Archive Home arrow Reviews: arrow Processors arrow Intel Core i5-750 Processor BX80605I5750

Intel Core i5-750 Processor BX80605I5750 E-mail
Reviews - Featured Reviews: Processors
Written by Mathew Williams   
Tuesday, 08 September 2009
Table of Contents: Page Index
Intel Core i5-750 Processor BX80605I5750
Features and Specifications
Closer Look: Core i5-750
Testing and Results
Passmark PerformanceTest
PCMark05 Benchmark Suite
Crysis Gaming Tests
Devil May Cry 4 Gaming Tests
SPECperfview 10 CATIA
Performance Features and Overclocking
Power Consumption
Intel Lynnfield Final Thoughts
Core i5-750 Conclusion

Core i5-750 Conclusion

Intel promised Nehalem-level performance with their new Lynnfield platform and they definitely delivered. In nearly all of our benchmarks today, the Core i5-750 had a clear lead over the AMD Phenom II X4 965 and the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450. In fact, in many tests, it even matched the Core i7-920. Needless to say, the BX80605I5750 kit earns top marks in performance.

The Core i5-750 also scores well in construction quality. It ran through our torture tests without a hint of instability and was for the most part error-free. However, as I noted previously, there were a few compatibility issues with our HD 4850. Until we can determine the source of the problem, though, I'll reserve my judgement.

Moving on to features, the Intel Core i5-750 has them in abundance. It seems its true strength lies in the Turbo Boost Technology. With it, the processor can automatically overclock all four of its cores independently to match the workload at hand. Down-clocking worked equally as well. Thanks to new power saving features, the Core i5-750 actually consumed the least amount of power out of all of the processors tested. The only thing it is lacking compared to the other Lynnfield processors is hyper-threading.


Of course, with a little extra voltage and an increase to the bus speed, that deficit can be somewhat minimized by overclocking. We were able to push our Core i5-750 sample to an impressive bus speed of 180 MHz. That translates to a base clock speed of 3.6 GHz and a maxiumum turbo clock speed of 4.32 GHz. Disabling Turbo Boost allowed us to push all four cores further, but not quite high as the single core was able to reach with it enabled. Whichever method you chose, rest assured that this chip has plenty of headroom.

As of launch, NewEgg offers the Core i5-750 BX80605I5750 retail kit for $209.99. At that price, Core i5-750 outperforms every direct competitor is has, and even the higher-priced Phenom II X4 965. For that, it's simply a great value. Of course, you'll need a new LGA1156 motherboard to go with it, but thanks to the single chip Ibex Peak P55 chipset, motherboard pricing should be significantly lower than we saw with the X58 launch. The bottom line: if you're looking to upgrade your current system, or build a new one, the Core i5-750 is a great place to start.

Pros:Benchmark Reviews Golden Tachometer Award

+ Excellent Performance
+ Turbo Boost Technology
+ Low Power Consumption
+ DDR3-1333 Support
+ 8 MB Shared Cache


- No Hyper-Threading
- Requires New LGA 1156 Motherboard


  • Performance: 9.5
  • Construction: 9.0
  • Functionality: 9.5
  • Overclock: 9.75
  • Value: 9.5

Final Score: 9.45 out of 10.

Excellence Achievement: Benchmark Reviews Golden Tachometer Award.

Questions? Comments? Benchmark Reviews really wants your feedback. We invite you to leave your remarks in our Discussion Forum.

Related Articles:



# Why is the i7-920 suddenly out of the mix on page?Fred Ubercake 2010-02-17 09:30
Why not continue to include the i7-920 in the benchmark graphs? I don't get it.
Report Comment
# How can you say...Fred Ubercake 2010-02-17 09:35
..."in many tests, it even matched the Core i7-920" when the charts suddenly don't include it from the PCMark page on???
Report Comment
# Why Windows XP and not Win 7Julian 2010-10-11 12:54
Why are you using Windows XP and not the Win 7 64. I believe Windows 7 can achieve better results aspecialy 64 bit
Report Comment
# Windows 7 hadn't been released yetOlin Coles 2010-10-11 12:57
If I had to guess, it's because Microsoft Windows 7 didn't arrive until about two months after this article was published.
Report Comment

Comments have been disabled by the administrator.

Search Benchmark Reviews

Like Benchmark Reviews on FacebookFollow Benchmark Reviews on Twitter