Originally Posted by wuyanxu 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.
I'm not going to tell you a 4.2GHz 920 would beat that in single threaded applications. Because I would be lying. However, given the choice between four cores (8 threads) at 4.2GHz and a 750 that can do either four cores at 3.8GHz or one at 4.5GHz, it's a no brainer.
The 920's one core going at 4.2GHz is, what, 7-8 percent slower than the 750's speed? But the kicker is, the 920 still has three cores to play with. I don't think my computer is only ever doing just one thing, and the fews times it is, I can live with the extra cores costing me 300MHz.
Throw in the triple channel, even if you don't need it, and double the PCIe bandwidth, and you have a lot more, and a lot more options, for not much more money.
Originally Posted by Skiddywinks I'm not going to tell you a 4.2GHz 920 would beat that in single threaded applications. Because I would be lying. However, given the choice between four cores (8 threads) at 4.2GHz and a 750 that can do either four cores at 3.8GHz or one at 4.5GHz, it's a no brainer.
The 920's one core going at 4.2GHz is, what, 7-8 percent slower than the 750's speed? But the kicker is, the 920 still has three cores to play with. I don't think my computer is only ever doing just one thing, and the fews times it is, I can live with the extra cores costing me 300MHz.
Throw in the triple channel, even if you don't need it, and double the PCIe bandwidth, and you have a lot more, and a lot more options, for not much more money.
indeed, you are absolutely right. and that's why Bit-tech's article recommended 920 over all LGA1156 at current price point.
but you cannot deny that LGA1156 will become the mainstream in the very near future and will become more affordable as time goes on. with chips that will overclock like E5200 back in the days. if DDR3 price didn't inflate so much for 2 channel, it would be the perfect platform to upgrade from something like E6600.
this pricing is just like cars, for that little extra money, you can get better performance. but is it worth it at the moment? my personal answer is no. in 2 years time, may be, we'll see.
Originally Posted by titanium angel 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 already have an aftermarket cooler for the 860 since I can reuse the LGA775 cooler, never did like the intel coolers actually. I only listed the retail cpu since you cant get the oem version yet.
Originally Posted by javaman Isn't LGA1156 getting changed after about 6months and intergerated graphics getting added to the chip?
no, LGA1156 goes all the way from low-end to performance. only the motherboard needs a change as current p55 don't have video-out ports on its back, so cannot make use of the video capabilities.
Originally Posted by wuyanxu no, LGA1156 goes all the way from low-end to performance. only the motherboard needs a change as current p55 don't have video-out ports on its back, so cannot make use of the video capabilities.
Surely if its aimed at lower end then video outputs would be essential. I can understand them not adding them to enthuasts boards since they often want a high end graphics card, but alot of low end users still only only type up word doc, browse the internet, watch dvds or the odd game on facebook or WOW at most. Seems abit strange that the manufactures done that.
Originally Posted by javaman Surely if its aimed at lower end then video outputs would be essential. I can understand them not adding them to enthuasts boards since they often want a high end graphics card, but alot of low end users still only only type up word doc, browse the internet, watch dvds or the odd game on facebook or WOW at most. Seems abit strange that the manufactures done that.
The P55s are aimed at enthusiasts. No average person is going to need 2 8x PCIe lanes, the special BIOS and overclocking tools, etc...
They will probably release a stripped-down version with the display port on the I/O.
Originally Posted by H2O The P55s are aimed at enthusiasts. No average person is going to need 2 8x PCIe lanes, the special BIOS and overclocking tools, etc...
They will probably release a stripped-down version with the display port on the I/O.
Ahhhh thanks for clearing that up. I feel dense now >.>
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?
but thats not what Im asking so far to me the I5 doesnt look that impressive at all or worth investing into compared to the Core i7 920 rigs, it seems that the 920 rigs is much more future proof and needing less upgrades over its long life. So what I was asking is why would people build an I5 or its version if i7 over say a i7-920 rig. Again price aside what reason would there be to go with the i5 line.
1) The motherboards were cheaper. You can get a very good X58 motherboard for $200, why would I pay the same for a mainstream socket, Dual channel RAM, and less PCIe bandwidth? Good P55s need to be around $150, to be competitive, with the #200 price point reserved for the top-of the line models.
2) DDR3 Ram was cheaper. Or, the motherboards and CPUs need to support DDR2 and DDR3 RAM.
3) The CPUs need to be cheaper. $200 for the i5 is ok, but $300 for the i7 860 is ridiculous, especially considering that you can get a i7 920 for $260.
2) DDR3 Ram was cheaper. Or, the motherboards and CPUs need to support DDR2 and DDR3 RAM.
Surely thats a mute point now. Everywhere I look DDR3 is the same price and in some cases cheaper than DDR2
Quote:
Originally Posted by H2O
3) The CPUs need to be cheaper. $200 for the i5 is ok, but $300 for the i7 860 is ridiculous, especially considering that you can get a i7 920 for $260
I agree that the processors should be cheaper, but shouldn't it be that the price of the entire platform (LGA1136) should be cheaper? Again the price of the 920 won't matter in a few months since intel said that they won't be producing it anymore.
Originally Posted by javaman I agree that the processors should be cheaper, but shouldn't it be that the price of the entire platform (LGA1136) should be cheaper? Again the price of the 920 won't matter in a few months since intel said that they won't be producing it anymore.
Originally Posted by javaman Surely thats a mute point now. Everywhere I look DDR3 is the same price and in some cases cheaper than DDR2
I agree that the processors should be cheaper, but shouldn't it be that the price of the entire platform (LGA1136) should be cheaper? Again the price of the 920 won't matter in a few months since intel said that they won't be producing it anymore.
.
DDR3 is not necessarily cheaper than DDR2. Sure, OCZ may be selling 6GB of DDR3 1600 for $99, but that is a rare occurrence. Most 4GB sets of DDR2 are priced below $100, while most 6GB DDR3 sets are priced above $120, with the top-of-the-line models over $200. For instance, the top Corsair Dominator DDR2 set (4GB) costs $106 after rebates. The top DDR3 set (6GB, and not Dominator GT) costs $229.
106 divided by 4 = $26.50 per stick
229 divided by 6 = $31.20 per stick
Even the cheap stuff is more expensive. The cheapest DDR3 (1333) 4GB set is $72, while the cheapest DDR2 (800) 4GB set is $39 after rebates.
So, most DDR3 RAM still has a ways to go before it can compare to DDR2.
Not sure if your are talking about 1156 or 1366, but if you are talking about 1156 then, yes, that's what I have been saying. If Intel wants i5 to go mainstream, then they need to make the motherboards cheaper and find a way to make RAM cheaper or allow the motherboards to use DDR2 until the price of DDR3 can compare to DDR2. If you are talking about 1366, it is supposed to be expensive. The motherboards are aimed at Enthusiasts, which is why they need more PCIe bandwidth, better BIOSes, etc...
why does this seem so confusing? Why does Bit Tech advise to buy the 920 over any i5 chip and Annandtech cannot stop gushing about the pure awesomeness of the i5 line? In most regards I view BT as the bottom line, but Shimpi is like prolific and has just some amazing analysis (like his trilogy on SSD's - untouchable) and that's where the confusion comes in.
Bindi has been hinting before the disclosure was lifted , and even after it was lifted that the 920 was the chip to get. I took that as the Gospel. So do I take Shimpi as the New Testament then about the i5 vs i7 debate? take Shimpi because he's shouting down the word from the Mount with the new 'truth' and following it up with more and more analysis (after the initial 20 page article of course)?
After reading all the comments here, people are claiming no upgrade necessary if you're still sitting on a Q6600, but what if you have C2D P35 at that? Upgrade? And to what? interesting to see such a divide in views between BT and AT at least, usually you are like siblings with the same conclusion, just different methods of getting there.
i think Anandtech is basing their recommendations on US price, where RAM price isn't inflated, motherboard are affordable and CPU price doesn't have a huge import VAT slapped on.
think of it like this, MSI offer + i5 + 2/3 of current RAM price, i5 platform will be a winner.
q6600 is a very able chip, people using something like q6600 + P35 have no reason to upgrade at all. (unless they won the CPU and motherboard :) )
Originally Posted by logan'srun why does this seem so confusing? Why does Bit Tech advise to buy the 920 over any i5 chip and Annandtech cannot stop gushing about the pure awesomeness of the i5 line? In most regards I view BT as the bottom line, but Shimpi is like prolific and has just some amazing analysis (like his trilogy on SSD's - untouchable) and that's where the confusion comes in.
Bindi has been hinting before the disclosure was lifted , and even after it was lifted that the 920 was the chip to get. I took that as the Gospel. So do I take Shimpi as the New Testament then about the i5 vs i7 debate? take Shimpi because he's shouting down the word from the Mount with the new 'truth' and following it up with more and more analysis (after the initial 20 page article of course)?
After reading all the comments here, people are claiming no upgrade necessary if you're still sitting on a Q6600, but what if you have C2D P35 at that? Upgrade? And to what? interesting to see such a divide in views between BT and AT at least, usually you are like siblings with the same conclusion, just different methods of getting there.
Basically i5 IS fantastic but its price vs performance isn't People sitting on a Q6600 for gaming don't really need to upgrade provided its overclocked and if they do want to upgrade, the manual overclocking of the 920 offers far better value for money. wuyanxu summed it up perfectly really. As far as im aware tho intel offer bundled packages that in some cases make it cheaper than the 920 an in those situations you have to weigh up the pros and cons of each platfom, ie 16XPCI lanes for crossfire/SLI, processor upgrades (if the platform is around when gaming catches up) etc.
Reading through the i5 vs i7-920 comments it seems to me its rather a question which board type to get: 1366 or 1156.
And that depends on the question if you are planning to use one or more gfx cards.
On one gfx card the gaming performance seems to be comparable...
The big difference shown in this test is the power consumption which equates to heat.
Isn't just looking at the cost factor a bit short sighted here?
And are you planning to test the board Gigabyte GA-P55-UD3?
In the article the q9650 was overclocked, what was it overclocked to? I have gone through the article and can't seem to find any mention of what speed the OC'd version of the q9650 was running at.
Did you guys disable Turbo Boost in BIOS when over clocking the I7-860 CPU? I am currently planning on overclocking my 860. I am wandering which way to go... Leave the Turbo B. enabled and overclock or disable all the way
Just leave it on and it'll give you an extra multiplier in some cases, or, if you want a set fixed clock speed where you find the absolute stable limit, just turn it off :)
Comments 76 to 98 of 98
ReplyI'm not going to tell you a 4.2GHz 920 would beat that in single threaded applications. Because I would be lying. However, given the choice between four cores (8 threads) at 4.2GHz and a 750 that can do either four cores at 3.8GHz or one at 4.5GHz, it's a no brainer.
The 920's one core going at 4.2GHz is, what, 7-8 percent slower than the 750's speed? But the kicker is, the 920 still has three cores to play with. I don't think my computer is only ever doing just one thing, and the fews times it is, I can live with the extra cores costing me 300MHz.
Throw in the triple channel, even if you don't need it, and double the PCIe bandwidth, and you have a lot more, and a lot more options, for not much more money.
but you cannot deny that LGA1156 will become the mainstream in the very near future and will become more affordable as time goes on. with chips that will overclock like E5200 back in the days. if DDR3 price didn't inflate so much for 2 channel, it would be the perfect platform to upgrade from something like E6600.
this pricing is just like cars, for that little extra money, you can get better performance. but is it worth it at the moment? my personal answer is no. in 2 years time, may be, we'll see.
I already have an aftermarket cooler for the 860 since I can reuse the LGA775 cooler, never did like the intel coolers actually. I only listed the retail cpu since you cant get the oem version yet.
Surely if its aimed at lower end then video outputs would be essential. I can understand them not adding them to enthuasts boards since they often want a high end graphics card, but alot of low end users still only only type up word doc, browse the internet, watch dvds or the odd game on facebook or WOW at most. Seems abit strange that the manufactures done that.
The P55s are aimed at enthusiasts. No average person is going to need 2 8x PCIe lanes, the special BIOS and overclocking tools, etc...
They will probably release a stripped-down version with the display port on the I/O.
Ahhhh thanks for clearing that up. I feel dense now >.>
but thats not what Im asking so far to me the I5 doesnt look that impressive at all or worth investing into compared to the Core i7 920 rigs, it seems that the 920 rigs is much more future proof and needing less upgrades over its long life. So what I was asking is why would people build an I5 or its version if i7 over say a i7-920 rig. Again price aside what reason would there be to go with the i5 line.
1) The motherboards were cheaper. You can get a very good X58 motherboard for $200, why would I pay the same for a mainstream socket, Dual channel RAM, and less PCIe bandwidth? Good P55s need to be around $150, to be competitive, with the #200 price point reserved for the top-of the line models.
2) DDR3 Ram was cheaper. Or, the motherboards and CPUs need to support DDR2 and DDR3 RAM.
3) The CPUs need to be cheaper. $200 for the i5 is ok, but $300 for the i7 860 is ridiculous, especially considering that you can get a i7 920 for $260.
Surely thats a mute point now. Everywhere I look DDR3 is the same price and in some cases cheaper than DDR2
I agree that the processors should be cheaper, but shouldn't it be that the price of the entire platform (LGA1136) should be cheaper? Again the price of the 920 won't matter in a few months since intel said that they won't be producing it anymore.
.
Then buy it now!!
:p
DDR3 is not necessarily cheaper than DDR2. Sure, OCZ may be selling 6GB of DDR3 1600 for $99, but that is a rare occurrence. Most 4GB sets of DDR2 are priced below $100, while most 6GB DDR3 sets are priced above $120, with the top-of-the-line models over $200. For instance, the top Corsair Dominator DDR2 set (4GB) costs $106 after rebates. The top DDR3 set (6GB, and not Dominator GT) costs $229.
106 divided by 4 = $26.50 per stick
229 divided by 6 = $31.20 per stick
Even the cheap stuff is more expensive. The cheapest DDR3 (1333) 4GB set is $72, while the cheapest DDR2 (800) 4GB set is $39 after rebates.
So, most DDR3 RAM still has a ways to go before it can compare to DDR2.
Not sure if your are talking about 1156 or 1366, but if you are talking about 1156 then, yes, that's what I have been saying. If Intel wants i5 to go mainstream, then they need to make the motherboards cheaper and find a way to make RAM cheaper or allow the motherboards to use DDR2 until the price of DDR3 can compare to DDR2. If you are talking about 1366, it is supposed to be expensive. The motherboards are aimed at Enthusiasts, which is why they need more PCIe bandwidth, better BIOSes, etc...
I would but they screwed up the processing on my student loan >:(
Bindi has been hinting before the disclosure was lifted , and even after it was lifted that the 920 was the chip to get. I took that as the Gospel. So do I take Shimpi as the New Testament then about the i5 vs i7 debate? take Shimpi because he's shouting down the word from the Mount with the new 'truth' and following it up with more and more analysis (after the initial 20 page article of course)?
After reading all the comments here, people are claiming no upgrade necessary if you're still sitting on a Q6600, but what if you have C2D P35 at that? Upgrade? And to what? interesting to see such a divide in views between BT and AT at least, usually you are like siblings with the same conclusion, just different methods of getting there.
Anything they say about Intel, I take away the hyperbole because they're prone to laying it on a little thick. :/
think of it like this, MSI offer + i5 + 2/3 of current RAM price, i5 platform will be a winner.
q6600 is a very able chip, people using something like q6600 + P35 have no reason to upgrade at all. (unless they won the CPU and motherboard :) )
Basically i5 IS fantastic but its price vs performance isn't People sitting on a Q6600 for gaming don't really need to upgrade provided its overclocked and if they do want to upgrade, the manual overclocking of the 920 offers far better value for money. wuyanxu summed it up perfectly really. As far as im aware tho intel offer bundled packages that in some cases make it cheaper than the 920 an in those situations you have to weigh up the pros and cons of each platfom, ie 16XPCI lanes for crossfire/SLI, processor upgrades (if the platform is around when gaming catches up) etc.
And that depends on the question if you are planning to use one or more gfx cards.
On one gfx card the gaming performance seems to be comparable...
The big difference shown in this test is the power consumption which equates to heat.
Isn't just looking at the cost factor a bit short sighted here?
And are you planning to test the board Gigabyte GA-P55-UD3?
-
« Previous
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums