This material opens a series of notes in which I will tell you about the overclocking potential of interesting pieces of iron. Processors, video cards, RAM - these are the three main components that every overclocker overclocks. The idea of creating a base for overclocking has existed for a long time, but only statistical data are scarce by ear, so we will tell you about our impressions of overclocking our charges.
We are starting, perhaps, with the most interesting processors from Intel at the moment - Core i5 750. The cheapest processors of the modern generation will face each other today, and we will find out which of the 8 copies will be the best.
Test stand
To study the platform for socket 1156, we have chosen the following configuration:
- Asus P7P55D Deluxe motherboard
- Cooler Scythe Ninja 2
- RAM 2х2Gb OCZ Flex 1600MHz CL6 1.65v
- Saphire 4890 OC (PCI-E plug required)
- Chiftec 1200W power supply
- Seagate 7200.12 250Gb Hard Drive
This is the first time I've encountered a motherboard from Asus based on the P55 chipset, and I want to note that the first acquaintance can be considered successful. The board handled all voltages easily and without problems. Of the features, I would like to note that the voltage on the processor set in the BIOS coincided with the CPU-Z readings, which is very pleasing.
Testing methodology
All eight processors were tested at three frequencies:
- max valid frequency - maximum validated CPU-Z frequency.
- max bench frequency - the frequency at which the processor can be made to work in light benchmarks, the Super Pi1M test is taken as the indicator.
- max stable frequency - the frequency at which the processor will work 24 hours 7 days a week 365 days a year without shutting down for a second. Naturally, I'm kidding - in our conditions of express testing, it is difficult to find a truly stable frequency. But we will take the frequency of passing the Hyper Pi 32M test as the assumed one - the same Super Pi32M is only multi-threaded.
From the settings in the BIOS were used:
- CPU Voltage: 1.35-1.45V;
- CPU PLL: 1.9-2.0V;
- IMC Voltage: 1.4V;
- Dram Bus Voltage: 1.65 V.
The system was overclocked from under Windows using the Asus utility - TurboV. The tests used the operating system Windows XP SP2.
| № | Max valid frequency, MHz | Max bench frequency, MHz |
Max stable frequency, MHz |
Butch | Voltage on the core, V |
Validation CPU-Z |
Screenshot Super Pi1M |
Screenshot Hyper Pi32M |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4577 | 4465 | 4274 | L922B943 | 1,432 | |||
| 2 | 4535 | 4442 | 4233 | L922B943 | 1,432 | |||
| 3 | 4527 | 4380 | 4213 | L922B943 | 1,400 | |||
| 4 | 4577 | 4400 | 4256 | L922B943 | 1,408 | |||
| 5 | 4527 | 4360 | 4214 | L924B920 | 1,440 | |||
| 6 | 4600 | 4535 | 4337 | L930B637 | 1,448 | |||
| 7 | 4536 | 4464 | 4256 | L922B943 | 1,440 | |||
| 8 | 4577 | 4442 | 4274 | L922B943 | 1,440 |
conclusions
Eight processors from three weeks of release took part in testing: six copies - 22nd week, one copy - 24th week, and one copy of 30th week. Based on the results, we can identify the winner of our testing: it was a copy with serial number 6, released on the 30th week of 2009. This processor is the coldest, and the only one that obeyed the coveted figures of 4.6 GHz. The processors of the 22nd week of release can be called strong middle peasants, half of the processors showed results close to 4600 MHz, but at the same time the other half overclocked by 50 MHz worse. And the most unfortunate, in my opinion, was the processor released on the 24th week of 2009, its distinctive features were its hot temper and zero reaction to voltage increases higher than 1.4 V.
The frequency at which the processors were able to withstand the Super Pi1M averaged 4400-4450 MHz, the best percentage could pass 1M at 4535 MHz, and the worst only at 4380 MHz. 100 MHz counts for a lot in benchmarking. But in terms of stability of all processors, the frequency spread is not so high. Each withstood 4200 MHz, the winner even 4300 MHz. With confidence for a home system, you can put 4 GHz and use the computer at your pleasure.
As you know, Intel microprocessor architectures change every two years. Computing power is constantly growing, the flagships of the recent past are turning into outsiders, giving way to the strongest representatives of the new architecture. With the market launch of its Nehalem-based processors in November 2008, Intel has significantly strengthened its position in the high-end desktop PC sector. And the recent top models in the Core 2 Quad and Core 2 Duo lines could no longer compete with the Core i7 processors, so they had to move into the mid-price niche, giving way to high-end newcomers in the Hi-End segment. Intel's future plans include expanding the presence of representatives of the new architecture in all market segments. However, the Core i7 line in its original form is not able to fit into the budget of mid-to-budget desktop PCs. That is why, for the general public, the company's engineers have developed a "lightweight" series of CPUs based on the Nehalem architecture. Today Intel officially introduced three new microprocessors - Core i7 870, Core i7 860 and Core i5 750, designed to work in the Socket LGA 1156 processor socket. The first representatives of the Core i7 family were designed to be installed in the Socket LGA 1366 processor socket, and motherboards for these processors were built on the basis of the only available set of system logic - Intel X58. The entry into the market of new representatives of the Core family required the development of a new chipset and motherboards based on it. The new chipset is the Intel P55 chipset. Before considering in detail the differences between the new solutions for Socket LGA 1156 and the old LGA 1366, let's take a look at the summary table of the characteristics of the Core i5 / i7 central processors and Intel P55 and X58 chipsets.
| Main characteristics | ||||||||
| Intel Core processor | i5-750 | i7-860 | i7-870 | i7-920 | i7-940 | i7-950 | i7-965 Extreme | i7-975 Extreme |
| Core | Lynnfield | Bloomfield | ||||||
| Technical process | 45 nm | |||||||
| Connector | Socket LGA 1156 | Socket LGA 1366 | ||||||
| Chipset | Intel P55 | Intel X58 | ||||||
| Core stepping | B1 | C0 / D0 | C0 / D0 | D0 | C0 | D0 | ||
| Core frequency, GHz | 2.66 | 2.8 | 2.93 | 2.66 | 2.93 | 3.06 | 3.2 | 3.33 |
| Factor | 20 | 21 | 22 | 20 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| Multiplier step with Turbo Boost * | 1 - 4 | 1 - 5 | 1 - 5 | 1 - 2 | 1 - 2 | 1 - 2 | 1 - 2 | 1 - 2 |
| L1 cache, KB | 32/32 | |||||||
| L2 cache, KB per core | 256 | |||||||
| L3 cache, MB | 8 | |||||||
| Bus type "Processor-chipset" | DMI | QPI | ||||||
| Integrated PCI-Express controller | Yes | No | ||||||
| TDP, W | 95 | 130 | ||||||
| Maximum bandwidth of the processor-chipset trunk, GB / s | 2 | 25 | ||||||
| RAM channels | 2 | 3 | ||||||
| Physical cores | 4 | Supported technologies | ||||||
| Hyper-Threading | No | Yes | ||||||
| VT-x | Yes | |||||||
| VT-d | No | Yes | ||||||
| TXT | Yes | |||||||
| EIST | Yes | |||||||
| Intel 64 | Yes | |||||||
* The frequency step is determined by the step of the processor multiplier from the original, depending on the load on the cores. From the table above, it follows that the differences in the internal structure of the LGA 1366 and LGA 1156 processors are not limited only to the lack of support for a three-channel memory controller from Lynnfield. In fact, the difference is much more significant. Let's take a closer look at the differences between these CPUs.
Constructive execution
Intel Core i7 and Core i5 processors based on Lynnfield core are designed to work with Socket LGA 1156, which, in fact, does not differ much from Socket LGA 775 / LGA 1366. mounting the cooling system. Next, we will take a closer look at the new connector.Memory controller
All processors designed to work in motherboards with Socket LGA 1366 have a three-channel integrated DDR-3 memory controller, which provides an extremely high memory bandwidth. The Core i5 and Core i7 processors for Socket LGA 1156 have a dual-channel integrated memory controller, which can slightly reduce memory bandwidth. However, testing the memory subsystem will show how big the difference in memory bandwidth is.Hyper-Threading Technology
This technology first appeared in the days of Pentium 4 processors with NetBurst architecture. All Intel Core i7 processors, regardless of design, support HT, which allows them to run up to 8 threads simultaneously. Processors of the Intel Core i5 series do not support Hyper-Threading.Turbo Boost Mode
The essence of this mode is to increase the operating frequency of one or more processor cores, depending on the computational load, by increasing the processor multiplier. Intel Core i7 processors for Socket LGA 1366 are capable of increasing the operating frequency by 1 or 2 steps (a step means a step of the CPU multiplier). At the same time, processors designed to work in Socket LGA 1156, depending on the load, can "overclock" 1-5 stops for the Core i7 series and 1-4 stops for the Core i5 series. It is obvious that Turbo Boost technology has reached a certain maturity, and new Intel processors are able to add significantly more in frequency than before. In addition, an interesting trend is worth noting. Modern Intel technologies allow processors to "intelligently" allocate their power to achieve maximum results depending on the type of tasks being performed.Bundle "Lynnfield - P55"
Core i7 processors for Socket LGA 1366 interact with the Intel X58 system logic using the QuickPath Interconnect (QPI) bus, which provides bandwidth up to 25 GB / s. In turn, the Core i7 and Core i5 processors, developed for Socket LGA 1156, "communicate" with the Intel P55 chipset through the DMI (Direct Media Interface) interface, first used by Intel back in 2004 in tandem with the ICH6 south bridge. It is no secret that the DMI cannot provide the same high bandwidth as the QPI bus. Judge for yourself, the bandwidth of the DMI interface is ~ 2 GB / s versus ~ 25 GB / s for QPI. And how, in this case, "pump over" huge amounts of data between the processor and devices connected to the PCI-Express 2.0 bus, for example, video cards that require data transfer rates up to 16 GB / s. But there are also less demanding devices such as network controllers, hard drives, etc. Intel engineers solved the problem in a rather elegant way. The PCI-Express controller and DMI, along with the memory controller, are now integrated into the CPU, which largely solves the bottleneck problem. Why to a large extent and not completely? The fact is that the integrated PCI-Express 2.0 controller supports up to 16 lanes, which will be entirely occupied by one or a pair of graphics accelerators. For a single video card, all 16 PCI-Express lines are allocated, when two video cards are installed, the lines are distributed as 2x8. It turns out that the capabilities of the integrated PCI-Express controller are no longer enough for other devices. However, this problem has been successfully solved! Thanks to the integration of some of the control units onto the CPU substrate, the Intel P55 chipset is only one microcircuit, which has received a new name. Now it is not just a south bridge, it is the so-called Platform Controller Hub (PCH), which, along with the standard set of functions of the south bridge, also received support for a PCI-Express 2.0 controller to meet the needs of peripheral devices.
VT-d
Virtualization technology for directed I / O is an I / O virtualization technology created by Intel to complement the existing Vanderpool compute virtualization technology. The essence of this technology is to allow a remote OS to work with PCI / PCI-Ex connected I / O devices directly at the hardware level. All modern Intel Core i7 processors, regardless of the processor socket used, support this technology, but the Core i5 series processors do not.TDP
Thanks to optimization of production technology and a modified CPU core, Intel has managed to reduce the TDP value for the Core i7 / i5 series processors for Socket LGA 1156 to 95 W, versus 130 W for Intel Core i7 designed for the Socket LGA 1366 platform.From theory to practice. Test platform
Before proceeding to testing, let's look at the components of the test platform based on Socket LGA 1156, and also consider the nuances of the Lynnfield + P55 bundle. An engineering sample of an Intel Core i5 750 processor came to our laboratory. Unfortunately, modern engineering samples of a CPU do not differ in any way from serial samples, even the available multiplication factors are the same as those of ordinary representatives of this series. The dimensions of the processors with the Socket LGA 1156 design are much smaller than the CPUs of their older counterparts designed to work in the Socket LGA 1366, compare:Core i5 750 on the left, Core i7 920 on the right
As a basis for our test bench, we used the MSI P55-GD65 motherboard, kindly provided by the Russian representative of MSI. We will definitely publish a detailed review of the MSI P55-GD65 a little later, but for now let's dwell on the description of the main features of the board:
- Processor Support for Socket LGA1156
- 4 slots for DDR-3 memory
- Supports 7 SATA II connectors
- Support for SLI and CrossFireX technology
- Supports MSI proprietary OC Genie technology
Now is the time to take a look at the Core i5 in action and talk about the overclocking features of Intel's new Lynnfield processors.
Features of the Core i7 and Core i5 processors on the Lynnfield core
CPU Clock - CPU cores work at this frequency. unCore Clock (UCLK)- the operating frequency of the north bridge integrated into the Core i7 / i5 processors. The integrated L3 cache operates at this frequency, as well as the Core i7 / i5 RAM controller. QPI bus frequency. The frequency at which the QPI interface runs, linking the Core i7 9xx to the Intel X58 chipset. Overclocking of non-extreme Core i7 processors of the 9xx family was very often limited by the frequencies of UCLK, QPI and DDR-3 memory (to a lesser extent). The fact is that the frequency multiplication factor of the processor frequency in conventional Core i7s is strictly limited from above. Therefore, to increase the CPU frequency, it is necessary to increase the base frequency (BCLK), and an increase in BCLK entails an increase in the frequencies of UnCore, UCLK and DDR-3. With the increase in the frequency of the RAM it was possible to "cope" with the help of dividers, but it was impossible to tame the increase in the frequencies of QPI and UCLK, because the requirement that the frequency of UCLK should be at least twice the frequency of DDR-3 made its contribution. Precisely because of the instability of one of these CPU units at higher frequencies, the CPU overclocking was limited to values slightly exceeding 200 MHz BCLK. With the arrival of Lynnfield, some of the problems for overclockers have been solved. Now the UCLK frequency is locked, and the dividers for the QPI bus frequency are smaller, so in theory we can get a higher stable BCLK frequency.Currently, the opinion, formed under the influence of system requirements, has already been established that a productive desktop computer focused on modern demanding games should have a powerful quad-core processor and a high-performance video card of the latest generation, and not rarely a couple of video cards. However, taking into account the prices for new models of processors, such a computer can cost a pretty penny. For example: the most affordable latest generation Intel Core i7-920 processor costs more than $ 300 at the time of writing. An entry-level motherboard based on the Intel X58 Express chipset (for more details in the ASUS P6T review) compatible with this processor will cost about $ 200, and a modest three-channel set of RAM from $ 75. In total, for the combination of "processor + motherboard + memory" you will need to pay such an amount, which is enough to buy a full-fledged ready-made computer based on AMD products, and the processor will also be quad-core in this assembly, and the video card of the latest generation. To resolve this incident, Intel, whose brainchild is the above proposed "expensive" system, presented in its opinion more affordable proposals: Intel Core i7-860; Intel Core i7-870 and Intel Core i5-750 on the same Nehalem microarchitecture. Also, to reduce the cost of the finished system, a new Intel P55 Express system logic was introduced (for more details in the GIGABYTE GA-P55M-UD2 review), on the basis of which you can create more affordable motherboards than on Intel X58 compatible with Intel Core i7-920. In this review we will try to figure out how much more affordable high-performance solutions from Intel have become, and in general, have they remained high-performance? We will judge by the Intel Core i5-750 processor, which at the time of this writing is offered at a price of about $ 240 and is the most affordable offer on the revolutionary Nehalem microarchitecture.
Package
Although the CPU-Z program is the latest version 1.52.1, in its essence it is not able to convey all the information about the processor's capabilities. The fact is that the Intel Core i5-750 carries several super-innovative technologies that can only be seen during the operation of the system, and a screenshot of the program is able to display the state of affairs only at one point in time. Naturally, all the innovations will be considered and analyzed in detail, but a little later, since it is simply impossible to describe such an amount of information in one paragraph. At this stage, it should be noted that the processor in the nominal mode operates at 2.66 GHz, the voltage supplied by the motherboard in the "AUTO" mode is 1.232 V (with the Turbo Boost technology enabled at 1.304 V). It is also worth noting the QPI value of 2.4 GHz, which denotes the frequency of the bus of the same name. This bus, one might say, plays the role of an FSB, by analogy with processors for the Socket LGA 775 platform. However, unlike the "classic" FSB, which connected the processor to the north bridge of the motherboard, the QPI bus connects the processor core with the RAM controller and the bus controller PCI-E, it is noteworthy that the latter are built into the processor, and the north bridge in Socket LGA 1156 motherboards is absent at all.
For a better understanding of the above image and the innovations in the Socket LGA 1156 platform, you should track the evolution of Intel platforms, and the changes in the corresponding processors.
We should start with the Socket LGA 775 platform, which appeared on the market as a result of the improvement of the Pentium 4 series processors. But it makes no sense to consider all stages of evolution, so let's start with the Intel P45 chipset, which is still popular today.
As you can see from the block diagram of the Intel P45 chipset, the processor communicates with the North Bridge (MCH) via the FSB bus (the bandwidth of which is 10.6 GB / s). The north bridge, in turn, is capable of communicating with two channels of RAM (6.5 GB / s bandwidth when using DDR2 or 12.5 GB / s with DDR3 modules), the south bridge (ICH) via the DMI bus (2 GB / s) and one PCI-E x16 v2.0 port or two PCI-E x8 v2.0 ports.
In such "assembly" all elements are balanced and do not infringe on each other, except for the limitation on PCI-E lanes. Two video cards will work in x8 mode instead of x16 and will lose a little in performance due to dividing the bandwidth of the PCI-E x16 v2.0 port by two.
The Intel X48 chipset is the latest and the most productive for the Socket LGA 775 platform. It differs from Intel P45 by the presence of two PCI-E x16 v2.0 lanes, which, when operating two video cards with appropriate interfaces, will not be "impaired" in performance, because the bandwidth the PCI-E x16 v 2.0 port capacity is 5 GB / s.
Processors with the Nehalem microarchitecture brought with them the Intel X58 chipset and Socket LGA 1366 platform, which over the years have changed the arrangement of controllers. From now on, the memory controller has moved into the processor itself (like AMD's solutions), thereby enabling the latter to communicate with memory bypassing the north bridge. The processor itself began to communicate with the north bridge via the QPI bus. Its bandwidth is 25.6 GB / s, which is twice as much as that of the Socket LGA 775 platform (in the best scenario, the FSB bus can provide a bandwidth of 12.8 GB / s.). The north bridge, in turn, provided two PCI-E x16 v2.0 ports and communicated with the south bridge via the DMI bus. This arrangement of "forces" made it possible to more fully use the video system, which has two video adapters with a PCI-E x16 v2.0 connection interface, a disk subsystem consisting of at least ten drives, a pair of network adapters, a powerful sound card, etc.
Such features could not be cheap, so it is not surprising that a set of motherboard and processor of the Socket LGA 1366 platform will cost from about $ 500.
This is why Intel recently announced the "people's" Nehalem and the accompanying Socket LGA 1156 platform with the only chipset supporting Intel P55 Express.
Yes, the Intel P55 chipset is not replete with "cosmic figures", but the absence of the north bridge is striking right off the bat. In the Socket LGA 1366 platform, the north bridge, by and large, played the role of only a QPI => 2xPCI-E x16 v2.0 + DMI switch. Moving it after the memory controller to the processor itself was just a revolutionary move. Now the processor communicates with the RAM and the video card practically without "intermediaries", which will naturally affect the performance of the system as a whole. But, since the Socket LGA 1156 platform came out under the slogan: "people's Nehalem", there are some simplifications in comparison with the Socket LGA 1366 platform.
Firstly, the memory controller lost one channel and became a two-channel one, like the Socket LGA 775 platform, but did not undergo any other changes, which is proved by the Memory tab of the CPU-Z program. In all cases (when using Intel Core i7-920 and Intel Core i7-860 processors) the timings and operating frequency were the same.
Secondly, the number of PCI-E bus lanes decreased to 16, which brought the video system bandwidth back to the level of the Intel P45 chipset (one PCI-E x16 v2.0 or two PCI-E x8 v2.0).
Returning to the main topic, I would like to note that when buying a processor now you have to, willy-nilly, buy a part of the chipset (north bridge), which we examined a little higher. Let's not forget about the characteristics of the processor itself, which are not limited by the clock frequency and the QPI bus.
The Caches tab revealed to us the identity of both the size and organization of the cache memory of the Intel Core i5-750 and Intel Core i7-9 * 0 processors, and the Intel Core i7-8 * 0.
For a more visual comparison of all the above changes, we suggest that you familiarize yourself with the following table, which presents the most "brilliant" models of all four generations.
|
Kernel codename |
||||
|
Number of cores, pcs |
||||
|
Clock frequency, GHz |
||||
|
First level cache, MB |
||||
|
L2 cache, MB |
||||
|
L3 cache, MB |
||||
|
Multiplier (nominal) |
||||
|
System bus, MHz / GB / s |
||||
|
Process technology, nm |
||||
|
Dissipated power, W |
||||
|
Supply voltage, V |
0,8500 – 1,3625 |
|||
|
Maximum memory capacity, GB |
||||
|
Memory type, MHz |
determined by the chipset |
DDR3-800 / 1066/1333 |
DDR3-800 / 1066/1333 |
|
|
Number of memory channels, pcs |
||||
|
Crystal dimensions, mm |
||||
|
Crystal area, mm 2 |
||||
|
Number of transistors, million pieces |
||||
|
Platform, Socket |
||||
|
Virtualization technology |
||||
|
Turbo Boost Mode |
||||
|
Single-threaded multiplier / final clock frequency, MHz |
||||
|
Multiplier for a two-thread task / final clock frequency, MHz |
||||
|
Multiplier for three-thread and four-task / final clock frequency, MHz |
||||
|
Hyper-Threading Technology |
Speaking of Intel Core i5-750, we see an updated implementation of the Nehalem architecture, which implies the use of a high-speed QPI bus and communication with the RAM and video adapter without any "intermediaries", which is an undoubted advantage, not to mention a more pleasant cost. Moreover, motherboards for this processor cost only about $ 100 with a small (for example, GIGABYTE GA-P55M-UD2). Such a platform is much more affordable than a bundle of Intel Core i7-920 and even an inexpensive motherboard based on the Intel X58 chipset.
But the good news does not end with these optimistic notes. Intel Turbo Boost Technology is revolutionary. And the version of it, which was implemented in the processors of the Intel Core i7-9 * 0 line, simply looks frivolous against the background of the implementation of the latter in the Intel Core i7-8 * 0 and Intel Core i5-7 * 0 lines. Recall that the processors of the Intel Core i7-9 * 0 line, when Intel Turbo Boost technology was activated, could dynamically (independently) increase their multiplier by one, thereby increasing the clock frequency of all cores by 133 MHz. This is what the new interpretation of this technology looks like:
When the processor is performing a single-threaded task, it on one's own changes its multiplier from 20 (clock frequency 2.66 MHz) to 24 and as a result gets the resulting clock frequency of one of the cores 3200 MHz, which is 540 (!) MHz more than nominal. What is this if not legalized overclocking? For some games, where, as a result of the use of the old-type engine, only one core is used, this processor mode will be a real gift. Further more, technicians and marketers have apparently decided that single-threaded tasks are nothing more than old-fashioning and were long, and indeed not true. But two-thread tasks, i.e. optimized for dual-core processors, there is still a ubiquitous relic of the past. So why not force two-threaded tasks to work? Therefore, when loading only two cores, the processor independently increases the multiplier, as in the first case, from 20 to 24, which ultimately makes it possible to work at the same cherished 3.2 GHz clock frequency for two cores (!) ... Fabulous!
Intel Turbo Boost Processor Operation
To test the Intel Turbo Boost technology, the processor was initially run in nominal mode without enabling it. The specialized program CPUID TMonitor monitored the operation of all cores separately.
As you can see from the screenshot of the CPU-Z program, all cores work at the standard x20 multiplier and, regardless of the load, remain in this mode. But this is not entirely true and you should not trust the CPU-Z program from now on. The Enhanced Halt State (C1E) power saving technology in idle mode reduced the clock frequency to 1200 MHz on all processor cores and this is already a true value, which was modestly proved to us by the CPUID TMonitor program.
The next step in the BIOS of the motherboard were disabled three cores for a clearer and more unambiguous representation of Intel Turbo Boost. Simply put, the Intel Core i5-750 processor has been turned into a single-core processor, and Intel Turbo Boost technology has been activated.
From the very beginning and without stopping, the processor worked at 3.2 GHz, regardless of the level and complexity of the task.
Putting the Intel Core i5-750 processor into dual-core mode (disabling two cores in the BIOS), the effect is similar to the previous one. Regardless of the type of task, both cores worked at 3.2 GHz. Fritz Chess Benchmark, running in dual-threaded mode, served as an excellent benchmark suite.
Now it's time to get the Intel Core i5-750 processor up and running at full capacity. With all four cores enabled, it was presented with a pure, single-threaded task using the Fritz Chess Benchmark program. To our great surprise, Intel Turbo Boost technology worked not only clearly and without "jagging", increasing the multiplier of one core to x21, but also cleverly shifted the task from one core to another.
Deciding to repeat the previous experience, the once popular Super Pi program was adopted. The result was completely identical. Intel Turbo Boost technology still deftly played with a single-threaded process, throwing it from a relatively more loaded core to an idle one. If the operating system, for personal needs, loaded one of the cores with the execution of any system service, then the Super Pi process "quickly jumped" to a freer kernel.
To be sure, the experiment was repeated a third time. Now the Lame Explorer utility has been taken in the role of "load", which is a wrapper for the corresponding codec. And again we were pleased with the effect! One of the cores serving the compression was working properly at a clock frequency of 2.8 GHz.
As much as I would not like to move on to testing on this optimistic note, but the "fly in the ointment" in this "barrel of honey", nevertheless, was found ...
Cooling and power consumption
Power consumption and heat dissipation are, of course, important performance characteristics of the processor and of the entire system. It is doubly interesting to check the operating characteristics, because the processor under study has a declared thermal package of up to 95 W, and is equipped with a rather modest cooler. Therefore, we measured the power consumption of the entire system and the temperature of the Intel Core i5-750 in various modes using a boxed cooler and an ASUS Maximus III Formula motherboard.
|
Core supply voltage, V |
Core clock frequency, MHz |
Power consumption of the system as a whole, W |
Processor heating, С ° |
|
|
Simple, Intel Turbo Boost Technology disabled |
||||
|
Under load, Intel Turbo Boost Technology is disabled |
||||
|
Under load, Intel Turbo Boost Technology enabled |
As a result, we got very interesting results. First, it is worth paying attention to power consumption - 165 watts at the very peak of the load seems to be an incredibly low value. This is exactly how the architectural features of this platform affect. After all, the main consumer is now the processor, which plays the role of the north bridge, and the Intel P55 Express chipset consumes only 5 watts. At the same time, economical DDR3 RAM is used. As a result, if all the low-consuming components are subtracted from the total power consumption of 165 W, it turns out that more than half of the energy is “consumed” by the processor. And it is from the processor that the cooler will have to dissipate this energy in the form of heat.
Secondly, when using a boxed cooler, we recorded a significant heating of the Intel Core i5-750 processor. Moreover, the system was assembled in a fairly well-ventilated CODEGEN M603 MidiTower case with a pair of 120 mm blowing / blowing fans. This is the "fly in the ointment". When the processor was operating at maximum load, even with deactivated Intel Turbo Boost technology, its temperature went beyond the declared maximum 72.7 C °. To be sure of the measurement results, we repeated the tests with different motherboards. The result turned out to be about the same, but with one caveat - different mainboards set different core voltage in the AUTO mode, albeit in a not very wide range. Depending on the supply voltage, there was a dependence on the power consumption and heating of the processor, but with a not very large spread. Thus, the expediency of using a boxed cooler, as well as its presence in the package, is doubtful. That is why the complete boxed cooler E41759-002 was replaced with Scythe Kama Angle.
During testing we used Processor Test Bench # 1
| Motherboards (AMD) | ASUS M3A32-MVP DELUXE (AMD 790FX, sAM2 +, DDR2, ATX) GIGABYTE GA-MA790XT-UD4P (AMD 790X, sAM3, DDR3, ATX) |
| Motherboards (AMD) | ASUS F1A75-V PRO (AMD A75, sFM1, DDR3, ATX) ASUS SABERTOOTH 990FX (AMD 990FX, sAM3 +, DDR3, ATX) |
| Motherboards (Intel) | GIGABYTE GA-EP45-UD3P (Intel P45, LGA 775, DDR2, ATX) GIGABYTE GA-EX58-DS4 (Intel X58, LGA 1366, DDR3, ATX) |
| Motherboards (Intel) | ASUS Maximus III Formula (Intel P55, LGA 1156, DDR3, ATX) MSI H57M-ED65 (Intel H57, LGA 1156, DDR3, mATX) |
| Motherboards (Intel) | ASUS P8Z68-V PRO (Intel Z68, sLGA1155, DDR3, ATX) ASUS P9X79 PRO (Intel X79, sLGA2011, DDR3, ATX) |
| Coolers | Noctua NH-U12P + LGA1366 KitScythe Kama Angle rev.B (LGA 1156/1366) ZALMAN CNPS12X (LGA 2011) |
| RAM | 2х DDR2-1200 1024 MB Kingston HyperX KHX9600D2K2 / 2G2 / 3x DDR3-2000 1024 MB Kingston HyperX KHX16000D3T1K3 / 3GX |
| Video cards | EVGA e-GeForce 8600 GTS 256MB GDDR3 PCI-EASUS EN9800GX2 / G / 2DI / 1G GeForce 9800 GX2 1GB GDDR3 PCI-E 2.0 |
| HDD | Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 ST3500418AS 500GB SATA-300 NCQ |
| Power Supply | Seasonic SS-650JT, 650 W, Active PFC, 80 PLUS, 120 mm fan |
Select what you want to compare Intel Core i5-750 with
Alas, a miracle did not happen ... Although there was hope for an Intel Core i5-750 thanks to Intel Turbo Boost technology, synthetic tests showed another "vinaigrette" of results, preferring either one of the models - representatives of the Nehalem generation, or the already outdated Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550. AMD Phenom II X4 955 in synthetic tests suffered a complete fiasco, despite its clock speed of 3.2 GHz and a total cache memory of 8 MB, like the representatives of Nehalem.
Game tests showed a more linear picture. The resource-intensive games Word in Conflict, Far Cray 2 and Race Driver: GRID have chosen exactly the representatives of the Nehalem architecture, placing them according to price requests. The now "outdated" Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 lagged behind the top three favorites quite significantly, although it is in the price category higher than the Intel Core i5-750. An exception was the demo version of the Tom Clancy`s H.A.W.X. game, which preferred AMD Phenom II X4 955 and Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550. In her opinion, Intel Core i5-750, Intel Core i7-860 and even Intel Core i7-920 have insufficient performance. Apparently, this application is primarily concerned with the clock speed of the processor.
In general, given the cost of the new Intel Core i5-750 processors, they quite successfully compete with the younger solutions for the LGA1366 platform and the older processors for the LGA775. Therefore, when completing a new productive system, you should pay attention to the LGA1156 platform.
Intel Turbo Boost Technology Efficiency
With the test results not quite as expected, the decision was made to evaluate the effectiveness of Intel Turbo Boost Technology in terms of its impact on performance.
|
Test package |
Result |
Increase in productivity,% |
||
|
Rendering, |
||||
|
Shading, |
||||
|
DirectX 9, High, fps |
||||
|
DirectX 10, Very High, fps |
||||
Oddly enough, the average performance gain in all test programs and games turned out to be only 2.38%, but completely free of charge and without a noticeable increase in power consumption. Suppose that this became possible due to a mismatch in the type of load, because to activate the mechanism for increasing the multiplier from x20 to x24, a strictly single-threaded or double-threaded load is required. It turned out to be extremely problematic to achieve this from test programs. But even with such conditions, there is some acceleration, resulting in 1-6% additional performance. Therefore, we recommend that you do not forget to activate Intel Turbo Boost technology in the BIOS.
Overclocking
Overclocking method for Intel Core i5-750 processors; Intel Core i7-860 and Intel Core i8-870 (Socket LGA 1156 platform, Lynnfield core) are slightly different from Intel Core i7-920 line (Socket LGA 1366 platform, Bloomfield core). The point is that the ratio of BCLK frequency (similar to FSB on the Socket LGA 775 platform) and RAM frequency is set by a corresponding multiplier, which can take a value from x2 to x6. Thus, the processor operating in the normal mode (without overclocking) can theoretically work with memory, the frequency sometimes ranges from 533 MHz (133 * 2 * 2) to 1600 MHz (133 * 6 * 2). In turn, this makes it possible to overclock the processor to the desired mark without using too high-frequency, and as a result, expensive memory. For example: when overclocking the processor to 4.0 GHz, you will need to raise the BCLK frequency from 133 (2660/20) MHz to 200 (4000/20) MHz, but in this case it is theoretically possible to use memory with a frequency of 800 MHz (200 * 2 * 2 ) up to 2400 MHz (200 * 6 * 2).
The processor that came to us for testing was able to overclock up to 4209 MHz (BCLK - 210 MHz) at a supply voltage of 1.440 V, which in percentage terms is 58% of the "addition" relative to the normal mode. Further overclocking was limited by the stability of the system, i.e. the start of the operating system was possible at a processor frequency of 4.5 GHz, but it and applications worked with errors. If it were the Socket LGA 775 platform, then such a result would be a record, but for now this is just a single fact, many of which make up statistics. For comparison, the previously tested Intel Core i7-860 was able to overclock to 4074 MHz (BCLK - 194 MHz) at a supply voltage of 1.296 V; Intel Core i7-920 conquered the frequency of 3990 MHz (BCLK - 190 MHz) with a supply voltage of 1.360 V, and the Intel Core i7-940 was able to show stable operation at a frequency of 3910 MHz (BCLK - 170 MHz) when supplied to it 1.296 V.
|
Test package |
Result |
Increase in productivity,% |
||
|
Rated frequency |
Overclocked processor |
|||
|
Rendering, |
||||
|
Shading, |
||||
|
Fritz Chess Benchmark v.4.2, knodes / s |
||||
|
Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X. Demo, High, 1280x1024, AA2x |
||||
|
DirectX 9, High, fps |
||||
|
DirectX 10, Very High, fps |
||||
The average gain in test programs was 37,9 %. Comparing again with Intel Core i7-860, Intel Core i7-920 and Intel Core i7-940, which showed an increase in performance in an overclocked state 28,7% , 18,8% and 13,8% , the result of acceleration Intel Core i5-750 can be described as extremely high. Judging by the capabilities of processors designed for Socket LGA 775 and AM3 platforms, Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 and AMD Phenom II X4 955 "accelerated" due to overclocking by 18% and 13% respectively. Therefore, we can say that the Intel Core i5-750 processor has a very high overclocking potential, which provides the opportunity to get a lot of "free performance".
Features of the on-chip memory controller
Updating the location of the memory controller could not but affect its properties. That is why we will try all possible modes of memory operation and evaluate changes in performance.
The first thing that came to mind was to fill all the slots of the motherboard for memory. Four memory slots were installed with four memory strips of the same type that was used in the tests.
It should be noted right away that neither the frequency nor the timings of the modules changed their values, however, the Command Rate parameter, which characterizes the controller delay when executing commands, changed its value from 1T to 2T.
How much such a "change" will affect performance, the following testing will show:
|
Test package |
Result |
Change in productivity,% |
||
|
Rendering, |
||||
|
Shading, |
||||
|
Fritz Chess Benchmark v.4.2, knodes / s |
||||
|
Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X. Demo, |
||||
|
DirectX 9, |
||||
|
DirectX 10, |
||||
The drop in performance is noticeable in all test programs. The average is 0.90%. Of course, this is not a lot, but, nevertheless, the conclusion is unambiguous: due to the needs of modern games, the required memory capacity is at least 3 GB. And since two identical modules are needed to activate the Dual Channel mode, the best option would be to purchase two two GB memory sticks at once. The option "two one gigabyte now and two more with time", as you can see, is not entirely rational.
Actually, about Dual Channel and Single Channel ... It is not uncommon that, due to financial difficulties, one stick of RAM is bought, later another one is bought in addition, sometimes with a volume different from the first. We forcibly disabled the Dual Channel mode by installing the modules in only one channel, to assess the performance drop in this case, and received the following results:
|
Test package |
Result |
Drop in productivity,% |
||
|
Rendering, |
||||
|
Shading, |
||||
|
Fritz Chess Benchmark v.4.2, knodes / s |
||||
|
Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X. Demo, |
||||
|
DirectX 9, |
||||
|
DirectX 10, |
||||
The drop in performance averaged only 4.49%, although in some tasks it was even more noticeable. The conclusion is also simple, as in the previous experience: you should not save on buying memory when switching (purchasing) to the Socket LGA 1156 platform.
The next experience was nothing more than a forced memory slowdown. This experiment was carried out in order to determine the dependence of system performance on the frequency of RAM. Suddenly you decide to save money and buy stale DDR3-800
Thanks to the connection between BCLK and the memory frequency by means of x2, x4 and x6 multipliers, implemented in the Intel Core i5-7 * 0 and Intel Core i7-8 * 0 processors, it was not difficult to change the memory frequency. The results speak for themselves:
|
Test package |
Result |
Drop in productivity,% |
||
|
Rendering, |
||||
|
Shading, |
||||
|
Fritz Chess Benchmark v.4.2, knodes / s |
||||
|
Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X. Demo, |
||||
|
DirectX 9, |
||||
|
DirectX 10, |
||||
The average performance drop in test programs was 4.06%. This is even less than from the "loss" of the Dual Channel mode. Of course, in the case of performing tasks closely related to memory performance, the increase will be about 25%, but in all other applications this factor is not so significant. Thus, just at the memory frequency when buying a system, some savings are possible, albeit with dubious prospects.
Sufficient QPI bus bandwidth
And finally, I would like to check the expediency of using the fast QPI bus, which directly combines the processor cores and the memory controller with a PCI-E controller. The QPI bus was forcibly slowed down from 2400 MHz to 2133 MHz, which was -12.5% in percentage terms. The results of the performance change are as follows:
|
Test package |
Result |
Drop in productivity,% |
||
|
Rendering, |
||||
|
Shading, |
||||
|
Fritz Chess Benchmark v.4.2, knodes / s |
||||
|
Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X. Demo, |
||||
|
DirectX 9, |
||||
|
DirectX 10, |
||||
So, when the QPI bus slowed down by 12.5%, the average performance drop was only 1.3%, which is a mere trifle. Obviously, the processors of the Intel Core i5-7 * 0 and Intel Core i7-8 * 0 lines received the high-performance QPI bus more "inherited" from the processors of the Core i7-9 * 0 line than out of necessity. Considering that there are only three traffic “consumers” on it (memory controller, PCI-E x16 v2.0 controller and DMI bus connecting the processor to the chipset) its bandwidth turned out to be somewhat excessive than necessary.
Conclusion
Intel is finally able to provide an Intel Core i5-750 processor that is affordable and worth the money. First, the full implementation of Intel Turbo Boost Technology makes the processor more flexible. Where else is there a processor that independently increases the frequency of two cores at once by 540 (!) MHz? Secondly, its price, even taking into account some speculation of the novelty, is more pleasant than that of other processors on the Nehalem architecture, and it is even cheaper than Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 or AMD Phenom II X4 955. Thirdly, I would like to remember that even an entry-level motherboard based on the Intel P55 chipset, for example, the GIGABYTE GA-P55M-UD2, fully implements all the capabilities of the processor and at the same time costs only a little over $ 100. Thus, such a bundle will be even cheaper than an average Socket LGA 775 motherboard with a processor of the same performance.
| Subscribe to our channels | |||||
 |
 |
||||
A little over a year has passed since the launch of the Nehalem platform, but the prices for the new processors still cannot be called affordable. The expansion of the modern line of CPUs at the expense of models based on the Lynnfield core for LGA1156 did not in any way affect the pricing of the older brothers, and they themselves did not differ in democratic cost. Until recently, the most economical processor based on the new architecture was the Core i5-750, which led to a fairly large popularity of this model. And even the recent appearance of Clarkdale processors from the same series is unlikely to shake the position of the "old man", which has real four cores versus four "virtual" ones in new products. But we will have a separate material devoted to Clarkdale, and in this article, as you might have guessed, we will focus specifically on the Core i5 750.
In retail, the Intel Core i5 750 comes in a boxed version, but sometimes you can find tray-options, which are provided with a 12-month warranty from the seller.
The standard cooler has a rather compact size and a small heatsink height; the core is made of copper. The design does not differ from the cooling systems of processors with the LGA775 construct.
The architecture of Lynnfield processors was discussed in detail by us in one of the previous materials. The Northbridge is fully embedded in the processor, which itself provides support for 16 PCI Express 2.0 lanes. By the way, this also gives rise to a small drawback of the platform, connected with the limitation of the bandwidth of the interfaces of two video cards operating in CrossFireX mode. Unlike their predecessors for Socket LGA1366, the new CPUs have only a dual-channel DDR3 memory controller. Thanks to the x6 multiplier (effective x12), the new Core i7 processors in nominal modes can work with DDR3-1600 (not an officially supported standard), and the younger Lynnfield, Core i5 750, in particular, with a x5 (effective x10) multiplier with DDR3-1333. Higher memory frequencies can only be used by raising the base frequency (BCLK), and if you are using high frequency memory, then for its X.M.P. the board will automatically raise BCLK and decrease the multiplier on the processor as the voltages are adjusted accordingly. For DDR3-2000, the reference frequency will be set to 200 MHz, and the multiplier on the Core i7 750 processor will be x14 instead of x20. If the memory does not have X.M.P. for LGA1156 processors, then the user will need to make all adjustments in manual mode. The frequency of the Uncore block, which includes a memory controller and a shared L3 cache, is fixed relative to the base frequency by means of a x16 multiplier at 2130 MHz. The QPI bus now connects the processor only with the PCI Express controller, its frequency is formed as the product of BCLK by x18 (x36), which gives 2400 MHz (4800 GT / s). A lower multiplier of x16 (x32) can also be set manually.
The processor frequency in the nominal mode is 2.66 GHz with a multiplier of x20. The quad-core Core i5 750 lacks Hyper-Threading support.
Turbo Boost can increase the frequency of individual cores when running applications that are poorly optimized for multithreading. This overclocking can be up to 4 points (133 MHz each) for one of the cores. More specifically, in single-threaded applications, the loaded core will operate at 3.2 GHz. If the load falls on two cores, then their frequency rises to intermediate values, and even with a load on all cores, the frequency of all of them will rise by one point. In the latter case, we actually get a quad-core CPU clocked at 2.8 GHz (at x21 multiplier) instead of 2.66 GHz. By the way, such a multiplier can be initially set manually for the Core i5 750 in the BIOS of almost all LGA1156 motherboards and without activating the Turbo Boost mode.
For tests in nominal mode, we used a 4 GB memory kit (Team TXD34096M2000HC9DC-L), which worked with timings of 7-7-7-20. All other delays and settings are shown below in the screenshot of the CPU-Tweaker utility.
Well, a few words about overclocking. It is carried out by increasing the base frequency. Since the frequencies of other blocks and DDR3 memory depend on it, the corresponding multipliers are lowered on them if necessary. So for DDR3, you can set the minimum multiplier x6, which in nominal will give a frequency of 800 MHz, and when overclocking BCLK to 200 MHz, already 1200 MHz. Reducing the QPI frequency in Lynnfield processors is of no practical use for overclocking (at least with air cooling). But to reduce the Uncore frequency in overclocking will not work at all, and at 200 MHz according to BCLK this unit will work already at 3200 MHz. However, increasing the L3 cache frequency will only have a positive effect on performance.
With air cooling, all Core i5 processors obey the BCLK frequency of about 200-220 MHz. Having in stock several budget motherboards for Socket LGA1156, we found out that the base frequency limit of our CPU (with air cooling) is 220 MHz. At higher values, significant system instability was observed. Thus, with the maximum multiplier x21 "in the air", theoretically, you can even get 4620 MHz. In fact, we stopped at 4066 MHz, at which full stability was maintained in stress tests (OCCT, LinX, etc.). Note that this result was achieved on the Gigabyte GA-P55M-UD2 board with a CPU voltage of Vcore 1.4 V and a QPI / Vtt Voltage of about 1.35 V. Further overclocking required a significant increase in voltages for stability, which entailed overheating in stress tests.
All memory settings during overclocking are shown in the following screenshot:
As you can see above, the overclocked memory frequency was only 642 MHz (effective 1284 MHz). Generally speaking, the Team memory kit itself is designed for 2000 MHz, but with the Gigabyte GA-P55M-UD2 board it was simply impossible to set the memory to a more productive mode when overclocking the processor. At a higher multiplier, the system freezes before loading the operating system, and raising the corresponding voltages did not help. And in the nominal mode, the board had problems with the operation of the X.M.P. profile, but we will cover these nuances in a separate article on this board. Due to the "incompatibility" of the high CPU frequency and high memory multipliers (by the way, we met with something similar in some AMD Phenom II units), we had to limit ourselves to a low DDR3 frequency, but at 6-6-6-16 delays, which should somehow compensate for the lag even from the nominal 1333 MHz. For a small increase in the memory frequency with its minimum multiplier, the multiplier on the CPU was also specially lowered so that it was possible to raise the BCLK frequency even higher. Comparative characteristics
To compare the performance of the Intel Core i5-750 in question, we selected the following quad-core processors:
- Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300;
- Intel Core 2 Quad Q9505;
- Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450;
- Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550;
- AMD Phenom II X4 810;
- AMD Phenom II X4 940 BE;
- AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE.
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 | Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 | Intel Core 2 Quad Q9505 | Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 | AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE | AMD Phenom II X4 940 BE | AMD Phenom II X4 810 | ||
| Core | Lynnfield | Yorkfield | Yorkfield | Yorkfield | Yorkfield | Deneb | Deneb | Deneb |
| Connector | LGA1156 | LGA775 | LGA775 | LGA775 | LGA775 | AM3 | AM2 + | AM3 |
| Process technology, nm | 45 high-k | 45 high-k | 45 high-k | 45 high-k | 45 high-k | 45 SOI | 45 SOI | 45 SOI |
| Number of transistors, mln. | 774 | 820 | 820 | 820 | 820 | 758 | 758 | 758 |
| Crystal area, sq. mm | 296 | 214 | 214 | 214 | 214 | 258 | 258 | 258 |
| Frequency, MHz | 2666 (up to 3200 in Turbo Boost) | 2833 | 2666 | 2833 | 2500 | 3200 | 3000 | 2600 |
| Factor | x20 (up to x24 in Turbo Boost) | x8.5 | x8 | x8.5 | x7.5 | x16 | x15 | x13 |
| Base frequency, MHz | 133 | - | - | - | - | 200 | 200 | 200 |
| QPI / FSB / HT bus, MHz, GT / s * | 4800 | 1333 | 1333 | 1333 | 1333 | 4000 | 3600 | 4000 |
| L1 cache, KB | (32 + 32) x 4 | (32 + 32) x 4 | (32 + 32) x 4 | (32 + 32) x 4 | (32 + 32) x 4 | (64 + 64) x 4 | (64 + 64) x 4 | (64 + 64) x 4 |
| L2 cache, KB | 256 x 4 | 6144 x 2 | 6144 x 2 | 3072 x 2 | 2048 x 2 | 512 x 4 | 512 x 4 | 512 x 4 |
| L3 cache, KB | 8192 | - | - | - | - | 6144 | 6144 | 4096 |
| Supply voltage, V | 0,65—1,4 | 0,85—1,3625 | 0,85—1,3625 | 0,85—1,3625 | 0,85—1,3625 | 0,875—1,5 | 0,875—1,5 | 0,875—1,425 |
| TDP, W | 95 | 95 | 95 | 95 | 95 | 95 | 125 | 125 |
* - for QPI buses (Intel Core i5-750) and HyperTransport (AMD Phenom II) the speed is indicated in GT / s.
Test configurations
Intel LGA1156 test configuration:
- Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-P55M-UD2;
- Memory: Team TXD34096M2000HC9DC-L (2x2GB DDR3);
- Video card: Point of View GF9800GTX 512MB GDDR3 EXO (@ 818/1944/2420 MHz);
- Sound Card: Creative Audigy 4 (SB0610);
- Hard drive: WD3200AAKS (320 GB, SATA II);
- Power supply: FSP FX700-GLN (700 W);
- Operating system: Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 x64;
- Video card driver: ForceWare 190.62.
Intel LGA775 test configuration:
- Cooler: Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme;
- Motherboard: ASUS Rampage Formula (Intel X48, Socket LGA775);
- Memory: OCZ OCZ2FXE12004GK (2x2GB DDR2-1200);
- Cooler: Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme;
- Motherboards: MSI 790XT-G45 (AMD 790X, Socket AM2 +), MSI 790FX-GD70 (AMD 790FX, Socket AM3);
- Memory: OCZ OCZ2FXE12004GK (2x2GB DDR2-1200), Kingston KHX1600C9D3K2 / 4G (2X2GB DDR3-1600);
System characteristics in nominal modes:
| CPU | Processor frequency, MHz | Memory type | Memory frequency, MHz | |||
| Intel Core i5 750 Turbo Boost | 2660-3198 | DDR3 | 1330 | 7-7-7-20 | 2128 | - |
| 2660 | DDR3 | 1330 | 7-7-7-20 | 2128 | - | |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 | 2839 | DDR2 | 1069 | 5-5-5-18 | - | 1336 |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 | 2672 | DDR2 | 1069 | 5-5-5-18 | - | 1336 |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q9505 | 2839 | DDR2 | 1069 | 5-5-5-18 | - | 1336 |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 | 2505 | DDR2 | 1069 | 5-5-5-18 | - | 1336 |
| AMD Phenom II X4 955 | 3200 | DDR3 | 1600 | 8-8-8-22 | 2000 | - |
| AMD Phenom II X4 940 | 3000 | DDR2 | 1067 | 5-5-5-18 | 1800 | - |
| AMD Phenom II X4 810 | 2600 | DDR3 | 1600 | 8-8-8-22 | 2000 | - |
System characteristics during overclocking:
| CPU | Processor frequency, MHz | Memory type | Memory frequency, MHz | Basic delays (CL, tRCD, tRP, tRAS) | Uncore frequency for Intel, NB for AMD, MHz | FSB frequency for Intel LGA775, MHz |
| 4066 | DDR3 | 1284 | 6-6-6-16 | 3424 | - | |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 | 3962 | DDR2 | 1165 | 5-5-5-16 | - | 466 (1864) |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q9505 | 4004 | DDR2 | 1178 | 5-5-5-16 | - | 471 (1884) |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 | 3548 | DDR2 | 1183 | 5-5-5-16 | - | 473 (1892) |
| AMD Phenom II X4 955 | 3793 | DDR3 | 1640 | 8-8-8-22 | 2255 | - |
| AMD Phenom II X4 940 | 3675 | DDR2 | 1120 | 5-5-5-18 | 2100 | - |
| AMD Phenom II X4 810 | 3725 | DDR3 | 1589 | 9-8-7-20 | 2384 | - |
Testing methodology
The testing methodology is described in the previous material. POV-Ray was excluded from the list of tests, because the built-in performance test in the version 3.7 beta 27 we are using did not work correctly on the LGA1156 platform, and in newer versions the results also changed significantly on older processors. In the absence of an opportunity to repeat the test in the new version of POV-Ray on processors from our list, we had to do without this program. For general information, we can only note that in POV-Ray 3.7 beta 35, the Intel Core i5 750 processor showed a result almost 10% lower than the Core 2 Quad Q9550, and with Turbo Boost enabled, it was 5% lower. Resident Evil 5 was excluded from gaming tests due to the strange behavior of the "fixed test" and "limiting" performance on quad-core CPUs after running the application on dual-core configurations.
Test results
Synthetics. Application software
PCMark Vantage
The first synthetic test demonstrates the unconditional superiority of the Core i5-750 over the rest of the test participants, even surpassing the Phenom II X4 955 operating at 3.2 GHz. Compared to Core 2 Quad based on Yorkfield, Lynnfield has an advantage of about 13% at one frequency.
In this test, the difference is no longer so great, although again Lynnfield's lead over the older Yorkfield tends to 10%. Unlike the previous overclocking test, the Core 2 Quad Q9505 and Core i5-750 demonstrate identical results.
In the Productivity Suite benchmark, we again see the advantage of Lynnfield over Yorkfield with 12MB of cache by about 10%. If the senior AMD processor in this test bypasses Intel's rivals of the previous generation, then the Core i5 is already too tough for it.
In this archiver, Lynnfield has a huge advantage over its predecessors - more than 30%. Activating Turbo Boost helps you win another couple of percent, but no more. The leading position of Core i5 with overclocking only strengthens, and at 4066 MHz this processor already demonstrates a 40% advantage over the Q9550 and 47% over the Phenom II X4 955. However, the performance test results in WinRar strongly depend on the performance of the memory subsystem. archiving, the difference may not be so stunning.
The 7-Zip archiver is pretty cool about the Lynnfield processor. The performance of the Core i5 is only slightly higher than that of the Core 2 Quad Q9450. It manages to bypass the Q9550 by activating Turbo Boost. In the same mode, the considered processor falls short of only 0.6% of the performance of the Phenom II X4 940 operating at 3 GHz. With overclocking, the Core i5-750 is again ahead of the pack.
Paint.Net
In this test, Lynnfield at 2.66 GHz was only 1% faster than Yorkfield with 12 MB of cache at the same frequency. In Turbo Boost mode, our processor is already on par with the Core 2 Quad Q9550. With overclocking, it is quite traditional that the Core i5 outperforms other rivals, the difference with the Core 2 Quad is again not great, but already more than 3%.
Adobe photoshop
In Adobe Photoshop, the junior Lynnfield confidently outperforms all other Intel rivals even without Turbo Boost, yielding only 11 seconds to the AMD Phenom II X4 955. In turbo mode, the Core i5 is out of competition, overtaking the senior Phenom II processor by more than a minute. With overclocking, the Core i5-750 copes with the task almost two minutes faster than the older Core 2 Quad, operating at frequencies of about 4 GHz, and almost three minutes faster than AMD rivals overclocked to 3.7-3.8 GHz.
CineBench
At the same frequency, the difference between Lynnfield and Yorkfield with 12 MB of cache reaches 13% in favor of the former. In Turbo Boost mode, the Core i5 processor outperforms its steel competitors. Without "turbocharging" the CPU is second only to the Phenom II X4 955, and even then by less than one percent. And at a frequency of 4066 MHz, the processor in question is completely out of competition: the Core 2 Quad at 4 GHz is inferior to it by up to 19%, and the Phenom II X4 at frequencies of 3.7-3.8 GHz is up to 33%.
Xvid video encoding in VirtualDub
Again, no surprises. Core i5 copes with the task faster than anyone. Only the Phenom II X4 955 demonstrates the same performance level without Turbo Boost (and this is at a higher frequency at 540 MHz). With the same frequency, Lynnfield beats Yorkfield for almost a minute. When overclocked to 4.07 GHz, the advantage of the Core i5-750 over other rivals at higher frequencies is calculated in even greater numbers. Interestingly, the younger Core 2 Quad Q8300, even at 3.5 GHz, is slightly inferior in performance to the Core i5-750 with Turbo Boost. And the older Phenom II X4 only with overclocked to 3.8 GHz outperforms the processor in question in this mode for only seven seconds.
X264 Benchmark
In nominal modes, the Core i5-750 is inferior to the Phenom II X4 955 alone, and even then, not so much. The advantage of Lynnfield over Yorkfield at one frequency reaches 12%. With overclocking, not a single processor is simply able to adequately compete with the CPU in question, which bypasses its predecessors by almost 16%, and AMD representatives by 20% or more.
PHP Benchmark
In this test, which is mainly sensitive only to the frequency of the processor itself, the Core i5-750 also did not hit its face in the dirt, and in Turbo Boost mode it turned out to be no worse than the high-frequency Phenom II X4 955. With overclocking, the processor again copes with the task faster than anyone else. although the difference with the Core 2 Quad is already minimal.
Fritz Chess Benchmark
The Core i5 is slightly outperforming the Core 2 Quad Q9550 only in Turbo Boost mode. At 2.66 GHz, it is slightly inferior to the older quad-core CPUs of the previous generation, bypassing the Core 2 Quad Q9450 by only 2.8%. With overclocking, the younger Lynnfield strengthens its position, outperforming its closest competitors (Core 2 Quad Q9505 and Q9550) by about 7%.
Super pi
In this test application, the Core i5-750 demonstrates a very impressive advantage over all processors in nominal mode, even without Turbo Boost enabled. Lynnfield has a 23% advantage over Core 2 Quad on a Yorkfield core with 12 MB of cache at the same frequency. The rest of the overclocked rivals at best show the same result as the Core i5 without overclocking, but with Turbo Boost. Game applications
The first gaming test demonstrates the complete superiority of the Core i5-750 over the rest of its rivals. Younger Lynnfield manages to bypass Core 2 Quad Q9550 and Phenom II X4 955 even without Turbo Boost activation. And when this mode is enabled, the Core i5 demonstrates the same results as the overclocked AMD Phenom II X4. Intel's predecessors for Socket LGA775 are not so sad, but they cannot compete with the overclocked Lynnfield either, despite the fact that they all reached frequencies close to 4 GHz with overclocking.
Battlestations: Pacific
In this game, despite the high fps, we ran into the capabilities of the video card, and, as a result, the difference in the results is minimal. This is also explained by the peculiarity of the selected script scene, which creates a minimum load on the CPU. In any case, the Core i5 along with the Core 2 Quad Q9550 demonstrate the highest scores in this game. When Turbo Boost is activated, a minimal drop in performance is noticeable, but it's difficult to talk about anything specific with such a small difference.
X3 Terran Conflict
In this game, the Core i5-750 doesn't even need Turbo Boost to beat the competition. When activated, the result of the CPU in question turns out to be 5-10% higher than that of the older Core 2 Quad and 9-17% higher than that of the Phenom II X4 955. With overclocking, the lag of AMD processors reaches a huge 25-28%, and Q9550 with its 3.96 GHz lags behind the leader with a frequency of 4.07 GHz by 8-10%. Younger Core 2 Quad and Phenom II X4 with overclocking only reach the performance of an unclocked Core i5 with Turbo Boost.
H.A.W.X.
One of the few gaming applications in which AMD processors are significantly more productive than the old Intel Core 2 Quad, and even then, only in low resolution. But the newer Core i5-750, unlike its predecessors, is not inferior to competitors from the "green camp", bypassing their older processor with a frequency of 3.2 GHz at 2.66 GHz by as much as 15%. The superiority of Lynnfield over older Yorkfield at one frequency reaches almost 35%! But the Turbo Boost mode has almost no effect on the result - only plus 3%. When overclocking, the gap between the leader and other rivals is no less impressive.
But with the maximum image quality, the alignment of forces changes. So nimble in a weaker mode, the Core i5-750 suddenly takes the last place. Interestingly, the Turbo Boost mode does not affect performance in any way, and there is little sense from overclocking.
World in Conflict
Intel Core i5 once again demonstrates a level of performance unattainable for competitors. The advantage over Yorkfield is about 30%. All processors except Core 2 Quad Q9550 with overclocking only approach the leader's performance in nominal. And the Core 2 Quad Q9550 at 3.96 GHz does not have a particularly impressive advantage over the Core i5-750 with Turbo Boost, given the huge difference in frequency.
Higher resolution and heavier graphics settings slightly temper the fervor of the "unstoppable" Core i5-750, and now all overclocked Core 2 Quad manage to bypass its result in nominal mode. In terms of the minimum fps, the leader is losing ground to the older Core 2 Quad even more noticeably, and even in the nominal value it does not bypass the Core 2 Quad Q9550 in this parameter.
Unreal Tournament 3
In Unreal Tournament 3, the irreplaceable leader pushes all rivals to the margins. For AMD processors, everything is completely sad - even when overclocked to 3.8 GHz, they cannot demonstrate the same results as the Core i5-750 at 2.66 GHz. And the advantage over its predecessor Core 2 Quad Q9450 reaches almost 30%, and Core 2 Quad Q9550 is inferior to a significant 20%. Turbo Boost boosts Lynnfield's performance by up to 4%. With overclocking, the balance of forces between Intel processors almost does not change, but AMD's lag behind them only increases.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R .: Clear Sky
Unlike the previous game in this domestic project, the Core i5-750 secures its leadership without any reservations. Its advantage over the older models Core 2 Quad and Phenom II X4 reaches almost 30% in low resolution and 23% in high resolution. And even with overclocking, competitors hardly manage to somehow make up for such a lag. AMD processors, by tradition, when overclocked to 3.7-3.8 GHz, do not reach the Core i5 at the nominal 2.66 GHz.
Far cry 2
In a low resolution, the Core i5-750, as usual, turns out to be "faster" than everyone else, and the "poor" AMD processors again cannot achieve the same results when the frequencies are increased to 3.7-3.8 GHz.
But at maximum settings, quite unexpectedly, the Core i5 again becomes an outsider, as it was in H.A.W.X. And again, Turbo Boost does not give any advantages, as well as overclocking (mainly an increase in the minimum fps).
In low resolution, everything is quite predictable and the leadership position of the Core i5-750 is undeniable. The advantage of Lynnfield over Yorkfield with 12 MB of cache at the same clock speed of 2.66 GHz is 26%. With Turbo Boost activated (which brings only 3%), the advantage over the older Core 2 Quad Q9550 and Phenom II X4 955 reaches 21-22%, and when overclocked these rivals reduce their lag to only 17-20%.
In high resolution in nominal modes, the leadership of the Core i5 also raises no questions, even though in this mode the performance is already significantly limited by our video adapter. But with overclocking, the CPU for some reason demonstrates the result slightly lower than the older Core 2 Quad. The difference is, of course, scanty, but still this is not an error, which, according to the results of several test runs, usually fits into much smaller frames.
Crysis warhead
Crysis Warhead does not bring any surprises and in all resolutions the Core i5 is the undisputed leader, and the identical results with the Q9550 at 1280x1024 during overclocking are fully explained by the insufficient power of the video card, which played the role of a "limiter". In low resolution, the advantage of Lynnfield over Yorkfield at a single frequency of 2.66 GHz reaches 17.5%. Turbo Boost activation helps to increase the result by 4.5%, and AMD rivals cannot achieve such indicators even in overclocking. The second place on the "pedestal" Core 2 Quad Q9550 is inferior to the leader from 10% (without Turbo Boost) to 16% in nominal and 10% during overclocking.
Grand theft auto 4
According to the test results in this extremely processor-dependent game, it can be seen that the requirements for the video subsystem are also quite high, despite the far from advanced graphics. As a result, in both low and high resolutions we hit a certain "ceiling" and the differences between the processors are calculated in very scanty values, which in case of instability of the built-in benchmark itself can often be attributed to measurement errors. True, this does not interfere with the resolution of 1024x768 at medium settings, the Core i5-750 quite confidently take the place of the leader, but at higher settings it is already slightly inferior to the Phenom II X4 955. But in the same mode (at a resolution of 1280x1024) with overclocking, when the results of all processors, it would seem, ran into the boundary value of 56 frames and higher, the video card is no longer "letting in", the Core i5 suddenly demonstrated a higher result (by almost 1 frame). And this is clearly beyond the margin of error, and once again demonstrates the powerful potential of Lynnfield.
Armed assault 2
We have already noted the low results of AMD processors in this test application in a recent article. As a reminder, we are using a pre-release demo version of the game, which is equipped with its own gaming test. It is possible that in the full version of the game, overgrown with a huge number of patches, the performance of the Phenom II has increased significantly.
The object of our review, Intel Core i5-750, is quite expectedly the leader, but the Core 2 Quad Q9550 is literally a few percent behind it. With overclocking, the Core i5 at 4.07 GHz bypasses the Core 2 Quad Q9550 at 3.96 GHz by a more significant 10%.
Cryostasis: Sleep of Reason (Anabiosis)
In this poorly optimized for multi-core processors, the Core i5-750 application can bypass the older Core 2 Quad Q9505 and Core 2 Quad Q9550 only when Turbo Boost is activated. With overclocking, Lynnfield's most significant advantage is in the minimum fps (which is more relevant for this benchmark with NVIDIA PhysX software processing), and in terms of average fps, the overclocked older Core 2 Quad is on par with it.
conclusions
It's time to summarize some of the results of our testing. The Intel Core i5-750 we reviewed turned out to be out of competition against the background of other processors of the previous generation and against the background of AMD solutions. In almost all applications, it showed a level of performance higher than the Core 2 Quad Q9550 operating at the higher frequency, sometimes even without Turbo Boost activated. The very same benefit from this technology of auto-overclocking of different cores brings on average an increase of no more than 5%, although in rare single-threaded tasks (for example, in the SuperPi test) it can reach all 15%.
The junior Lynnfield has the most significant advantage in gaming tests, but it must be admitted that in a number of applications the situation is ambiguous. With a significant advantage over all other CPUs at low settings, the Core i5-750 could be slightly inferior to them with high-quality graphics at a higher resolution. This was most clearly manifested in FarCry 2, when at a resolution of 1024x768 Lynnfield's gap from its closest competitors was almost 17-20%. But at the same time, at 1280x1024 and rendering in DirectX 10, these same competitors demonstrate the result 15% higher. In similar applications, overclocking the CPU itself brings minimal benefit, and activating Turbo Boost has almost no effect on the result. The mechanism of such a decrease in performance is not entirely clear, we can only state that the Core i5-750 is not always good at high resolutions and at high graphics settings. But this does not diminish the advantages of this processor. Maybe it is somewhere inferior to competitors in certain conditions, but in most games it demonstrates performance that is unattainable for them, often at the same frequency, the superiority over its predecessors on the Yorkfield core (with a maximum of 12 MB L2 cache for them) reaches 30 % and more! It is also significant that the junior Yorkfield with 4 MB of cache in a number of applications reaches a comparable level of performance only with overclocking to 3.5 GHz. But the Core i5-750 is also the youngest representative of its family. Progress, as they say, is evident.
However, the older Core 2 Quad against the background of the Core i5-750 in low resolutions are also not impressive, but thanks to overclocking to 4 GHz they are even more or less comparable to a newcomer in some gaming applications. As for the overclocking of the object of our article, its frequency potential has grown a little relative to its predecessors. The 4.07 GHz we received does not seem to differ much from the 4 GHz in the Core 2 Quad Q 9505 or 3.96 GHz in the Core 2 Quad Q 9550, but further Lynnfield overclocking was limited mainly due to the insufficient performance of the Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme cooler ... If we take into account that we used a powerful fan at maximum speed, then when working in quiet modes with air cooling systems in everyday use, the frequency limit for all these processors will be approximately the same. But users of CBO can well count on the great results of overclocking the Core i5-750.
Due to Intel's pricing policy aimed at promoting new products, there is no sense in buying an older Core 2 Quad Q9550 now, because a Core i5-750 on the local market will cost you at least $ 65 cheaper with higher performance. And the Core 2 Quad Q9500 or Core 2 Quad Q9505 are also not particularly attractive in terms of price. This situation makes many Core 2 Duo users, instead of upgrading to Core 2 Quad, think about a complete platform change. And the Core i5-750 in this case will be the perfect choice, because at its performance level, this is the best processor for $ 200-220.
AMD processors against the background of the Core i5-750 generally look depressing, especially in gaming applications. In particular, the Phenom II X4 955, with a frequency difference of about 500 MHz in games, is almost always inferior to the younger Lynnfield. At the moment, it is simply impossible to consider AM3 processors as a basis for a promising gaming platform, and this is sad. It can be countered that the cost of AMD products is lower and for the price of Intel's solution, you can take the top-end Phenom II X4 965 with a frequency of 3.4 GHz. But will these additional 200 MHz help, if 500 MHz did not really help the Phenom II X4 955? .. I would like to see more worthy and competitive solutions from AMD, which could withstand not only the previous generation Intel processors, but also newer models. Let's hope that the upcoming Phenom II X6 will live up to our expectations.
Test equipment was provided by the following companies:
- AMD - AMD Phenom II X4 940 and Phenom II X4 955 processors;
- MSI - AMD Phenom II X4 810 processor, MSI 790XT-G45 and 790FX-GD70 boards;
- SerOl - Point of View GF9800GTX 512MB GDDR3 EXO video card;
- Spetsvuzavtomatika - Kingston KHX1600C9D3K2 / 4G memory;
- - WD3200AAKS hard drive.
DCLink - Intel Core i5-750, Core 2 Quad Q9550, Core 2 Quad Q9505, Core 2 Quad Q8300 processors, Gigabyte GA-P55M-UD2 board and Team TXD34096M2000HC9DC-L memory;
In 2009, the American microprocessor manufacturer Intel presented a new line of crystals based on the modern Lynnfield architecture. The cheapest processor from this line was the Core i5 750, whose specifications were almost identical to last year's line. Nevertheless, these crystals are very popular among users and can solve many modern problems.
Market positioning and price range
Engineers from the innovative technology development section, when developing the processor socket, LGA 1156 divided the die market into several categories:
- Processors of the Celeron and Penrium series. The former were designed to build budget system units ideal for office tasks, while the latter had a higher level of performance sufficient to run some modern computer games with low graphical interface settings. The main difference between both representatives was in the amount of cache memory and clock frequency, due to which higher performance is achieved;
- CPUs of the Core i3 and i5 families, to which the model of the crystal considered in our today's article belongs. These processors are designed for advanced users in need of increased performance. Low-end models have only two physical cores, however, thanks to the hyper-threading technology capable of processing program code in four threads, these solutions are in no way inferior to similar AMD processors with 4 cores. CPU models of the Core i5 line are more powerful due to full four cores, increased cache, as well as proprietary TurboBoost technology, which provides tremendous performance gains when performing more complex tasks.
- Crystals Core i7 are the ideal solution for enthusiasts and professionals who, due to the specifics of their activities, need powerful productive desktop computers. These processor models have four physical cores and HyperThreading technology, thanks to which the crystal is capable of operating in eight-threaded mode. In addition, this line of microprocessors has increased cache memory and increased clock speed.
Despite the fact that the CPU Core i5 750 is a representative of the mid-price range, in terms of its hardware characteristics and level of performance, it may well compete with some of its older brothers. The thing is that most modern programs and computer games are designed to work with quad-core processors, so there is no tangible difference in the process of performing various tasks between our today's hero and the flagship crystal lines.
Factory complete set
There are two options for the delivery of this processor to consumers: Tray and Box. The first option is cheaper and, in addition to the microprocessor itself, the consumer receives a FGT, an Intel branded sticker that can be glued to the system unit, and an instruction manual. The Trey package is designed primarily for more advanced users who assemble a powerful system unit on their own and want to install a more efficient cooling system for their CPU. The boxed version, which among ordinary people is called boxed, in addition to all of the above, contains Intel's proprietary cooling fan and thermal paste to provide better thermal conductivity between the crystal and the cooling heatsink.
The CPU Core i5 750 is designed to work with all motherboards based on the LGA1156 socket. The peculiarity of this connector is that it assumes operation on a single chip. At the time the processor went on sale, Socket LGA1156 allowed assembling completely different system units: from budget and simple machines to powerful gaming computers. This processor socket was popular until 2011, after which it was gradually superseded by the more modern LGA1155. Nevertheless, many users today continue to use processors and motherboards with socket 1156 due to the fact that their performance is sufficient to this day to solve a large number of tasks.
Technological process
Considering the fact that the CPU Core i5 750 hit store shelves in 2009, it is clear that it was manufactured using a forty-five nanometer manufacturing process, which was one of the most modern at the time. This technology made it possible to create reliable and efficient processors with no problems. Later, engineers at Intel developed a thirty-two nanometer manufacturing process that allowed the creation of thinner crystal plates.
Architecture
As mentioned at the beginning of this article, the Core i5 750 CPU is based on four physical cores. At the same time, this model does not support HyperThreading technology, as a result of which the processor operates in four-threaded mode. Nevertheless, this did not stop the crystal from coping with the most difficult tasks and working with all modern software. Therefore, if we compare it with representatives of the older generation of Core i7 crystals, then the difference in the speed of task execution will be imperceptible.
Cache memory
Like any other modern processor, the Core i5 750 has a three-level cache memory, which has the following hardware characteristics:
- The cache memory of the first level consists of four clusters, each of which is equal to 64 KB, working with one computational module;
- The cache memory of the second level is arranged in the same way, however, the size of each block is 256 kilobytes;
- The cache of the third level is used by all computational modules of the processor, and the size of each cluster is 2 megabytes.
RAM compatibility
One of the key features of Socket 1156 is that the engineers have completely redesigned RAM memory compatibility. Among the main changes is the transfer of the north bridge, which is responsible for supplying power to the crystal, and the RAM controller to the CPU, thanks to which the engineers managed to significantly increase the speed of the RAM memory. With regard to compatibility with RAM modules, the Core i5 750 supports work with third-generation DDR memory strips and a bandwidth of 1066 MB. It should be noted that installing a more expensive RAM memory that supports a higher frequency does not give any increase in the speed of information exchange between the RAM and the microprocessor.
Thermal package and operating temperature
The thermal package of the microprocessor considered in our today's article is 95 watts. Thus, the maximum crystal temperature when performing complex operations does not exceed 72 degrees. The temperature in normal operation is around 45 degrees, and after overclocking it rises to 55 degrees. However, this is all about the official information provided by the manufacturer, but how does this crystal behave in practice? Under maximum load, it is possible to bring the processor to the maximum temperature only if the cooling cooler fails, or when an overclocked CPU with resource-intensive applications is running on a weak cooling system.
Clock frequency
The maximum frequency of the Core i5 750 is 2.7 GHz, which is not used when performing everyday tasks. The crystal supports the innovative TurboBoost technology, which automatically adjusts the clock speed of each core at the software level depending on the complexity of the operations being performed. With the simultaneous operation of four cores in a four-threaded mode, the peak value of the clock frequency is 2.8 GHz, and when performing tasks in 2 threads, this figure increased to 2.93 GHz. But when only one computing unit was operating, the operating frequency could increase to 3.2 gigahertz. In addition, the manufacturer supplies the crystal to stores with an unlocked multiplier, so anyone can overclock the CPU and get a thirty percent increase in performance.
Retail value and consumer reviews
The purchase of a CPU Core i5 750 will cost users approximately $ 213, which is quite acceptable, since in 2009 it was possible to assemble a powerful gaming machine on the basis of this crystal. Moreover, even today this CPU has not lost its relevance and perfectly copes with any tasks. Some problems may arise when launching the latest computer games with maximum settings for graphic effects, but at minimum settings this kid provides a very comfortable gameplay.
Conclusion
The CPU Core i5 750 from Intel Corporation became a real masterpiece of high technology in 2009, the demand for which remains to this day. This crystal will be an excellent solution for the majority of average users who do not distinguish between work and leisure, and use their computer both for office tasks and to enjoy their favorite toys. The main advantages of this model are low cost, excellent performance and low power consumption.
