I've seen numerous posts basically asking the same question recently. I'm dedicating this one post to answering that question for everybody. Please don't feel that I'm insulting you for asking this question in another post previously or singling you out - that's not my intent.
Anand, Gary, and others have posted several great articles with details about Lynnfield (i5 750 / i7 8XX), and comparisons of Lynnfield vs. Bloomfield (i7 9XX). This post is just a summary, so please read full reviews here, here, here, and here. Please correct me if any of my information is incorrect.
You should choose i7 9XX (Bloomfield) and X58 (LGA 1366) if:
[*]You plan to run multiple GPUs in SLI or Crossfire and want the maximum performance possible (16x + 16x PCI-E bandwidth on X58 vs. 8X + 8X bandwidth on most mid-high end P55)
[*]You want to overclock your processor as far as possible WITHOUT increasing voltage
[*]You want to overclock your processor as high as possible for "extreme" benchmarking or record setting (6 GHz+)
[*]You want the more memory bandwidth with triple channel DDR3 (NOTE: only negligible gains in real world performance over dual channel DDR3; primarily increases synthetic benchmark performance)
[*]You want a cheaper solution to cramming as much memory into your computer as possible (6 slots on X58; roughly $110 for 6GB DDR3 vs. 4 slots on most P55 boards; roughly $80 for 4GB DDR3)
[*]You want the possibility of buying a 6 core processor with hyperthreading support sometime in 2010 (Gulftown; possibly very expensive)
[*]You need a greater number of PCI-E lanes for expansion cards (storage controllers or RAM disks in addition to graphics cards; x16 + x16 + x8 on some X58 vs. x16 + x4 or x8 + x8 + x4 on some P55)
[*]Low power consumption isn't your most important goal
[*]Lowest overall system cost isn't your biggest concern ("low"-mid range X58 and i7 920 is still comparable in price to mid-high range P55 and i7 860)
[*]Stock processor performance is not your most important goal
You should choose i5 750 / i7 8XX (Lynnfield) and P55 (LGA 1156) if:
[*]You want your system to draw less power both at idle and at full load
[*]You plan to run your processor at stock speeds and want the greatest performance possible (Lynnfield turbo boost beats Bloomfield turbo boost)
[*]You want to keep the overall system cost as low as possible by buying a low-mid range P55 board ($100-130), i5 750 ($159 at Microcenter / $200 elsewhere; lacks hyperthreading) and dual channel DDR3
[*]You want the slight, perhaps negligible, performance advantage of Lynnfield's integrated PCI-E controller
[*]You plan to use a single graphics card, or don't care about squeezing every possible frame per second out of your system using dual graphics cards.
[*]You only plan to do reasonable overclocks (under 5-6 GHz), not record setting suicide runs
[*]You want to keep costs as low as possible (i5 750) and DO NOT need hyperthreading for greater multi-threading support (4 cores on i5 750 vs. 4 cores + HT for 8 total on i7 8XX and i7 9XX)
There's a lot more I could say about the subject, but if you need to know more, your best bet is to go through the wealth of information in Anand and Gary's articles. They have dozens of graphs, examples, and real world performance comparisons that should eliminate any confusion or doubt you may have.
In the end, you can't go wrong with either one. Bloomfield and X58 seem to be a better "extreme" platform, while Lynnfield and P55 are a much better midrange solution. That's not to say that a Lynnfield system can't keep up with Bloomfield; the only time Bloomfield really starts to excel in real world performance is when using multiple ultra-high-end graphics cards in SLI / Crossfire or overclocking to the extreme. With that said, it's somewhat silly to buy a high-end Lynnfield system ($200+ on a P55 motherboard, etc.) when Bloomfield and X58 will be priced similarly - unless your primary goal is power consumption and "stock" speed (turbo boost). X58 may stay "current" a bit longer with the 6 core, 32nm Gulftown coming out sometime in 2010, but who knows for sure what they have planned for either socket? Chances are Sandy Bridge will make both sockets obsolete in the not-too-distant future (2011?) anyway.
Anand, Gary, and others have posted several great articles with details about Lynnfield (i5 750 / i7 8XX), and comparisons of Lynnfield vs. Bloomfield (i7 9XX). This post is just a summary, so please read full reviews here, here, here, and here. Please correct me if any of my information is incorrect.
You should choose i7 9XX (Bloomfield) and X58 (LGA 1366) if:
[*]You plan to run multiple GPUs in SLI or Crossfire and want the maximum performance possible (16x + 16x PCI-E bandwidth on X58 vs. 8X + 8X bandwidth on most mid-high end P55)
[*]You want to overclock your processor as far as possible WITHOUT increasing voltage
[*]You want to overclock your processor as high as possible for "extreme" benchmarking or record setting (6 GHz+)
[*]You want the more memory bandwidth with triple channel DDR3 (NOTE: only negligible gains in real world performance over dual channel DDR3; primarily increases synthetic benchmark performance)
[*]You want a cheaper solution to cramming as much memory into your computer as possible (6 slots on X58; roughly $110 for 6GB DDR3 vs. 4 slots on most P55 boards; roughly $80 for 4GB DDR3)
[*]You want the possibility of buying a 6 core processor with hyperthreading support sometime in 2010 (Gulftown; possibly very expensive)
[*]You need a greater number of PCI-E lanes for expansion cards (storage controllers or RAM disks in addition to graphics cards; x16 + x16 + x8 on some X58 vs. x16 + x4 or x8 + x8 + x4 on some P55)
[*]Low power consumption isn't your most important goal
[*]Lowest overall system cost isn't your biggest concern ("low"-mid range X58 and i7 920 is still comparable in price to mid-high range P55 and i7 860)
[*]Stock processor performance is not your most important goal
You should choose i5 750 / i7 8XX (Lynnfield) and P55 (LGA 1156) if:
[*]You want your system to draw less power both at idle and at full load
[*]You plan to run your processor at stock speeds and want the greatest performance possible (Lynnfield turbo boost beats Bloomfield turbo boost)
[*]You want to keep the overall system cost as low as possible by buying a low-mid range P55 board ($100-130), i5 750 ($159 at Microcenter / $200 elsewhere; lacks hyperthreading) and dual channel DDR3
[*]You want the slight, perhaps negligible, performance advantage of Lynnfield's integrated PCI-E controller
[*]You plan to use a single graphics card, or don't care about squeezing every possible frame per second out of your system using dual graphics cards.
[*]You only plan to do reasonable overclocks (under 5-6 GHz), not record setting suicide runs
[*]You want to keep costs as low as possible (i5 750) and DO NOT need hyperthreading for greater multi-threading support (4 cores on i5 750 vs. 4 cores + HT for 8 total on i7 8XX and i7 9XX)
There's a lot more I could say about the subject, but if you need to know more, your best bet is to go through the wealth of information in Anand and Gary's articles. They have dozens of graphs, examples, and real world performance comparisons that should eliminate any confusion or doubt you may have.
In the end, you can't go wrong with either one. Bloomfield and X58 seem to be a better "extreme" platform, while Lynnfield and P55 are a much better midrange solution. That's not to say that a Lynnfield system can't keep up with Bloomfield; the only time Bloomfield really starts to excel in real world performance is when using multiple ultra-high-end graphics cards in SLI / Crossfire or overclocking to the extreme. With that said, it's somewhat silly to buy a high-end Lynnfield system ($200+ on a P55 motherboard, etc.) when Bloomfield and X58 will be priced similarly - unless your primary goal is power consumption and "stock" speed (turbo boost). X58 may stay "current" a bit longer with the 6 core, 32nm Gulftown coming out sometime in 2010, but who knows for sure what they have planned for either socket? Chances are Sandy Bridge will make both sockets obsolete in the not-too-distant future (2011?) anyway.
Facebook
Twitter