Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 77

Thread: Intel Core i5 750, Core i7 870 Linux Benchmarks

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ant P. View Post
    Atom can't compete with ARM at all - and both Intel and MS know that.
    Atom can't compete in ARM's traditional low-power, low-cost, low-performance market, but ARM can't compete with Atom when running x86 code, which is still what most end-users want from a computer. ARM makes Atom look like a dinosaur in embedded systems, and the ARM netbooks look promising enough that I may buy one, but as soon as Joe Sixpack tries to install WoW on his ARM netbook and discovers it doesn't work, he'll be replacing it with an x86 of some description. Intel is still the 800lb gorilla in the CPU market and I can't see that changing any time soon.

    I'd also add that building an ARM system for home use is insanely expensive compared to building an Atom system; I looked at ARM boards for a home server and the cost would have been at least twice as much as the Atom I eventually bought, for less capability and more hassle (e.g. needing a source of ARM Linux).

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1

    Default Java benchmarks?

    Could you also post some Java benchmarks? Using the sun java compiler. This I feel provides a fairly good estimate of performance as the binary is provided by sun and is always the same and I assume is very well optimized by them for multiple architectures.

    Before I saw these benchmarks, I was totally kicking myself for ordering a P II X4 955 for my lab. This makes me feel much better.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by djiezes View Post
    I thought the TurboBoost feature was OS-independent. It's a mainboard/BIOS setting isn't it? Why would linux not be able to handle this, while windows can?
    The OS interacts with speedstep, you can do things like force a slow clock speed to extend battery life, lock it to full speed for benchmarking, and tune it in related ways based on your preferences. Intel's been pretty good with the documentation for GPU and CPU as of late, I suspect it's just an issue of a small amount of code or an updated table or two to fix.

    Send a few lynnfields to a kernel maintainer or two with some docs and I'd expect it in a weekend.

    Quote Originally Posted by djiezes View Post
    Is this only a problem for the new Lynnfield (i5 750, i7 860 & 870) series, or do the core i7-9xx cpu's also share the same issues? I'm asking since the Turboboost feature underwent some changes between these cpus.
    Dunno, I have a few nehalem around, but afaik turbo boost is off, for my needs I want consistent performance, not performance that depends on temp and/or what the other cores are doing. Hopefully someone else can contribute. I'd expect the nehalem review would mention this, I've not checked. I'd look for the phoronix nehalem review.

    Quote Originally Posted by djiezes View Post
    And what are the other linux+lynnfield problems you mention? Is it just the lm_sensors package that can't read the temps, or are there other problems at hand here?
    All I know about linux and lynnfield is in the phoronix pair of articles on the p55 and lynnfield.

    Quote Originally Posted by djiezes View Post
    Like many others, I planned on buying a Lynnfield core i7-860 soon, but if even an AMD triple core performs better in many tests for more than half the money, I'd want answers to above questions before making that decision.

    Thanks for the benchmarks, but now i'm a bit disappointed with these indications for bad linux performance.
    If you are going to get an AMD you get a fair bit lower price in any case, probably save $80-$100 on the motherboard, and at least $50 (or in the case of the 860 $150 or so). Of particular interest to me is the new 95 watt 3.0 GHz phenom II for $170. I've got the same CPU at 2.6 GHz and it runs cool, fast, and is a pleasure to use. The phenom is especially nice if you want to use the built in graphics with the 785g, not a gaming machine, but very nice otherwise. Mine runs impressively cool, around 50 watts idle, and 110 watts under load, 115 or so if I really abuse it. Said config runs around $500 with 4GB DDR3 ram, 1TB disk, and the phenom II 2.6.

    However if you are really after the performance it seems that once linux is tuned for lynnfield it should be a good bit faster, especially in the case of the i7-860. It's hard to compete with, faster single thread because of slightly higher IPC, faster single thread because of turbo boost, and faster performance for threaded apps when using hyperthreading and 8 threads (unlike hyperthreading on the p4).

    So all in all you have to ask your self do you want a great desktop system for $600-$800 that will be a pleasure to use for a wide range of uses or do you want to pay another $200 ish for the i7-860.

    Granted the turbo boost will take some time to fix, but I'd expect it to be very small relative to the useful life of the system.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gost80 View Post
    Could you also post some Java benchmarks? Using the sun java compiler. This I feel provides a fairly good estimate of performance as the binary is provided by sun and is always the same and I assume is very well optimized by them for multiple architectures.

    Before I saw these benchmarks, I was totally kicking myself for ordering a P II X4 955 for my lab. This makes me feel much better.
    I have some stream memory benchmark code that I ported to java, not sure what the point is. I've not found java's JVM particularly efficient or highly optimized, in fact just the opposite. Java has been very slow to adopt 64 bits, vector operations, hell it doesn't even implement registers. For this reason there's an industry built around doing java better than sun. Take a look at ARM (gazelle), android (android phones don't actually run java), and various others shipping java for real time or performance sensitive applications. Nor are java apps particularly common. So any resulting numbers don't tell you much about how well applications will run on it.

  5. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BillBroadley View Post
    Granted the turbo boost will take some time to fix, but I'd expect it to be very small relative to the useful life of the system.
    Thanks for all your answers, that's pretty much what I needed to know.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,607

    Default

    "Intel Turbo Boost Technology was disabled during our testing due to the aforementioned problems." - i did not get to the point in the article where the problems are mentioned, but disabling the feature that makes the i5 a better choice than other intel quads in comparision with higher clocked duals is somehow stupid. Basically the idea behind it is really good, as when you manually oc then you would need more power for the cpu all the time and there it oc only when needed - and still does check the power consumption which is of course needed to be cooled. As Intel ships really small default coolers the limits could be more restrictive than they would be, but you always oc manually, just that this is guaranteed. Why would you use lower speed if not needed?
    Last edited by Kano; 09-10-2009 at 06:47 AM.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    36

    Default

    I received an i5 750 today, together with an GBT P55-UD4 mobo. I compared it with my 955BE + GBT GA-MA785GMT-UD2H. Only mobo and cpu differ between setups. Both used 4GB OCZ Plats at 1333MHz CL7 and an nvidia 8800GT 1GB gfx. As os I choose sidux 2009-2 dist-updated. I left all power saving features on and also enabled turbo on the 750. cpufreq-acpi seems to ignore the two and one core increases. The chip ran at 2.8GHz most of the time.
    http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...5168-12682-147
    I plan to run the full universe suite and more clock vs. clock comparisons in the next days.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by justapost View Post
    I received an i5 750 today, together with an GBT P55-UD4 mobo. I compared it with my 955BE + GBT GA-MA785GMT-UD2H. Only mobo and cpu differ between setups. Both used 4GB OCZ Plats at 1333MHz CL7 and an nvidia 8800GT 1GB gfx. As os I choose sidux 2009-2 dist-updated. I left all power saving features on and also enabled turbo on the 750. cpufreq-acpi seems to ignore the two and one core increases. The chip ran at 2.8GHz most of the time.
    http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...5168-12682-147
    I plan to run the full universe suite and more clock vs. clock comparisons in the next days.
    Similar results with Michael's tests which show Phenom to beat i5 in general, whether the windows' benchmarks shows the opposite...

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,607

    Default

    Well maybe you need a much better cpu cooler to enable higher turbo boost or the bios is bad. Maybe there is a newer beta one.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    Well maybe you need a much better cpu cooler to enable higher turbo boost or the bios is bad. Maybe there is a newer beta one.
    Well cpufreq-info only shows speeds up to 2.8GHz. Maybe turbo works better if I disable EIST and do not use cpufreq-acpi at all.
    I tried to log the cpufrequency during the test but only one core appeared. As for cooling, I'm currently only using the stock cooler because I do not have the proper clips for my other ones. I expect an Corsair Hydro H50 in the next few days but I thought I only need it to reach ~4GHz and not at stock.
    Can be it's a bios issue with the linux acpi tables, under windows I already saw above 3GHz.
    Will do more testing tomorrow, preparing universe will take a while.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •