Benchmark Results: 3DMark Vantage
Early on, we see some genius to the way Intel has implemented PCI Express on Core i5—at least for gamers using a single card.
If you compare i5 to i7 using one Radeon HD 4870 X2, scores are consistently higher at each of our three test settings. Core i5 is even able to beat the 2.83 GHz Core 2 Quad, which, clock for clock should be faster in many gaming situations (and sure enough, in two of the three 3DMark runs, Core 2 Quad is faster than Core i7, but loses all three to Core i5). Phenom II edges closer as the details increase, but only really bests Core i7 in the overall metric.
Add a second card, though, and the situation changes a bit. Suddenly, Core i7 jumps into the lead, bolstered by its two PCI Express x16 links. Core i5 extends its lead over Core 2 Quad—presumably since its Radeon HD 4870 X2s are leveraging on-die PCIe connectivity, while the P45’s twin eight-lane links are forced to communicate over a 1,333 MHz front side bus.
At 2.8 GHz, the Core 2 Quad and Phenom II trade blows. Nothing notable though, since they both lose out to Core i5.
A more telling gauge of graphics performance, the GPU score represents a weighted arithmetic mean of the raw scores taken from each of the two graphics tests in Vantage. As you can see, with a single card installed in each platform (thus, all contenders getting 16 lanes of PCIe 2.0), the Core i5 is the fastest, clock for clock. Clearly, the on-die connectivity is working to its benefit.
Add the second card, though, and the inflexible x8/x8 design actually turns into a detriment, as the X58’s dual x16 links allow it the lead across the board. The good news for mainstream gamers who weren’t even considering X58, however, is that Core i5 is still able to best Intel’s Core 2 Quad and its P45 platform. Incidentally, in two of the three tests, AMD’s Phenom II X4 920 also slides past the Core 2 Quad (falling short of the i5).
Consisting of an AI test and a physics test, both parallelized, we see the Core i5 and Core i7 roughly on par, with the Core i7 trending just a tad higher overall. However, both CPUs beat Intel’s Core 2 Quad, which in turn bests the Phenom II X4. Of course, the results in a synthetic metric like this one are subject to myriad optimizations and only really derive meaning from parallels to real-world proof points. So let’s get into a couple of real games and see how this initial analysis pans out.
Well... the results from Crysis were very disappointing. It got outpreformed by an previous generation CPU, ah come on...
Nice review, interesting to see how the Phenom II is doing.
AMD doesn't have to improve, Intel is getting worse for them. ( in my opinion )
i keep seeing you reviewers bragging about core i7/i5 socket 1156 CPU's Turbo Mode giving it a major advantage or making it better than i7/X58 but how many people are actually going to run them at stock speeds? Once their overclocked Turbo Mode means nothing really, especially 1 and 2 core Turbo Mode. Also getting those 1 and 2 core multipliers is not easy, they dont always activate when games/apps are single/dual threaded because the other cores are still active and any background tasks or other executions will use the other free cores meaning that to consistently have the 1 and 2 core Turbo Mode multis you would actually have to disable the other 2 cores in the BIOS, which no one does even on the i7.
Did Intel throw all you guys a few sheckels to promote Lynnfield with this turbo Mode mantra?
^^ Oh for *GODS SAKE* would you effing fanboi muppets STFU? What is this 'thing' nowadays that when a group doesn't like news they just generate their own, join a group of likeminded muppets, make your delusion expand by shouting constantly at everyone then sit back condemning the purveyors of the truth as liars? I bet Obama's going to kill your grandparents with a deathpanel eh?
Let me answer your question with another question; what effing proportion of people overclock? One in twenty, if that? I'm certainly going to clock my 860 to 4.0-4.2, but what about everyone else, and how do overclocked Nehalem architectures compare to overclocked Phenom II's? they lose. Period. I've benched them myself you utter muppet. Right now AMD are using a moderate revision of the Athlon 64 architecture, if Bulldozer comes out swinging and wins, I'll be happy, until then, deal with it.
And stop mindlessly attacking journalists who don't conform to your fanboy view of the world. L2compute FFS.
whos the fanboy? sounds like the reviewer is and i am not sure what your problem is but i may seek counselling as your outrage and outburst over something thats pretty unimportant in the grand scheme of things is a little alarming.
Why would Obama kill my grandparents?
and if you dont overclock your i7 your basically giving up a free easy OC boost, atleast on the i7/X58, i have read that socket 1156 CPU's have a little trouble overclocking on stock voltage due to the PCI-E contoller and its voltage being tied in to other parts of the CPU.
I really dont get the core i5 platform. The processors are way too expensive and its a mainsream platform. Well, i think it pretty much fails as the price tag is high end.
whos the fanboy? sounds like the reviewer is and i am not sure what your problem is but i may seek counselling as your outrage and outburst over something thats pretty unimportant in the grand scheme of things is a little alarming.Why would Obama kill my grandparents?
You are the fanboy, not the reviewer. This is because the reviewer is telling it like it is, and you are being a complete idiot to try and discredit a perfectly sane point they made - all because you don't like the truth. That kind of thinking is destructive. Seek counselling for that and maybe your comments will have some value.
re Obama, L2readinternationalnews
Dont believe the hype, do, do, do, dont believe the hype.
This is the issue; it's not hype.
It's like Toyota bringing out a car with, oh, I dunno a battery that recharges when one brakes and your saying "uhhh don't believe the hype - the batter only works when you brake, what if you never brake???" The only conclusion I can come to is that you and your brethren are 'beyond extreme' AMD fanboys, or that this is some kind of pathetic attempt at 'buzz marketing' by AMD.
I'll leave it to everyone with two brain cells to rub together to work out which option is more likely and less pathetic.