Intel Core i5 750 Processor Review

8/14/2019 Intel Core i5 750 Processor Review

1/23

1 | P a g e

Intel Core i5 750 Processor Review

By Steven Walton on September 7, 2009

Editor: Julio Franco

Manufacturer: Intel

Read user comments

Find CPU prices

Bookmark / Share this

It has been 10 months now since Intel unleashed its Nehalem architecture and we showed you the

Core i7 920, 940 and 965 Extreme Edition. Not much has changed in the high-end sector during this

timeframe, as Core i7 processors are still brutally fast and equally expensive.

The most affordable option debuted as the Core i7 920 at $280 and that is exactly how much it costs

today. The Core i7 940 has been replaced by the 950, offering a small performance bump and the

same ~$570 charge, while the flagship Core i7 965 Extreme Edition was superseded by the even

more potent 975 Extreme Edition in the $1,000 price point.

Although the processor front has remained much the same, there is now a serious range of X58

motherboards on offer with more than fifty products available from half a dozen manufacturers. If

you know where to look, it is possible to purchase one of these for as little as $170, with the more

luxurious models costing upwards of $400.

Another big change has come with the decrease of DDR3 memory pricing. When we tested the Core

i7 processors last November, a triple-channel 6GB kit would set you back at least $250, today you

have to spend no more than $100. This means you can get yourself a Core i7 920 with motherboard

and memory for under $600 today. And while this may sound like a killer deal to some, not everyone

needs the processing power of Intel's enthusiast-grade platform or is willing to pony up the money

for it.

The Core i5 750 is the first release in a series of processors based on a mainstream version of the

Core i7 platform. It is a quad-core part based on the "Lynnfield" architecture, fabricated using a

45nm process and will use a new LGA1156 platform. This new chip is set to cost just $199, it will


2/23

2 | P a g e

operate at a healthy 2.66GHz and feature a whopping 8MB L3 cache, but no Hyper-Threading

support will be present.

When we first heard about the upcoming release of a mainstream version of the Core i7 we were

excited about the idea except for Intel's decision of using multiple platforms. That said, the new

LGA1156 socket will support a number of new Intel processors, including the Core i3 and Core i5

series. There will also be a range of Core i7 processors designed for the aforementioned socket.

In order to cut the cost of this processor and the LGA1156 platform, Intel has removed one of the

memory controllers and replaced the high bandwidth QPI link with the slower DMI chip-to-chip

interconnect.

In the next few pages we will go into more detail about Intel's reworked desktop CPU line-up, the

new P55 chipset (LGA1156), and our usual load of benchmarks comparing this new processor against

current Core 2 Quad offerings, the Core i7 920 and the AMD Athlon II X4 965.


3/23

3 | P a g e

Working out Intels Desktop Line-up

Starting with the more obvious, the Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad parts will eventually die out,

putting an end to the beloved LGA775 platform. That is where the Core i3 and Core i5 come in to

replace them, while the Pentium, Celeron and Atom brands will remain in existence.

The new Core family will consist of the Core i7, Core i5 and Core i3 brands.

On the upper-end of the spectrum, the Core i7 will have 9xx and 8xx processors. The Core i7 9xx

series corresponds to the Bloomfield 45nm processors we are all familiar with, which will remain

exclusive to the LGA1366 socket. Then the new Core i7 8xx series (Lynnfield 45nm) will feature the

870 as its top processor with a clock speed of 2.93GHz and will make use of the brand new LGA1156

socket.

This new Core i7 870 and the Core i7 860 are also being released today ($555 and $285,

respectively), we should have a full performance/value review on them shortly.

The new Core i5 range (Lynnfield 45nm) is debuting today with the very Core i5 750 processor we

are reviewing right now. Early next year you can expect the launch of the Core i5 6xx series(Clarkdale 32nm) with the flagship Core i5 670 model working at 3.46GHz. The key difference

between 6xx and 7xx series is that the former will carry half the L3 cache. There will be another

significant difference, but we will not talk about that now.

Finally, the Core i3 5xx series (Clarkdale 32nm) will not be released until early 2010, next to the Core

i5 6xx. The key difference between these two is that the Core i3 processors will not feature the

Turbo mode.

The Core i5 and Core i3 processors will be limited to 2 - 4 cores with just 4 threads, while Core i7

processors can feature 4 cores with 8 threads, due to their ability to support Hyper-Threading

technology.


4/23

4 | P a g e

What is Different about LGA1156?

There are a few things to notice when comparing LGA1366 motherboards to the new LGA1156

boards. Besides the evidently different socket, LGA1156 motherboards appear to have no chipset,

which is highly unusual. There is no large north bridge chip and instead the boards appear to only

have a south bridge chip.

As you are probably aware, the original Core i7 processors feature a on-die memory controller, a

first for Intel. This meant that the expensive Intel X58 chipset didn't do much compared to previousgeneration chipsets. With the ICH10 south bridge chip taking care of all the I/O stuff (USB, SATA,

Ethernet, etc.) the X58 north bridge chip managed the PCI Express hub and that was almost about it.

Despite of this, the X58 remains to this day Intels most expensive desktop chipset, costing more

than the P45 and X48, which are considerably more complex. So as you can see, it has been Intels

intention to have users pay a premium for this platform.

Now, in order to cut the cost of Core i5 processors and the LGA1156 platform, Intel has removed one

of the memory controllers and replaced the high bandwidth QPI link with the slower DMI chip-to-

chip interconnect. The QPI link, which is used to connect the X58 north bridge to the processor,features an impressive bandwidth of 25.6GB/s, whereas the DMI interconnect features just 2-4GB/s

of bandwidth.

This would be a problem for PCI Express graphics cards, which require loads of bandwidth, so Intel

has come up with a solution. Rather than seriously limiting graphics performance, they have

integrated 16 PCI Express 2.0 lanes directly onto the die of the new Lynnfield, a.k.a. Core i5

processors.

That's why the LGA1156 platform only features two chips, the CPU itself and what Intel is calling a

PCH (Platform Controller Hub), which you will know as the P55 chipset.

For PC gamers paying close attention, there are just 16 PCI Express 2.0 lanes integrated onto the CPU

die, meaning that Crossfire or SLI must use a dual x8 configuration. For other devices, such as

Ethernet, that also require the PCI Express bus, they will be connected to the PCH (the new P55


5/23

5 | P a g e

chipset). In theory, single graphics card performance on the LGA1156 platform will not suffer,

whereas dual and triple card configurations will.


6/23

6 | P a g e

Test System Specs

Four different systems using five processors were used to test against the Intel Core i5 750. In

addition we ran all benchmarks with the new Core i5 750 overclocked to 4.13GHz which was the

best stable overclock we reached during our evaluation tests for this article.

Core i7 Test System Specs

- Intel Core i7 960 (LGA1366)


- x3 Kingston HyperX 2GB DDR3-1333 (CAS 8-8-8-24)

- Asus P6T Deluxe (Intel X58)

- OCZ GameXStream (700 watt)

- Seagate 500GB 7200-RPM (Serial ATA300)

- Asus GeForce GTX 285 (1GB)

Software

- Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate (64-bit)

- Nvidia Forceware 190.38

Core 2 Test System Specs

- Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 (LGA775)


- Asus Rampage Extreme (Intel X48)

- OCZ GameXStream (700 watt)

- Seagate 500GB 7200-RPM (Serial ATA300)


Software



Core i5 Test System Specs



- Asus P7P55D Deluxe (Intel P55)

- OCZ GameXStream (700 watt)- Seagate 500GB 7200-RPM (Serial ATA300)


Software



Phenom Test System Specs

- AMD Phenom II X4 965 (AM3)


- Asus M3A79-T Deluxe (AMD 790FX)

- OCZ GameXStream (700 watt)- Seagate 500GB 7200-RPM (Serial ATA300)


Software




7/23

7 | P a g e

Memory Bandwidth Performance

MaxxMem was used to measure the read and write performance of the Core i5 750 processor

which utilizes dual-channel DDR3-1333 memory. The Phenom II X4 965 and Core 2 Quad Q9650 also

use dual-channel DDR3-1333 memory, so it's interesting to note that the Core i5 produces a far

superior memory bandwidth.

In fact, the Core i5 750 was only slightly slower than the Core i7 920 processor, with a read

throughput of 11641MB/s and a write speed of 9493MB/s.


8/23

8 | P a g e

Next we are looking at latency using MaxxMem and the time it took to benchmark each

configuration. Note that these numbers are based on the average of half a dozen test runs. The Intel

Core i5 750 is situated right between the Core i7 920 and Phenom II X4 965 processors with a latency

of 62.3 nanoseconds, which allowed for a completion time of just 13.1 seconds.


9/23

9 | P a g e

EVEREST Ultimate Edition was also used to measure the memory read and write performance. The

picture is the same as before, with the Core i5 showing an obvious advantage over Core 2 Quad and

Phenom II X4, while falling behind the Core i7 920.


10/23

10 | P a g e

Synthetic Application Performance

MaxxPI was used to measure both single and multi-thread processor performance. The Core i5 750

fairs well in this test, just a second behind the Core i7 920 for the multi-thread test, though in

relative terms that translates to a 9% performance decrease. The Core i5 750 was also slower than

the Phenom II X4 965.


11/23

11 | P a g e

These results relate directly to those above. This time we are looking at the performance measured

in kilobytes per second. The overclocked Intel Core i5 750 configuration at 4.13GHz achieved a

throughput of 983.2k/sec, whereas the standard 2.66GHz version managed 668.1k/sec.


12/23

12 | P a g e

Using the WinRAR benchmark we see that the Intel Core i5 750 is again only slightly slower than the

Intel Core i7 920. The Core i5 750 produced a multi-thread result of 3010KB/s, making it 8% slower

than the Core i7 920, while it was 25% faster than the Phenom II X4 965, and 57% faster than the

Core 2 Quad Q9650.


13/23

13 | P a g e

Application Performance

Using Excel 2007 we can measure the performance of each processor using a highly complex

spreadsheet. The AMD Phenom II X4 965 fairs very well in this particular test, beating even the Intel

Core i7 960, which is impressive. Although the Intel Core i5 750 was not quite as imposing, it

managed to match the Core i7 920 rather well.


14/23

14 | P a g e

The above results are based on custom WinRAR compression tests. There are two tests, one that

uses 874 individual files that add up to 3GB, and another using a single large 12GB audio/video file.

Here we see the Intel Core i5 750 processor easily outperforming the Phenom II X4 965 and Core 2

Quad Q9650 processors.

The Core i5 750 was able to compress the 12GB file 33% faster than the Phenom II X4 965 and 37%

faster than the Core 2 Quad Q9650. Meanwhile it was just 6 seconds slower than the Core i7 920, or

under a one percent difference.


15/23

15 | P a g e

Using a high resolution image we measure the time it takes for each processor to apply two

Photoshop filters, the smart blur and extrude filters to be precise.

Again the AMD Phenom II X4 965 manages to impress, particularly when applying the smart blur

filter. The Core i5 750 also fares well, taking 6 seconds longer to apply the smart blur filter, and just

as fast when applying the more time consuming extrude filter.


16/23

16 | P a g e

Synthetic 3D Performance

FurMark shows that all the tested processors are able to max out the GeForce GTX 285 graphics card

at 1024x768. The minimum frame rate, which is more dependent on the CPU, shows the Core i5 750

delivering average performance as it was slower than both the Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Phenom II X4

965 by quite a margin.

This could be due in part to the Core i5 750 being the slowest clocked processor tested, as the Core

i7 920 also suffered from the same lackluster performance.


17/23

17 | P a g e

The Unigine Engine tests are clearly GPU oriented, as the processor makes little difference in the

Sanctuary and Tropics tests. For example, overclocking the Intel Core i5 750 processor from 2.66GHz

to 4.13GHz merely reflected on the Sanctuary test scores.


18/23

18 | P a g e

The SPECviewperf tests are more CPU dependent, and while the Core i5 750 was slightly slower

than the Core 2 Quad Q9650 for the 3dsMax test, it was significantly faster when testing with Maya.

In fact, the Core i5 750 was successively reported to be a little bit faster than the Core i7 920

processor in the Maya test.


19/23

19 | P a g e

Gaming Performance

Although the Unreal Tournament 3 results at 1920x1200 placed little difference between the

slowest and fastest processors tested, the 1024x768 results were more interesting to compare CPU

performance.

The Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 managed 225fps, the AMD Phenom II X4 965 fired off 263fps. Then the

Core i5 750 was able to average 268fps, making it slightly slower than the 273fps of the Core i7 920.


20/23

20 | P a g e

At 1024x768 the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 managed 183fps in Street Fighter IV which would sound

impressive if the Phenom II X4 965 wasn't scoring a whole lot better at 226fps. The Core i5 750 was

faster again with 236fps.

Heavily overclocking the Core i5 750 resulted in a mere 3 fps increase, so it would seem the standard

2.66GHz Core i5 750 configuration was nearing the limits of our GeForce GTX 285 graphics card.


21/23

21 | P a g e

Finally we have Far Cry 2, which we like to use as a gaming test platform because it is very

demanding on both the GPU and CPU. As a result, even the 1920x1200 results differ quite a bit from

processor to processor. When testing at this high resolution the Core 2 Quad Q9650 averaged 67fps,

while the AMD Phenom II X4 965 was a bit faster at 70fps. The Core i5 750 scored a single frame per

second better (71fps).


22/23

22 | P a g e

Power Consumption

The power consumption levels for the Core i5 750 processor and the new P55 chipset are very

impressive. At idle our Core i5 box consumed 106 watts, while increasing to 198 watts under load.

Compared to the equally clocked Core i7 920, the Core i5 750 is far less power hungry. Compared to

older platforms, the Core i5 750 used less power than even the Core 2 Quad Q9650 making it the

most efficient platform and processor by far in our tests.


23/23

The New Mainstream Performance KingWhen we first looked at the Core i7 almost a year ago there appeared to be little hope for AMD.

However, the Core i7 never quite reached the mainstream due to its expensive platform. This is

likely how Intel wanted things to be, keeping their powerhouse processors as a luxury series for

those willing to dish out top dollar.

This left AMD to battle the existing Core 2 series and to their credit, they soldiered on with the

Phenom II. But trouble is ahead for AMD with the release of the Core i5 750. As things stand today,the Phenom II X4 945 costs around $170, the 955 sells for $199, and the 965 $245.

The Core i5 750 is set to launch at $199 and as we anticipated in our review of the Phenom II X4 965,

a price cut is in order for AMD to remain competitive. Our benchmarks showed that the Core i5 750

is usually faster than AMD's flagship counterpart.

Even when adding the over-clocking factor into the equation, the Black Edition moniker won't suffice

for the Phenom II X4 965 to beat the new Core i5, as it doesn't hit 4GHz nearly as easily, and at that

frequency the Core i5 750 is incredibly fast.

Although we had limited time to play around with the new chip, we were instantly able to crack the

4GHz barrier using the Prolimatech Megahalems air-cooler as we reached an impressive 4.13GHz

stable overclock, a 36% increase in clock frequency.

This has to be one of the most successful overclocks we have ever had using air-cooling. It was also

made easy by the Asus P7P55D Deluxe motherboard we used for testing, which only required us to

change the base clock to 206MHz. The voltage was raised but the P7P55D Deluxe did this

automatically without our influence. At its default operating frequency of 2.66GHz, the Core i5 750

sucked down around 1.250v while at 4.13GHz it required 1.550v.

Outstanding product: Intel Core i5 750 Processor

As much as we hate this dual platform business, the LGA1156 platform appears to make a bit of

sense. Already Intel has a long list of new LGA1156 processors scheduled for release early next year.

This list includes the 32nm Clarkdale Core i5 processors that will have a thermal design power of just

73 watts, which is 23% less than that of the 45nm Lynnfield architecture (the most efficient in this

review). Also meant to use the same platform are the Core i3 series and lets not forget the Core i7

800 series. In other words, options will be aplenty in the LGA1156 space.

That leaves us with the step-up scenario in the case that you still prefer to buy a Core i7 900 series

processor (LGA1366) which remains the faster part. The value proposition will heavily depend onhow P55 motherboard pricing shapes up during the next few months as you can already buy X58

boards that go as low as $170. We expect a Core i5 750/P55 combo to save you roughly $200,

including memory (4GB vs. 6GB), which depending on your requirements could make LGA1156 the

smarter choice.

No matter which the case, the new Core i5 750 processor along with the P55 chipset is the perfect

replacement for the existing Core 2 Quad range, offering enhanced performance at a more

affordable price tag.

Documents

Intel Core i5 750 Processor Review