Conclusion

Our performance expectations were high, but realistic. Intel’s Nehalem architecture is currently king when it comes to performance per clock; we expected it to scale nicely with every megahertz of clock rate added. In fact, the test system based on our MSI P55-GD65 motherboard delivered substantial and mostly linear performance increases up to 4 GHz, where we had to switch off the processor’s internal power management (C-states) to be able to reach the maximum clock speed of 4.3 GHz. Obviously, you don’t really want to do this if you want your idle power kept in check.
Knowing that there are many reports on the Internet showcasing 4.5 GHz speeds and higher, our results seem disappointing. But keep in mind that we ran this overclocking project using Intel’s entry-level Core i5-750 processor, which has a stock clock speed of 2.66 GHz. Looking at a reasonable maximum of 4 GHz, we still realized a clock speed increase of 1.33 GHz, or 50 percent. We also didn’t invest a lot of time on improving cooling. Thermalright’s MUX-120 did a great job, but liquid or more powerful air cooling solutions might give you slightly better overclocking margins.
The Core i5-750 certainly is a great overclocker, but you definitely should set some limits in order to avoid excessive power consumption. Yes, you can get 4.2 GHz performance, similar to many LGA 1366-based platforms with similar overclock settings—but at a much lower price point. Still, we can’t help but posit that conventional, brute-force overclocking might not be such a good idea anymore.
Intel is in the process of altering what overclocking actually means by changing processor specifications from being guided by clock speed to being defined through the thermal envelope. As long as the processor doesn’t reach specific electrical and thermal thresholds, it’s free to run as fast as possible. This is in fact a model that future processor models from both AMD and Intel could be based on. Core i5 and our overclocking project show that static clock rates don’t count anymore. What matters is the clock range and the thermal/electrical envelope the processor operates within. Future overclocking will likely be guided by modifying that range, rather than by reaching a certain maximum clock speed.
We can’t say whether or not the P55 platform is the next BX, but we can state that Core i5/i7 on Intel's LGA 1156 interface makes a lot of affordable sense whether you want to overclock it or not.
Latest CPU News
- 10/02 – CPU Performance Boosted 20% When CPU, GPU Collaborate
- 10/02 – Leaked Slide Shows Intel Haswell Set for March-June 2013
- 09/02 – $100,000 If You Can Prove Quantum Computers Impossible
- 09/02 – AMD Adds FM1 CPUs Athlon II X4 638 and Athlon II X4 641
- 08/02 – Raspberry Pi Scheduled to Launch This Month
I think the AMD Athlon II x4 620 could give it a run for it's money, especially considering not only the price/performance ratio, but also the upgrade options. Even if you go Intel, the ATI cards are knocking out come great results at reasonable prices..what does Intel have to counter both ATI and nVidia?
I think this chip is a great little product, I just don't think Intel is sitting that pretty, and the motherboard upgrades (or lack of them), will catch them out. They did good with the BX chipsets in terms of stability and upgrades but those days are long gone..they replaced that solid product with the likes of Intel GMA
You'd buy an AMD CPU, because they make better GPUs than intel?
I'm still curious to see how far bclk can be pushed while keeping turbo made enabled...
In the chart on the second page, "Processor" is spelled wrong. :-)
You'd buy an AMD CPU, because they make better GPUs than intel?
Depends on the criteria..I base any decision on several factors: price, performance, usage and longevity - a systems design choice rather than one weighted entirely in favour of brand loyalty. Most of the clients won't spend the money, so their choice is restricted..but.an AMD 780G chipset with reasonably fast Athlon II x4, does practically everything they want, right from acting as a HTPC solution to a machine that can run 3D games. It's either that a more expensive Intel rig, sporting an nVidia chipset. Most clients simply request a CPU upgrade, they don't need DDR-3 and in most cases they don't even need a new power supply. The machine's down for 20 minutes whilst I update the BIOS and viola..new lease of life.
Both have been ahead - and behind - each other at one stage. I have always used most AMD at home and in my system builds, unless the client or the workplace/study environment dictates otherwise. I can't really fault either, it mostly comes down to my personal preference. Yes, I like AMD, but I now try to spend more learning the Windows-based software - I think it's more beneficial, taking into account the rate at which technology is changing and the performance both camps offer.
Not a bad review PS and AR ... not bad at all.
I have previously been a harsh critic of you both.
The point raised about max OC and still having the CPU internal power management switched on is worthy of following up with a few CPU's.
Saving a few trees and having a fast rig ... having the cake and eating it too ... is the go!!
We don't want D805's pushing 4Ghz and chewing 200Watts thanks.