LGA1156 future proofing

[SK-1]

You know, with this 760 and my 5870 I do rock most games, even considering I play at 2560 x 1600. In BF3 I've actually found little difference between high and medium so I play at medium settings at that resolution and I love it. Solid 50-70fps, even if I turn it all up on high I get low 40's to 50's drops to 30's when all hell brakes loose. I'm going to live with it for now. I also have a second 5870 and my mobo is Crossfire, but Im not sure If I;m selling the 5870 or going crossfire. I'm pretty happy with it just dissapointed in myself for not catching such an obvious socket error! Funny thing is I usually do my home work for months before any upgrade and I can't believe this one slipped by me. The box came up for sale and I was so impressed by it and the price I kinda jumped on it. Oh well!

You gotta throw that other one in there. You wont be disappointed... trust me.

 

[DEFEATEST]

What would be the minimum PSU I would need for crossfire, 1000w?

 

[Izliecies]

Depends on the quality of the PSU and the cards to be CrossFired/SLied. A 750W Corsair would get you through.

 

[LordJummy]

750watt quality PSU is the safest minimum I would recommend, personally.

I would go with 850w+ high quality at minimum myself though, and 1000w for safety and longevity.

Any 850w from corsair, seasonic, enermax, silverstone, XFX, etc will suit you fine.

 

[John Doe]

750watt quality PSU is the safest minimum I would recommend, personally.

I would go with 850w+ high quality at minimum myself though, and 1000w for safety and longevity.

Any 850w from corsair, seasonic, enermax, silverstone, XFX, etc will suit you fine.

You're overexaggerating the guy's needs. Sorry but I personally am sick of these overexaggerations.

The 5870 at most pulls 185W, and the second one pulls less due CF Scaling (lower GPU usage). Say 150W; that makes up for 325W on cards only. Lynnfield is has a 95W TDP. Even with an OC, it won't pull beyond 85-100W in games. So that leads to 400W. Add 50W for rest, 450W. A 700W unit is all you need for 5870 CF as well as 560 Ti SLi, which pull the same amount of power.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-5870-crossfirex-test-review/3

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-560-ti-sli-review/14

"Safety and longevity" doesn't work like the way you think it does. By that time comes, a stronger unit will lose it's performance. Buy how much you need for now and close future. When you really need more, buy a bigger unit. New cards are going to pull less power on 28nm.

OP, where are you buying from?

 

[Bo$$]

You're overexaggerating the guy's needs. Sorry but I personally am sick of these overexaggerations.

The 5870 at most pulls 185W, and the second one pulls less due CF Scaling (lower GPU usage). Say 150W; that makes up for 325W on cards only. Lynnfield is has a 95W TDP. Even with an OC, it won't pull beyond 85-100W in games. So that leads to 400W. Add 50W for rest, 450W. A 700W unit is all you need for 5870 CF as well as 560 Ti SLi, which pull the same amount of power.

people are still used to the weak 12V rails of the old days. Now a 600W PSU can run anything

You aren't the only one these exaggerations annoy

 

[btarunr]

And the "best" is apparently this i7-880 though I don't know anything else about it at this point. Unlocked multi as on the 875 is always nice but usually only a real benefit with subzero benching. Outside of that, the 875-K is just another 870 under the hood.

Core i7-880 is locked, and is produced in very limited quantities. i7-875K killed it, it's unlocked. So i7-875K is the best LGA1156 processor there is. I used the word "best" and not "fastest" for a reason. Out of the box, i7-880 is the fastest LGA1156, but the unlocked multiplier makes i7-875K the best.

 

[John Doe]

people are still used to the weak 12V rails of the old days. Now a 600W PSU can run anything

You aren't the only one these exaggerations annoy

Yeah, I know. Just saying.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1140534/psu-calc-final-release

 

[BlackOmega]

I don't understand where you became confused and how its a "lesson learned" situation?

You bought a computer with an i5 760....a first generation Core chip....and expected it to be seated inside a second gen chip socket? Yea, Intel must have really pulled a fast one one you...


The best plan of action for you would be to just resell what you bought, if you take a loss then it might be for the best. Ivy Bridge will slip into Sandy Bridge, so there is a significant upgrade line awaiting you...

Technically, the 1156 is second gen and 1155 is third gen. 1366 is first gen of i processors.
Granted, 1156 is first gen for i3 and i5.


As for power consumption, 5870's in CFX don't use nearly as much power as 580's, and 580's in SLI only pull 624w.
So for 5870's a QUALITY 750w unit is sufficient. My old PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750w (SeaSonic built) pumped out 720w on +12v rail. So as you see more than adequate for 5870's.

 

[sneekypeet]

So i7-875K is the best LGA1156 processor there is.

Depends on perspective....

Compared to my 860, dark2099 had two 875Ks, and neither of his 875Ks had the IMC capabilities of my 860 So while the chip may clock a bit further and easier, the ram speeds as I saw it were really capped with the 875K.

 

[Cold Storm]

Depends on perspective....

Compared to my 860, dark2099 had two 875Ks, and neither of his 875Ks had the IMC capabilities of my 860 So while the chip may clock a bit further and easier, the ram speeds as I saw it were really capped with the 875K.

I haven't seen but maybe a handful of 875's that even did what intel showed they could. mostly all 875's been shown to rma a time or two and still not go well for the person.


I'd rather have a 870...

 

[sneekypeet]

I still want your 870 *shakes fist*

 

[Cold Storm]

I still want your 870 *shakes fist*

The worst thing you saw on the 1156 series was the hit and misses that they had. The chips were good, but when they brought out the "K" series it really didn't do anything for them.. Then, you just had a few different chips for each tier. It wasn't til later in the note, when 1155 was shown, did it even really get the chips to show it's mastership that was their development.. Then everyone didn't really care for it. Boards went EOL before they even were out to the masses... You had to be the lucky one to get the set up that would really show the chips...

 

[newtekie1]

Depends on perspective....

Compared to my 860, dark2099 had two 875Ks, and neither of his 875Ks had the IMC capabilities of my 860 So while the chip may clock a bit further and easier, the ram speeds as I saw it were really capped with the 875K.

I haven't seen but maybe a handful of 875's that even did what intel showed they could. mostly all 875's been shown to rma a time or two and still not go well for the person.


I'd rather have a 870...

I haven't had a problem with mine, but IMO processors with unlocked multipliers aren't for clocking RAM, that is the point of the unlocked multiplier.

Mine right now is stuck at 4.0GHz just because of a lack of cooling, the TRUE just can't keep it at acceptable temps beyond 4.0GHz for me. But I think the 875K chips were really designed for at least water, they just seem to run warmer. Which is probably because they are higher leakage chips, designed for high clocks under extreme cooling, even if that means earlier deaths. Intel put them out to give overclocks something to push for higher records using the multiplier, I wouldn't recommend them to someone that wants to run them 24/7 under air(mainly because of the price). Honestly, I wouldn't even have mine if I didn't get in on the $200 MicroCenter deal when they were released.

The worst thing you saw on the 1156 series was the hit and misses that they had. The chips were good, but when they brought out the "K" series it really didn't do anything for them.. Then, you just had a few different chips for each tier. It wasn't til later in the note, when 1155 was shown, did it even really get the chips to show it's mastership that was their development.. Then everyone didn't really care for it. Boards went EOL before they even were out to the masses... You had to be the lucky one to get the set up that would really show the chips...

Agreed, and they didn't even leave it out on the market long enough to release the Celerons to retail sale(yes there is a 1156 Celeron, the G1101). Plus when they released the 32nm processors, they only released dual-core versions. I refuse to believe that they couldn't have released 32nm quad-core parts on 1156. In fact, I have a hard time believing they couldn't get Sandy-Bridge(and probably Ivy Bridge) to work on 1156.

 

[sneekypeet]

I haven't had a problem with mine, but IMO processors with unlocked multipliers aren't for clocking RAM, that is the point of the unlocked multiplier.

Mine right now is stuck at 4.0GHz just because of a lack of cooling, the TRUE just can't keep it at acceptable temps beyond 4.0GHz for me. But I think the 875K chips were really designed for at least water, they just seem to run warmer. Which is probably because they are higher leakage chips, designed for high clocks under extreme cooling, even if that means earlier deaths. Intel put them out to give overclocks something to push for higher records using the multiplier, I wouldn't recommend them to someone that wants to run them 24/7 under air(mainly because of the price). Honestly, I wouldn't even have mine if I didn't get in on the $200 MicroCenter deal when they were released.

I cant argue any of that, it seems spot on to me. This is also why I advised the 860/870 as they offered the best of both worlds, and with most boards capable of 200+ bclk 4.0-4.2ghz is easy with the option to push ram well over the 2000mhz mark

 

[newtekie1]

I cant argue any of that, it seems spot on to me. This is also why I advised the 860/870 as they offered the best of both worlds, and with most boards capable of 200+ bclk 4.0-4.2ghz is easy with the option to push ram well over the 2000mhz mark

Yep, I agree. And at 4.0GHz these chips still do everything very very well.

 

[Cold Storm]

I'm up there as # 3... While playing with the 750-870, If I hit 4ghz.. There wasn't anything it couldn't do.. And since I have a 870 sitting pretty, with 8gb of ram, I don't see no reason what so ever to even think about SB or SB-e... Do I have a itch for wanting to "tinker" with the new tech? Yep... But, it's not worth the sell due to the system being in tip-top shape.. Heck, even my ram is designed for 1155 but it works beautiful with 1156..


Even my 540 at 4.2ghz is sitting nicely when I play with the 480. Can max games out on settings and I don't feel a thing due to how it is built.


Newtekie, I'm with you on why they had to come out with a "whole" new board set up with 1155... They should of just done revisions of the boards, updates on bios like they do with amd boards, and they would have the market going smooth.

 

[John Doe]

Heck, even my ram is designed for 1155 but it works beautiful with 1156..

Well RAM performance doesn't matter no matter what anyone says. That's a fact. It's all about Mhz. You can run dual channel on X58 (more bandwidth hungry) yet not lose a significant amount of performance;

http://www.overclock.net/t/681697/the-truth-about-i7-1366-memory-both-dual-channel-vs-tri-channel

That said, I'd prefer a 875k over 870 anytime. You don't have to worry about being limited by bCLK that way. I know this from my Westmere, it struggles to go over 4.3 with it's multi locked at x18 when i7 970's can do 4.5-5 Ghz.

 

[Cold Storm]

Well RAM performance doesn't matter no matter what anyone says. That's a fact. It's all about Mhz. You can run dual channel on X58 (more bandwidth hungry) yet not lose a significant amount of performance;

http://www.overclock.net/t/681697/the-truth-about-i7-1366-memory-both-dual-channel-vs-tri-channel

That said, I'd prefer a 875k over 870 anytime. You don't have to worry about being limited by bCLK that way. I know this from my Westmere, it struggles to go over 4.3 with it's multi locked at x18 when i7 970's can do 4.5-5 Ghz.

Right, your link is correct on the factor that there isn't anything of the matter.. I'm just pointing out the fact that ram designed for 1155 was working just as good on a 1156 set-up. Still proving to the fact that SB shouldn't of been a new all around chipset.

I've been blessed with great i5 and i7 chips from the 1156 socket. There really isn't a point to even dare to hit over 4ghz on this socket due to it not proving to be any more of a change.

Not all "unlock" chips preform better then the "lock" chip. IMO

 

[BlackOmega]

Well RAM performance doesn't matter no matter what anyone says. That's a fact. It's all about Mhz. You can run dual channel on X58 (more bandwidth hungry) yet not lose a significant amount of performance;

This is where I'll have to respectfully disagree. It's not all about MHz. What is equally important is timings. You can have memory at a very high frequency yet at really loose timings and have worse performance than memory at a lower frequency with tighter timings.

CAS latency is very important. The term latency obviously means the duration of time it takes for x to get to y. So the lower your latency the faster x gets to y.

So for instance, if you have 2133MHz RAM CAS 10, and then you have 1600MHz CAS 6, the the lower frequency with tighter timings will actually be faster, not to mention it will "feel" faster. This is a difference that's actually observable at keyboard level.

We were discussing this very thing the other day. Anusha explains it very well.

one thing to remember is all these timings are given in clock cycles. CL8 isn't necessarily faster than CL10. Say,

1600 CL8 vs. 2133 CL10.
1600 CL8 -> CL in terms of time is 5ns
2133 CL10 -> CL in terms of time is 4.688ns

2133 CL10 is faster in terms of latency and it has more bandwidth. clearly, it is the better choice.

but if we are talking about 1600 CL7, then the CL is 4.375ns. While it has better latencies than 2133 CL10, 2133's bandwidth might make it faster.

But if you are talking about 1600 CL6, then it is 3.75ns, which might be preferred to the 2133 CL10 because latency is significantly better.

if you are confused about the calculation, it is
(1/clock speed in Hz) * 10^9 for ns * CL clocks == CL clocks / speed in GHz (gives result in ns)

But this is theoretical. Practically, it might depend on the platform and the applications. Better to check out reviews.

 

[John Doe]

^

It doesn't. There is no such thing as "feeling". You don't have technical backing to prove it. RAM performance doesn't matter. End of story. Analyse these charts done on Elpida Hyper.

http://www.overclockers.at/articles/super_talent_projectx_ddr3-1800_cl7/page_3

Right, your link is correct on the factor that there isn't anything of the matter.. I'm just pointing out the fact that ram designed for 1155 was working just as good on a 1156 set-up. Still proving to the fact that SB shouldn't of been a new all around chipset.

I've been blessed with great i5 and i7 chips from the 1156 socket. There really isn't a point to even dare to hit over 4ghz on this socket due to it not proving to be any more of a change.

Not all "unlock" chips preform better then the "lock" chip.

Platform specific memory is just marketing, honestly. RAM has a voltage of which the platform needs to support. As long as it does, any memory will work in any platform. 1.55/1.65v is the spot for both Sandy and Ibex Peak. What matters are the IC's (Micron, Elpida etc.) when it comes to RAM performance.

Sandy is an all around new chipset. It's built on a different platform with different potential. Yes, it bases it's power on i7 architecture. But same can be said for Nehalem. Is X58 isn't an all around new chipset over X48? Both are successors of the Core microarchitecture. It is. Depends on how you look at it.

Yes, not "all" unlocked chips outdo locked chips. Thing is, you can get over 4.5 Ghz out of a 875k. How many 870's do those speeds? This is the reason why you want the unlocked multi. You get to have more potential that way.

 

[Cold Storm]

See, I haven't see a lot of 875's that have been shown to be around 4.5ghz. I've only seen a few that have even been over 4.4ghz and that was with the people messing around trying to do it because their boards didn't allow to do any better.

The same can be said for the 870's like you said. Only ones I've seen to go above 4.4ghz is the ones that have been cherry picked.

But, that's probably only due to the fact that I don't spent to much time on the interwebz looking at forums to see..

 

[Gambit389]

Well I'm glad I grabbed the last i7 870 at my local computer shop yesterday.

 

[newtekie1]

This is where I'll have to respectfully disagree. It's not all about MHz. What is equally important is timings. You can have memory at a very high frequency yet at really loose timings and have worse performance than memory at a lower frequency with tighter timings.

CAS latency is very important. The term latency obviously means the duration of time it takes for x to get to y. So the lower your latency the faster x gets to y.

So for instance, if you have 2133MHz RAM CAS 10, and then you have 1600MHz CAS 6, the the lower frequency with tighter timings will actually be faster, not to mention it will "feel" faster. This is a difference that's actually observable at keyboard level.

We were discussing this very thing the other day. Anusha explains it very well.

The point he was trying to make, or at least I hope he was, was that RAM makes an overall little amount of difference in performance. It is all about CPU MHz.

DDR3-1600 CL7 and CL9 will show no noticeable difference in performance. Neither will DDR3-1600 vs. DDR3-2133. The RAM in a system makes next to no real world performance difference.

 

[John Doe]

The point he was trying to make, or at least I hope he was, was that RAM makes an overall little amount of difference in performance. It is all about CPU MHz.

DDR3-1600 CL7 and CL9 will show no noticeable difference in performance. Neither will DDR3-1600 vs. DDR3-2133. The RAM in a system makes next to no real world performance difference.

Obviously. No need to act like a smartass.