Should I get the i7 920 or i7 860? (Thread)

[erocker]

If I would do it, I would go X58 i7. Wide range of chipset options. You never know when you might stumble upon a cheap i9 in the future.

 

[DrPepper]

If I would do it, I would go X58 i7. Wide range of chipset options. You never know when you might stumble upon a cheap i9 in the future.

+1 on that. X58 seems to be the most versatile chipset of them all especially when it comes to GPU's and future CPU's.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Agreed, the key is going to be finding some of the items on sale if you want to get a 1366 PC. Hopefully i9s will drive down the prices of i7s

 

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

920

 

[EastCoasthandle]

I just thought of something. The 1366 will use the i7s and the i9s. However the 1156 will use the i7s, the i5s and the i6s. So I don't think either socket will go away anytime soon. It just seems to me that the writing is on the wall that the 1366 will be an enthusiast class, server option while the 1156 will be more mainstream class option. With CPUs like the 860 performing on par with the 920 it's hard to consider it a mainstream CPU. I think that the 1156 socket motherboards being offered are more mainstream then the CPU it's designed for.

A poll was added to this thread to gauge where consumers are migrating to between sockets. In any case thanks for the input.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Heads Up

It looks like Intel will introduce X68 (1366 socket) and the P65 (1156 socket) chipset may come as early as 2nd Quarter 2010. These boards will support USB 3.0, SATA 6.0 and DMI 2.0. So keep that in mind if you decide to upgrade now. However, there is no hard confirmation on this right now.

 

[Soylent Joe]

I'm probably going to drop a load on a Foxconn P55 Inferno, i7 860, and 8GB of the red G.Skill Ripjaws in a few months, unless something better for the price comes out before then.

It looks like Intel will introduce X68 (1366 socket) and the P65 (1156 socket) chipset in the 2nd Quarter 2010. These boards will support USB 3.0, SATA 6.0 and DMI 2.0. So keep that in mind if you decide to upgrade now.

P65 sounds really nice, although I'd bet that X58 will be really expensive.

 

[AddSub]

LGA1366 is the platform to go for. At this point the prices are so low and indistinguishable that at some places even LGA775 hardware is more expensive than LGA1366 stuff. So, from a financial or economic standpoint there is no reason not to go X58/i7.

Also, this:

3. 1136 will be limited to 4 cores while there are plans to use 6 cores on the 1366.

Oh, I seriously doubt Intel will stop at 6 cores for 1366. Try 8 or even 16.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Gaming, throwing a Monkey Wrench into the mix

Ok, I have to admit that finding reviews that compared an overclocked Q9550 vs i7 860 @ 4.0GHz was not the easiest task. However, I was able to find it. The i7 860 does command the lead however, if you look at more then just the difference between the Q9550 and i7 860 at 4.0GHz they both offer frame rates well above playable using a Radeon 5850. However, do note that 4.0GHz (on any CPU) is not the norm. However, if the overclocks were at 3.60GHz I still believe that the differences between CPUs would still be similar.

I also found a review using an E8400, Phenom II X4 965 and a i7 920 all at 4.1GHz using a Radeon 5870. Now keep in mind this is just gaming we are talking about. Other aspects like compressing/decompressing files, using synthetic benchmarks like 3D06/Vantage, using a dual video cards, etc will show that the i7s, Q9's, etc will offer more performance over the E8's.

Now that you've had time to absorb all this which is really better? Well, that depends on your budget and personal needs out of your PC. However, I wanted to point these 2 reviews out because it shows the disparity between the i7's vs the Q9's, E8's and x4 965 is not as big as assumed to be. And when you compare them based on Price vs Performance ratio the i7s decreases considerably IMO. Something I was not aware of until I looked at those reviews.

 

[boulard83]

I7 920 Ftw !

 

[EastCoasthandle]

From Fud

Interesting article from Fud if true...

LGA 775 processors still account for 77% of the market, predicted to hold at least 50% by Q4 2010
LGA 1156,Lynnfield and Clarksfield socket has 18% of the market, predicted to grow to 44% Q4 2010
Atom makes up some 5 of the market, percent predicted to grow to 7% by Q4 2010
LGA 1366, Nehalem only 1% of the market, no prediction provided

source

 

[mastrdrver]

Well if your deciding point is Sata 6Gb, a X58 board is required. I think all P55 boards, except the one that uses the graphics lane, have to send data through the DMI link. There is a bottleneck there and that's why you don't see Sata 6Gb until P65 that gets the 2.0 DMI interface with twice the bandwidth of what we have now.

As for 32nm quads.....the entry fee is going to limit them a lot for the large majority of those out there. I got my X58 setup back about a year ago. If I had to choose now, I see no reason to get a X58.

P55 is cheaper, even if slightly
Few run 3 cards and don't need more than 2 slots and 8x/8x is sufficient
Turbo Boost on 860 is better than 920
860 OCs just as far as 920s (very high ocing 920s are the exception not the norm)
P55 draws less power

The only thing that makes a X58 setup somewhat appealing, according to others I've seen comment on it, is it is easier than P55 to overclock. Fits just mentioned this in the i7 OC thread that he just set 3 settings and rebooted. I get the sense that it takes less tuning to get to 4Ghz+ on a X58 than a P55.

I personally have been kicking around the idea of selling my X58 setup to jump to a P55 just because I don't use all the extra room it has and could do with something that draws less power since my system is always on. Though, I just have not found a P55 board that I like so far.

 

[overclocking101]

heres my i7 860 p55ftw 4gb ddr3 crucial 1600mhz at 1800mhzish
i love it! care running 8gb on 1156 it hiunders oc performance a little bit

 

[EastCoasthandle]

If you use usb a lot you will be pleasantly surprised as to what USB 3.0 will offer
source. Again, the catch for 1156 socket users is that the motherboard supports some sort of bridge chip that doesn't reduce the PCIe lanes from 16x to 8x for a single video card.

 

[Helper]

Guys, think of it like this:

i7=Socket 939
i5=Socket 754

Now let's take two CPUs in our hand to do a comparison.

One being Socket 754 3500+. The other one is Socket 939, 3000+.

The first CPU is faster by it's raw clock speed. Second processor is slower but it's built on a better platform. It has dual channel RAM, a more powerful interconnection system, a better motherboard&chipset and a lot more. It also has an upgrade path to dual core CPUs. First one is a little bit cheaper. Which one would you choose?

I find it pointless to pay around the same money to an i5 CPU when you can set-up a better system about the same price. And even if you're only looking to go on a budget, still get an i7 system. The price premium is worth it in 2010. You'll only pay up to 100$ more. For a complete better system.

i5 is a defective i7, it's not as good as an i7. I personally would never upgrade to i5 as long as there are i7s out there. It would be awesome to upgrade to i7, but my CPU is awesome enough for me right now. I'm not looking to take out my current system.

If you're looking to upgrade, go for the big fish, go i7.

 

[Kovoet]

I had a long hard thought process before I upgraded last week and spent about a month going through the pro's and con's.

I finally decided with i920 and I can say I'm glad I made the choice

 

[shevanel]

I'm probably going to drop a load on a Foxconn P55 Inferno, i7 860, and 8GB of the red G.Skill Ripjaws in a few months, unless something better for the price comes out before then.



P65 sounds really nice, although I'd bet that X58 will be really expensive.

i have the foxconn p55 inferno katana/red gskills and if i had to do it over again I would have passed on this board. but honestly, the only problem i have on this board is a borked memory divider.. doesnt lock at any specific mem speed, all mem speeds are dictated by teh blck

 

[AddSub]

Guys, think of it like this:

i7=Socket 939
i5=Socket 754

Now let's take two CPUs in our hand to do a comparison.

One being Socket 754 3500+. The other one is Socket 939, 3000+.

The first CPU is faster by it's raw clock speed. Second processor is slower but it's built on a better platform. It has dual channel RAM, a more powerful interconnection system, a better motherboard&chipset and a lot more. It also has an upgrade path to dual core CPUs. First one is a little bit cheaper. Which one would you choose?

I find it pointless to pay around the same money to an i5 CPU when you can set-up a better system about the same price. And even if you're only looking to go on a budget, still get an i7 system. The price premium is worth it in 2010. You'll only pay up to 100$ more. For a complete better system.

i5 is a defective i7, it's not as good as an i7. I personally would never upgrade to i5 as long as there are i7s out there. It would be awesome to upgrade to i7, but my CPU is awesome enough for me right now. I'm not looking to take out my current system.

If you're looking to upgrade, go for the big fish, go i7.

Helper, that is some pretty sharp reasoning and I agree you fully. I have posited the same argument here on TPU as well as on other forums whenever similar threads crop up. Sometimes it is i5 vs. i7, or AM3 vs. i7, or... well just about any platform vs. the i7, and make no mistake i7 is currently as of today and perhaps for the foreseeable future, the most high-end platform available to average consumers/enthusiasts. It might not beat the competing platforms by too many percentage points in all the areas, but when everything gets added and subtracted, overall it always comes on top.

Now with that out of the way, one of of the major arguments against i7 since (forever?) has been the pricing. But like I mentioned in this thread few posts back, as well as in other threads here on TPU and elsewhere, i7 pricing has dropped so much that not only is i7 hardware more affordable than i5 hardware in many places, but even LGA775 hardware is priced higher than i7 stuff in many locales. If somebody decides to go the used/refurb route they can get their i7 hardware even cheaper. (eBay, TPU/HardForum/OCN trade forums, etc).

With that out the way we have minor reasons like power consumption which I find a bit silly since even i5 hardware is considered enthusiast hardware. I mean, if few watts here and there is going to deter somebody from buying enthusiast hardware based on whatever platform, then maybe that person is in a wrong hobby.

Finally, many times I encounter this argument: i7 is simply too easy to overclock, maintain, and is generally less troubleprone than other platforms. It is not fun! Yes I have encountered such arguments more than several times. I guess I do see some logic in it, considering we are all enthusiasts of varying degrees and having a platform that makes it too easy can be ... well "no fun" indeed.

However, once the budgetary issues are out of the way, along with everything else mentioned in this thread and elsewhere, such an argument really makes no sense. I mean, going i5 instead of i7? Why even go i5? Why not go back to Socket 939, or Socket A, or even Pentium-I era Socket-7. Those should be real fun to overclock, troubleshoot, and maintain, and I bet after all this time, Socket-7 hardware can be gotten for cheap, cheaper than i7 stuff. Makes sense, right!?

Now I understand for some an extra $100 can be a lot to drop on hardware or some people may not have access to places where cheap i7 hardware is readily available, but such cases aside I think i7 is a better choice, hands down.