Author Topic: Lynnfield finally launches (Read 2365 times)

kureshii · « **on:** September 08, 2009, 12:52:44 PM »

So, despite the pre-official leaks and quiet whisperings, Lynnfield finally launches today, to the anticipation of many hardware enthusiasts.

To sum up the reviews, Lynnfield is most probably the new mainstream gamer processor, as well as overall multi-threaded worker. Also, sets a few new numbers, such as the lowest idling power for a performance-oriented chipset, and very possibly breaks some records in processing-power-per-watt as well.

But don't mark my words, read the reviews yourself.

(links shamelessly gathered from Engadget and my usual RSS feeds)
HotHardware
PC Perspective
Tech Report
Tom's Hardware
Anandtech

Some noteworthy images:
Chipset diagram
No more Northbridge!
Amazing encoding performance
The future of processor power management (numbers are including GTX280 video card)

Newegg links:
i5-750
i7-860
i7-870

Why you should care:
1) Lynnfield i5 gives the AMD Phenom II X4 965 a really good run for the money.
2) Havendales with integrated graphics follow next year, this is a sneak peek at the kind of performance you can expect from the new generation of quad-cores.
3) Turbo mode is even better than on Bloomfield i7s, so you can expect great performance even on single and dual-threaded applications. No more nerfed single-threaded performance.
4) It turns out that dual-channel DDR3 doesn't actually nerf Lynnfield significantly, it also benefits from some of the lowest memory latency numbers ever (thanks to a higher-clocked uncore and memory controller).

The not-so-good:
1) Integrated PCIe controller makes overclocking tricky.
2) Does not scale well in multi-GPU setups with more than 2 GPUs, so hardcore gamers looking for quad-SLI should stick with socket 1366 and X58.

----------

I'm still hoping hard that AMD fights back with something good. Intel's been improving at a tremendous rate since their embarrassing Prescott days, and this really shows in their power consumption numbers. AMD, on the other hand, has been rather stagnant on the R&D front. At this rate, AMD's going to have to drop the prices on their already-cheap processors even lower (yay for us!), but I fear Intel will soon gain market monopoly on the higher-end range without any decent competition (uhuu). I like good performance from processors, but I like low prices as well, and the lack of a comparable high-end competitor is cause for worry.

To quote some quick prices from Newegg:
AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE retails at $249.
A DDR3 AMD 790GX board retails at no less than $115.

i5-750 retails at $210, i7-860 retails at $300.
A basic P55 motherboard can be had for as low as $105.

The AMD build above is advantaged by integrated graphics, but assuming we are all people who love our high-end systems with video cards, I'm afraid a Lynnfield build is simply better value for money. (Drop those prices quickly, AMD, and prepare a good comeback!)

So, comments? Don't want Lynnfield? Glad you bought that i7? Glad you didn't? Buying now? Buying later? Want Intel's babies? Will still only go AMD? Your replies please.

relic2279 · « **Reply #1 on:** September 08, 2009, 01:25:49 PM »

Hmm. I wonder if it's possible to enable the hyper threading on the i5 750.

Quote

Keeping Hyper Threading off of the Core i5 is purely done to limit performance. There aren't any yield reasons why HT couldn't be enabled.

kureshii · « **Reply #2 on:** September 08, 2009, 01:34:12 PM »

I've been wondering about that too. Just like it was discovered that the fourth core on the Phenom II X3 could potentially be unlocked, I don't see much reason for Intel to remove the circuitry required for HT just for the i5 series, especially since it shares so much in common with the Lynnfield i7. I believe it is most likely just BIOS-disabled, and perhaps there might be a workaround to enable it on certain steppings. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

Drew · « **Reply #3 on:** September 08, 2009, 08:16:33 PM »

Just bought one of these. Can't wait for it to get here.

Arveene · « **Reply #4 on:** September 08, 2009, 08:39:48 PM »

So after looking at the benchmarks and headdesking repeatedly for about a day straight I've realized something. 5 months would have been a long wait for me, and I can at least look forward to Gulftown and beyond. It'll be interesting to see how each line evolves for 1156 and 1366.

Luckily for me SLI + being able to overclock easily are pluses for me. So after stepping away from the benchmarks and looking at my situation, the 1366 i7 was a better choice for me.

As for AMD, they don't stand a chance. Unless they have something really big up their sleeve, they can't compete. Intel is unloading their 45nm stuff because of the switch to 32nm next year. Sure, the Phenom II x4 965 is nice and all, but against the new Lynnfields I'm not really sure it can compete very well at it's current price. It'll need at least a price drop.

Drew · « **Reply #5 on:** September 09, 2009, 01:51:08 AM »

I was considering waiting, but I mean, look at those benchmarks. So awesome.

fohfoh · « **Reply #6 on:** September 09, 2009, 02:05:08 AM »

AMD seems to be quite silent thus far. I swear they have something weird up their sleeve so far. Even if they go out, they're going to go out with a bang.

bloody000 · « **Reply #7 on:** September 09, 2009, 02:13:47 AM »

Quote from: fohfoh on September 09, 2009, 02:05:08 AM

AMD seems to be quite silent thus far. I swear they have something weird up their sleeve so far. Even if they go out, they're going to go out with a bang.

They are busy making dual-chip 12-core server processors(which I don't give a fuck about).

kureshii · « **Reply #8 on:** September 09, 2009, 05:35:47 AM »

Quote from: Arveene on September 08, 2009, 08:39:48 PM

So after looking at the benchmarks and headdesking repeatedly for about a day straight I've realized something. 5 months would have been a long wait for me, and I can at least look forward to Gulftown and beyond. It'll be interesting to see how each line evolves for 1156 and 1366.

Luckily for me SLI + being able to overclock easily are pluses for me. So after stepping away from the benchmarks and looking at my situation, the 1366 i7 was a better choice for me.

As for AMD, they don't stand a chance. Unless they have something really big up their sleeve, they can't compete. Intel is unloading their 45nm stuff because of the switch to 32nm next year. Sure, the Phenom II x4 965 is nice and all, but against the new Lynnfields I'm not really sure it can compete very well at it's current price. It'll need at least a price drop.

LOL, I doubt 16 lanes of PCI-e will ever be enough for you

kyanwan · « **Reply #9 on:** September 10, 2009, 04:37:09 AM »

I have a major problem with your post. I'll place my correction below:

Quote from: kureshii on September 08, 2009, 12:52:44 PM

I'm still hoping hard that AMD fights back with something good. Intel's been improving at a tremendous rate since their embarrassing Prescott days, and this really shows in their power consumption numbers. AMD, on the other hand, has been ~~rather stagnant~~ completely and totally dead on the R&D front. At this rate, AMD's going to have to drop the prices on their already-cheap processors even lower (yay for us!), but I fear Intel will soon gain market monopoly on the higher-end range without any decent competition (uhuu). I like good performance from processors, but I like low prices as well, and the lack of a comparable high-end competitor is cause for worry.

If AMD keeps dropping the ball like this - or should I say, running the other way when the ball is thrown in their corner ...

We're going to have a mid-90s style CPU market - where you got Intel, or nothing. It sucked. Intel will start setting the price to whatever they damn well please - if you don't like it - well, hah, there's the competition there for you. AH HA! Exactly - what competition? Here's your Intel.

Drew · « **Reply #10 on:** September 10, 2009, 07:28:57 AM »

Intel has, to their credit, kept prices extremely low for what has essentially been a one-horse race for the past three years. This most recent prop shows the same trend. I don't think they're stupid enough to risk the PR nightmare that is price fixing.

Sosseres · « **Reply #11 on:** September 10, 2009, 10:03:32 AM »

They can't risk that PR nightmare while AMD is still hanging in there, a bit, most people don't need/want this processor until it is second/third generation. As soon as AMD is out of the picture they have no competition and as long as a decent PR image is retained it is all fine.

kureshii · « **Reply #12 on:** September 10, 2009, 10:28:17 AM »

Quote from: Drew on September 10, 2009, 07:28:57 AM

Intel has, to their credit, kept prices extremely low for what has essentially been a one-horse race for the past three years. This most recent prop shows the same trend. I don't think they're stupid enough to risk the PR nightmare that is price fixing.

Intel might already be overpricing, but not in noticeable ways.

The i5s/i7s are only part of the Lynnfield equation. The P55 chipset is the other half. Guess how much it costs?

For those too lazy to click, let's quote some numbers:
P45 chipset: $40
ICH10R: $3
P55 chipset: $40

Prices look ok to you? If you're thinking "hmm, so we save $3 by moving to a new chipset", you're forgetting that the Lynnfield CPU is now both CPU and northbridge, and P55 is really only a tweaked ICH10R (or as some call it, ICH10.xR).

I don't know much about the semiconductor industry and commodity motherboard market, but $40 for a southbridge sounds outrageous to me.

The only justification I can think of for Intel doing this is to not cannibalise their Core 2 product line too quickly. It's hard to make definite statements without knowing what prices for AMD and Nvidia chipsets are like, but I sure hope Intel drops prices on the P55 when they're done dumping the Core 2 product line.

Thus far it seems like they think their better chip performance justifies their premium margin, if this keeps up, I won't be surprised to see an Intel monopoly again. Right now AMD is barely hanging in there with their Black Edition Phenom II X4s.

Arveene · « **Reply #13 on:** September 14, 2009, 01:42:15 AM »

Here's some interesting updates. Waiting for a full article to make any conclusion. Like I saw in some of the comments, it'd be interesting to see what temps / power usage is at on the 3.8 OC'ed Lynnfields compared to the 3.8 Bloomfields.

Natheria · « **Reply #14 on:** September 14, 2009, 02:05:01 AM »

From what Ive heard the stock fan on the Lynnfields are really crappy, not that you would probably want to OC to 3.8 with a stock fan anyway.

kureshii · « **Reply #15 on:** September 14, 2009, 02:45:47 AM »

Well, have you heard of any great stock fans before? xD

Drew · « **Reply #16 on:** September 14, 2009, 04:51:17 AM »

If you're buying a new CPU within a month of its launch, chances are you're an enthusiast and you'll be buying some sort of third-party cooling apparatus as well.

kureshii · « **Reply #17 on:** October 15, 2009, 04:50:49 AM »

Followup: http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3661

It seems there are some issues with pin contact between the processor and socket. It won’t affect most people, just the extreme overclockers. Also interesting to note:

Quote

a quick glance at Intel’s white papers for socket 1156 CPU’s reveals that there are around 175 pads for VCC compared to over 250 for socket 1366 CPU’s. This means socket 1156 has around 66% of the current capacity of socket 1366, the caveat being that when overclocked, processors from both platforms draw similar levels of current.
[...] The facts point toward tighter current handling tolerances for socket 1156 when compared to socket 1366, especially when it comes to non-connection of VCC/VSS power delivery pins.

Lesson: If you plan to try heavy overclocking, go for a socket-1366/i7-9XX setup rather than Lynnfield.

Do read the article before replying; it covers some things that I conveniently left out while trotting this out during a short lunch break.

tyrionlannister · « **Reply #18 on:** October 15, 2009, 09:13:05 AM »

What would be a good price/quality motherboard for an i5 for up to $200 ? I'm not interested in SLI or Crossfire , just decent build quality and light overclocking, up to 3GHz. Also, do you think a after-market cooler is needed for this kind of overclock, and if so, could you recommend one?

K7IA · « **Reply #19 on:** October 15, 2009, 09:18:54 AM »

This is a serious design fault on Intel's part imo. The previous design allowed pins to be compressed from both sides (left-right) which allowed better (and may be more) contact surface and a good tolarance for grabbing cpu pins, just like in a conventional 220V power socket.

This was is a conductance design disaster

. I mean you don't have to overclock it to burn your cpu, due to dust, humidity the resistance will increase between the couplings, resulting in a poor electric transmission.

Quote

We draw your attention to the fact that the processor shown in this pictures exhibits signs of insufficient pin-to-pad contact (little to no contact) in what is a rather reproducible pattern with Foxconn manufactured 1156 sockets

yay!

But it has not moving parts, as far as I can see which means lower production costs and might allow lower design profile.

Quote

At first glance, one might be inclined to think LGA-1156 based processors are intolerant of high-end overclocking, almost as if by design.

What makes us think that Intel will not use this for future designs?

I am not an overclock enthusiasts, but I must say, I see the LGA-1156 pin-pad design now, any electronics guy can realize that there will be a problem once the cpu starts acquiring more current.

ps. it says the CPU uses the 12V line

[edit] the overclocking dudes could use a thin plastic sheet, put in between the socket and the cpu to test the degree of contact between them before attempting to overclock.