been the same. Apparently you have a hard time reading. Maybe you should get your mother to read the articles for you when she tucks you in.
"I said putting the MMU on the GPU is BAD from a technical perspective."
Well, tell that to the Intel processor designers responsible for Clarkdale and they will laugh at you.
"You're also simplifying when you call it the i7. I think the i7 is good; the Bloomfield version. Benchmark after Benchmark do not show that the Lynnfield is equal to the Bloomfield. Even with Gary skewing the results, the Bloomfield wins. How can you read this and still not see that?"
In Anand's review he clearly said that X58 can be superior for CF/SLI.
TA152H "Wow, I'm being patronized by someone with half my IQ. And not even well. That's actually the worst attitude. That patronizing attitude like you're superior...How hypocritical."
I agree with you that they should NEVER alter ANY processor or motherboard speed settings during a platform performance comparison benchmark.
How in the world can you publish a "comparison" between two platforms when the chipsets themselves have been altered from their stock setting? This is nuts.
I read but keep quiet on most everything AnandTech publishes but this one takes the cake. To call itself a comparison of platforms where each has been altered is one article headed for file 13. I have noticed several of the "professional" review websites doing this in the past year or so and I for one think this type of comparison should be discontinued altogether. If you want to test overclocking ability then do it in a separate article. If you want to compare overclocked performance between multiple platforms then do it as such. Not as a direct performance comparison between platforms where each has been altered.
You guys with your little plaques hanging on your walls and the cute name tags on your shirts are driving me mad while trying to get straight answers to simple questions.
How about some real-time direct comparisons to what has been produced instead of what you want to "play" with in the BIOS before you benchmark? I don't care if TURBO is on if it is part of the "normal" operation of the combined CPU/motherbaord combo. At least that way it will show what you can expect "out of the box".
Intel has continually been degrading our options as this last development cycle has progressed with less CPU options per platform and slowly removing functionality from others.
It's almost like going to an auto dealer and getting the "confusion sell" tactic push onto us.
I could go on forever. No USB3, no SATA6 ? At least there should have been some news during IDF to present new chipsets that supported these features, but nothing. It's almost laughable, but sad actually.
Then we get manipulated platforms portrayed as being compared directly against each other and the results are something we should use to make a purchase decision with? Then combine that with the confusion sell Intel is already pushing on us. This is NUTS!
"I agree with you that they should NEVER alter ANY processor or motherboard speed settings during a platform performance comparison benchmark."
Dude, nothing was altered as they kept the systems at stock values/settings and ensured the memory timings were the same between platforms. How fair can you get and by the way they were open about everything. It is a sad state of affairs when being honest in an article gets you slammed.
We were using the NVIDIA (275/285) cards in those reviews. ;) I have a meeting with AMD in the morning to further discuss our results. They have been working with our test results since this weekend to pinpoint why the HD 5870 is generating different results than the NV cards and even the HD 4890.
The result of this test is really clear to me: if you are even remotely close to on a budget, P55 w/ a great card is the way to go. The $100 you save on a P55 mobo invested into graphics will get you way more than the same invested in X58 and a $100 cheaper graphics card. If money is no object, get X58. Perhaps more importantly, once we're dealing with cards and games that drop things well below the 60Hz refresh rate of our monitor, the additional bandwidth in X58 will probably make an even smaller difference.
The fears regarding the integrated PCIe controller on Lynnfield are wildly exaggerated.
I'd say a $100 difference in motherboards is largely an exaggeration depending on exactly what features you are looking for, the power consumption differences are far more interesting to me.
Now if we could only find out whether 8x PCIe would be a bottleneck for a SATA3 card.
In terms of theoretical bandwidth, there's plenty in a PCIe slot. The SATA 6Gbps standard gives about 600MB/s of effective bandwidth, and PCIe 2.0 has 500MB/s per lane. This means that with PCIe 2.0, your motherboard slot is only limiting your card's performance if you give one lane per port.
Sure, and the power consumption savings are a nice plus. Then consider that 90+% of us don't even care about CF/SLI because we only ever one run GPU card, and there's really no reason to bother with X58 over P55.
"Does that mean the integrated dual x8 PCIe 2.0 logic on Lynnfield is a poor choice compared to the dual x16 PCIe 2.0 sporting X58, absolutely not based on our initial tests."
The comma after "X58" should be a question mark and "absolutely" should be the beginning of a new sentence. ;)
almost 10% penalty because of the lynnfield crippled northbridge.
its not just that but in the more interesting part of the game when there is more congestion, lynnfield stutters.
if you are going to buy a new spanking 3.72 tflops directx ati card don't commit the mistake of using lynnfield.
well considering Intel's offering no other quad-core 45nm or 32nm solution for the gamer-enthusiast who isn't interested in spending hundreds of dollars more, Lynnfield is the only option available for the foreseeable future from Intel.
AMD has a chance to take back some marketshare IF they can come up with a low-TDP, high-performing, quad-core CPU at the right price. Do they have something like that coming out?
There's not really a point in putting the 5850 through this test. It's not as powerful as the 5870, so the difference between the X58 and P55 would be even less.
I think his point was that while it's great to see performance of an ultra-high end setup, we're more interested in seeing a review of the more affordable HD5850.
I was being sarcastic. I know this had to take a lot of time and a lot of us asked for it. My statement did not go over the right way. I already sent an email to Gary stating as such and hoping they had banned the Toms guy by now but it appears they are letting him trash another article.
TOMS shoes are shoes with a noble cause associated with them. Buy one donate one. But the brand is far more than just a charity. Their unique designs and catchy colors make them a perfect choice for women who love to stand out of the crowd, the shoes from TOMS are more suitable for teenagers and youngsters because of their particular shape and looks. Let me explain you that why should you avail the offer of Toms shoes coupon code.
The type of watch you wear says a lot about you as a person. Are you bold and courageous? Or do you love glitz and glamour? Express yourself by choosing a fashionable Tissot watch, in the world of fashion, where bling has become stylish, Tissot watches make an excellent choice for people who want to look their best.
From so many high-heel shoes kind, christian shoes trade is one of the best. They formed numerous shoes make a lady fanatical, they use their charisma to expand an independent shoe designer known, can be say that they are the most infamous contemporary masters of the shoes.
At here, you can locate out possibly probably the most luxury and most beneficial sellers inside the design field, along the lines of exquisite Gucci shoes, at ease and gentle Gucci clothing, cozy Gucci wool hats, etc. inside the exhibition in Gucci outlet online, you will locate available are three principal destinations available for you personally to choose.
The Converse shoes have been around since a long time and they are immediately recognized by their unique design and label, they were the first athletic shoes to be manufactured for the basketball players. Though they were originally designed for basketball players, soon its popularity grew and it became a regular shoe.
TOMS shoes are shoes with a noble cause associated with them. Buy one donate one. But the brand is far more than just a charity. Their unique designs and catchy colors make them a perfect choice for women who love to stand out of the crowd, the shoes from TOMS are more suitable for teenagers and youngsters because of their particular shape and looks. Let me explain you that why should you avail the offer of Toms shoes coupon code.
The type of watch you wear says a lot about you as a person. Are you bold and courageous? Or do you love glitz and glamour? Express yourself by choosing a fashionable Tissot watch, in the world of fashion, where bling has become stylish, Tissot watches make an excellent choice for people who want to look their best.
From so many high-heel shoes kind, christian shoes trade is one of the best. They formed numerous shoes make a lady fanatical, they use their charisma to expand an independent shoe designer known, can be say that they are the most infamous contemporary masters of the shoes.
At here, you can locate out possibly probably the most luxury and most beneficial sellers inside the design field, along the lines of exquisite Gucci shoes, at ease and gentle Gucci clothing, cozy Gucci wool hats, etc. inside the exhibition in Gucci outlet online, you will locate available are three principal destinations available for you personally to choose.
The Converse shoes have been around since a long time and they are immediately recognized by their unique design and label, they were the first athletic shoes to be manufactured for the basketball players. Though they were originally designed for basketball players, soon its popularity grew and it became a regular shoe.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
85 Comments
Back to Article
flade - Friday, January 15, 2010 - link
I only stick a coputer together every several years so I have to do a lot of fast-track learning in order to keep up with the new razzamataz. Don't get me wrong, I've been fiddling with them since before the first Apples fell off the trees. Probably have more pounds of computer crap in my closet than anybody.Now ignoring all the BS from these idiots trying to sell sneakers - I have to say that I ran out of steam somewhere in the middle of the 55 vs x58 and the Lynfield vs the Bloomfield family fued... Like some of you folks waste a whole lot of time bickering about who has the biggest IQ - or wingie. Yeah, well my dual-barreled, high-lift cam crankin hemi under glass will blow your doors off.
This is a good site. Why don't you friggen macho clowns restrict the chatter to the subject instead of comparing your gizmos.
maomao0000 - Sunday, October 11, 2009 - link
http://www.myyshop.com">http://www.myyshop.comQuality is our Dignity; Service is our Lift.
Myyshop.com commodity is credit guarantee, you can rest assured of purchase, myyshop will
provide service for you all, welcome to myyshop.com
Air Jordan 7 Retro Size 10 Blk/Red Raptor - $34
100% Authentic Brand New in Box DS Air Jordan 7 Retro Raptor colorway
Never Worn, only been tried on the day I bought them back in 2002
$35Firm; no trades
http://www.myyshop.com/productlist.asp?id=s14">http://www.myyshop.com/productlist.asp?id=s14 (Jordan)
http://www.myyshop.com/productlist.asp?id=s29">http://www.myyshop.com/productlist.asp?id=s29 (Nike shox)
AndyKH - Sunday, October 4, 2009 - link
I'm a bit confused about the uncore clock frequency. From what I've gathered from all the discussion about the Lynfield having an advantage from the 200 MHz higher uncore clock frequency, I've concluded that uncore clock is represented by the NB (North Bridge?) frequency in the CPU-Z screenshots. But when running at stock speeds, I can't get it to match for the bloomfield: For Lynnfield CPU-Z shows 2.4 GHz NB frequency, but for bloomfield it shows ~3.3 GHz NB frequency! However, according to one of the original articles http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?... (can't get the http link button to work) about Nehalem, the uncore clock should run at 20x the BCLK ~2.66 GHz.So how does all this come together?
Is the NB frequency really the uncore clock?
And what about the QPI clock number for Lynnfield, why is that even shown - doesn't Lynnfield completely lack a QPI link, or is the QPI clock used for anything else than actual QPI interface?
A comment to Gary: I really enjoyed reading the article, but (and this might just show my ignorance because I haven't read every article about the Nehalem architecture) I would really appreciate some kind of walkthrough of the numbers shown by CPU-Z and Everest, where it is explained how the naming of different values relate to the names used in articles about CPU architecture.
Thanks in advance
duploxxx - Friday, October 2, 2009 - link
Really nice testing and effort, but the only way to make such a compare complete is to really use all possible solutions, by adding a 790fx platform you would have brought some real value to all customers and finally get rid of all the possible biased/brand favor comments most sites (and so does anandtech) get all the time.Gary Key - Friday, October 2, 2009 - link
That is coming... :)blindbox - Thursday, October 22, 2009 - link
Hearing that makes me give you a two thumbs up in real life :)We are still waiting for a better commenting system. I mean, I can't even see my past comments. Can't you integrate with the forums like how TPU did?
mapesdhs - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
Gary, do you know if there are plans to release a pro equivalent of
these cards, ie. FireGL or somesuch? I've spent quite a lot of time
recently helping various places go through purchases of dual quad-core
i7 XEON systems with FX5800 cards. In every case, the overall focus of
GPU support from the supplier was on Quadro FX cards, eg. SGI's new
Octane III doesn't mention ATI FireGL cards at all:
http://www.sgi.com/products/servers/octaneIII/grap...">http://www.sgi.com/products/servers/octaneIII/grap...
What has happened to AMD's professional GPU range? Have they given up?
Ian.
Gary Key - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
Ian,I am waiting on an answer from AMD right now. I heard they would have a new line of Professional cards based on Cypress in Q1, just wanting them to confirm it again. Email me and I can answer you once I have the answer.
:)
atmos - Wednesday, October 7, 2009 - link
Did you hear back on why the ATI folks think the results are so different from the tests with the Nvidia 260 etc cards?capeli - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
The results are not surprising. Given that the 5870 performs roughly at the level of a 4870x2 it's not surprising that the scaling is more or less the same the 4800 series.I'm guessing that Lynfield will start to become a bottleneck with the 5870x2 quadfire/trifire (5870x2 + 5870) setups.
Personally I went for Bloomfield, because I had great success with my 4870x2 + 4870 setup. Had heat issues that were resolved by adding a better fan to my intake on the side panel. It's a tad noisy, but the performance is superb. So much so that I don't see myself upgrading to DX11 until mid 2010.
18 months of top notch performance is pretty good for fast moving tech like graphics cards.
Dudlington - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
I've still never seen this answered in any reviews:If P55 only has 16 PCI-E lanes, does that mean it is impossible to have 2 GFX cards (2x8 lanes) AND have a 1X or 4X expansion card? E.g., RAID, USB/Firewire, TV Tuner etc...?
Kind of a big deal to have not been brought up yet.
Scheme - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
The 16 PCIe lanes you refer to are on the CPU (Lynnfield). The P55 chipset adds another 8 PCIe lanes for expansion cards.Dudlington - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
Ahh - thank you very much. I've been wondering this for a while. I thought all PICe had been moved to the CPU.silverblue - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
If it had, then perhaps TA would have a point as regards Lynnfield being "brain-damaged" :) Hell, I'd probably pipe up and say it was a bad decision had they gone that particular route.Lynnfield is certainly attractive.
shaggart5446 - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
can u use possible tripple ram in the linfield p55 platformstrikeback03 - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
No, dual channel only. There was a Gigabyte motherboard with 6 RAM slots, but still dual-channel.vshin - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
The X58 is a dead-end money pit. Gulftown will probably debut at $1k and will be out of reach for the majority of us so touting the 1366 platform as a good investment is bad advice. After the 920, Bloomfield offers little in return for the relatively high cost. TA is hoping to wait for Gulftown prices to fall under $300 but he should just give up. Look at Bloomfield... it's been out for a year and Intel would rather bump clock speeds to maintain prices rather than drop them. What makes TA think Gulftown will drop $700 before Sandy Bridge is out? It's a fool's hope.TA is right about one thing though. There is a missing 32nm segment between Gulftown and Clarkdale, which is what the budget enthusiast PC gamer is waiting for: 4-core 32nm Nehalem for under $300 without on-board graphics and no plans to SLI. Intel has been silent but everything points to a 32nm die-shrink of Lynnfield some time in mid-2010 to replace the current Lynnfield lineup at the same prices. This will be a drop-in upgrade for the 1156 socket so that actually makes the p55 platform a better deal for the near future.
If you have to upgrade right now, you can find 750/1156 combos for around $300, which is a good deal. You can overclock this system and it should hold you over till Sandy Bridge. If Intel does come out with a 32nm shrink, then you have the option to drop it in for an upgrade.
bobskeeper - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
"The X58 is a dead-end money pit. Gulftown will probably debut at $1k and will be out of reach for the majority of us so touting the 1366 platform as a good investment is bad advice. After the 920, Bloomfield offers little in return for the relatively high cost. TA is hoping to wait for Gulftown prices to fall under $300 but he should just give up. Look at Bloomfield... it's been out for a year and Intel would rather bump clock speeds to maintain prices rather than drop them. What makes TA think Gulftown will drop $700 before Sandy Bridge is out? It's a fool's hope."I really don't know why you take every opportunity to assert that X58 is a "dead-end money pit" and that Gulftown is destined to be nothing more than a $1000+ boutique part. Such an assumption runs contrary not only to common sense but historical precedence. The best comparison would be the transition from the 65nm Kentsfield to the 45nm Yorkfield two years ago. It's true that the first Die-shrunk Yorkfield (The QX9650) did debut at the $1000 price point at the end of 2007. It was soon followed, however, by many other SKUs in early 2008 that hit the same price points that Intel has always liked to occupy, all the way down to $266 for the launch of the Q9300.
Intel knows the volumes on its most expensive parts are very low, which is why it arranges its launches in this manner; start with low-volume, high-cost parts as the new production process matures, then quickly follow with higher volume, higher value parts as yields and supply ramp up. There's no reason to believe that the transition from 45nm to 32nm will follow a different pattern. Gulftown will probably debut as an "Extreme Edition" part or whatever Intel is calling them these days, but it won't be long before more valuable models are introduced in the $300-500 price range. The only possible motivation Intel would have for keeping prices above $1000 would be a complete lack of competition from AMD. Thankfully, AMD is in a much better competitive position with Intel now (at least with regards to value if not bleeding-edge performace) than they were when Yorkfield debuted.
I guess the only real wrinkle is that technically Gulftown appears to be intended as a workstation/server part. (Hence the -town codename as opposed to the -field code names of previous consumer quad-cores.) Still, there tends to be just as much segmentation and pricing differential among current-gen Harpertowns, so again I'm not seeing any reason it will be any different with Gulftown.
vshin - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
I actually do like Bloomfield and consider it better than Lynnfield from a technical standpoint. In fact, I would love nothing more than for Intel to release <$300 versions of Gulftown at launch but we both know that probably won't happen. But unlike TA, I won't try to spread bad advice. For the mainstream gamer, Gulftown will not be a reasonable upgrade path and that's the main reason why I can't recommend the X58 platform to this segment.The analogy you mentioned doesn't really apply since Intel has made it clear they want the p55 platform to occupy the "performance mainstream" market and reserve the X58 for the "extreme high-end" segment along with its higher pricing. It is much more likely they would shrink Lynnfield to 32nm than let i7 parts cannibalize the i5 lineup. In fact, you are seeing it already with Bloomfields maintaining the exact same price structure since release... even after one year. I wouldn't be suprised if Intel phases out i7 920 production very soon.
strikeback03 - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
Given that Intel knows their sales numbers on the $1000+ processors, I wouldn't be surprised to see a ~$500-600 Gulftown at launch. Which is more than most of us are willing to pay, but if you are already considering $500+ in video cards, a processor in that range might not be bad either if the games can use it. Either way, I don't think you constantly calling X58 a dead-end money pit is any different than TA152H calling Lynnfield brain-damaged, both are exaggerations.I also wouldn't be too surprised to see the 920 disappear, but only because it doesn't separate itself from the Lynnfields by much. Now that they have Lynnfield to fill that price bracket, they can position X58 further upmarket. Considering Intel has generally not dropped new stuff on the market that was not on the public roadmap (such as a 32nm Lynnfield) I would guess the rumors are more a result of wishful thinking than concrete information. Maybe Sandy Bridge will be released earlier in the year to absorb 32nm capacity. I'd guess the Bloomfield pricing never moved much because there wasn't competition to bring it down. The X58 motherboards dropped with competition, but when the only competition to the 920 is the 860 and 870 and Intel prices them all accordingly, prices don't move.
vshin - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
Gulftowns are supposedly -starting- at $1000 with upper-end parts going as high as $1500. Even at $500, that is still too high for the mainstream gamer. So is a $500 video card. If you have this much to spend, then you may as well spend extra for an X58 system.I'm referring to the budget-enthusiast who will want to limit their purchase to <$300 for CPU or video card, not going to use SLI, but plans on overclocking to maximize value. This segment is more interested in running games fast, and less interested in folding projects or encoding video.
The difference between me and TA is that I don't hate the platform I am supposedly "against." If Intel replaced their entire Lynnfield lineup with Gulftown at the same prices, I would be very happy.
silverblue - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
This may play into AMD's hands when they (eventually) launch the Thuban core. It's a drop-in replacement for AM2+/3 thanks to (I presume) a mere BIOS update. If people can get a 6-core CPU for relatively cheap, they won't bother with the far more expensive X58 path, unless Intel decides that it's worth it dropping the price quite a lot.Thuban is due after i9, which is a bit of a worry.
A budget enthusiast setup is a mouthwatering prospect for those of us with bottoms in our pockets (and little jangling around in them).
Gary Key - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
I have added the CPUZ/Everest Screenshots to the gallery for the 920 overclocked at 4.2GHz. I also ensured that B2B settings were the same on both platforms with auto disabled and a setting of 4 enabled. This is it for additional testing. When it comes right down to it, both platforms have their advantages and disadvantages. So choose which one best suits your needs.The short story to the new uncore testing is that it really does not make a real difference in general applications at these speeds. Of course, I have discussed this for more than a year but hey, why not run through it again. :)
I did gain 2/10ths of a second in SuperPi 8M with the higher uncore, the game scores were basically a wash as was a couple of applications although minimum frame rates suffered in FC2 and HAWX.
Uncore at 3407-
Everest Memory
Read - 18006
Write - 15237
Copy - 21306
Latency - 38.6ns
L3 Latency - 3.2ns
Uncore at 3607-
Everest Memory
Read - 17807
Write - 15892
Copy - 20059
Latency - 37.8ns
L3 Latency - 3.1ns
What does that mean to our top three favorite Core i7/X58 game benchmarks?
FC2-
1920x1080 2xAA HQ DX10 Ranch Small
uncore 3407 - 4.2GHz - HD 5870
CF- 137 minimum fps 173.3 average fps
SC- 77 minimum fps 95.3 average fps
uncore 3607 - 4.2GHz - HD 5870
CF- 134 minimum fps 173.9 average fps
SC- 75 minimum fps 95.1 average fps
World in Conflict-
1920x1080 2xAA/16xAF HQ Bench
uncore 3407 - 4.2GHz - HD 5870
CF- 42 minimum fps 103 average fps
SC- 33 minimum fps 58 average fps
uncore 3607 - 4.2GHz - HD 5870
CF- 42 minimum fps 103 average fps
SC- 33 minimum fps 58 average fps
HAWX-
1920x1080 2xAA HQ DX10.1 Bench
uncore 3407 - 4.2GHz - HD 5870
CF- 128 minimum fps 144.5 average fps
SC- 71 minimum fps 82.5 average fps
uncore 3607 - 4.2GHz - HD 5870
CF- 126 minimum fps 145.4 average fps
SC- 71 minimum fps 81.9 average fps
1. One other item that I answered earlier. The NV GTX275/285 cards perform better on Lynnfield than Bloomfield as does the HD 4890 in most cases. We are still investigating the differences with the HD 5870 on Lynnfield and AMD is trying to have an answer for us tomorrow after three days of marathon testing. It could be drivers, it could just be the architectural changes on the card or a conflict with the new PCIe setup on Lynnfield.
ilnot1 - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
Gary, your really are saint to run uncore tests (again), but...don't give in too much otherwise the terrorists win!
TimboG - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
Great!
Thanks for clearing that up for me Gary. You have to remember that most readers do read more reviews than what is posted here at AnandTech and in doing do it becomes very difficult to remember so many obscure setting changes that have become available with the new chipsets and each of their overall affect on performance. That was the reason I spoke out against the changes in the default settings. With that in mind, we, (the readers) also noticed the strange behavior of the HD5890 on these platforms compared to previous benchmarking of other graphics cards on these platforms. I, for one, was concerned that the settings changes had produced these strange results. Thank you again for taking the time to remove that from the equation.
GeorgeH - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
Shenanigans!!!! Thought you could pull the wool over our eyes, did you? Maybe you thought we wouldn't notice BOTH uncore speeds you selected for Bloomfield, 3407 and 3607, are PRIME NUMBERS!?!?But oh, look at Lynnfield at 3602 – a speed that is clearly divisible by 2, and most definitely NOT PRIME. This is CLEARLY yet another example of your pro-Lynnfield bias!!!! Just how dumb do you think we are?!?!?
Also, you have the patience of a saint.
Voo - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
@Lifted: You're just kidding right? Oh god please say you're just kidding.@GeorgeH: YMMD - let's await TAs response, I'm really curious with what he'll come up this time.
@Gary: You've really got the patience of a saint.
Lifted - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
I'm starting to think that these trolls work here at AT. I've never seen AT staff respond to anyone so often, especially obvious trolls. Not only are the staff responding to the same troll(s), but they run their tests again and even publish new articles around the trolls comments. The whole situation just doesn't smell right to me. Seems a bit of rattling the cage is going on for obvious reasons.Gary Key - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
"I'm starting to think that these trolls work here at AT. "If you only knew how much I wished that were true. :)
1. TA152H (almost ready for a block based on personal attacks)is actually Rich A. who "was" a freelance writer at Toms Hardware. You can contact our good friends (seriously) Tuan or Chris over at Toms to verify.
2. the Zorro (almost there again) was thezorro (blocked for spamming) was SnakeOil (blocked for useless spamming). SnakeOil has been a fixture over at Tech Report and somehow found his way over here. You can view his comments at TR in the Intel/AMD articles to verify.
3. Our followups are not for the amusement of these commentators (being real nice here). We did receive a lot of requests for the followups and three (Clock for Clock OC / 860 review / P55 scaling) were already in the works. We are just trying to be accommodating here for follow up information when deemed necessary.
iamezza - Friday, October 2, 2009 - link
TA152H wrote for Toms Hardware, wow! This explains a lot.I still don't understand why these guys weren't banned many moons ago though.
tamalero - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
and whats your opinion about SiliconDoc Gary?it seems what the Zorro is for ATI, the SiliconDoc is for Nvidia (but weirder and more annoying)
Gary Key - Friday, October 2, 2009 - link
Honestly, I fully believe in trying to adhere to a no-ban policy as long as the discussions are constructive and do not turn into personal attacks. That said, SiliconDoc should be banned ASAP based on his "useless" spamming and he probably will be very shortly. His actions have ruined the last two articles.Our favorite the zorro, thezorro, aka SnakeOil has and will continue to be banned if his actions continue. Eventually he will run out of IP addresses or will control the Internet. :)
TA152H is a different animal, instead of simple shock jock posting, he tends to get extremely personal in his attacks not only against me, but also Anand and now other readers. He has not done this at other sites, which makes me believe I ran over his dog and Anand took out his cat recently. He is on a very short leash.
If I screw up and get called out on it, fine, I deserve it and the comments section is a way for people to communicate it. We do care what is said and pay attention in order to improve our articles. If you have a personal agenda with me, well, use the email or PM system and we will try to work it out.
However, considering the fact that our testing methodology is extremely sound and we play by the book, I find his comments to be perplexing as he wants us to change system settings for one platform to make it look better but doing the same tuning on the other platform is forbidden. At first I thought he was just trying to drum up controversy or look good at Toms, until I spoke with the editors at Toms and lets just say, that was a conversation I cannot repeat in public. ;)
Scheme - Friday, October 2, 2009 - link
If people want to troll they'll troll, no matter how many times you ban an IP they've used to post.Maybe you should consider making the registration process more rigorous, perhaps have it use forum accounts, and start moderating comments. More effort required to circumvent a ban, combined with less reward if your posts quickly get deleted may mean less incentive to troll.
At the moment it feels like it's open season for a small number of idiots to ruin the comments sections.
strikeback03 - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
Will TA152H choose another failed German fighter aircraft to name himself after if banned?mesiah - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
Gary, I don't know how you guys can read some of the comments and not want to just flip out sometimes. Maybe what you should do to make things a little more entertaining is this... Just like clubs have muscle around to work over annoying guys and toss them out on the street, you should hire a full time bully to verbally harass trolls before you ban them. It wouldn't really fix anything, but it would make my day more entertaining :)james jwb - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
Anandtech is a massive, respected technical site whose audience has always been well-rounded, unlike say, Engadget, who rely on fanboy comments to fuel large debate. This site has never been like this, it's not a core of anything around here.Rudeness should not be tolerated, and ta152h is a piece of work imo. He deserves a ban on multiple levels. This guy has some issue with this site, it's that simple.
Maybe toleration of trolls like this can be left to their demise once you have a comment system where the audience can vote down idiotic comments, like engadget or dailytech.
adam92682 - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
How about testing a p55 system with the NF200 on it?TA152H - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link
Another bad review by Gary.I was hoping you'd have learned something about testing by now, but, apparently not.
For the rest of you, you'll notice Gary is up to his old tricks. He clocks the Lynnfield slightly higher, and, also, clocks the uncore considerably higher.
Keeping in mind this increases memory access, as well as L3 cache speed, this is a meaningful increase. Also keep in mind that the cores use this uncore to communicate with each other. So, the uncore clock speed isn't immaterial.
On the plus side, he did mention the fact the Lynnfield needs higher voltages to clock the same as the Bloomfield. Quite a bit higher. Makes you wonder why he never mentions maximum overclocks, since they would seem to favor Bloomfield.
This type of bad testing is shameful, for anyone who has any sense of shame. Even with his clear bias for the brain-damaged (yes, I know at least a few of you were waiting for me to say it) Lynnfield, with a higher clock speed (albeit slightly), and higher uncore, he still couldn't get it to go faster.
Don't waste your money on Lynnfield for gaming. In real world, where you weren't clocking the uncore much faster, the Bloomfield would win by more, can overclock higher, and has a six core coming out, compared to a two core. Yes, the six core will probably be too expensive, for now, but it's at least an upgrade, and will be cheaper in the future. It's hard to see moving from quad core to dual core as any upgrade.
By the way, is anyone else wondering what Intel will actually be making on 32nm? With only the Gulftown for x58, and only a dual core for P55, what are they going to do with all their 32nm capacity? The Gulftown is big, but shouldn't sell that great, the dual core with GPU should sell very, very well to the masses, but it's small, especially since it's only the processor that's 32nm. There's got to be something else that will be coming out we haven't heard of. There's too much capacity, and too few products.
Intel is doing a really bad job of things lately. They release a lobotomized processor that isn't segmented properly, still fail to release a decent chipset for Atom, don't announce a single quad core 32nm processor, and still haven't lowered the power use on the x58 chipset, which has been out for a year. They're so uneven.
PorscheRacer - Saturday, October 10, 2009 - link
I'm guessing Larrabee would be using 32nm production also...goinginstyle - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link
You have to be really brain damaged TA152H."For the rest of you, you'll notice Gary is up to his old tricks. He clocks the Lynnfield slightly higher, and, also, clocks the uncore considerably higher. "
Looking at the screenshots both of the boards are at their stock ratios with their Bclk at 133.5, the 920 hits a 21x multi with turbo enabled and the 860 hits a 22x multi with turbo enabled, as designed and implemented by Intel. Or is that a concept that is above your head?
When overclocked, the p55 bclk is at 200.7 and the x58 is at 200.4. That is due to the clock generator. It would be impossible for them to change that and the resulting 5Mhz advantage does nothing for any score at 4.2GHZ. The uncores are set to stock ratios based on the screen shots. This means he did not tamper with the settings.
If you actually owned either system you would know a 200MHz uncore clock improvement does nothing for the benchmarks. Once again, you are grasping at straws here trying to defend a platform that is the electric companies best friend.
Where is that review of yours showing how any of your comments have validity? All you do is trash every article here and I hope they just ban you tonight for obvious flame baiting. None of your comments are true dude. So go back to doing your cut and paste articles over at Toms.
TimboG - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
"If you actually owned either system you would know a 200MHz uncore clock improvement does nothing for the benchmarks."That's where I have a problem.
We read these articles BEFORE making a purchase to aid us in making the correct choice for each of our needs. I felt that if these benchmarks were to be done as a comparison of platforms then there should be much fewer results to be published.
Consider a comparison of two platforms.
1. Platform A with single GPU
2. Platform B with single GPU
3. Platform A in CF/SLI
4. Platform B in CF/SLI
No CPU, Mainboard, or GPU settings changes.
K.I.S.S.
Yes, He has those results, maybe, but how do I know. Maybe he overlooked something when making changes back and forth between settings.
Not to say he did, but we are all human. Testing these platforms at their default settings is a TRUE comparison.
Who cares if there is a difference in CPU speeds at stock settings? Is this not what we will get out of the box? That is the difference in platforms. If you want to compare CPU differences then add more results with more STOCK CPUs added to the test with each platform.
ggathagan - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
What exactly is your beef?He DID exactly that:
1. Platform A with single GPU
i920/HD 5870
2. Platform B with single GPU
i860/HD 5870
3. Platform A in CF/SLI
i920/HD 5870 CF
4. Platform B in CF/SLI
i860/HD 5870 CF
As a bonus, along with the stock CPU, Mainboard, and GPU settings that you crave, he also made an effort to minimize the differences between the two CPU's by matching their clock speeds at 4.2 Ghz.
After all, the question he was trying to answer is: Does it make a difference whether you use the X58 or the P55?
He even went one better: If you force the P55 into x8 PCIe mode with a single GPU, does it make a significant impact on performance?
Perhaps reading more closely would be helpful to you:
The P55 and X58 DDR3 timings were set to 7-7-7-20 1T at DDR3-1600 for the i7/920 and i7/860 processors at both stock and overclocked CPU settings.
That's not changing settings; both are using the same memory and same memory timings.
All power management features were enabled on each board and voltages were set at the lowest possible values when overclocking.
The only time settings were altered from their default was when overclocking.
Nowhere in the article is GPU overclocking mentioned.
TA152H - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link
Are you really that stupid?Nevermind, I already know the answer.
The uncore on the Lynnfield is 3602. The Bloomfield 3406. Are you seriously that stupid that you think that doesn't have any performance impact? It has an effect on L3 cache speed as well as memory. Are you implying he can't get closer to 3602 than 3406? It's just not apples to apples. Compare apples to apples, and you get a bigger difference between the two. Not that they'd want to show that.
Overall, I agree with him the Bloomfield offers better performance, and that the brain-damaged Lynnfield is attractive in areas where you don't need absolute performance and the power characteristics are attractive. But, I hate the testing methodology. Originally, they were trying to convince us the Lynnfield wasn't any slower. Thank goodness they gave up that nonsense.
mesiah - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
TA, for the longest time I couldn't figure out why you weren't banned from this site. Then I realized that they keep you around for pure entertainment value. But it really is getting old. I can pretty much sum up every one of your posts in a few short sentences:@the person above me, You are a moron, you aren't half as smart as I am so don't even bother giving on opinion. Here is a bunch of old random facts that I will puke out to make myself feel superior. Also, lynnfield is brain dead and intel does not know how to market processors. Gary, you suck, my dog writes better than you, and does a more thorough job of research. Anyone who disagrees with me is a complete idiot, and so on and so forth.
TA, please feel free to cut and paste my above paragraph into any of your future responses. It will save you some time.
goinginstyle - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
"The uncore on the Lynnfield is 3602. The Bloomfield 3406. Are you seriously that stupid that you think that doesn't have any performance impact? It has an effect on L3 cache speed as well as memory. Are you implying he can't get closer to 3602 than 3406? It's just not apples to apples. Compare apples to apples, and you get a bigger difference between the two. Not that they'd want to show that. "I own both platforms and just ran the FarCry 2 bench they use but with a 4870x2. It makes no difference dude. If you think it does, then let's see your proof. The fact they left the uncore ratios at stock settings is apples to apples. Why do you want them changing settings so bad. So you can bitch about them changing settings. It is so obvious what you are trying to do here.
Gary stated in the last article that the uncore makes no difference at these speeds. It does not and looking around the web this evening it appears only uncore speeds above 4GHz make a difference and that is with the extreme guys on LN2 running things like superpi and 3dmarks.
Where is your article showing otherwise? When will it be posted at your site? Why do you not comment at Toms in the same way you do here. They have not provided this information and if they do I bet you do not comment on it. Why is that?
brybir - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link
Why do all of your posts imply that Intel has absolutely no idea how to market segment its products or properly utilize its production, research and fabrication facilities to their maximum potential?Most of your post is just speculation on your part and based on no actual evidence of anything. You do not know what Intel's 32nm roadmap is, what products will definitely be produced etc, and you certainly do not know how they will sell and how they will be priced.
And your comments about lobotomized processors is just nonsense. You seem to believe, based on technical shortcomings that you seem to think are important but do not translate into real world difference, that the i7/i5 generation is somehow crippled. Yet, benchmark after benchmark show you to be wrong, with the i7 platform on par with the i9 platform except in the areas of extreme high end systems like in this review. Additionally, your comments about market segmentation are equally nonsense. You do not have Intel's sales data. You do not work for Intel in a position of responsibility for shaping corporate decisions. Intel will segment in the way that makes them the most money. Your opinion as to what they "should be" are based on nothing more than your opinion unsupported by any actual facts.
In any event, you seem to crap on every review by Gary and the Anandtech staff based on these obscure technical issues that you think are important but have been shown not to be. Instead of coming in here and insulting the excellent work done by Gary and his staff, perhaps you could ask the question in a more constructive way and actually get one of them to respond to you as they do many others. Let me give you some examples:
1. Your Statement: "Another bad review by Gary. I was hoping you'd have learned something about testing by now, but, apparently not. For the rest of you, you'll notice Gary is up to his old tricks. He clocks..."
Better way of saying it: "Gary, thank you for taking the time to work on this review, I found the information to be interesting, but I do have some questions about some technical settings that you used specifically relating to your choice of uncore settings and the impact that would have on these benchmarks given its potential impact on memory access, latency and speed. Perhaps you could explain what your thinking was so that I better understand your decisions and why you made them"
Your way makes you sound like an arrogant jerk coming in here only to piss in the lemonade of everyone that enjoys coming to this site to talk hobby shop and discuss the article. Try some tack. Drop the attitude. Some of your arguments have some merit to them (or may have merit, I do not know), but most of us have summarily stopped reading your posts in the same way that we ignore the crazy guy on the corner preaching the end of the world every day for five years.
So, unlike the others, I want you to stay here. Make your points. Engage in discussion. Just drop the attitude, arrogance and derisions in your posts and try to be a decent member of this community. You have interesting things to say sometimes but your method of communicating makes anything useful you have to say fall on deaf ears.
TA152H - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
Wow, I'm being patronized by someone with half my IQ. And not even well.That's actually the worst attitude. That patronizing attitude like you're superior, and you're so kind as to want me to post. Should I be grateful for your magnanimity? How hypocritical.
Now, more to point. Intel did market this stuff wrong. Their sales say it. I only predicted it, and bring it up to prove a point. They're not omniscient. It's a fact that Intel does not use their resources perfectly, as no company possibly can. It's only a matter of degree of imperfection, and they're seeing some pretty good level of imperfection with their marketing right now.
Your line about their 32nm roadmap proves you're a complete moron and can't read. That's exactly my point. They're showing too few products, and must have something else unless they can sell the Clarkdale really well.
Again, you're misrepresenting me when you say I claim they can't make marketing decisions at all. You obviously shouldn't comment when you can't understand any of what I'm saying. I said putting the MMU on the GPU is BAD from a technical perspective. I also said I expect it will sell very, very well a number of times. Don't simplify what I say so you can understand it.
You're also simplifying when you call it the i7. I think the i7 is good; the Bloomfield version. Benchmark after Benchmark do not show that the Lynnfield is equal to the Bloomfield. Even with Gary skewing the results, the Bloomfield wins. How can you read this and still not see that?
Before you start patronizing, actually try to have a clue what you're talking about. Having vague notions without any substantive understanding doesn't quantify as proof.
And, if you noticed, I've at least got them to back off their horsecrap about Lynnfield having equal performance, and the PCIe being a better, faster implementation. That was making me crazy, it was so false. I can't expect them to admit they're wrong, because they're not, and I'm not. It's opinion about which is better, and also situational. But, saying it's as fast, and has a better PCIe implementation is just plain false. I can accept the current opinions, especially since he's dead on with the x58 being way too power hungry. It's a problem they should have taken care of a year later.
slurmsmackenzie - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
wats wrong wit sum dummerd critizing u wen hes rite. ur an ass. even a moron as you call it can see that. your big words were delivered like an ass. don't need to know the meaning of magnan..mag..whatever to know an ass said it.goinginstyle - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
TA152H..."Wow, I'm being patronized by someone with half my IQ. And not even well. "
Man, do you ever have a high opinion of yourself. I guess being middle aged and still living with your mother will give you one hell of a superiority complex.
"You're also simplifying when you call it the i7. I think the i7 is good; the Bloomfield version. Benchmark after Benchmark do not show that the Lynnfield is equal to the Bloomfield. Even with Gary skewing the results, the Bloomfield wins. How can you read this and still not see that? "
Man, what benches have you been looking at or do you just imagine this stuff up. In applications it is Lynnfield ahead in just about every bench and in gaming it holds true with the nvidia cards. The ati cards produce a different result and that is about it. All of the review sites have the same results. They are not skewed here and apparently you have a personal vendetta against Gary. Once again, why do you not post at the other sites who have the same conclusions? What is your motive for spamming every article by Gary or Anand? Where is your P55 article dude?
"And, if you noticed, I've at least got them to back off their horsecrap about Lynnfield having equal performance, and the PCIe being a better, faster implementation. That was making me crazy, it was so false."
They have not backed off anything, their message from the first article to this last one has been the same. Apparently you have a hard time reading. Maybe you should get your mother to read the articles for you when she tucks you in.
Inkie - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
"I said putting the MMU on the GPU is BAD from a technical perspective."Well, tell that to the Intel processor designers responsible for Clarkdale and they will laugh at you.
"You're also simplifying when you call it the i7. I think the i7 is good; the Bloomfield version. Benchmark after Benchmark do not show that the Lynnfield is equal to the Bloomfield. Even with Gary skewing the results, the Bloomfield wins. How can you read this and still not see that?"
In Anand's review he clearly said that X58 can be superior for CF/SLI.
TurdMiner - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
TA152H "Wow, I'm being patronized by someone with half my IQ. And not even well. That's actually the worst attitude. That patronizing attitude like you're superior...How hypocritical."That's hella funny.
You meant that to be funny, right?
tim851 - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
I don't think he gets it.TimboG - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link
I agree with you that they should NEVER alter ANY processor or motherboard speed settings during a platform performance comparison benchmark.How in the world can you publish a "comparison" between two platforms when the chipsets themselves have been altered from their stock setting? This is nuts.
I read but keep quiet on most everything AnandTech publishes but this one takes the cake. To call itself a comparison of platforms where each has been altered is one article headed for file 13. I have noticed several of the "professional" review websites doing this in the past year or so and I for one think this type of comparison should be discontinued altogether. If you want to test overclocking ability then do it in a separate article. If you want to compare overclocked performance between multiple platforms then do it as such. Not as a direct performance comparison between platforms where each has been altered.
You guys with your little plaques hanging on your walls and the cute name tags on your shirts are driving me mad while trying to get straight answers to simple questions.
How about some real-time direct comparisons to what has been produced instead of what you want to "play" with in the BIOS before you benchmark? I don't care if TURBO is on if it is part of the "normal" operation of the combined CPU/motherbaord combo. At least that way it will show what you can expect "out of the box".
Intel has continually been degrading our options as this last development cycle has progressed with less CPU options per platform and slowly removing functionality from others.
It's almost like going to an auto dealer and getting the "confusion sell" tactic push onto us.
I could go on forever. No USB3, no SATA6 ? At least there should have been some news during IDF to present new chipsets that supported these features, but nothing. It's almost laughable, but sad actually.
Then we get manipulated platforms portrayed as being compared directly against each other and the results are something we should use to make a purchase decision with? Then combine that with the confusion sell Intel is already pushing on us. This is NUTS!
goinginstyle - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link
"I agree with you that they should NEVER alter ANY processor or motherboard speed settings during a platform performance comparison benchmark."Dude, nothing was altered as they kept the systems at stock values/settings and ensured the memory timings were the same between platforms. How fair can you get and by the way they were open about everything. It is a sad state of affairs when being honest in an article gets you slammed.
Jumpem - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link
In the original P55 review, and follow up i7 860 review, the i7 860 delivered higher framerates than the i7 920 at stock speeds.In this write up the i7 920 is coming out on top at stock speeds. I'm slightly confused. Gary, do you care to comment?
Gary Key - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link
We were using the NVIDIA (275/285) cards in those reviews. ;) I have a meeting with AMD in the morning to further discuss our results. They have been working with our test results since this weekend to pinpoint why the HD 5870 is generating different results than the NV cards and even the HD 4890.turnipoid - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link
I really don't see the point of this article if it doesn't include 2560 X 1600.xrror - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
Probably because if you can afford a 2560x1600 monitor you already have an x58 in preparation for i9.the zorro - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
at that resolutions the lynnfield bottleneck becomes more evident.so it's better not to include that resolution.
the zorro - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link
wow, Battle Forge CrossFire Scaling – Minimum Frame Rates difference is huge.this show how crippled the lynnfield platform is.
almost 100% percent difference between lynnfield and x58
this sucks.
what's wrong with intel?
GeorgeH - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link
Wow, you're totally right:Lynnfield: 12-28 min FPS
X58: 8-26 min FPS
Talk about a crippled platform!
We all already know that you're a moron, but in the future please try to make it less obvious. Thanks.
philosofool - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link
The result of this test is really clear to me: if you are even remotely close to on a budget, P55 w/ a great card is the way to go. The $100 you save on a P55 mobo invested into graphics will get you way more than the same invested in X58 and a $100 cheaper graphics card. If money is no object, get X58. Perhaps more importantly, once we're dealing with cards and games that drop things well below the 60Hz refresh rate of our monitor, the additional bandwidth in X58 will probably make an even smaller difference.The fears regarding the integrated PCIe controller on Lynnfield are wildly exaggerated.
strikeback03 - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
I'd say a $100 difference in motherboards is largely an exaggeration depending on exactly what features you are looking for, the power consumption differences are far more interesting to me.Now if we could only find out whether 8x PCIe would be a bottleneck for a SATA3 card.
UNHchabo - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
In terms of theoretical bandwidth, there's plenty in a PCIe slot. The SATA 6Gbps standard gives about 600MB/s of effective bandwidth, and PCIe 2.0 has 500MB/s per lane. This means that with PCIe 2.0, your motherboard slot is only limiting your card's performance if you give one lane per port.yacoub - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link
Sure, and the power consumption savings are a nice plus. Then consider that 90+% of us don't even care about CF/SLI because we only ever one run GPU card, and there's really no reason to bother with X58 over P55.ekoostik - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link
Agreed. Really enjoyed reading this on my new single-GPU powered 860 sitting silently next to me.yacoub - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link
"Does that mean the integrated dual x8 PCIe 2.0 logic on Lynnfield is a poor choice compared to the dual x16 PCIe 2.0 sporting X58, absolutely not based on our initial tests."The comma after "X58" should be a question mark and "absolutely" should be the beginning of a new sentence. ;)
the zorro - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link
almost 10% penalty because of the lynnfield crippled northbridge.its not just that but in the more interesting part of the game when there is more congestion, lynnfield stutters.
if you are going to buy a new spanking 3.72 tflops directx ati card don't commit the mistake of using lynnfield.
Griswold - Monday, October 5, 2009 - link
You're an idiot regardless of what you buy - so it evens out.DominionSeraph - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
"x58 is 1fps faster than lynnfield!!" as he sits behind his 33ms input lag, 3 frame ghosting, 60Hz LCD using a 600dpi mouse on a free mousepad.yacoub - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link
well considering Intel's offering no other quad-core 45nm or 32nm solution for the gamer-enthusiast who isn't interested in spending hundreds of dollars more, Lynnfield is the only option available for the foreseeable future from Intel.AMD has a chance to take back some marketshare IF they can come up with a low-TDP, high-performing, quad-core CPU at the right price. Do they have something like that coming out?
the zorro - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link
Amd's dragon platform is the only way for directx 11lynnfield is crippled and expensive.
this means phenom 2.
iamezza - Friday, October 2, 2009 - link
You are crippled .. in the brain!MadMan007 - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link
Would you PLEASE just go DIAF with your crippled lynnfield bs?trabpukcip - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link
On the second Far Cry 2 Graph, the resolution should be "1920 x 1080" and not "1920 x 1200"?goinginstyle - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link
Where are the results for the HD5850 cards?elivebuy - Tuesday, December 8, 2009 - link
http://www.elivebuy.com">http://www.elivebuy.comAir jordan(1-24)shoes $33
UGG BOOT $50
Jewerly $20
Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16
New era cap $15
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25
FREE sHIPPING
http://www.elivebuy.com">http://www.elivebuy.com
DigitalFreak - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link
Where are the results for the 2900HD?ValiumMm - Monday, January 18, 2010 - link
"What about the 2900HD"lol
GokieKS - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link
Because the Radeon HD2900 is obviously as relevant a card in the current marketplace as the HD5850.DigitalFreak - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link
I was being sarcastic, but whatever.There's not really a point in putting the 5850 through this test. It's not as powerful as the 5870, so the difference between the X58 and P55 would be even less.
jordanclock - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link
I think his point was that while it's great to see performance of an ultra-high end setup, we're more interested in seeing a review of the more affordable HD5850.goinginstyle - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link
I was being sarcastic. I know this had to take a lot of time and a lot of us asked for it. My statement did not go over the right way. I already sent an email to Gary stating as such and hoping they had banned the Toms guy by now but it appears they are letting him trash another article.szzcy - Sunday, June 10, 2012 - link
TOMS shoes are shoes with a noble cause associated with them. Buy one donate one. But the brand is far more than just a charity. Their unique designs and catchy colors make them a perfect choice for women who love to stand out of the crowd, the shoes from TOMS are more suitable for teenagers and youngsters because of their particular shape and looks. Let me explain you that why should you avail the offer of Toms shoes coupon code.The type of watch you wear says a lot about you as a person. Are you bold and courageous? Or do you love glitz and glamour? Express yourself by choosing a fashionable Tissot watch, in the world of fashion, where bling has become stylish, Tissot watches make an excellent choice for people who want to look their best.
From so many high-heel shoes kind, christian shoes trade is one of the best. They formed numerous shoes make a lady fanatical, they use their charisma to expand an independent shoe designer known, can be say that they are the most infamous contemporary masters of the shoes.
At here, you can locate out possibly probably the most luxury and most beneficial sellers inside the design field, along the lines of exquisite Gucci shoes, at ease and gentle Gucci clothing, cozy Gucci wool hats, etc. inside the exhibition in Gucci outlet online, you will locate available are three principal destinations available for you personally to choose.
The Converse shoes have been around since a long time and they are immediately recognized by their unique design and label, they were the first athletic shoes to be manufactured for the basketball players. Though they were originally designed for basketball players, soon its popularity grew and it became a regular shoe.
szzcy - Sunday, June 10, 2012 - link
TOMS shoes are shoes with a noble cause associated with them. Buy one donate one. But the brand is far more than just a charity. Their unique designs and catchy colors make them a perfect choice for women who love to stand out of the crowd, the shoes from TOMS are more suitable for teenagers and youngsters because of their particular shape and looks. Let me explain you that why should you avail the offer of Toms shoes coupon code.The type of watch you wear says a lot about you as a person. Are you bold and courageous? Or do you love glitz and glamour? Express yourself by choosing a fashionable Tissot watch, in the world of fashion, where bling has become stylish, Tissot watches make an excellent choice for people who want to look their best.
From so many high-heel shoes kind, christian shoes trade is one of the best. They formed numerous shoes make a lady fanatical, they use their charisma to expand an independent shoe designer known, can be say that they are the most infamous contemporary masters of the shoes.
At here, you can locate out possibly probably the most luxury and most beneficial sellers inside the design field, along the lines of exquisite Gucci shoes, at ease and gentle Gucci clothing, cozy Gucci wool hats, etc. inside the exhibition in Gucci outlet online, you will locate available are three principal destinations available for you personally to choose.
The Converse shoes have been around since a long time and they are immediately recognized by their unique design and label, they were the first athletic shoes to be manufactured for the basketball players. Though they were originally designed for basketball players, soon its popularity grew and it became a regular shoe.