I5 750 which socket. Intel Core i5 on the Lynnfield core. Top architecture - to the masses! Market positioning and price range

💖 Like it? Share the link with your friends

As you know, the change of microprocessor Intel architectures happens every two years. Computing power is constantly growing, the flagships of the recent past are turning into outsiders, giving way to the strongest representatives new architecture. With the introduction of processors based on the Nehalem architecture in November 2008, Intel has significantly strengthened its position in the Hi-End desktop 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 shift to the middle price niche, giving way to high-end newcomers in the Hi-End segment. In future plans by Intel includes expanding the presence of representatives of the new architecture in all market segments. However, the Core i7 line in its original form is in no way able to fit into the budget of medium and budget desktop PCs. That is why, for the general public, the company's engineers have developed a "light" 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 system logic- Intel X58. The market entry of new members of the Core family required the development of a new chipset and motherboards based on it. The new chipset was the Intel P55 chipset. Before we take a closer look at 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 characteristics of Core i5/i7 CPUs and Intel P55 and X58 chipsets.

Main characteristics
CPU Intel Core i5-750 i7-860 i7-870 i7-920 i7-940 i7-950 i7-965 Extreme i7-975 Extreme
Core Lynnfield Bloomfield
Process technology 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 "CPU-chipset" DMI QPI
Integrated PCI-Express controller Yes No
TDP, W 95 130
Maximum memory bandwidth of the processor-chipset line, GB/s 2 25
channels random access memory 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 above table, it follows that the differences in the internal structure of the LGA 1366 and LGA 1156 processors are not limited to the lack of support for a three-channel memory controller in Lynnfield. In fact, the difference is much more significant. Let's analyze the differences between these CPUs in more detail.

Design

The Intel Core i7 and Core i5 processors based on the Lynnfield core are designed to work with the Socket LGA 1156 processor socket, which, in fact, does not differ much from the Socket LGA 775/LGA 1366 sockets. cooling system mountings. Next, we will get acquainted with the new connector in more detail.

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. Core i5 and Core i7 processors designed for Socket LGA 1156 have a dual-channel integrated memory controller, which can slightly reduce its bandwidth. However, testing the memory subsystem will show how big the difference in memory bandwidth is.

Hyper Threading Technology

This technology first appeared during the Pentium processors 4 with NetBurst architecture. All Intel processors Core i7, regardless of the design, support HT, which allows them to execute up to 8 computational threads simultaneously. The Intel Core i5 series processors 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 CPU multiplier step). While processors designed to work in Socket LGA 1156, depending on the load, can "overclock" by 1-5 steps for core series i7 and stages 1-4 for the Core i5 series. Obviously, Turbo Boost technology has reached a certain maturity, and the new Intel processors are able to increase the frequency significantly more than before. In addition, it is worth noting an interesting trend. Modern Intel technologies allow processors to "intelligently" distribute their forces to achieve maximum results, depending on the type of tasks performed.

Bundle "Lynnfield - P55"

Core i7 processors for Socket LGA 1366 communicate with the Intel X58 chipset using the QuickPath Interconnect (QPI) bus, which provides up to 25 GB/s of throughput. In turn, the Core i7 and Core i5 processors, designed for Socket LGA 1156, "communicate" with the Intel P55 chipset via the DMI (Direct Media Interface), first used by Intel back in 2004, paired with the ICH6 south bridge. It's no secret that the DMI interface cannot provide the same high bandwidth like a QPI bus. Judge for yourself, the PS of the DMI interface is ~ 2 GB / s versus ~ 25 GB / s for QPI. And how, then, to "pump" huge amounts of data between the processor and devices connected to the PCI-Express 2.0 bus, for example, video cards that require a data transfer rate of up to 16 GB / s. But there are also less demanding devices, such as network controllers, hard disks etc. Intel engineers quite elegantly solved the problem. The PCI-Express controller and DMI interface, along with the memory controller, are now integrated into the CPU, which largely solves the "bottleneck" problem. Why largely and not completely? The fact is that the integrated PCI-Express 2.0 controller supports up to 16 lines, which will be entirely occupied by one or a pair 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 for other devices, the capabilities of the integrated PCI-Express controller are no longer enough. However, this problem has been successfully solved! Thanks to the integration of some of the control blocks on the CPU substrate, the Intel P55 chipset is just one chip, which has received a new name. Now this is not just a south bridge, it is the so-called Platform Controller Hub (PCH), which, along with a standard set of functions south bridge, also received support for the 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 as an addition to the already existing Vanderpool compute virtualization technology. The essence of this technology is to allow a remote OS to work with I / O devices connected to PCI / PCI-Ex directly at the hardware level. All modern processors Intel Core i7, regardless of the processor socket used, support this technology while the Core i5 series processors do not.

TDP

Thanks to the optimization of manufacturing technology and a modified CPU core, Intel managed to reduce the TDP value for Core i7 / i5 series processors under Socket LGA 1156 to 95 W, against 130 W for Intel Core i7 designed for Socket platforms LGA 1366.

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 the Intel Core i5 750 processor came to our laboratory. Unfortunately, modern engineering samples of the CPU do not differ in any way from serial copies, even the available multipliers are the same as those of ordinary representatives of this series. Dimensions of processors with Socket LGA 1156 design are much smaller than those of their older counterparts, designed to work in 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 publish a detailed review of the MSI P55-GD65 a little later, but for now we will focus on the description key features fees:

  • Processor support for Socket LGA1156
  • 4 x DDR-3 memory slots
  • Support for 7 SATA II connectors
  • Support for SLI and CrossFireX technology
  • Brand support MSI technology OC Genie
RAM manufactured by Apacer. The kit consists of three 1 GB modules and is designed to work in three-channel mode with Core i7 processors. Of course, for testing processor Core i5 750 we used only two modules from the kit.

Now is the time to look at the Core i5 in action and talk about the overclocking features of the new Intel processors based on the Lynnfield core.

Features of the Core i7 and Core i5 processors on the Lynnfield core

CPU Clock - CPU cores work at this frequency. unCore Clock (UCLK)- operating frequency of the northbridge integrated into Core i7/i5 processors. The integrated L3 cache works at this frequency, as well as the Core i7/i5 RAM controller. QPI bus frequency. The frequency at which the QPI interface operates, linking the Core i7 9xx with Intel chipset X58. Overclocking of non-extreme Core i7 processors of the 9xx family very often "rested" on the frequencies of UCLK, QPI and DDR-3 memory (to a lesser extent). The fact is that the processor frequency multiplier for conventional Core i7 is strictly limited from above. Therefore, to increase the CPU frequency, it is necessary to increase the base frequency (BCLK), and the increase in BCLK entails an increase in the frequencies of UnCore, UCLK and DDR-3. It was possible to "cope" with the increase in the frequency of RAM with the help of dividers, but it was not possible to tame the increase in the frequencies of QPI and UCLK, because the requirement that the UCLK frequency should be at least twice as high as the DDR-3 frequency made its contribution. It was precisely because of the instability of one of these CPU blocks at higher frequencies that CPU overclocking was limited to values ​​slightly exceeding 200 MHz BCLK. With the advent 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 have become smaller, so, theoretically, we can get a higher stable BCLK frequency.

This material opens a series of notes in which I will tell you about the overclocking potential of interesting pieces of iron. Processors, graphics cards, RAM - these are the three main components that every overclocker overclocks. The idea of ​​creating a base for overclocking has been around for a long time, but only the statistics are scarce, so we will tell you about our impressions of overclocking our wards.

We start, perhaps, with the most interesting this moment processors from Intel - Core i5 750. The cheapest processors of the current generation will face each other today, and we will find out which of the 8 copies will be the best.

test bench

To study the platform for socket 1156, we chose the following configuration:

  • Motherboard Asus P7P55D Deluxe
  • Cooler Scythe Ninja 2
  • RAM 2x2Gb OCZ Flex 1600MHz CL6 1.65v
  • Video card Saphire 4890 OC (plug in PCI-E required)
  • Chiftec 1200W power supply
  • Hard drive Seagate 7200.12 250Gb

C motherboard from Asus on the P55 chipset I encountered for the first time and I want to note that the first acquaintance can be considered successful. The board easily and seamlessly worked with all the set voltages. Of the features, I would like to note that the voltage set in the BIOS for the processor coincided with the readings from CPU-Z, which is very pleasing.

Test Methodology

All eight processors were tested at three frequencies:

  • max valid frequency - maximum valid 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 an indicator.
  • max stable frequency - the frequency at which the processor will work 24 hours, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, without turning off for a second. Naturally, I'm joking - in our conditions of express testing it is difficult to find a really stable frequency. But as an estimated one, we will take the frequency of passing the Hyper Pi 32M test - 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: 1.65V

The system was overclocked from under Windows utility from Asus - TurboV. The operating room was used for testing. Windows system XP SP2.

max valid
frequency, MHz
Max bench
frequency, MHz
Max stable
frequency, MHz
Butch Voltage
on the core,
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 of three weeks of production took part in testing: six copies - the 22nd week, one copy - the 24th week and one copy of the 30th week. Based on the results, we can determine 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 he was the only one who obeyed the coveted numbers 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 a hot temper and zero response 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, best percent was able to pass 1M at 4535 MHz, and the worst only at 4380 MHz. 100 MHz means a lot in benchmarking. But in terms of stability for all processors, the spread in frequency is not so high. Everyone withstood 4200 MHz, the winner even 4300 MHz. With confidence for a home system, you can set 4 GHz and use the computer for your own pleasure.

A little more than a year has passed since the appearance of the Nehalem platform, but the prices for new processors are still not affordable. The expansion of the modern CPU line with models based on the Lynnfield core for LGA1156 did not affect the pricing of older brothers in any way, and they themselves were not distinguished by democratic prices. 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 against four "virtual" ones in new products. But we will have separate material on Clarkdale, and in this article, as you may have guessed, we will focus specifically on the Core i5 750.

The Intel Core i5 750 is sold in retail in a boxed version, but sometimes you can also find tray options, which are provided with a 12-month warranty from the seller.


The standard cooler has rather compact dimensions and low heatsink height; the core is made of copper. By design, it does not differ from the cooling systems of processors with the LGA775 design.



The architecture of Lynnfield processors was reviewed in detail by us in one of the previous materials. The northbridge has completely settled in the processor, which itself provides support for 16 PCI Express 2.0 lanes. By the way, this is also the source of a small disadvantage of the platform, connected with the limited bandwidth of the interfaces of two video cards operating in the 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), 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 x5 multiplier (effective x10) with DDR3-1333. Higher memory frequencies can only be used by raising the base frequency (BCLK), and if you use high-frequency memory, then for its X.M.P. the board will automatically raise BCLK and lower the multiplier on the processor when 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 the memory controller and the shared L3 cache, is fixed relative to the base frequency due to the 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). You can manually set a lower multiplier x16 (x32).



The processor frequency in the nominal mode is 2.66 GHz with a multiplier of x20. Hyper-threading support the quad-core Core i5 750 does not.


Thanks to Turbo Boost technology, when running applications that are poorly optimized for multithreading, the frequency of individual cores can increase. This overclocking can be up to 4 points (133 MHz each) for one of the cores. To be more precise, 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 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 without activating the Turbo Boost mode.



For tests in nominal mode, we used a 4 GB memory kit (Team TXD34096M2000HC9DC-L), which worked with 7-7-7-20 timings. 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, if necessary, the corresponding multipliers are reduced on them. So for DDR3, you can set the minimum multiplier x6, which in nominal value will give a frequency of 800 MHz, and when overclocking BCLK to 200 MHz, it is already 1200 MHz. Reducing the QPI frequency of Lynnfield processors is of no practical use for overclocking (at least with air cooling). But reducing the frequency of Uncore during overclocking will not work at all, and at 200 MHz according to BCLK, this block will already work at 3200 MHz. However, increasing the frequency of the L3 cache will only have a positive effect on performance.

With air cooling, all Core i5 processors submit to the BCLK frequency of about 200-220 MHz. Having several budget motherboards for Socket LGA1156 available, we found out that the limit of our CPU in terms of base frequency (with air cooling) is 220 MHz. At higher values, significant system instability was observed. Thus, with the maximum multiplier x21 “in the air”, theoretically, even 4620 MHz can be obtained. In fact, we stopped at around 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 at a CPU Vcore voltage of 1.4 V and a QPI/Vtt Voltage of about 1.35 V. tests.


All memory settings during overclocking are shown in the following screenshot:


As you can see above, the memory frequency during overclocking was only 642 MHz (effective 1284 MHz). Actually, the Team memory kit itself is designed for 2000 MHz, but with the Gigabyte GA-P55M-UD2 board, when overclocking the processor, it was simply impossible to set the memory to a more productive mode. At a higher multiplier, the system hung before the operating system loaded, and raising the appropriate voltages did not help. Yes, and in the nominal mode, the board had problems with 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 encountered something similar in some instances of AMD Phenom II), we had to limit ourselves to a low DDR3 frequency, but with delays of 6-6-6-16, which should somehow compensate for the lag even from the nominal 1333 MHz. To slightly increase the memory frequency at its minimum multiplier, the multiplier on the CPU was also specially reduced so that the BCLK frequency could be raised even higher. Comparative characteristics

To compare the performance of the considered Intel Core i5-750, 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.
All of these models were featured in our last big processor test, where you can get details about them. We have a “virtual” Core 2 Quad Q9450, it was obtained from the Core 2 Quad Q9550 by reducing the multiplier from x8.5 to x8 and added to the tests specifically so that you can clearly evaluate the advantages of the Lynnfield architecture over Yorkfield-12M at the same frequency 2.66 GHz. It will also be quite interesting to see how much the performance of the younger quad-core CPU of the new generation has grown relative to the younger representative of the previous generation from Intel (Core 2 Quad Q8300) and the younger representative of AMD (Phenom II X4 810). In order to determine the benefits of Turbo Boost, our Intel Core i5 750 was tested at a fixed stock frequency of 2.66 GHz, i.e. with this technology disabled, and, accordingly, when it is activated.
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 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
Bus QPI/FSB/HT, MHz, GT/s* 4800 1333 1333 1333 1333 4000 3600 4000
L1 cache, KB (32+32)x4 (32+32)x4 (32+32)x4 (32+32)x4 (32+32)x4 (64+64)x4 (64+64)x4 (64+64)x4
L2 cache, KB 256x4 6144x2 6144x2 3072x2 2048x2 512x4 512x4 512x4
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 (Intel Core i5-750) and HyperTransport (AMD Phenom II) buses, speed is specified 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.
Now let's look at the differences in the test benches of other platforms that were used for comparison with the Core i5-750.

Intel LGA775 test configuration:

  • Cooler: Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme;
  • Motherboard: ASUS Rampage Formula (Intel X48, Socket LGA775);
  • Memory: OCZ OCZ2FXE12004GK (2х2GB DDR2-1200);
AMD AM2+/AM3 Test Configuration:
  • 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);
IN operating system were disabled Windows Defender, user account Control and Superfetch. The swap file was fixed at 1024 MB. As noted above, the Core i5-750 processor was tested in two nominal modes - with Turbo Boost technology disabled and enabled. The mode with active Turbo Boost is indicated on the diagrams as "Core i5-750 TB". The main characteristics of test benches and memory operating modes for nominal modes and overclocking for each processor are given below in the form of two tables. In them you can see that the data on the frequency of some CPUs and their blocks may differ by a couple of megahertz relative to the standard specifications, which is associated with overestimation or underestimation of the reference frequency and FSB directly by the boards themselves.

Characteristics of the system 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 -

Test 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 version 3.7 beta 27 we used did not work correctly on the LGA1156 platform, and in newer versions the results changed significantly on older processors. In the absence of an opportunity to repeat the test in new version POV-Ray on processors from our list 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, 5% lower. Excluded from gaming tests Resident Evil 5 due to 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

PC Mark Vantage


The first synthetic test demonstrates the unconditional superiority of the Core i5-750 over the rest of the test participants, surpassing even the Phenom II X4 955 running at 3.2 GHz. Compared to the Yorkfield-based Core 2 Quad, the Lynnfield has an advantage of about 13% at a single frequency.


In this test, the difference is not so great, although again the advantage of Lynnfield over the older Yorkfield tends to be 10%. Unlike the previous test, the Core 2 Quad Q9505 and Core i5-750 show identical overclocking results.


In the Productivity Suite test, we again see the advantage of Lynnfield over Yorkfield with 12MB of cache by about 10%. If the older 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, there is a huge advantage of Lynnfield over its predecessors - more than 30%. Activating Turbo Boost helps to win a couple more percent, but no more. The leading position of the Core i5 with overclocking is only strengthening, and at 4066 MHz this processor already demonstrates an advantage of 40% 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, and in real archiving, the difference may no longer be so staggering.


The 7-Zip archiver treats the Lynnfield processor rather coolly. The performance of the Core i5 is only slightly better than the Core 2 Quad Q9450. He manages to bypass the Q9550 when activating Turbo Boost. In the same mode, the processor under consideration is only 0.6% short of the performance of the Phenom II X4 940 running at 3 GHz. With overclocking, the Core i5-750 is again at the forefront.

Paint.net


In this test, Lynnfield at 2.66 GHz performed 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, the Core i5 traditionally 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 younger Lynnfield confidently outperforms all other Intel rivals even without Turbo Boost, losing 11 seconds only to the AMD Phenom II X4 955. In turbo mode, the Core i5 outperforms the older phenom processor II for more than a minute. With overclocking, the Core i5-750 copes with the task almost two minutes faster than the older Core 2 Quads operating at frequencies around 4 GHz, and almost three minutes faster than rivals from AMD 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 performs more than its steel rivals. Without turbocharging, the CPU is second only to the Phenom II X4 955, and then less than one percent. And at a frequency of 4066 MHz, the processor in question is completely out of competition: Core 2 Quad at 4 GHz is inferior to it by up to 19%, and Phenom II X4 at frequencies of 3.7-3.8 GHz up to 33%.

Xvid video encoding in VirtualDub


Again, no surprises. The Core i5 gets the job done the fastest. Only Phenom II X4 955 demonstrates an identical level of performance without Turbo Boost (and this is at a higher frequency at 540 MHz). With the same frequency, Lynnfield outperforms Yorkfield by almost a minute. When overclocked to 4.07 GHz, the advantage of the Core i5-750 over other rivals at higher frequencies is calculated even big 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. Yes, and the older Phenom II X4, only with overclocking to 3.8 GHz, outperforms the processor in question in this mode by only seven seconds.

X264 Benchmark


In nominal modes, the Core i5-750 is inferior to one Phenom II X4 955, 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 lose its face, 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, although the difference with the Core 2 Quad is already minimal.

Fritz Chess Benchmark


The Core i5 is slightly faster than 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 activating Turbo Boost. Compared to Core 2 Quad on the Yorkfield core with 12 MB cache at the same frequency, Lynnfield has an advantage of almost 23%. The rest of the overclocked rivals, at best, show the same result as the Core i5 without overclocking, but with Turbo Boost. Gaming Applications




The first gaming test demonstrates the complete superiority of the Core i5-750 over the other rivals. The younger Lynnfield manages to outperform the Core 2 Quad Q9550 and Phenom II X4 955 even without activating Turbo Boost. And when this mode is enabled, Core i5 demonstrate the same results as overclocked AMD Phenom II X4. Intel's predecessors for Socket LGA775 are not so sad, but they also cannot compete with the overclocked Lynnfield, despite the fact that with overclocking they all reached frequencies close to 4 GHz.

Battlestations: Pacific




In this game, despite the high fps, we "rested" on 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, are the top performers in this game. When Turbo Boost is activated, a minimal drop in performance is noticeable, but it is difficult to talk about something 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. 3.96 GHz lags behind the leader with a frequency of 4.07 GHz by 8-10%. The younger Core 2 Quad and Phenom II X4 with overclocking only reach the performance of the non-overclocked 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 at low resolutions. But more new Core The 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 by as much as 15% at 2.66 GHz. 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%. During acceleration, the gap between the leader and other rivals is no less impressive.


But at maximum quality image the alignment of forces is changing. So nimble in the weaker mode, the Core i5-750 suddenly takes last place. And interestingly, the Turbo Boost mode no longer affects performance, and there is little sense from overclocking.

world in conflict



Intel Core i5 once again demonstrates a performance level unattainable for rivals. The advantage over Yorkfield is about 30%. All processors except for the Core 2 Quad Q9550 with overclocking only approach the performance of the leader working at nominal. And the Core 2 Quad Q9550 at 3.96 GHz is not a particularly impressive advantage over the Core i5-750 with Turbo Boost, given the huge difference in frequency.


Higher resolution and heavier graphics settings moderate the ardor of the "unstoppable" Core i5-750 a little, and now all overclocked Core 2 Quad manage to outperform its result in the nominal mode. In terms of minimum fps, the leader loses ground to the older Core 2 Quad even more noticeably, and even in nominal terms, this parameter does not outperform the Core 2 Quad Q9550.

Unreal Tournament 3




In Unreal Tournament 3, the non-replaceable leader pushes all rivals to the backyard. 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. Yes, and over the predecessor Core 2 Quad Q9450, the advantage reaches almost 30%, while the Core 2 Quad Q9550 is inferior to a significant 20%. Turbo Boost boosts Lynnfield performance by no more than 4%. With overclocking, the balance of power 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. advantage over the elders Core models 2 Quad and Phenom II X4 reach almost 30% in low resolution and 23% in high resolution. And with overclocking, competitors are barely able to somehow make up for such a lag. Traditionally, AMD processors, when overclocked to 3.7-3.8 GHz, do not reach the Core i5 performance at the nominal 2.66 GHz.

Far Cry 2


At low resolutions, the Core i5-750, as usual, turns out to be "faster" than everyone else, and "poor" AMD processors again cannot achieve the same results when increasing frequencies to 3.7-3.8 GHz.


But at maximum settings, 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 (basically, an increase in the minimum fps).


At low resolutions, everything is quite predictable and the leadership positions of the Core i5-750 are undeniable. Lynnfield has a 26% advantage over Yorkfield with 12MB cache at the same 2.66GHz clock speed. With activated Turbo Boost (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 backlog to only 17-20%.


At high resolutions in nominal modes, the leadership of the Core i5 does not raise any questions either, even though in this mode the performance is already noticeably limited by our video adapter. But with CPU overclocking for some reason, it shows a result slightly lower than the older Core 2 Quad. Of course, the difference is negligible, but still this is not an error, which, according to the results of several test runs, usually fits into a much smaller frame.

Crysis Warhead



Crysis Warhead presents no surprises and is the undisputed leader in all resolutions of the Core i5, and the identical results with the Q9550 at 1280x1024 during overclocking can be fully explained by the insufficient power of the video card, which played the role of the “limiter”. In low resolution, the advantage of Lynnfield over Yorkfield at a single frequency of 2.66 GHz reaches 17.5%. Activating Turbo Boost helps increase the result by 4.5%, and rivals from AMD cannot achieve such indicators even in overclocking. The Core 2 Quad Q9550, which took second place on the “pedestal”, is inferior to the leader by 10% (without Turbo Boost) to 16% at nominal and 10% during overclocking.

Grand Theft Auto 4




According to the results of testing in this extremely processor-intensive game, it is clear 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 by very meager values, which, given the instability of the built-in benchmark itself, can often be attributed to measurement errors. True, this does not prevent the Core i5-750 from taking the leader's place at a resolution of 1024x768 at medium settings, 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, hit the limit value of 56 frames and above, the video card no longer “lets go”, the Core i5 suddenly showed a higher (almost 1 frame) result. And this is clearly beyond the margin of error, and once again demonstrates the powerful potential of Lynnfield.

Armed Assault 2



We already noted the low results of AMD processors in this test application in a recent article. Recall that we are using a pre-release demo version of the game, which is equipped with its own game test. It is quite possible that in full version game, overgrown with a huge number of patches, the performance of Phenom II has grown significantly.

The object of our review, the Intel Core i5-750, is quite expectedly the leader, but the Core 2 Quad Q9550 is just a few percent behind it. With overclocking, the Core i5 at 4.07 GHz outperforms the Core 2 Quad Q9550 at 3.96 GHz by a more significant 10%.

Cryostasis: Sleep of Reason


In this poorly optimized multi-core processors The Core i5-750 application manages to bypass the older Core 2 Quad Q9505 and Core 2 Quad Q9550 only when Turbo Boost is activated. With overclocking, Lynnfield has the most significant advantage in terms of 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 sum up some 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 has demonstrated a level of performance higher than running at a higher core frequency 2 Quad Q9550, sometimes even without activating Turbo Boost. The very benefit of this auto-overclocking technology for different cores brings an average increase of no more than 5%, although in rare single-threaded tasks (for example, in the SuperPi test), it can reach all 15%.

The most significant advantage of the junior representative of Lynnfield turned out to be 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 higher resolutions. This was most clearly manifested in FarCry 2, when at a resolution of 1024x768 the gap between Lynnfield and its closest competitors was almost 17-20%. But at the same time, at 1280x1024 and rendering in DirectX 10, the same competitors show a result 15% higher. In similar applications, overclocking the CPU itself brings minimal benefit, and activating Turbo Boost has almost no effect on the result at all. 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 high graphics settings. But this does not diminish the advantages of this processor. It may be inferior to competitors somewhere in certain conditions, but in most games it demonstrates unattainable performance 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 indicative that the younger Yorkfield with 4 MB of cache memory 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 at low resolutions are also not impressive, but thanks to overclocking to 4 GHz, they are even more or less comparable to a beginner in some gaming applications. As for the overclocking of the object of our article itself, its frequency potential has grown slightly relative to its predecessors. The 4.07 GHz we got did not seem to differ much from 4 GHz for the Core 2 Quad Q 9505 or 3.96 GHz for the Core 2 Quad Q 9550, but further overclocking of Lynnfield 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 CBO users may well expect great results. Overclocking Core i5-750.

Due to Intel's pricing policy aimed at promoting new products, there is no point in buying the older Core 2 Quad Q9550 now, because the Core i5-750 on the local market will cost you at least $ 65 cheaper with more high performance. And the Core 2 Quad Q9500 or Core 2 Quad Q9505 are also not very attractive in terms of price. This situation makes many Core users 2 Duo instead of upgrading to Core 2 Quad, think about a complete change of platform. And the Core i5-750 in this case will be the ideal choice, because at its level of performance it is best processor for $200-220.

AMD processors generally look depressing against the background of the Core i5-750, especially in gaming applications. In particular, 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 the basis for a promising gaming platform, and this is sad. You can counter that the cost of AMD products is lower and for the price Intel Solutions 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 Phenom II X4 955 did not help much with 500 MHz?.. I would like to see more worthy and competitive solutions from AMD that could withstand not only processors of the past Generations of Intel but also newer models. Let's hope the upcoming Phenom II X6 lives up to our expectations.

Test equipment was provided by the following companies:

  • AMD - AMD Phenom II X4 940 and Phenom II X4 955 processors;
  • DCLink - Intel Core i5-750, Core 2 Quad Q9550, Core 2 Quad Q9505, Core 2 Quad Q8300, Gigabyte board GA-P55M-UD2 and Team TXD34096M2000HC9DC-L memory;

  • MSI - AMD Phenom II X4 810 processor, MSI boards 790XT-G45 and 790FX-GD70;
  • SerOl - Point of View GF9800GTX 512MB GDDR3 EXO video card;
  • Spetsvuzavtomatika - Kingston KHX1600C9D3K2/4G memory;
  • HDD WD3200AAKS.

2009 was marked by the release of the updated Lynnfield processor architecture, the most accessible representative of which at that time was the Core i5-750 chip. The characteristics of this semiconductor product are not so different from modern quad-core CPUs from this manufacturer. Therefore, this processor still continues to be relevant and allows you to solve most of the various tasks at the moment.

The niche of the processor market that the hero of this review was focused on

With the release of the LGA1156 platform, Intel divided the microprocessor market into the following segments:

    PC entry level based on Celeron processors (these chips provided a minimum level of performance sufficient for office computers) and Pentium (in this case, one could even count on the launch of some new toys with minimal settings, but such a system unit could only be called a game one with a stretch). The difference between these two products was the increase in cache size and increase in the clock frequency of the processor, and this made it possible to obtain additional percentages of performance in practice.

    The mid-range segment was occupied by chips of the i3 and i5 families. It was to this group of CPUs that the processor solution considered within the framework of this material belonged. Lower i3 models included only 2 physical processing units program code. But due to the introduction of proprietary HT technology, this semiconductor crystal at the software level could already process information in 4 streams. But i5 were full-fledged processors with 4 physical cores. They also had an increased amount of cache memory and implemented support for TurboBoost technology. The latter made it possible to adjust the CPU frequency depending on the degree of optimization of the program code for multithreading, the thermal state of the semiconductor crystal, and the level of complexity of the problem being solved.

    The most productive system blocks, both then and now, are based on chips of the i7 family. They have 4 physical code processing units, but support for HT technology allows at the level software get 8 threads. Also, the frequency formula in this case is increased, as is the cache memory.

Although formally the hero of this review belongs to the processor products of the middle class, nevertheless, among almost all the software existing at that time, it was he who could easily compete with the flagship microprocessor. Most of the software even now is focused on the use of 4 physical cores, and it is for this reason that there is no big difference in terms of performance between the older CPUs of this manufacturer at the moment.

Contents of delivery

This product was sold in two configurations. The more modest of them was called TRAY. In this case, in addition to the CPU itself, an instruction manual, a warranty card, and a sticker with the name of the chip model for the front panel were purchased. Such equipment is aimed primarily at large assemblers of system units, but it was also sometimes purchased by computer enthusiasts. The second configuration option for this processor product was called BOX. In the common people, the name "boxed version" stuck behind it. In this case, the delivery list was supplemented with a cooler and thermal paste.

Processor socket

The Kor i5-750 was oriented to installation in. The characteristics of this processor socket indicated that it was focused on assembling single-chip system blocks. This socket made it possible in 2009 to organize computer systems that are completely different in purpose and cost. This computer platform remained relevant until 2011, when it was replaced by the LGA1155. But even now the products of this series continue to be relevant for at least one reason that their performance level still allows solving most tasks.

Semiconductor Crystal Production Technology

According to typical technology at the beginning of 2009, the Kor i5-750 was produced. The characteristics of this entire generation of chips indicate that they were all manufactured using the 45 nm process technology. At that time, it was perfectly worked out and there were no significant problems with the yield of suitable silicon wafers in this case. In the future, he was replaced by technology with tolerance standards of 32 nm.

Cash

Like all modern most advanced processor products, the Intel i5-750 has a three-level cache. The characteristics of this semiconductor product in this case are as follows:

    The first level included 4 segments of 64 Kb each, tied to a specific computing module.

    Similarly organized 4 blocks of 256 Kb at the second level.

    The cache memory at the third level was shared by all CPU resources and had a total size of 8 MB.

RAM

The RAM subsystem has been significantly redesigned in solutions based on LGA1156, including the Core i5-750. The characteristics of this product indicated that, along with the RAM controller, it was transferred from motherboard on the semiconductor chip of the central processing unit. This made it possible to significantly increase the speed of the RAM. But, on the other hand, the integration of the RAM controller led to the fact that the chip could only function with a certain list of RAM sticks. In this case, this set was limited to DDR3-1066. Also, in combination with this CPU, it was possible to use faster RAM boards, but their frequency of operation was limited to only one value - 1066 MHz. Nothing more could be obtained in this case.

Temperature Range. thermal package

The i5-750 processor was designed for a thermal package of 95 W. The characteristics of this model of the central processor indicate the maximum allowable temperature value of 72 degrees. In the normal mode, the temperature regime of this chip was limited to 40-50 degrees. In the case of overclocking, this range increased and was already in the range of 50-60 degrees. In practice, it was impossible to load this CPU in such a way that it reached the maximum possible value in the nominal operating range. It was possible to go beyond the established boundaries only in two cases. One of them is a breakdown of the cooling system, and the second is overclocking the chip in combination with the bundled cooler and running several resource-intensive applications on the PC.

Frequencies

At 2.7 GHz, the initial frequency value was set for The characteristics of this CPU indicated support for TurboBoost technology. That is, this processor could adjust the frequency value and the number of active calculation units. When using all four blocks, the maximum frequency value was limited to 2.8 GHz. If the processor operated in dual-threaded mode, then the frequency value was 2.93 GHz. Well, in the case when only one block for performing calculations worked, this value could generally increase to 3.2 GHz. It was also possible to overclock this CPU. As experience shows, with proper configuration system block it was possible to overclock this processor to 4 GHz and get almost a 30% increase in performance due to this.

CPU architecture

As noted earlier, 4 physical code processing modules included the Intel Core i5-750. The specifications of this product indicated that it did not support HyperTrading technology. Therefore, at the software level, it was represented by the same 4 threads. And this value even today continues to be relevant due to the fact that most of the software is optimized for a maximum of 2 or 4 threads. In this case, the difference with the more expensive CPUs of the i7 family was practically not felt.

Owner's opinion. Price

This modification of the Core i5 was priced at $213. The CPU 750 (it really had excellent characteristics for 2009) made it possible to solve any tasks. And even now, this CPU can easily handle almost all workloads. Only the most recent toys can cause problems. But in this case, you can lower the quality of the displayed image, which will allow you to fully immerse yourself in excellent gameplay.

Results

A worthy processor product for 2009 was the Core i5-750. Its characteristics continue to this day to be relevant and allow you to still solve most problems. Also, the advantages of this CPU model include affordable cost, the presence of four physical code processing units and excellent energy efficiency, as for a 2009 chip. But still, the owners of such system units will very soon have to think about the planned upgrade of their computing system.

Socket LGA1156 L3 cache size 8192 KB Number of cores 4 CPU frequency 2667 MHz Integrated graphics core No

General characteristics

Socket LGA1156 Game yes

Core

Lynnfield Core (2009) Number of Cores

New processor manufacturing technology allows more than one core to be placed in the same package. The presence of multiple cores greatly increases the performance of the processor. For example, in Core line 2 duos are used dual core processors, and in model range Core 2 Quad - quad-core.

4 Process technology 45 nm

Frequency characteristics

Clock frequency

Clock speed is the number of cycles (operations) of the processor per second. The processor clock speed is proportional to the bus frequency. Generally, the higher clock frequency processor, the better its performance. But such a comparison is relevant only for models of the same line, since, in addition to frequency, processor performance is affected by such parameters as the size of the second-level cache (L2), the presence and frequency of the third-level cache (L3), the presence of special instructions, and others. Categories Processors (CPU)

2667 MHz DMI system bus multiplication factor 20 Core voltage 0.65B Built-in memory controller yes, 21 GB/s bandwidth

Cache

L1 cache size

L1 cache is a block of high-speed memory located directly on the processor core. It copies data retrieved from RAM. Saving the basic commands allows you to increase the performance of the processor due to more high speed data processing (processing from the cache is faster than from RAM). The capacity of the cache memory of the first level is small and is calculated in kilobytes. Typically, "older" processor models have a large amount of L1 cache. Glossary of terms for the category Processors (CPU)

64 KB L2 cache size

The L2 cache is a block of high-speed memory that performs the same functions as the L1 cache (see "L1 Cache Size"), but with a slower speed and larger capacity. If you choose a processor for resource-intensive tasks, then a model with a large amount of L2 cache will be preferable.



tell friends