PDA

View Full Version : Time to buy an i7 920 before its discontinued?


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

pault123
07-23-09, 09:23 AM
So the i5 is going to kill off the low end i7 range ie. the i7 920.

The i7 920 in terms of cost vs performance is a no brainer when compared to the 940 and 965 which I don't find justifyable vs the performance.


Obviously the i5 is a cut down chip and won't have as good performance as a 920.

Is now a good time to buy a 920 while the prices are about 175ex, it certainly wipes the floor with the Q9550 and Phenom 955. I can imagine many will be after 920's likes hot cakes once there gone - so they should hold or even increase in value?

Lfctony
07-23-09, 09:45 AM
it certainly wipes the floor with the Q9550

It does? In what universe?

10% difference at best for triple the price? (given that with your setup you only need a 9550 but you have to change motherboard, CPU and ram for an i7 920)...

I'm sorry, but right now, you are not making any sense. Definitely not worth it.

Thunderbolt56
07-23-09, 09:58 AM
If you're in the market for a good quad and do NOT have the ability to just drop in a Q9550 or Q9650, then absolutely now is a good time to get an i7 920.

Remember too, the current i7's utilize triple channel RAM whereas the new ones (as well as the i5's) will just have 4 slots on the mobo and support dual channel RAM.

Maverick123w
07-23-09, 10:05 AM
Any news on when the i5's are supposed to actually launch?

TheBigOne
07-23-09, 10:06 AM
It does? In what universe?

10% difference at best for triple the price? (given that with your setup you only need a 9550 but you have to change motherboard, CPU and ram for an i7 920)...

I'm sorry, but right now, you are not making any sense. Definitely not worth it.

There way more then a 10% increase, video encoding is 15mins vs 35mins that the qx9650 to decrypt a blu-ray 30mins tops on qx9650 over 1hr 24gb-30gb that did benchmarks use to be around 18k now hitting around 32k, overall the system just perform way better, and this is coming from a guy who own the qx9650. I did these tests myseft because I thought the samething you did.

It not just the CPU it the chipset the memory controller is just good and the QPI on the CPU, jump on while you can, you won't go back.

Being you are only running a q6600 you will be like WOW!

Lfctony
07-23-09, 10:18 AM
There way more then a 10% increase, video encoding is 15mins vs 35mins that the qx9650 to decrypt a blu-ray 30mins tops on qx9650 over 1hr 24gb-30gb that did benchmarks use to be around 18k now hitting around 32k, overall the system just perform way better, and this is coming from a guy who own the qx9650. I did these tests myseft because I thought the samething you did.

It not just the CPU it the chipset the memory controller is just good and the QPI on the CPU, jump on while you can, you won't go back.

Being you are only running a q6600 you will be like WOW!

A Q6600 at 3.2Ghz... My main interest is games and the C2Q still delivers. In the OP's case, he'll have to spend a fortune swapping 3 parts when he can just swap CPUs.

And actual reviews show nowhere near what you are claiming, video, image whatever...
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2008/11/03/intel-core-i7-920-945-965-review/1

Care to provide any proof for your claims, besides "i tested myself"?

Maverick123w
07-23-09, 10:26 AM
I toyed with dropping in a 9550 in my current rig and hopefully getting it to around 3.6 ghz... but I decided against investing in a dead platform.

And while the C2Q is great for gaming now I really feel it will be an instant bottleneck once the GT300 shows up.

Lfctony
07-23-09, 10:41 AM
I toyed with dropping in a 9550 in my current rig and hopefully getting it to around 3.6 ghz... but I decided against investing in a dead platform.

And while the C2Q is great for gaming now I really feel it will be an instant bottleneck once the GT300 shows up.

Well, considering that one will upgrade to the GT300 for GPU limited scenarios, how will you be able to tell?

In CPU limited scenarios, both CPU architectures will perform great or terrible. The experience equivalent is the same whether its 60 vs 80fps or 15 vs 20fps, either great or terrible. In GPU limited scenarios, it doesn't really make a difference does it?

That's my reasoning, and that's why I'm not upgrading. Maybe when the CPUs out offer 1.5 the performance of current C2Q at a decent price, then I will upgrade. And that's gaming performance...

Maverick123w
07-23-09, 10:44 AM
Well, considering that one will upgrade to the GT300 for GPU limited scenarios, how will you be able to tell?

In CPU limited scenarios, both CPU architectures will perform great or terrible. The experience equivalent is the same whether its 60 vs 80fps or 15 vs 20fps, either great or terrible. In GPU limited scenarios, it doesn't really make a difference does it?

That's my reasoning, and that's why I'm not upgrading. Maybe when the CPUs out offer 1.5 the performance of current C2Q at a decent price, then I will upgrade. And that's gaming performance...

Well I'm basing it on the fact that when SLI is entered into the equation the i7 has a pretty healthy performance advantage. Not to mention a D0 is practically all but guaranteed to hit 3.8Ghz if not higher just adds to the equation.

TheBigOne
07-23-09, 11:15 AM
A Q6600 at 3.2Ghz... My main interest is games and the C2Q still delivers. In the OP's case, he'll have to spend a fortune swapping 3 parts when he can just swap CPUs.

And actual reviews show nowhere near what you are claiming, video, image whatever...
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2008/11/03/intel-core-i7-920-945-965-review/1

Care to provide any proof for your claims, besides "i tested myself"?
Got the 965 extreme got it clock at 4.2ghz with 12gb ram with SSD's on water, won't be fair if I benchmark it, better to find someone who has the 920 overclock to 3.2ghz and run test clock for clock . almost always better to see for yourseft, I thought the same you did at one time and try a freind of mines system was blown away, for what ever reason just runs overall smoother then upgraded after seeing that.

Lfctony
07-23-09, 11:20 AM
SLI or not, the situation is still the same. If the game is heavily CPU limited, SLI will offer no advantage. Both architectures will choke. It's either 15 vs 20fps again. If its CPU limited but not heavy, the i7 architecture will push more FPS, yes. But it will be 80fps vs 100fps or 100 vs 140fps (because of SLI) again. If the game is GPU limited, the game will run twice as fast (in ideal scenarios) regardless of the CPU...

I still don't see how this CPU is worth its money. Unless its a completely new system out of nothing or changing from a really old system, I'd just recommend to people to get a C2Q... Its like going from a GTX260 to a GTX280. It doesn't make any sense...

Anyway, that's how I see it... I've made my suggestions, that doesn't necessarily mean I'm right or anything. Only stated what I think and gave my reasoning. Other than that, it's the OP's money and only he can decide how to spend it.

Tony. :)

betterdan
07-23-09, 11:26 AM
I've got my Q9550 overclocked to 3.6 if anyone with a 920 @3.6 wants to post benchmarks so we can compare it would be interesting.

Xion X2
07-23-09, 11:45 AM
Well, considering that one will upgrade to the GT300 for GPU limited scenarios, how will you be able to tell?

In CPU limited scenarios, both CPU architectures will perform great or terrible. The experience equivalent is the same whether its 60 vs 80fps or 15 vs 20fps, either great or terrible. In GPU limited scenarios, it doesn't really make a difference does it?

That's my reasoning, and that's why I'm not upgrading. Maybe when the CPUs out offer 1.5 the performance of current C2Q at a decent price, then I will upgrade. And that's gaming performance...

In most cases, I would agree with you. But in games that require an insane amount of GPU power (like Crysis) you'll see significant gains by going w/ i7.

Look at the guru3d review they did where the Qx9770 w/ 3-way SLI at 1920x1200 got 42fps vs. the i7 965 at 55fps. That's a significant advantage in a GPU-limited scenario that also carries with it CPU overhead for running multi-GPU:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i7-multigpu-sli-crossfire-game-performance-review/19

[Edit]: In fact, even in Brothers in Arms and Far Cry there's a large difference. True the average FPS is over 60, but you have to take into account that minimums would be well under that.

I would imagine the same would hold true for other titles that require tons of GPU power like Clear Sky. The tradeoff for that GPU power will be the overhead of SLI/XFire that also comes into play. This is where extra CPU power would help.

Understandably, however, this represents the large minority of titles that are on the market.

Zhivago
07-23-09, 12:04 PM
So the i5 is going to kill off the low end i7 range ie. the i7 920.

The i7 920 in terms of cost vs performance is a no brainer when compared to the 940 and 965 which I don't find justifyable vs the performance.


Obviously the i5 is a cut down chip and won't have as good performance as a 920.

Is now a good time to buy a 920 while the prices are about 175ex, it certainly wipes the floor with the Q9550 and Phenom 955. I can imagine many will be after 920's likes hot cakes once there gone - so they should hold or even increase in value?

N/M - I misunderstood him.

a12ctic
07-23-09, 12:17 PM
The onboard memory controller definitely makes things seem a lot snappier, regardless of what a benchmark says. Thats why some people felt "slowdowns" when they switched to c2d from the AMD X2 chips. The i7 has that, the Q9x00 and bellow doesn't.

pakotlar
07-23-09, 01:11 PM
SLI or not, the situation is still the same. If the game is heavily CPU limited, SLI will offer no advantage. Both architectures will choke. It's either 15 vs 20fps again. If its CPU limited but not heavy, the i7 architecture will push more FPS, yes. But it will be 80fps vs 100fps or 100 vs 140fps (because of SLI) again. If the game is GPU limited, the game will run twice as fast (in ideal scenarios) regardless of the CPU...

I still don't see how this CPU is worth its money. Unless its a completely new system out of nothing or changing from a really old system, I'd just recommend to people to get a C2Q... Its like going from a GTX260 to a GTX280. It doesn't make any sense...

Anyway, that's how I see it... I've made my suggestions, that doesn't necessarily mean I'm right or anything. Only stated what I think and gave my reasoning. Other than that, it's the OP's money and only he can decide how to spend it.

Tony. :)

:headexplode: yeah you're not right though. i7 helps to smooth frame distribution, has higher minimum's, and offers way more headroom. With GTX 285 SLI's, and especialy TRI SLI, it can offer on the order of 50% more improvement @ 2MP resolutions with 4xAA/16xAF...

so, since you don't have one, we should still trust you? or could it be that you're trying to rationalize to yourself why YOU can't afford it? check some reviews buddy.

p.s: CPU limitation on one platform is not the same as on another. Bandwidth plays a huge part. CPU architecture plays a huge part. Its not i7 3.2GHZ = C2Q 3.8 ghz... it doesn't. i7 @ 2.66ghz will kill a C2Q at 4 in some cases (in games).

here are some starters: http://www.benchmarkextreme.com/Articles/I7%20VS%20C2Q/P7.html (3 - 33% gain at 2560, aa/af)

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,666303/Intel-Core-i7-with-3-way-SLI-and-Quad-Crossfire-reviewed/Reviews/?page=4

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i7-multigpu-sli-crossfire-game-performance-review/15

http://hardocp.com/article/2009/01/07/amd_phenom_ii_x4_model_940_black_edition_processor/5

even hardocp, who has terrible reviews, shows the same.

and that's just benches. users generally report far fewer framerate drops, just a better experience. benchmarks can't show that unless they run through every scene. they miss a lot.

check the guru review. this time around, architecture matters way more than straight mhz. overclocking an i7 often doesn't help in games at all. the architectural differences between i7 and c2q do though.

and if you honestly can't extrapolate what will happen in coming graphic card generations then you're a fool man! next gen gpu's will be, sans SLI/crossfire, faster than todays SLI/Crossfire on a card systems. after that? take a guess. I'd rather spend the extra 300 dollars on a system that will last. p.p.s: double? haha. Yeah, so we're talking an extra 3-400 dollars if you already own all the c2q components. so what? C2Q is a dead platform, while Nehalem will at least have new architectures on it until Gulftown, so probably through 2011, and theres really no guarantee that AVX on Sandy Bridge will help games (although, of course, they may).

Lfctony
07-23-09, 01:30 PM
Blah Blah Blah

1.The mere fact that one out of every two sentences contains name calling speaks for itself whether one should bother discussing things with you. You're not really worth my time.

2. The fact that until most recently I had an SLI GTX280 system with an eVGA 780i motherboard should pretty much cover the question of me affording stuff. The fact that I also own pretty much every console on the market should also indicate the depth of my pocket.

3. If you want to make an argument, try to make one like Xion-X2. To the point, and not sounding like an a**hole.That way, people might actually take your posts in mind, for a change.

Wasted enough time already. Bye...

Mr Bigman
07-23-09, 01:34 PM
Very turue.

Im one that used a mass arrey of cpu's and i can asure you that the I7 at 3.34ghz is oh so nice.

I had Phenoms to c2duos and i make a claim here: The 7 feels like butter vs the other ones that would have random slowdowns from time to time.

The guy above me sounds like an erogant boofle.

Who cares if you owned all the sytems, guess what so have i and some.

Point remains the newer design is made to cope with the stresses of newer gpu's and we are trying to think ahead for a couple of years and the I7 delivers that breathing room we need to plan builds for the future.

Get off you soap box and prove your point already.

methimpikehoses
07-23-09, 01:45 PM
I love my GTX 295 + i7 combo. It prawns 1920x1200 4AA. PRAWNS.

XDanger
07-23-09, 01:45 PM
I'll be jumping onboard when the midrange card of the time is being bottlenecked by my cpu.

Saying "buy an i7 now before they go and we are left with crappy i5's" goes against all logic .

or does it?

TheBigOne
07-23-09, 01:53 PM
Very turue.

Im one that used a mass arrey of cpu's and i can asure you that the I7 at 3.34ghz is oh so nice.

I had Phenoms to c2duos and i make a claim here: The 7 feels like butter vs the other ones that would have random slowdowns from time to time.

The guy above me sounds like an erogant boofle.

Who cares if you owned all the sytems, guess what so have i and some.

Point remains the newer design is made to cope with the stresses of newer gpu's and we are trying to think ahead for a couple of years and the I7 delivers that breathing room we need to plan builds for the future.

Get off you soap box and prove your point already.
No need for insults, he want to keep his C2D that fine, not everyone need a I7. For the price you can get the I7 920 is a very good deal.

Mr Bigman
07-23-09, 03:26 PM
I know just ribbing him thats al.

He was like Digital Trans and his ego but yea some people don't see a point to move up and i was too but i enjoy the fruits of the game and im blowing smoke like a stek man vim.

betterdan
07-23-09, 04:38 PM
So no one with an I7 920 @ 3.6 wants to compare benchmarks with a Q9550 @ 3.6 just for something interesting to do?
If anyone knows of any sites that have those 2 compared at about those speeds could they supply a link? I'm interested.
I'm sure the 920 is quicker but I am just curious how much more so.

Xion X2
07-23-09, 05:01 PM
So no one with an I7 920 @ 3.6 wants to compare benchmarks with a Q9550 @ 3.6 just for something interesting to do?
If anyone knows of any sites that have those 2 compared at about those speeds could they supply a link? I'm interested.
I'm sure the 920 is quicker but I am just curious how much more so.

You're not going to see any differences unless you slap 2, 3 or 4 GPUs together. This removes the graphics bottleneck and adds additional CPU overhead.

Just check the guru3D benchmark that I linked above. They are the same until multi-GPU systems are involved as i7 seems to handle the overhead much better.

betterdan
07-23-09, 05:34 PM
Ok well my motherboard doesn't support sli and I don't plan on using sli ever (I just like 1 board) then I guess I made a good decision.
I know the I7's are faster with multimedia stuff but I figured they would be a little quicker in games too with a single graphics card.

I wish they would have used a higher end quad core cpu instead of the E8400 in those guru 3d tests against the I7 965

Edit: Ok I didn't check out your first link and now I see a 920 compared to a 9650 both at 3.8 which makes it a little closer to even.