okay I read the whole article but really didnt answer what has been floating in my head so bottom-line can someone explain to me other then possible cost why I would go for this over the LGA1366 Core I7? Is there anything that would make this better? It seems like if you build a core-i7 920 or higher rig your pretty much done building computers for a LONG time and the only thing needing the occasional upgrade would be the graphics cards. So ya any advice or help would be great and thanks.
Originally Posted by titanium angel ebuyer have P55 boards starting from £86.45, so does that make the i5 a good deal? Im going to try and get a 'cheap' MSI board if i dont i may just go 920 instead.
Possibly, but without testing the cheap i5 boards, we can't really make a recommendation ourselves - it's up to you to decide whether it's worth buying a fairly cheap board blind. That said, we have a bunch of cheaper boards arriving (some have already) and we hope to turn around the reviews as quickly as possible - it might be worth waiting for the dust to settle.
Tim will you be reviewing the Gigabyte GA-P55-UD3/UD3R? They're around the £100 mark and they're the ones I was looking at when I get a student loan.
Originally Posted by HourBeforeDawn okay I read the whole article but really didnt answer what has been floating in my head so bottom-line can someone explain to me other then possible cost why I would go for this over the LGA1366 Core I7? Is there anything that would make this better? It seems like if you build a core-i7 920 or higher rig your pretty much done building computers for a LONG time and the only thing needing the occasional upgrade would be the graphics cards. So ya any advice or help would be great and thanks.
to me it seems like either go with an i5-750, or go i7-920. unless amd price drops, they don't seem to be an option right now if you are upgrading all areas (cpu, mobo, and ram)
edit:
seems newegg has updated their site and now have p55 boards...
Originally Posted by [USRF]Obiwan I found out yesterday when I was doing some overclocking together with my brother that running two Nvidia cards in SLI is slower then decoupling the cards and use one as a GPU and one as a physics GPU. We don't know why but we got higher numbers in vantage then with SLI.
Vantage has a few tests specifically designed to take advantage of PhysX, which can significantly influence the final scores. You can, however, turn off the PhysX compatibility before you start the test - which every online review does, because otherwise nVidia GPUs come out looking much better than they actually are under the majority of circmstances. Try it again without PhysX - your score will probably be much more in line with what you'd expect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu now that Intel have released the data sheet on these processors, what is interesting is that i7 920 have thermal spec of 68c. while all LGA1156 processors have thermal spec of 73c. does this mean as long as the temperature stay below 72c on i5's, it will turbo boost when single thread is needed? is that how turbo boost works?
Turbo Boost is based on power draw - read this page and the next of the Anandtech review for a great explanation. My guess is the higher thermal spec has more to do with better yields than anything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trig no p55 boards for sell on newegg, but they do have the chips in stock...awesome...
edit: tigerdirect has boards, all kinds in fact. looks like newegg just flat out dropped the ball here.
I thought the same thing - turns out they just didn't have any listed under Advanced Search at the time, but if you did a Power Search, they were all there. They're up across the board now, though.
Kind of disappointing how expensive the P55-UD6 is - at that price, I'd much more highly recommend spending the cash on an i7 920 and an EX58-UD4/UD5.
Originally Posted by Diosjenin I thought the same thing - turns out they just didn't have any listed under Advanced Search at the time, but if you did a Power Search, they were all there. They're up across the board now, though.
Kind of disappointing how expensive the P55-UD6 is - at that price, I'd much more highly recommend spending the cash on an i7 920 and an EX58-UD4/UD5.
- Diosjenin -
thought i checked power search...eh...
you're right. some of these prices are retarded...and no real drop on core 2 quads yet...
ha, damn, wish I'd bought an i7 920 months ago now, but was waiting on these results!
Still going to give it a month or so for all the 1156 motherboard reviews and advice before I make my final decision, and see how waterblocks fair on 1156 CPUs...
Originally Posted by mrbens ha, damn, wish I'd bought an i7 920 months ago now, but was waiting on these results!
Still going to give it a month or so for all the 1156 motherboard reviews and advice before I make my final decision, and see how waterblocks fair on 1156 CPUs...
Don't agree with the review. Lynnfield and P55 is excellent. It is better than the LGA1366 lineup except 975. There is no reason to go for i7 920 now that Lynnfield is here. The only place that LGA1366 platform would be better is very high end gaming rigs with SLI or Crossfire setups thanks to more limited PCIe lanes with P55.
[/QUOTE][QUOTE=mrbens;2087866]trig from slsk?[/QUOTE]
no, was just curious if you lived in the states...
[QUOTE=Dave_M;2087880]Don't agree with the review. Lynnfield and P55 is excellent. It is better than the LGA1366 lineup except 975. There is no reason to go for i7 920 now that Lynnfield is here. The only place that LGA1366 platform would be better is very high end gaming rigs with SLI or Crossfire setups thanks to more limited PCIe lanes with P55.[/QUOTE]
what exactly do you not agree with? im curious...i dont recall them saying lynnfield and p55 is not a good choice...
so is it that they think the 750 is a good choice? or that the 920 is a better option than the 860 or 870?
if it's the latter(i assume it is), what can you point out that makes those 2 cpu's a better option than the 920 other than you don't agree?
[QUOTE=bogie170;2087884]The way I see it, there is no real point in upgrading form a Core 2Quad for most people.
My Q9650 is @ 4.0Ghz and will probably be close to the top results of the i5's.
Best way to spend money on an upgrade would be to opt for a shiny new ATi HD 5870X2 which is out in a week or two.[/QUOTE]
they qoute that price when it's out of stock, then when it gets in, they raise it...don't waste your time waiting on that.(newegg has it in stock at 299.99) and the cost to grab "3" sticks of ram has nothing to do with it really. 3 x 2GB sticks don't cost much more than 2 x 2Gb, say 25% cost increase to 50% capacity increase if that.
it's 750 or 920 right now it seems.
I'm not saying that you are wrong or anything, but in my situation the p55 combo would be cheaper. Yes, the 750 and 920 are great buys, but I would like the performance of the 920, but cheaper(which it is in my case)
Originally Posted by HourBeforeDawn okay I read the whole article but really didnt answer what has been floating in my head so bottom-line can someone explain to me other then possible cost why I would go for this over the LGA1366 Core I7? Is there anything that would make this better? It seems like if you build a core-i7 920 or higher rig your pretty much done building computers for a LONG time and the only thing needing the occasional upgrade would be the graphics cards. So ya any advice or help would be great and thanks.
Isn't cost one of, if not the most important factors though? If you take it out of the equation then please explain why I should get the 920 over the 965?
1. Lynnfield CPUs can take LGA775 coolers simultaneously so long as the mobo is designed with extra holes which are rotated slightly. ASRock's P55 Deluxe is one example of this, expect many others to follow over the coming months.
2. SMT Parking in Windows 7 should improve HT even more by improving thread allocation and prioritising physical over logical. So HT testing should be even better than on Vista, still not essential nor worth paying through the nose for.
Looking at cost, i think i'm gona have to get a 750 and put the savings towards an SSD. Overall i think that should make a faster system than a 920 and standard HDD. (obviously 'faster' as in general use in windows rather than FPS or encoding times etc)
now i just have to decide on a mobo... any idea when the reviews will be out??? The EVGA P55 FTW looks very nice, if a bit expensive... but lga1366 mounting holes and that colour scheme... *drool* but i'm not getting anything untill i've seen some reviews :)
Originally Posted by Dave_M Don't agree with the review. Lynnfield and P55 is excellent. It is better than the LGA1366 lineup except 975. There is no reason to go for i7 920 now that Lynnfield is here. The only place that LGA1366 platform would be better is very high end gaming rigs with SLI or Crossfire setups thanks to more limited PCIe lanes with P55.
i5 is only better if you don't plan on overclocking. The benchmarks listing speeds are only the stock speeds, not the highest the CPU will run at, which can be quite high with th i5s, especially in games and not-so-multithreaded applications.
All of this goes out of the window when you overclock. If you were to overclock a 920 to the same clocks a TurboBoosted i5 was hitting, the i7 would win. This review, as much as I enjoyed it, really is missing clock for clock comparisons, which are what matter (as boogerlad requested).
i5 is a seriously good chip, don't get me wrong, but we are enthusiasts, at least at heart. If you enjoy overclocking and have a decent cooling setup, an i7 920 is a much better buy. You get triple channel memory, more RAM slots, twice the PCIe bandwidth, and you can also whack in a hexacore CPU when they come out.
If you plan on running the CPU at stock, or only doing some very mild overclocking, then get i5. The TurboBoost will do you proud. Especially since most modern games are not very multithreaded.
My point is only further demonstrated by the fact that the overclocked 920 beats almost everything, almost everytime. It gets pipped sometimes at the very top, but it is also running slower than two of the chips.
can you try P55 vs X58, with Quad CF and Quad SLI?
ALSO someone tell me why there are no benchmarks for QCF/QSLI at 2560 4xaa 16/af for crysis? i mean at that point im sure CPU scaling will comeinto affect due to the overhead of QCF/QSLI. who games at 1680 with mid settings?
wouldnt checking CPU scaling with the best res/settings on crysis DX10 show how much OCing and/or a new proccessor helps?
Originally Posted by 500mph I'm not saying that you are wrong or anything, but in my situation the p55 combo would be cheaper. Yes, the 750 and 920 are great buys, but I would like the performance of the 920, but cheaper(which it is in my case)
Now the $120 I save could go towards something else (probably my education since I'm in uni.)
Now for other people who are doing an entirely new build, the 750 or 920 would be the best buys.
i guess the main thing for you is i just wouldnt recommend the 860. save another $90 and grab the 750. why pay $90 for 5-10% performance gain? either way, your gonna have a nice rig.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austin ;o) 2 comments I feel are important.
1. Lynnfield CPUs can take LGA775 coolers simultaneously so long as the mobo is designed with extra holes which are rotated slightly. ASRock's P55 Deluxe is one example of this, expect many others to follow over the coming months.
2. SMT Parking in Windows 7 should improve HT even more by improving thread allocation and prioritising physical over logical. So HT testing should be even better than on Vista, still not essential nor worth paying through the nose for.
Are the Q9650 figures the same as the ones you used in the Custom PC magazine a while back. If I remember rightly the Q9650 overclock was less than 4.0ghz. (3.6ghz off the top of my head). I haven't seen a Q9650 that doesn't reach 4ghz so that skews the results slightly. In games the Q9650 should be the same as an e8400 at 4.0ghz and faster in multi threaded applications.
Was just wondering as the results are a good basis for comparison other than this one result (which I happen to run my processor at :D)
No - they are not quite the same figures - we use a different HDD and graphics card now for testing on bit-tech/CPC. We also used a different Q9650, and it overclocked slightly further (4GHz versus 3.96GHz).
Originally Posted by 500mph I'm not saying that you are wrong or anything, but in my situation the p55 combo would be cheaper. Yes, the 750 and 920 are great buys, but I would like the performance of the 920, but cheaper(which it is in my case)
Now the $120 I save could go towards something else (probably my education since I'm in uni.)
Now for other people who are doing an entirely new build, the 750 or 920 would be the best buys.
Surely thats not really a fair comparison? you've included an aftermarket cooler with the 920 even though you've listed a retail cpu? that would save you $60 so the difference would only be $60 which would be small enough to justify the 920 no?
Originally Posted by Skiddywinks i5 is only better if you don't plan on overclocking. The benchmarks listing speeds are only the stock speeds, not the highest the CPU will run at, which can be quite high with th i5s, especially in games and not-so-multithreaded applications.
All of this goes out of the window when you overclock. If you were to overclock a 920 to the same clocks a TurboBoosted i5 was hitting, the i7 would win. This review, as much as I enjoyed it, really is missing clock for clock comparisons, which are what matter (as boogerlad requested).
i5 is a seriously good chip, don't get me wrong, but we are enthusiasts, at least at heart. If you enjoy overclocking and have a decent cooling setup, an i7 920 is a much better buy. You get triple channel memory, more RAM slots, twice the PCIe bandwidth, and you can also whack in a hexacore CPU when they come out.
If you plan on running the CPU at stock, or only doing some very mild overclocking, then get i5. The TurboBoost will do you proud. Especially since most modern games are not very multithreaded.
My point is only further demonstrated by the fact that the overclocked 920 beats almost everything, almost everytime. It gets pipped sometimes at the very top, but it is also running slower than two of the chips.
i have tested, managed to get 3.25Ghz (155x21) and turbo to 3.7Ghz no problem, no voltage increase needed (well 0.00625+ in offset mode so it's not in Asus's crazy auto mode) and on stock cooling. Bit-tech did take overclocking into account, although without turbo mode. with extensive testing, it is possible to get i5 750 to be stable at something like 3.8Ghz and turbo to 4.5Ghz. tell me a 4.2Ghz air cooled 920 can beat that in single thread applications.
in clock for clock, single threaded application is within error margin between 750 and 920. search for my thread in Hardware forum.
of course, 920 rocks in multi-threaded applications and is still a great buy with P55's inflated price ATM, and that's the future, if you can afford it. but IMHO multi-GPU sucks, tri-channel is not needed at the moment (see 860's performance) and hexacore is rumoured to be an extreme chip only.
Comments 51 to 75 of 98
ReplyTim will you be reviewing the Gigabyte GA-P55-UD3/UD3R? They're around the £100 mark and they're the ones I was looking at when I get a student loan.
to me it seems like either go with an i5-750, or go i7-920. unless amd price drops, they don't seem to be an option right now if you are upgrading all areas (cpu, mobo, and ram)
edit:
seems newegg has updated their site and now have p55 boards...
Vantage has a few tests specifically designed to take advantage of PhysX, which can significantly influence the final scores. You can, however, turn off the PhysX compatibility before you start the test - which every online review does, because otherwise nVidia GPUs come out looking much better than they actually are under the majority of circmstances. Try it again without PhysX - your score will probably be much more in line with what you'd expect.
Turbo Boost is based on power draw - read this page and the next of the Anandtech review for a great explanation. My guess is the higher thermal spec has more to do with better yields than anything else.
I thought the same thing - turns out they just didn't have any listed under Advanced Search at the time, but if you did a Power Search, they were all there. They're up across the board now, though.
Kind of disappointing how expensive the P55-UD6 is - at that price, I'd much more highly recommend spending the cash on an i7 920 and an EX58-UD4/UD5.
- Diosjenin -
thought i checked power search...eh...
you're right. some of these prices are retarded...and no real drop on core 2 quads yet...
Still going to give it a month or so for all the 1156 motherboard reviews and advice before I make my final decision, and see how waterblocks fair on 1156 CPUs...
where do you live?
My Q9650 is @ 4.0Ghz and will probably be close to the top results of the i5's.
Best way to spend money on an upgrade would be to opt for a shiny new ATi HD 5870X2 which is out in a week or two.
no, was just curious if you lived in the states...
[QUOTE=Dave_M;2087880]Don't agree with the review. Lynnfield and P55 is excellent. It is better than the LGA1366 lineup except 975. There is no reason to go for i7 920 now that Lynnfield is here. The only place that LGA1366 platform would be better is very high end gaming rigs with SLI or Crossfire setups thanks to more limited PCIe lanes with P55.[/QUOTE]
what exactly do you not agree with? im curious...i dont recall them saying lynnfield and p55 is not a good choice...
so is it that they think the 750 is a good choice? or that the 920 is a better option than the 860 or 870?
if it's the latter(i assume it is), what can you point out that makes those 2 cpu's a better option than the 920 other than you don't agree?
[QUOTE=bogie170;2087884]The way I see it, there is no real point in upgrading form a Core 2Quad for most people.
My Q9650 is @ 4.0Ghz and will probably be close to the top results of the i5's.
Best way to spend money on an upgrade would be to opt for a shiny new ATi HD 5870X2 which is out in a week or two.[/QUOTE]
mmm...5870x2 sounds sexy
I'm not saying that you are wrong or anything, but in my situation the p55 combo would be cheaper. Yes, the 750 and 920 are great buys, but I would like the performance of the 920, but cheaper(which it is in my case)
This is all I would have to buy for the P55 setup I want
http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg258/codyfurr/p55.png
And this is what I would have to buy for the x58 I would want.
http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg258/codyfurr/x58.png
Now the $120 I save could go towards something else (probably my education since I'm in uni.)
Now for other people who are doing an entirely new build, the 750 or 920 would be the best buys.
Isn't cost one of, if not the most important factors though? If you take it out of the equation then please explain why I should get the 920 over the 965?
1. Lynnfield CPUs can take LGA775 coolers simultaneously so long as the mobo is designed with extra holes which are rotated slightly. ASRock's P55 Deluxe is one example of this, expect many others to follow over the coming months.
2. SMT Parking in Windows 7 should improve HT even more by improving thread allocation and prioritising physical over logical. So HT testing should be even better than on Vista, still not essential nor worth paying through the nose for.
now i just have to decide on a mobo... any idea when the reviews will be out??? The EVGA P55 FTW looks very nice, if a bit expensive... but lga1366 mounting holes and that colour scheme... *drool* but i'm not getting anything untill i've seen some reviews :)
i5 is only better if you don't plan on overclocking. The benchmarks listing speeds are only the stock speeds, not the highest the CPU will run at, which can be quite high with th i5s, especially in games and not-so-multithreaded applications.
All of this goes out of the window when you overclock. If you were to overclock a 920 to the same clocks a TurboBoosted i5 was hitting, the i7 would win. This review, as much as I enjoyed it, really is missing clock for clock comparisons, which are what matter (as boogerlad requested).
i5 is a seriously good chip, don't get me wrong, but we are enthusiasts, at least at heart. If you enjoy overclocking and have a decent cooling setup, an i7 920 is a much better buy. You get triple channel memory, more RAM slots, twice the PCIe bandwidth, and you can also whack in a hexacore CPU when they come out.
If you plan on running the CPU at stock, or only doing some very mild overclocking, then get i5. The TurboBoost will do you proud. Especially since most modern games are not very multithreaded.
My point is only further demonstrated by the fact that the overclocked 920 beats almost everything, almost everytime. It gets pipped sometimes at the very top, but it is also running slower than two of the chips.
ALSO someone tell me why there are no benchmarks for QCF/QSLI at 2560 4xaa 16/af for crysis? i mean at that point im sure CPU scaling will comeinto affect due to the overhead of QCF/QSLI. who games at 1680 with mid settings?
wouldnt checking CPU scaling with the best res/settings on crysis DX10 show how much OCing and/or a new proccessor helps?
i guess the main thing for you is i just wouldnt recommend the 860. save another $90 and grab the 750. why pay $90 for 5-10% performance gain? either way, your gonna have a nice rig.
whats goin on austin? long time no see...
Was just wondering as the results are a good basis for comparison other than this one result (which I happen to run my processor at :D)
Surely thats not really a fair comparison? you've included an aftermarket cooler with the 920 even though you've listed a retail cpu? that would save you $60 so the difference would only be $60 which would be small enough to justify the 920 no?
i have tested, managed to get 3.25Ghz (155x21) and turbo to 3.7Ghz no problem, no voltage increase needed (well 0.00625+ in offset mode so it's not in Asus's crazy auto mode) and on stock cooling. Bit-tech did take overclocking into account, although without turbo mode. with extensive testing, it is possible to get i5 750 to be stable at something like 3.8Ghz and turbo to 4.5Ghz. tell me a 4.2Ghz air cooled 920 can beat that in single thread applications.
in clock for clock, single threaded application is within error margin between 750 and 920. search for my thread in Hardware forum.
of course, 920 rocks in multi-threaded applications and is still a great buy with P55's inflated price ATM, and that's the future, if you can afford it. but IMHO multi-GPU sucks, tri-channel is not needed at the moment (see 860's performance) and hexacore is rumoured to be an extreme chip only.
-
« Previous
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums