Intel i5 750 Performance Test

16 Responses

  1. Matrixfan says:

    I would like to thank You for the honest articles! Very few gaming sites cunduct tests under realistic circumstances. Hmm, if I could sell my gaming PC and put a dedicated 5870 for Wndows 7 in my Mac Pro. The tests show that the 2.8 Ghz Penryn Quad is more than adequate for 1080P gaming.

  2. Spikesoldier says:

    Good article highlighting that the video card is the make or break component in a gaming system. I would have liked to see another run of the bench suite ran this time with a Win7 x64 install, side by side with the XP x86 XP3 results to put the microscope on the difference the OS and drivers make. Having a run with an ATi card would be icing on the cake.

  3. tviceman says:

    Good job! I’m amazed the gtx285 is a bottleneck with only 2x AA in most/all of those games.

  4. BFG10K says:

    Thanks for the comments. In the future I plan on permanently migrating to Windows 7 x64, but I’m not ready right now.

    What I found most interesting was the games that ran slightly slower on the i5 750. It looks like benchmarking noise, but the results are consistent from run to run.

    It can’t be the reduced clock speed on the i5 because I’ve already shown the same games don’t lose performance when dropping down to 2 GHz on the E6850, at the same settings. Not to mention that turbo boost is definitely working on the i5, even with the crappy stock cooler.

    Maybe it’s the GPU drivers and/or OS reacting slightly differently to the new platform.

  5. apoppin says:

    I am not so sure that the 200 MHz difference in the CPU clocks does not account for the consistent 1% or so difference you found.

    I found the same thing in my testing. CPU clockspeeds does make a little difference in the overall performance although it is very slight compared to the GPU.

  6. BFG10K says:

    If the 200 MHz would make a difference, then a 1000 MHz difference on the E6850 (3 GHz vs 2 GHz) should’ve made an even bigger difference, but it didn’t happen.

    As an example, look at Call of Juarez 1.

    A 2.41% performance drop on the i5, yet on the E6850 @ 2 GHz it was only 0.08%, which is virtually zero.

  7. apoppin says:

    Well, you are now dealing with a CPU of a different architecture from your old one. It is hard to pick one example to draw conclusions. I believe that the only certain way to rule out the 200 MHz making any performance difference with the i5 would be to test it.

  8. sciarc says:

    Nice test. I wish I’d read this before I upgraded my E6750 (also with the GA-G33M-DS2R) to an i5-750, spending $600 or so in the process. Oh well…

  9. BFG10K says:

    Apoppin: it’s not just one test, it’s pretty much all that were slower on the i5 750. Go back and check, here’s the link:

    Yes, the architectures are different, which is exactly why you can’t infer that 3 GHz on both CPUs will yield the same results. Also there’s no way an E6850 @ 2 GHz is faster than an i5 750 @ 2.8 GHz + turbo. It’s something other than clock-speed causing this.

  10. Leon Hyman says:

    Well, if it is something other than clock speed, then maybe you could do some further testing to find out what. That would be surely an interesting article as well.

  11. IlyaD says:

    Although I agree that CPU has ZERO affect on FPS in gaming, I have this question:
    Wont the CPU limit the RAM which will limit the preformance?
    For example, you cant use DDR3 triple channel on a P4 system.
    And from I think that RAM DOES has an affect of preformance. Don’t you agree?

  12. BFG10K says:

    IlyaD, system RAM is lumped under the “platform”. If the GPU is the primary bottleneck, RAM speed will have little to no effect.

    As an example, dual-core i5 processors have abysmal bandwidth and cache latencies compared to quad-core i5 processors, yet they don’t appear to be hampered very much in gaming.

  13. tommy says:

    Just wanted to say I really liked the post. You have really put a lot of time into your content and it is just wonderfull!

  14. Anasuelli says:

    Great article. You have my confirm: CPUs are near to useless for today’s gaming. My Q6600 still does it’s work in a magnificent way, and obviously the same thing would be valid if it was a Exxxx. it’s not worth to spend money to upgrade the system to a Nehalem architecture.

  15. blue says:

    can you test under multiplayer conditions ? the added stress should be related to the cpu

  16. Brandon says:

    Well i got some gains out of my E6850 by replacing the stock Cooler with Zalman Performa around 2fps Quicker on Crysis Warhead and 2 minutes of Converting 3 hour Avi to DVD using Nero.CPU was 62 Deg C and Now 42Deg C With the new cooler under load with games and programs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.