Intel i5-750, First Look

I now have my Intel i5-750 system up and running. This is the progress so far.

I have three very good processors to compare. I started with a three cored AMD X3 720 in my CoolerMaster Storm Sniper case with an Asus motherboard with AMD 785 chipset and 8 GB's of OCZ AMD gold edition memory (4 x 2 GB's). I never bothered changing to a third party cooler because the stock unit was adequate. I ran it with the integrated graphics which were not too bad but underpowered for games like Dawn of War. The thermal properties of this processor are good enough that I should be able to run it just fine in a small, tighter case with a moderate video card. I have handy a smaller case with neither front nor top fan (only the rear fan) and an HD 4650 video card. However, I do have an upgrade ready for the rear case fan if necessary. I'll probably end up running Linux on this system. The processor is rated at 95 watts TDP.

After the X3 720, I replaced the motherboard with an Asus board with AMD 79X chipset and 8 GB's of OCZ AMD Black Edition memory (4 x 2 GB's). The video was upgraded to an HD 5770 and the processor upgraded to Phenom II X4 965. This processor is the C3 stepping and is rated at 125 watts TDP. I also preferred a third party, Freezer 64 Pro cooler over the stock cooler. The stock cooler, in spite of the copper bottom and heat pipes, still blows hot air down on the board.

I have a second CoolerMaster case, a HAF 922. This has very similar front and top 200mm cooling fans with the same rear 120mm case fan. The box chasis is identical with the same drive bays in front. The power supply is a bit different. This system has a 700 watt CoolerMaster PS compared with the 850 watt Corsair PS in the Sniper case. However, neither power supply contributes to case heating or cooling because they both draw air from the case bottom and exhaust it out the back. My i5-750 is also rated at 95 watts TDP. I suppose the first question people might have is if it draws the same amount of power as the X3 720. No, it doesn't. Even at maxium overclock, the X3 720 barely throws any heat while the PII 965 throws a lot. The i5-750 is in between. It throws a great deal of heat at 3.4 Ghz, much more than the X3 720 does. If I were to make a rough estimate, I'd say the i5-750 must pull around 115 watts. This would put it a little closer to the PII 965 than the X3 720.

I've heard people say over and over that the Intel cooler is poor. It is actually quite a bit better than the stock X3 720 unit which has a smaller fan and no copper core. If the i5-750 really did draw as little power as the X3 720 then the heatsink would barely get warm. But this is not the case. Overclocked to even 3.4 Ghz, the heatsink blows hot air on the motherboard much more like my PII 965 than the X3 720. I'm sure there will be some skeptics who've read some whiz bang review somewhere that claims that is has accurately measured the CPU power draw at some incredibly low figure. Not a chance. The i5-750 undervolted to 1.12 volts still throws more heat at 3.4 Ghz than an X3 720 does at 1.325 volts and the same 3.4 Ghz. The X3 720 and i5-750 are absolutely not in the same thermal class.

So, Intel fudges the numbers? Yes. Does that bother me? No. Keep in mind that I'm not comparing the quad core i5-750 to the X3 720. That wouldn't make any sense because the X3 720 is much cheaper. No, I'm comparing the quad core, i5-750 to the similarly priced, quad core, Phenom II X4 965. The PII 965 is certainly not light on heat and, if the i5-750 can do the same amount of work, it doesn't have to be either. I have a very similar Freezer 7 Pro ready to install so I can at least stop the hot air blowing on the board. I'll add an update after I see how that works. You can see the pictures of the coolers below in my last article.

Note. I haven't switched to the Freezer 7 Pro cooler yet because I'm still trying to establish the baseline with the stock cooler. I have to admit that this is difficult for me. I didn't have any trouble pushing the X3 720 and PII 965 to their limits. And, when I knew what the limits were I accepted them. I ended up with 3.8 Ghz on the PII 965 and 3.4 Ghz on the X3 720. But, I tend to handle the i5-750 with kid gloves. It isn't easy being tough on i5 because doing thermal testing on an Intel Nehalem is like watching an eight year old trying to keep up with teenagers. Simply put, when I started holding the i5-750 to the same standards I used for my AMD processors, the i5 failed. So, I lowered the clock and tried again. I started at 3.6 Ghz then dropped to: 3.5, 3.4, 3.32, 3.154, and 3.078 Ghz without success. I was hoping it would pass at 2.988 Ghz but that just failed with an error. So, I'm trying again at 2.9 Ghz.

Seeking A New System

Finally, information is arriving on Phenom II (Shanghai) versus Penryn and i7 (Nehalem). It's time to start thinking about a new desktop.

Generally when I buy a new system I end up getting something 3X more powerful than my old system. However, the last time I bought a new computer I wanted a notebook so I ended up getting a desktop replacement system with a 2.0Ghz mobile Athlon 64 which is only about 67% faster than my old P4 1.8Ghz system. This has put me a little behind so I would really like something about 9X faster than the old P4 to catch up. This requirement would be met with a tri-core of 3.0Ghz or a quad of only 2.3Ghz. There are no X3's available at 3.0Ghz yet but both Intel and AMD easily fulfill the quad requirement. However, I was reminded of Anandtech's past views about processor value after some back and forth with Johan De Gelas.

AMD's dual core Opteron & Athlon 64 X2 - Server/Desktop Performance Preview

"The real problem is that AMD has nothing cheaper than $530 that is available in dual core, and this is where Intel wins out. With dual core Pentium D CPUs starting at $241, Intel will be able to bring extremely solid multitasking performance to much lower price points than AMD"

Athlon Dual Core: Overclocking the 4200+

"The pricing, however, was a little hard to swallow with the range from just over $500 for the lowest-priced 4200+ to around $1000 for the top-line . . .

With the 4400+ sporting 1MB cache on each core, and only a few dollars more than the 512KB 4200+, we would suspect the 4400+ may well be the Dual-Core to buy"

Affordable Dual Core from AMD: Athlon 64 X2 3800+:

"and today, AMD is launching it - the $354 Athlon 64 X2 3800+; the first somewhat affordable dual core CPU from AMD.

The cheapest dual core Pentium D processor could be had for under $300, yet AMD's cheapest started at $537. Intel was effectively moving the market to dual core, while AMD was only catering to the wealthiest budgets.

The Pentium D 820, running at 2.8GHz and priced at $280, offered the most impressive value that we've seen in a processor in quite some time"


Of course, Anandtech has been leaning towards Intel for so long, I doubt they even remember what they said back in 2005. I suppose this could be why Anandtech never complains about price with Intel's Nehalem or Q9650 as they did (over and over) with AMD's X2. So, a $500 pricetag is "catering to wealthiest budgets", $354 is only "somewhat affordable", $280 is "impressive value", and more L2 cache is better at $44 because this is "only a few dollars more". I suppose someone could argue that inflation has raised the price point since 2005 however this has been more than offset by the decrease in system prices. So, let's see what happens if we use Anandtech's past, vigorously defended (but now apparently forgotten) criteria with today's chips:

We immediately eliminate the Intel i7 940 at $565 and Q9650 at $550 plus anything higher. At first glance, i7 920 would seem to be okay at $295. However, by the time we allow for the extra money required for the more expensive X58 motherboard and DDR3 memory we are again back up to $500, so it gets eliminated as well. This leaves Q9550 and below. However, Anandtech also preferred the 4400+ because it had twice as much L2 cache as the 4200+. This would make it very difficult to choose the $250 2.66Ghz Q9400 with 6MB L2 over the faster $295 2.83Ghz Q9550 with 12MB L2. In fact, the difference in price is almost identical to the difference between the 4400+ and 4200+. And, if double the cache is good at $44 then presumably triple the cache would be equally good at $66. But with only 1/3rd the cache the Q8300 is only $57 cheaper so it gets eliminated too. For Intel this only leaves the $190 2.4Ghz Q6600 with 8MB L2 and the $180 2.33Ghz Q8200 with 4MB L2. So, we have a choice between the outdated B3 stepping Q6600 and the newer 45nm Q8200 with half as much cache.

1/20/2009: The prices changed since I wrote this so I'll amend my comments. The Intel 3.0Ghz Q9650 is now "somewhat affordable" at $350and therefore at the top of the midrange. It is not a great bargain since 20% more money only gets you 6% more performance. Or, at least it does as long as the code can run from the L2; Q9650 shares the same FSB bottleneck as Q9550. The price of Q9550 has hardly change and at $290 is just $5 cheaper than it was. The Q9400 still gets eliminated because of the $50 price difference and half the cache but we retain Q8300 at $205 because it is now $85 cheaper than Q9550.

The problem is that AMD had price drops as well cutting Phenom II by $40. This makes Q9550 less of a bargain since PII 940 is now $55 cheaper. This is enough for a nice upgrade on the video card and to be honest I'd rather have a PII 940 with an HD 4850 than a Q9550 with an HD 4830. The drop in price with PII 920 to just $195 now makes it quite a value and throws a big monkey wrench into Intel's prices. Q9400, Q8300, Q6600, and Q8200 are all now about $45 too expensive. A choice between a cache crippled 2.33Ghz Q8200 for $170 and a PII 920 at 2.8Ghz for just $25 more is a no brainer. On the other hand, a Toliman system would be $50 cheaper again allowing a nice video upgrade.

If I were looking for a stopgap system I might go with the Intel $190 Q6600 or $180 Q8200. The AMD Black Edition Phenoms for $150 these days are also a bargain as is the $119 2.4Ghz 8750 BE Toliman tri-core when matched up with a 750 southbridge. I would be comfortable with any of these chips on a bargain or stopgap system. However, since AMD tripled the L3 on with its newer chips we are again pushed towards the $235 Phenom II X4 920 at 2.8Ghz or the $275 Phenom II X4 940 BE at 3.0Ghz for a midrange system.

I don't usually bother overclocking but this is a pretty simple operation if you match a 750 southbridge with the AMD quads. If I were comparing with the 9950 BE or 8750 BE in terms of overclocking I might give the B3 Q6600 the benefit of the doubt. But in the company of the newer 45nm chips the vintage Q6600 is clearly out of its league in terms of overclocking. Given a choice between the 920 and 940 AMD quads I would have to choose the 940 because its Black Edition unlocked multiplier would make it easier to overclock.

The Intel Q9550 is technically faster however it gets choked by its slower 1333Mhz FSB. To match the AMD 940 it would need 2133Mhz.However, even the still slower 1600Mhz FSB is only available on the insanely overpriced QX9770 for $1,460. Intel integrated graphics still lag behind both nVidia and AMD, so an nVidia motherboard is required for Intel unless I want to add a discrete graphics card from the start. The Dragon platform is the obvious choice for AMD although nVidia options are only a little worse in terms of integrated graphics.

For a discrete graphics card the 4000 series would be the obvious choice for something from AMD (ATI). I would probably be looking at a $140 HD 4850 or the $100 HD 4830 (which is about 75% of the 4850's performance). The nVidia equivalent of 4830 would be the 9800GT at $115 and the 4850 equivalent would be the 9800GTX+ at $165. The problem is that for $165 I can get a 1GB 4850 instead of a 512MB. And, if I move up to the 1GB size of 9800GTX+ I'm at $185 which is only $5 less than the much more powerful HD 4870. The GT260 is more expensive for less performance than the 4870 so it isn't worth considering.

I also wasn't exactly surprised with Anandtech's conclusion in AMD Phenom II X4 940 & 920: A True Return to Competition:

"Compared to the Core 2 Quad Q9400, the Phenom II X4 940 is clearly the better pick. While it's not faster across the board, more often than not the 940 is equal to or faster than the Q9400. If Intel can drop the price of the Core 2 Quad Q9550 to the same price as the Phenom II X4 940 then the recommendation goes back to Intel. The Q9550 is generally faster than the 940"

This conclusion is a bit out of whack since their own data shows that 940 compares favorably with Q9550. I would also guess that 940 would compare even better if Anandtech stopped avoiding mixed testing (for the past two years).

At any rate, I tend to agree with the guidelines that Anandtech used back in 2005. Today, I could easily recommend a Core 2 Quad Q9550 system with Intel motherboard if someone were planning to add discrete graphics anyway or with an nVidia motherboard for its better integrated graphics. An equally good choice would be a Phenom II 940 system with either discrete graphics or integrated graphics on a AMD Dragon platform. An nVidia motherboard would be adequate with Phenom II but if an older Phenom or Toliman were chosen then an AMD motherboard with 750 southbridge would be preferred.

1/20/2009: With the current prices the Q9550 is still acceptable but a worse bargain than a PII 940 system. In other words, with equivalent price it would be nearly impossible to assemble a Q9550 system equal to the PII 940 system. The drop in the PII 920 price has also greatly reduced the value of the lower end Intel quads and I could no longer recommend them even for a bargain or stopgap system. If you have money to burn, the Q9650 is less value for the money but would be an upgrade over a PII 940 or Q9550 system.