News Headlines
- Mon, May 20
- Shadow Warrior announced, reimagining of 3D Realms' classic FPS from the developers of Hard Reset
- Batman: Arkham Origins debut trailer adds Deadshot to the mix, odd Queen Industries reference
- PlayStation 4 teaser features a blurry black box, "See it First on 6/10/2013"
- The New Xbox: How would you improve Xbox LIVE?
- Sun, May 19
- Infinity Ward drops a Call of Duty: Ghosts teaser for next week's reveal at the next-gen Xbox event
New Articles
Related Articles
Sandra, by SiSoftware, is a tool capable of benchmarking about every component found inside a computer. The processor arithmetic and multi-core efficiency will be ran as well as the memory bandwidth and latency benchmarks.
Right from the start, the new Lynnfield processors make a great impression. In the processor arithmetic test, the Core i7 870 takes the lead above the i7 920, which just can't keep up due to it's clock speed disadvantage. The Core i5 750 sports the same clock speed as the i7 920, although it lacks HyperThreading support, which makes its scores dip below the mark set by the i7 920. However, it does keep a slight edge over AMD's latest Phenom's. The Q9650 just can't keep up with the rest of the quad-cores, while the E8400's performance simply seems mediocre.
Enabling Turbo mode gives the i7 870 a 8.5% performance boost, while the i5 750 gains a lesser, but not negligible, 5,1%. Not bad for an out of the box, dynamic and safe overclock.

The scenario changes a bit in the multi-core efficiency test where the i7 920's third memory channel gives it an edge over the 870. The Q9650's 3 GHz clock manages to rank above the i5 750. Turbo gives them very little performance in this case. However, overclocking takes both of them back in the lead. The dual-core E8400 is once again left behind, while the Phenom's strangely score very low in this benchmark.

When it comes to memory bandwidth, nothing comes near to the full fledged Core i7 920 and its triple channel memory configuration. That doesn't stop the i7 870 from scoring very well, only taking a 27% performance hit. The i5 750 doesn't do quite as well since its memory speed is locked to 1333 MHz, although overclocking can overcome this limitation. However, that's still enough to keep both Phenom's at bay, while the last generation Core 2's are way behind.

In the memory latency benchmark, both Core i7's end up with a comparable results, while the i5 750 is right in line with its direct competitor - AMD's Phenom. However, the i5 750 is only running memory at only 1333 MHz, while the Phenom's can and are set to run at 1600 MHz. Overclocking gives the i5 750 are fairly large improvement for that reason.

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/lynnfield/