Of the troika of new chips, Intel’s Core i5-750 is likely to be the big hit. With wholesale prices of $200, the average joe or jane can now build a Nehalem-based system for almost as much as a Core 2 or Phenom II box. The key price differentiator is the motherboards. Board’s we’ve seen will likely top out about $225 but many will dip into the $150 range. That makes it significantly different from when Intel’s Core i7-920 launched. Sure it was only $280 (and still a year later) but the boards for the processor all pushed the $300 mark. Even today, it’s hard to get an LGA1366 board for $250.
In performance, the lower clocked Core i5 schools Core 2 Quad Q9550 as well as the Phenom II X4 BE. The Phenom II X4’s massive clock difference actually gets close to the Core i5 in a few benchmarks and surpasses it in two but the cheap Lynnfield is clearly the winner. Against the Core i7, as expected, the Core i5 loses but for many, giving up 10 percent to 25 percent in performance is worth it to save, oh, $300 over the price of the top-end Core i7-870. The performance delta between the i5 and i7 is the greatest in multi-threaded apps. In gaming and apps not optimized for quad cores, they’re a lot closer.
In the final analysis, the Core i5 falls right where Intel’s bewildering branding scheme puts it: faster than Core 2 and Phenom II but slower than i7 and really damned cheap to boot too. Buy this chip is the vast majority of your applications are not optimized for quad-core or more. If, however, your work counts on an increased amount of cores, go the extra mileage for a Core i7 with Hyper-Threading.
If you use the Goldilocks formula, this new quad-core, Hyper-Threaded CPU is “just right.” It’s just the right blend of performance to price. At $266 for a 2.83GHz, its most natural enemy is the Core i7-920 in LGA1366. The 920’s primary advantage is increased bandwidth thanks to its tri-channel DDR3 support. But since the vast majority of apps really don’t need that much bandwidth, the 860 is generally faster by five percent thanks to its 5 percent clock advantage. That’s pretty much what we saw in our tests too – about five percent difference in the vast majority of the tests in favor of the 2.8GHz 860. And of course, the 860 also gets a boost from its increased Turbo Boost clocks. A stock 920 will only Turbo as high as 2.93GHz under some loads. The 860 will max out at 3.46GHz under some loads. Why is the Turbo higher on the 860? The 920 was a first generation Nehalem processor and Intel played it very conservatively with the Turbo. With the 860, the company feels more comfortable pushing it higher.
So what should you buy? Both procs are priced the same at $266, but each has its strengths. The 920 has true dual x16 PCI-E 2.0 support thanks to the X58 chipset and discrete PCI-E as well as tri-channel DDR3. Frankly, we think both of those features are pretty minor reasons to choose 920. The main reason to pick a 920 is the upgrade path. In a few months, Intel will introduce a 32nm-based six-coire processor codenamed Gulftown. With Hyper-Threading, you get 12 threads as well as any goodness Intel can squeeze out of the new 32nm process (both the 860 and 920 are 45nm parts). A rig built on 860 will also not see Gulftown and probably will not see a six-core part for quite some time if ever. Again, Intel intends for LGA1156 to be for the mainstream and the 99 percent of mainstream users don’t need 12-threads for their apps nor will they pay out $1,000 for a Gulftown CPU.
That takes us back to the Core i7-860 part. If you save possibly $150 to $200 by building an 860 rig, that can be put toward a faster GPU, a bigger hard driver or a larger monitor. In this economic climate, that’s pretty appealing and really the pick of the litter if you ask us.
In this comparison of five CPUs, the 870 was head and shoulders the fastest CPU. Generally, we saw a 5 percent advantage in the 870 – just what you would expect from a 5 percent clock advantage. We did see some interesting results though. The multi-threaded Cinebench 10 actually saw the 870 with a 13 percent higher score. World in Conflict also saw the 870 run away with a 24 percent higher frame rate than the 860. So here’s the real question: Would you pay nearly 100 percent more for that? For most folks, probably not. At $555 for the Core i7-870 and $266 for the Core i7-860, it just makes a hell of a lot sense to give up some of that performance to put towards something else in your machine. And if you really are into being on the ragged edge of performance, it makes a lot more sense to jump in with both feet for an LGA1366 platform and the promise of a six-core upgrade in a few month. So we’re a little ambivalent about the Core i7-870. But make no bones about it, the Core i7-870 is the king of the CPUs that battled today, it’s just not really a “budget” CPU is it?
If you haven’t figured it out by now, Intel’s 920 is the chip all three LGA1156 Lynnfield’s were gunning for. A huge hit among the performance budget shoppers, it overclocked well and got you into the Core i7 club without paying through the nose.
With its three new siblings here, the 920 is mostly pushed to the back in performance and pricing competitiveness. The other chips run at higher clocks, automatically Turbo Boost to higher levels and can save you from $150 to $200 in associated building costs. So why bother with the 920? There is still some magic to this old favorite. In this roundup, the 920 was generally in third or second place in the vast majority of the tests. And in some benches, the 920 interestingly bubbled up to the top. Even though its superior tri-channel doesn’t always pay off, it apparently does in Photoshop CS3 where the 920 took top honors and we suspect its superior bandwidth helps keep it in hunt elsewhere too. We had heard early rumors that Intel would axe the 920 once the LGA1156 procs were out but the company has since told us it had no plans to discontinue 920 right now. That’s a good decision too. While LGA1136 is definitely an exclusive club, there’s no reason for Intel to make it even harder to get in. If your only choice to getting an LGA1366 platform was to shell out $500 for a Core i7-950 or $1,000 for a Core i7-975 Extreme Edition, very few people would choose that route.
Of course, the biggest reason to buy 920 is for the path to the Core i9 “Gulftown” CPU that Intel will introduce in a few months. Ideally, you could build a 920 box and use it for a year or so until the Gulftown derivatives drop down enough to become “budget” chips themselves.
Comments are closed on this article
jimmy83
January 06, 2012 at 2:14am
Agreed. Online commenting has the potential to be a powerful way to get quick feedback from those who agree and disagree from a variety of sources. Positive or not, it should be sincere and at the least thoughtful. So often it becomes a popularity contest. carhartt flame resistant clothing | carhartt flame resistant jackets
jimmy83
January 03, 2012 at 4:34am
I daily watch your website because it helps me in my many works and it is very beneficial for me because it gives the work a professional touch that is really an amazing thing. swing set accessories |accessories for swing sets | rope ladder for swing set
Ab.John
December 24, 2011 at 3:29am
you’ve always shared with us. Just keep writing this kind of posts.The time which was wasted in traveling for tuition now it can be used for studies.Thanks christmas Gifts | Unique Gifts | Birthday Gifts
bookmarking001
December 22, 2011 at 3:24am
I love what youve got here, love what youre saying and the way you say it. You make it entertaining and you still manage to keep it smart. I cant wait to read more from you. pos systems | pos system
jainnayer
December 03, 2011 at 3:30am
It has information I have been searching for a long time. This looks absolutely perfect. All these tinny details are made with lot of background knowledge....Internet Home Business
Icefire
September 03, 2010 at 4:08am
If a socket LGA1533 2.8Ghz i7 860 is $304.99 dollars and a socket LGA1366 3.06Ghz i7 950 is $329.99 isn't it worth the extra 20bucks and some odd cents for a 950 chip and the advanced architecture and bus speed on the new mobo's?
LatiosXT
September 16, 2010 at 1:14pm
The total system cost for a decent LGA1366 machine is more expensive than the total system cost of an LGA1156 machine, even if the processors are only $15 and some change.
And unless you're doing video work or something similar, you won't see much of a performance difference.
syderwarp
May 01, 2010 at 1:56pm
uhh help me understand why I would buy this as a "Budget" chip if i7 930 at Microcenter which in Chicago there are 2. The price is $200?! Please Maxium Pc update the prices. I know you say web stuff is cheaper on the web price. But Microcenter first had i7 920 at $200 for a year, and now i7 930 for last couple of months is $200. Thanks but I need updated stats for my new rigs!
yackman01
November 07, 2009 at 11:16am
I'm sorry but my Phenom II 965 BE kicks the crap outta any Intel Core i7. Both in speed and price. I bought it brand new on ZipZoomFly for $189. But I'm sorry I don't truly get how Intel can justify having such high prices. I build an entire gaming rig for the price of intels i7 975. Totally ridiculous. GO AMD!
Emokidnotrly
March 25, 2010 at 10:49pm
we all know that you are another one of those amd fanboys who likes to troll around on reviews... weve seen wayy to many of you... stats are there theres no point of you saying anymore... NEXT PLZ!
johnny3144
November 07, 2009 at 3:27pm
"I'm sorry but my Phenom II 965 BE kicks the crap outta any Intel Core i7. Both in speed and price."
errrr.... the chart and numbers clearly says otherwise on the speed part...
and core i5-750 is only $220 compared to 965's 268...AMD clearly lost in both price and performance. don't take deals into account when comparing products. they are not always aviliable
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115215&cm_re=i5-_-19-115-215-_-Product
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103727&cm_re=965_black-_-19-103-727-_-Product
yackman01
November 09, 2009 at 6:41am
I'm sorry to say this newegg isn't always the cheepest....try ZipZoomFly.com....$189
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=10010974
Thursday
November 16, 2009 at 8:54pm
Currently ZipZoomFly has the two processors only $10 apart. I would gladly pay the extra $10 for such a big difference in performance. And I don't know what numbers you are looking at or even if you're comparing processors yourself, but the i5 750 and even an entry level i7 will demolish the current Phenoms.
The one place the X4 965 BE has an advantage is upgrade potential. AMD is projecting their next top of the line CPU ("Thuban") to be 100% compatible with the current AM3+ systems. Thuban should get you a 6 core proc with a max TDP similar to the Phenom X4 so it should also overclock well.
To get the same upgrade potential with an i7 you'd need to step up to at least a 920 proc which makes the whole system a lot more expensive than just the $10 difference between the X4 BE and the i5 750.
Thursday
November 16, 2009 at 8:54pm
Currently ZipZoomFly has the two processors only $10 apart. I would gladly pay the extra $10 for such a big difference in performance. And I don't know what numbers you are looking at or even if you're comparing processors yourself, but the i5 750 and even an entry level i7 will demolish the current Phenoms.
The one place the X4 965 BE has an advantage is upgrade potential. AMD is projecting their next top of the line CPU ("Thuban") to be 100% compatible with the current AM3+ systems. Thuban should get you a 6 core proc with a max TDP similar to the Phenom X4 so it should also overclock well.
To get the same upgrade potential with an i7 you'd need to step up to at least a 920 proc which makes the whole system a lot more expensive than just the $10 difference between the X4 BE and the i5 750.
AleceHelix
October 06, 2009 at 7:29pm
That's a fine CPU... my new machine will definitely run on this. Screw Phenom II.
livewire120v
October 02, 2009 at 6:23am
Oh, I can not. It requires a new socket. Unless of course you got the X2 3800 for the new socket. But it was the best proc. at the time. I hate apple because of fan boy lies, AMD fanboys are pushing it as well. I refuse to confuse my feelings for the best tool available and go second best. When AMD tops Intel and I am ready to buy , I will get AMD. If Intel is tops, I will get Intel. But when you use arguments against a competitor and then the competitor changes in favor of your argument, you do not flame them, you embrace the positive move... or you become like Apple - Liars. Think of it as a tool. If I get craftsman because it is the best at the time and I use it daily, I will buy it. If Stanley comes out with something better, I will buy it. If Craftsman starting downing Stanley, I would think them idiots and may not consider them next time (maybe). You change no one with lame arguments against the prevailing champ of the day. You just leave a bad taste in peoples mouth. Intel had to learn this lesson to survive and AMD will have to learn it too. Apple has never learned it and has a whopping 3.1% of the overall computer market,last I checked ( could have went up some with Vista). Because of being proprietary, upgrades(indirectly necessary), and the one I used crashing (loading a game) and I got the "what did you do"treatment - if it was Vista, I would have gotten the "Vista sucks" treatment, etc... I hope you can see the difference and try and understand how it makes people feel repulsed. Well. enough marketing today, tune in later for a psycho-babble on the advertisements vs the reality article.
Atech66
September 24, 2009 at 4:28pm
Atech66
I learned my lesson with the socket 754 Athlon system... 939 #%^&*(!!!
truth be told that box still runs perfectly.. ASUS K8VX etc etc.
But after many trusted articles from good ole Max PC i am sitting at my Core i7 (1366) 920, MSI X58 Platinum 6 Gig Mushikin 1333 system.
once i got use to the temps between the core i7 and the GTX260 and stopped being a nervouse wreck for the first few weeks over em everything has been impressive since.
I do not want to be with out options for upgrading when the Nehalem hits the fan.
LGA1156
September 14, 2009 at 2:42am
I've been noticing that the the i7 860 just runs HOT, I was able for a 4 ghz stable, with a vcore of 1.36 however that temp was reaching 89 on prime 95 with a zalmen extreme. I've ended up running at a 3.8 1.275 vcore with prime 95 temps @ 77 max, I've scene overclocking reviews that show the i5 clocking fast and way cooler, I believe it has to do with the extra hyper threading of the i7s
paradissis.1
September 14, 2009 at 4:46pm
I am curious to see how I stack up vs the new.
Asus P5Q Pro Turbo
Intel Q9550 @ 4.3gh
G Skill DDR2 1066
XFX 4870 X2
Q9550 @ 4.3gh nough said!
LGA1156
September 15, 2009 at 9:26am
I had a Q9650 running a 4.1Ghz on a ASUS Striker II extreme 890, with 8GB of DDR3 1600, and SLI 285s
Same video Cards, Same Ram, on a Gigabyte GA-P55-UD4p with a I7 860 oc to 3.8 with ht on...
Its night and Day, no studder with low load times, to vista lags... I just need some SSDs to complete the package
Barroc
September 13, 2009 at 8:26am
Look at the benchmark results I am not seeing the BOLD scores. Maybe edit those to be Yellow font or something or get rid of the color schemes on the colunms to white with black fonts. Are the bigger scores better or the smaller? Does it differ between benchmarks?
Other than that. Man it will be a difficult decision to make. That budget Core i5 is tempting for a quick budget rig but with upgrades limited it makes me pause. I am constantly taking old machines (atleast here in the past few months its increased, and remaking for friends as second pcs. Had a bud with wife and 3 kids and 1 computer. All 5 used it and had to share. Just thru together an old Pentium 4 rig for them with a gig of ram and windows xp pro for next to no money and tada, kids have a myspace/facebook/email/nick.com pc to use now. Don't see that Core i5 will allow for upgrades other than the three new Core i7 socket1156 chips.
Decisions decisions lol.
ty MPC for a rockn mag
bloodgain
September 13, 2009 at 3:23pm
I'm willing to bet this was an article either in the magazine or meant for the magazine (haven't seen that article yet if it's it this month's). That format is actually quite print-friendly. It just doesn't look as good on a computer screen.
As much as MaximumPC wants to be more online than magazine, they are still first and foremost a magazine right now. I love having the website, including all the major reviews and coverage from the magazine, right at my fingertips. They are still perfecting their online side. I'm willing to sacrifice web-friendly charts if they keep up the high quality of the magazine. I still haven't found a magazine I like quite as much, mostly due to lack of focus and letting magazines become advertisement books with the occasional article in them.
LGA1156
September 11, 2009 at 9:53am
Time to update the best of the best, NEW budget CPU winner i7 860 (mico center 229) or i5 200ish anywhere on the web
MaxV908
September 09, 2009 at 4:52am
Just a funny observation, no sooner than the "Desktops are Dead" proclamation come out, that Intel really raises the mid range performance bar. Sorry AMD fanboys, just stating facts. I'm sure competing products are just around the corner.
So where's the iX mobile versions of this architecture? That would REALLY boost PC sales. Or are we waiting for the promised CPU/GPU cores to come out?
TechJunkie
September 09, 2009 at 2:40am
Get a grip. Some of AMD's innovations and engineering prowess has and was (and still is) being implemented into current Intel chips. Without AMD, some of these advances may not have ever occurred. So if that isn't a path forward I would hate to see your definition of moving backwards.
Yeah, your right, it's maximum PC. But where in the media bubble does it state that MPC cannot post or write other articles about other hardware without comparing them to intel. We all already know Intel beats AMD, yada, yada, yada...in benchmarks. So what? Pretty soon, all you will have left for choices is intel, sparking NO innovation, no advances in tech, and not to mention paying ungodly amounts of money for new hardware because of no competition. And when this happenes, you, MPC, and others can only blame yourselves. I'm not an intel hater by anymeans...but I'm more for competition and choice. There is only so much babble that you can write about intel and nvidia before it all starts sounding the same......
Baer
September 08, 2009 at 1:52pm
This is a well written article. I still cannot however get a good comparison with my rig. My 920 is OCed to 3.8Ghz for 24 7 use and it has been oced to 4.2 Ghz (both Prime 95 stable) but I do not run it above the 3.8. Of course at that OC it benches way better than the stock 2.66. This is my second 920, my first, the C O stepp could not get above 3.64 without overheating as it would not undervolt stably like the D O will do. As for the six core (i9) count me in, perhaps at CES??????
As for the comments about not enough coverage of AMD, this Mag is called Maximum P C and there is nothing Max about AMD anymore. There are other places to read about mainstreem budget CPU's but I apriceate M-PC covering the high end and the path forward.
Nion
September 08, 2009 at 1:22pm
The Benchmark Test Setup table on page 6 has the motherboards flipped for the i7-920 and the Phenom II X4 965 BE.
Should be Gigabyte GA-EX58 UD3R for the i7-920 , Gigabyte GA-MA790 FXT-UD5P for the AMD.
VaMage
September 08, 2009 at 10:58am
Any one have a guess about how long it will be before we see these new procs cause a price drop in 920's? If at all that is.
VaMage
American by Birth, But Southern by the Grace of God.
jcollins
September 08, 2009 at 3:41pm
From the benchmarks, I'm doubtful that they'll lower the prices soon on the 920's. The 920 is still faster than the i5's. Why would they make a faster part cheaper if they didn't have to?
DBsantos77
September 08, 2009 at 11:25am
Probably not. The way I see it, the only way there could have be a price drop is if the lower-ends iX's we're released first, then the i7 920With this setup, the lower-ends would see a price drop.
Xylogeist
September 08, 2009 at 9:59am
Ive been reading their articles for over 2 years now and all they can talk about is how great Intel is :p They apply a simple price drop and OO AH! Intel is amazing because it dropped its price first and OUR computers say it does better!
yourfriendlane
September 08, 2009 at 10:13am
That's because Intel's been at the top of the heap for over two years. Five years ago it was a different story.
Caboose
September 08, 2009 at 10:23am
That may be the case. However the number of articles about benchmarking Phenom II's and other AMD chips compared to benchmarking Intel chips are greatly favouring Intel.
Why not do some benchmarking of Phenom II parts in an optimal setup (AMD CPU, AMD GPU, AMD Chipset) for once.
-= I don't want to be dead, I want to be alive! Or... a cowboy! =-
willsmith
September 08, 2009 at 10:44am
We usually only devote magazine space to the best/fastest hardware. When Athlon 64 was dominating Pentium 4, we pretty much exclusively covered Athlon in the mag. With the low-end Intel CPUs pretty much dominating everything AMD has to offer, we'll devote space to Intel.
yourfriendlane
September 08, 2009 at 10:26am
That's what Better-Than-Average-But-Still-Not-Quite-As-Good-As-The-Other-Options PC is for. This is Maximum PC, boyo.
nekollx
September 08, 2009 at 3:43pm
well i don't know about you but ienjoy reading my copy of BTABSNQAGATOO PC Mag
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
Xylogeist
September 08, 2009 at 8:12am
I think Max PC is biased... I have 2 gaming rigs virtually the same other than the mobos and the processors, and the AMD Phenom 2 rig out preforms the i7 920 day in and day out. I have a ventrilo server, MS Private Server, and WoW private server, running all day and I play criysis once a day and the intel never beat the AMD rig...
Baer
September 08, 2009 at 2:00pm
Let me crank my 920 back to 4.2 and lets see what your AMD rig does in comparison. I just do not believe it would even play on the same feild. I am not an Intel fanboi but I love high end and for the last four years or so I have not even been able to consider AMD. I would love for them (AMD) to get competitive there but they are not seeming to even catch up. I do give them credit for waking up Intel however and boy did they wake up!!!
paradissis.1
September 14, 2009 at 5:18pm
Lets compare
Q9550 @ 4.33gh nough said!
[URL=http://img182.imageshack.us/i/4335windows.jpg/][IMG]http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/6350/4335windows.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
yourfriendlane
September 08, 2009 at 9:13am
Obviously you haven't been reading Maximum PC for very long. A few years ago it was tough for Intel to even get a mention in the magazine because AMD was slapping them around so hard.
mjanzen
September 08, 2009 at 7:24am
Have I read that right? The text on page 6 says a GTX280 was used, but the chart lists a GTX295.
gendoikari1
September 08, 2009 at 6:33am
731 million trannys? You were aware of the other meaning of "tranny", right?
Anyway, I noticed that their initial Core i7 preview had two arms holding the processor, and this preview only has one. Does it imply anything?
TechJunkie
September 08, 2009 at 6:24am
I just don't understand Intel's logic in how all this can be good for consumers. Most people, and enthusiasts alike, want to buy a system that kicks ass with an upgrade path. Intel here seems to only give you two choices: build a system around LGA1366 that gives you an upgrade path but pay out the nose for it, or build a system around LGA1156 and save a little cash but your stuck with what you bought. With too many choices abound, consumers usually tend to go the easiest route and Intel here provides nothing of the sort. I say, why give yourself a headache trying to figure all this out to get the best performance to price ratio when Intel will most definatley make your choice now obsolete in 6 months.
I run an AMD PII X4 940 rig now and am happy with it's performance. It does what I want it to do. Period. So what that it's slower than intel's counterpart, I at least know the hardware I bought will last me through next year and beyond. I am in no way dissing on Intel, just that AMD IS the easiest route to go and that's what I will stick with. I actually considered (at one time) upgrading to an intel system giving this one to my children, but after reading this article, I will stick with my AMD guns saving myself the frustration of Intel's unwieldly stupid naming scheme and upgrade paths that look worse than a New York City road map.
Caboose
September 08, 2009 at 10:20am
Thats one of the main reasons why I stick with AMD. I can buy a motherboard. And upgrade my CPU 2 or 3 times in it before I need to upgrade my motherboard. And the fact that AMD has got backwards compatibility in mind is great.
-= I don't want to be dead, I want to be alive! Or... a cowboy! =-
chocobo
September 08, 2009 at 3:36am
So right now I can go out and buy an i7 motherboard and an i7 processor and have them be incompatible with each other.
WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!?
Yusonice
September 08, 2009 at 3:35am
cheaper than p2, lower power draw and performs better!!!!!!!!!
Jeffredo
September 07, 2009 at 10:52pm
I know from countless reviews that a PII X4 955 or 965 is the equal (and occasionally better) of a stock i7 920 in real world gaming resolutions and quality options. I don't see that changing with the i5. No, I'm not disappointed in my PII build. Does exactly what I want it to do for the price I wanted to pay at the time I needed a new PC.
If you live and die by other types of benchmarks why would you build a PC with a Phenom II in the first place?
Print
