bit-tech.net

Intel Core i7-950 Review

Comments 1 to 25 of 29

Reply
mrbens 10th November 2010, 09:37 Quote
Quote:
you'd probably have to drink eight cans of Red Bull to be able to actually be able to notice this.
So that's the reason for all the grammatical errors on bit-tech! Lay off the red bull guys. :)

Interesting review. I'm surprised it received a 9 when it's no better (worse overclocked) than the lower model in the i7 chain. It's not much of a big deal now they are the same price, but what score would it have got if it was still twice the price?
rjkoneill 10th November 2010, 09:48 Quote
"Intel Core i5-760 Review"

this review could have been summed up on one page in fairness
"its a bloomfield, all bloomfields are the same"
Snips 10th November 2010, 10:12 Quote
Thanks for this guys as I've also been struggling with the overclock. I may just leave it at 4Ghz as it's fine at that.
BRAWL 10th November 2010, 10:14 Quote
Haven't even weilding my evil hammer of overclock on the 950 I have. It's fast enough as is!

Nice review guys.
mi1ez 10th November 2010, 10:19 Quote
Unlucky on the sample. I wonder how others did.
saxovtsmike 10th November 2010, 10:35 Quote
how would the performance figures look like if you would have used propper rams, capable of doing 187bclk x10 => meaning 1870 mem clock instead of droping the ram speed to a crappy value lower than 1400 (187x8).
Performance whise I´d like to see a comparison between 205x21/mem 205x8 and 187x23/mem 187x10
rollo 10th November 2010, 10:56 Quote
other review sites have it approaching 4.8ghz and that's the luck of overclocking

they will all hit 4ghz and who really needs more outside of benchmarking.

if it was still twice the price it would of had its review score halved id guess as its not twice as quick
B1GBUD 10th November 2010, 11:46 Quote
But the Article picture on the main page shows a picture of an i5-760..... then the 1st page calls it and i5-950??

Does anyone proof these articles before they are published?
bulldogjeff 10th November 2010, 11:53 Quote
It's a good CPU, it's basically it's what the i7 940 was to the i7 920, for that sort of money it can't be ignored.

I'd love to see what a good sample can really do. I get 4.3Ghz stable with 1.36v on my 940 so there's got to be more to come from a good 950.
LeMaltor 10th November 2010, 12:06 Quote
A crysis bench.

WHAT WHAT WHAt?
phuzz 10th November 2010, 12:09 Quote
Hmph, I've always been a bit annoyed my C2D E8400 only ever got to 4GHz with lots of voltage and W/C, when every review site seemed to hit that on air.
Luck of the draw in the end.
bulldogjeff 10th November 2010, 12:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by phuzz
Hmph, I've always been a bit annoyed my C2D E8400 only ever got to 4GHz with lots of voltage and W/C, when every review site seemed to hit that on air.
Luck of the draw in the end.

True it's pure luck. I had P4 that should have gone to 4GHz the same as every one else was getting, but it would hit 3.6 and fall on it's arse. I killed the mobo in the end trying to get 4Ghz.
Mattmc91 10th November 2010, 12:23 Quote
Getting my i7 kit in 5 days :D

Rampage III Gene
i7 950
G-Skill Trident 2,000Mhz


NOMNOM overclockz!
fingerbob69 10th November 2010, 12:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMaltor
A crysis bench.

WHAT WHAT WHAt?

Exactly! Crysis is ok as a cpu bench but is now obsolete as a gpu bench!!!

What gives?
xaser04 10th November 2010, 12:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by phuzz
Hmph, I've always been a bit annoyed my C2D E8400 only ever got to 4GHz with lots of voltage and W/C, when every review site seemed to hit that on air.
Luck of the draw in the end.

Yup, my i7 920 *will* do 4ghz (190x21 w/turbo) but only if I pump massive amounts of volts into it. In reality this is simply not do-abe 24/7 so I settle with 3.8ghz instead. The performance difference is non-existant and I certainly don't miss the whine of my H50 running full pelt to try, in desperation, to cool it.

It's annoying though as 4Ghz is a nice round number.
Material 10th November 2010, 13:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by B1GBUD
But the Article picture on the main page shows a picture of an i5-760..... then the 1st page calls it and i5-950??

Does anyone proof these articles before they are published?

Yikes, good spot, that's my bad for not updating the thumbs. Sorted now though, may need a hard refresh to show though.
brummie 10th November 2010, 14:08 Quote
I am please with this chip, got one for £215 in a weekend sale about a month ago from scan, when they ran out of 920's and 930's. got it with a gigabyte, and happily turbos to 3.2ghz, and is about twice as fast as my q6600 and alot smoother. haven't tried to oc yet, probably won't.
The boy 4rm oz 10th November 2010, 15:21 Quote
I'm locking this one into my "To Buy" list until I see what Sandy Bridge has in store for us.
Phil Rhodes 10th November 2010, 16:00 Quote
I'm desperately trying to install Win7 on my 950-based machine as I type.

Unfortunately, it seems Gigabyte motherboards don't like SSDs this week. Aaargh.
AuDioFreaK39 10th November 2010, 18:40 Quote
Thanks for the review bit-tech. A good buddy of mine has been looking at the Core i7 950 for a while now, and after contemplating the platform longevity of LGA 1366, he's ready to buy into one. So we're heading over to the Micro Center in Southern California tomorrow afternoon to pick up this chip and install it on his MSI X58 Pro-E. Thanks again for the review, and I'll make sure to keep the QPI limit in mind when overclocking tomorrow evening! \m/
bobwya 10th November 2010, 21:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by xaser04

Yup, my i7 920 *will* do 4ghz (190x21 w/turbo) but only if I pump massive amounts of volts into it. In reality this is simply not do-abe 24/7 so I settle with 3.8ghz instead. The performance difference is non-existant and I certainly don't miss the whine of my H50 running full pelt to try, in desperation, to cool it.

It's annoying though as 4Ghz is a nice round number.

My i7 920 wasn't too hard to get to 4Ghz (it's really W/C) - but I am not interested in going in higher :-)
Did have to change waterblocks - damn that thing runs hot when loaded @4Ghz!
Makaveli 11th November 2010, 01:49 Quote
First question.

Is speedstep enabled on any of those machines?

are the Idle power consumptions numbers really taken with it idling at 4+ Ghz?


The reason I ask is my current 920 is at 3.6 at 1.2vcore and with speedstep enabled it idles at 2.2ghz.
As soon as I add a second fan to my TRUE I will go for a nice even 4Ghz hopefully I can do it at 1.25vcore or 1.3 at the max. I would like to have my memory running at its rated speed its currently at 1440 with this overclock.

I also plan to go up to 12gb's in the machine which I know will also affect my overclocks slightly so interestingt times ahead come christmas.
Krayzie_B.o.n.e. 11th November 2010, 01:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by The boy 4rm oz
I'm locking this one into my "To Buy" list until I see what Sandy Bridge has in store for us.

Same here for me until I get more Sandy Bridge info, if Sandy Bridge doesn't blow me away or cost too much then a Core i7 950 will work just fine in my new build.
Omnituens 11th November 2010, 14:36 Quote
Want to get my 920 to 4GHz, but this sabertooth boards options are so vast I'm not sure where to start. Also, my dominator ram doesnt appear to be able to run at its XMP settings :(
kenco_uk 11th November 2010, 15:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Rhodes
I'm desperately trying to install Win7 on my 950-based machine as I type.

Unfortunately, it seems Gigabyte motherboards don't like SSDs this week. Aaargh.

You may need to update your mobo's bios. Is it a Corsair SSD?
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums