1) InsideHW (March 2009)
After all these tests you need to ask yourself: What the heck is that triple channel mode useful for anyway, when it is obvious that is doesn’t provide performance boost that is expected? Maybe in the future and with some new versions of memory controllers, triple channel mode will provide better performances so transition to this platform will make more sense. Until that moment triple channel mode will be just another nice sticker on LGA 1366 motherboards and memory packages. Of course memory manufacturers already have triple channel DDR3 kits that are intended to be used on Intel Core i7 platform. Since these are triple channel kits they have three DDR3 modules with total capacity of 3GB or 6GB. Since prices for DDR3 memory are still pretty high it is obvious who will profit the most from this situation where (uninformed) users will go for triple channel kits with intention to use up potentials of their new platform.

2) Tweaktown (Nov 2008)
In real world gaming we see there is only a couple of frames difference between triple and dual channel mode. It seems that at this stage there isn’t really a huge amount of call for extra bandwidth.

3) Guru3D (Dec 2008)
No summary on dual vs triple channel in gaming. Overall summary, “It surprised me as much as likely it did for you guys. But you can measure the bandwidth difference really, yet that doesn't mean it'll drag the overall pc performance down. If you like to save a nickel or two in the upgrade processes. It wouldn't be a shame really to go for dual-channel and if you already have DDR3 memory .. simply use that.
The reality is that you'll still have excellent performance in a dual-channel memory configuration ... yet to take it up that extra notch, I'd go straight away to triple channel.”

4) Techspot (Dec 2008)
While Core i7 processors will logically perform its best when using triple-channel memory, we were amazed by how little the performance was affected when using two or even just one memory module. The same remained true for memory frequency, generally the difference between DDR3-1066 and DDR3-1600 memory was kept to a minimum. It should be reinforced that this all applies to desktop and gaming performance. It would only make sense for scientific and other similar applications that rely more heavily on memory subsystem performance to show marked improvements as more bandwidth becomes available.

5) Tomshardware (Nov 2008)
We ran the entire benchmark suite once with each of the memory configurations. Our conclusion? It doesn’t matter much to the Core i7, with its 1 MB L2 cache and 8 MB L3 cache, whether it is running its memory in a triple-, dual-, or single-channel configuration. In everyday tasks, there is absolutely no tangible performance difference: the performance delta between a tri-channel and a single-channel configuration is only 2% on average. If you already own a dual-channel DDR3 memory kit and are planning to switch to the Core i7, you don’t need to spend the extra money on a third module to run your system in tri-channel mode.

6) Hothardware (Feb 2009)
Our synthetic memory bandwidth numbers showed huge differences between the configurations, but in terms of real-world performance, the differences were small. Triple channel memory is not the big time real-world performance bullet which many claim it to be, although it does help deliver much more raw memory bandwidth, which in specific situations, can help greatly. For most applications, though, you won't be touching this level of memory bandwidth, so it's not worth stressing about it too much.

7) Xreview (Nov 2008)
We give confirmation about the memory performance, that the difference between two and three- channel operation modes is low even at high CPU frequencies , and the memory latency is better (lower) in the dual-channel regime.

8) Brighthub (March 2010)
Core i5, however, uses traditional dual-channel memory. This should make RAM less expensive for most users. Some new Core i7s will also support dual-channel memory instead of triple-channel. The performance difference should be insignificant for most users.

1) Tomshardware (Nov 2008)
Nil

2) iXBTlabs (Feb 2009)
Back in the first article about Core i7 920 we mentioned that the new architecture from Intel was not quite good at games yet. This article is another proof of this point.

3) Bit-tech (Sept 2009)
Games ran slightly slower with Hyper-Threading enabled..... With that said, we found that the slowdown due to Hyper-Threading was less than five per cent, and as Hyper-Threading doesn't increase the power consumption of your PC, enabling Hyper-Threading is worthwhile. Unless we really needed the extra multi-threaded performance, we wouldn't go out of our way to have Hyper-Threading, though, so we're mystified as to why Intel felt it necessary to differentiate its Core i5 and Core i7 ranges on this feature alone

4) Elite Bastards (April 2009)
Turning on HyperThreading has an almost imperceptible effect upon performance in CPU-limited gaming (although this is likely to be quite game dependant) - As most game titles struggle to make use of four CPU cores, splitting this down further into eight hardware threads has no benefits whatsoever..... There's certainly no benefit in its use in any of the game titles we've used the Core i7 with thus far.

5) VR-ZONE (Oct 2008)
Nil

6) HWBOX (April 2009) - In ??Russian!! but just look at the graphs.

1) Anandtech (Sept 2009)
There has been much speculation that the Lynnfield/P55 platform would fail miserably with the next generation cards.

If you happen to benchmark Intel platforms for a living, then clearly an X58/Bloomfield platform is the way to go. No questions asked, not even a hint of doubt should enter one’s mind as to the X58 being the logical choice. How about the other 99.9% of us? Well, if you just need that safe feeling that you are getting the maximum benefit out of those $380 HD 5870 cards you just purchased, the X58 paired with a Core i7 is an easy choice. It is an even easier choice if you plan on upgrading to Gulftown next year.

For those of us who are interested in power consumption, heat, noise, and not all that worried about a 2% to 7% difference in the benchmarks, then the Lynnfield platform is an attractive alternative with the latest generation GPUs. In fact, without the 920/X58 hanging around at similar pricing, the general thoughts/concerns regarding 860/P55 would probably be significantly different within the enthusiast community. The 860/P55 is a very good platform, especially for those running at stock or near stock speeds where the aggressive turbo mode will make a difference in daily computing tasks and your pocketbook.

That said, if you are running a single card such as the HD 5870, either platform is fine. However, performance in x8 mode was a bit disappointing for those needing the second slot for purposes other than graphics. In the end, performance in games was still very good and only a benchmark would inform you of less than stellar performance. What we cannot answer right now is if the dual x8 PCIe capability on Lynnfield will become a true bottleneck with the GPUs that follow the current/planned releases from AMD/Nvidia.

So our conclusion still has not changed from a month ago, if you plan on purchasing a high end multi-GPU setup you'll want to go with X58/Bloomfield for the best possible performance. If you want a great combination of application and gaming performance without the power consumption or heat concerns, the Lynnfield platform is a very attractive alternative.

2) Tomshardware (Jan 2010)

We’ve since found the Core i7-870 to be an excellent (albeit pricey) part, with clock-for-clock performance in a dead heat with LGA 1366 processors, better Intel Turbo Boost ratios, lower average power consumption, and superior overclocking of up to 4.3 GHz on air cooling. All of these great advancements cause us to ask whether the Lynnfield family of Core i5 and Core i7 CPUs might be wolves in sheep's clothing.

Today’s analysis began by questioning whether Intel's Lynnfield-based Core i5 and Core i7 processors, along with the P55 platform that complements them, is good enough for CrossFire, and the answer is probably “sometimes.”

Test results showed that a PCIe x8 slot provides 4% less performance when using the fastest possible single GPU, and those results did translate into a 4% performance deficit in CrossFire. That 4% loss isn’t horrific, and less powerful cards would likely show less performance difference. However, these results shouldn’t dissuade anyone from using an LGA 1156 processor to host only one dual-GPU card, since the card’s x16 interface limitations perfectly match those of LGA 1366-based processors.

3) TechReport (Sept 2009)
With just one of either graphics card installed, the X58 and P55 are locked in a dead heat. The X58 does prove faster in Call of Duty and GRID with CrossFire and SLI, but only by slim margins.

4) Tomshardware (Sept 2009)
Very long summary - read here : http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i...ld,2379-12.html

Nah, this is just for you. It is work in progress so bear with me ok?

Lurkingaround the delusional cybertrooper coward

Rebirth of Israel was not a divine event under God's will and that it was under the will of Satan but permitted by God
Post #34 : https://forum.lowyat.net/topic/4883874/+20?hl=protestant

Non-protestant Christians are gentiles:
Post #15 : https://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopi...3&hl=protestant

I am a Chinese Christian (but need to explain why he is not! Lol):
Post #2535 : https://forum.lowyat.net/topic/4993544/+2520

But openly show anti-Chinese behaviour:
Post #2820 : https://forum.lowyat.net/topic/4993544/+2800
Post #2809 : https://forum.lowyat.net/topic/4993544/+2800
Post #2589 : https://forum.lowyat.net/topic/4993544/+2580

Don't mess with me or I will mess with Chinese citizenship in Malaysia:
Post #2538 : https://forum.lowyat.net/topic/4993544/+2520

Most of Chinese/Indian political leaders in DAP are disloyal to Agong and Federal Constitution:
Post #2902 : https://forum.lowyat.net/topic/4993544/+2900

More to come!