Go Back   nV News Forums > Hardware Forums > CPUs, Motherboards And Memory

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-31-10, 11:02 AM   #25
DiscipleDOC
 
DiscipleDOC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Alabama, Planet Earth
Posts: 5,993
Default Re: Core i7 920 a DUD at normal speed!

I'm in agreement with everyone else here. The 920 is not the problem...it has to be something else in your rig that's holding you back.
DiscipleDOC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-11, 01:48 AM   #26
Maverickman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: South Florida
Posts: 527
Default Re: Core i7 920 a DUD at normal speed!

I think any modern CPU below 3.0 GHz is an embarrassment. That would include the discontinued Core i7 920 and 940 models as well as the 930. The i7 870 humiliates all three of those CPUs due to its aggressive turbo boost capabilities. The 920 is a lower-end CPU.

I've tested my secondary system, and there's nothing wrong with it. I was thinking of upgrading to a 960 and dumping the 920, but I'm going to wait for Intel's Sandy Bridge CPUs and build a system with one of those. If anyone wants a spare 920, let me know.
__________________
Core i7 2600 @ 3.7GHz
EVGA GeForce GTX 780 Superclocked 941 MHz
1TB Seagate HDD 7200 RPM 32MB Cache
16X BluRay-RW drive
Dell 30-inch U3014 monitor
Dell speakers
Maverickman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-11, 02:53 AM   #27
Moshing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 161
Default Re: Core i7 920 a DUD at normal speed!

I think the whole assertion of this thread is ridiculous. Intel discontinued the 920 to keep i7 sales from dropping below the price threshold that 930 had moved into. No other reason other then financial progression of models, and ZERO to do with performance factors as you intimate, Maverkman. I don't know where you get your information, but stop doing so, they done lied to you!

You really have no place making any claims against the 920's place in the i7 family. Not one technical claim to back your position other then an opinion that it doesn't suit YOUR performance requirements for the family name. That's silly.

1. It's got the full amount of cache.
2. It's got Hyperthreading and 4 cores to split out into 8 threads.
3. It's got triple channel memory.
4. It's got QPI to the chipset.
5. The only difference between it and the next higher model is clock speed, feature set is identical.

In every way that matters, i7 920 is a full on i7 and one of the originals. It's place in history is assured as how i7 got started.
__________________
Ci7 2600K @5Ghz/8Gb Patriot Viper II/Asus Sabertooth P67/EVGA GTX580 Black Ops/2x Patriot Torqx 128G(OS)/1Tb WD Black
Ci7 920/6Gb Corsair DDR3 1600/GA-EX58-UD3R/Radeon HD5870/750Gb Seagate ES.2(OS)/2x 2Tb WD Green
Ci7 860/4Gb Patriot Viper II/EVGA P55 SLI/Radeon HD5870/750Gb Seagate ES.2 (wife's rig)
Moshing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-11, 03:00 AM   #28
Yaboze
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2,057
Default Re: Core i7 920 a DUD at normal speed!

This thread is retarded. So the 950 is ok because it's 300 mhz faster? Even though the cache and everything else is the same?

The 920 beat out many of the C2Q's when it was released and was slower in mhz.

Do you believe a Pentium 4 3.2Ghz is cooler than a 920 because it's > 3.0Ghz?

Put down the crack pipe.

(BTW, my 920 is OC'd to 3.0 and I paid $199 for it).
Yaboze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-11, 08:34 AM   #29
bacon12
Registered User
 
bacon12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,532
Default Re: Core i7 920 a DUD at normal speed!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maverickman View Post
I'm going to reinstall Windows 7 and see if that works. I just have to back up my files. I still think the 920 is underpowered. The Core i7 doesn't get going until you hit 3.2GHz or so. The 920 is great for overclockers but that's it.
Get going for what exactly? Apps? Games? Video encoding? I have never thought damn this processor is slow, but I have mines overclocked to 3.5
bacon12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-11, 04:04 PM   #30
Moshing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 161
Default Re: Core i7 920 a DUD at normal speed!

I also should add that the i7 (and Xeon rebadged variants) is the ONLY CPU family that can occupy a 1366 pin socket. So 920, which in every way matches the 930, 940, and 950 in terms of features, has no other name it could have. It couldn't be an i5 because no i5 has a 4/8 core/thread count. It cannot be i5 because it doesn't have a CPU level PCIe controller. It cannot be i5 because it's sitting in a socket i5 cannot run in and in every way that matters, outclasses i5.

I'd be more inclined to take away socket 1156's i7 moniker then touching 920's right to the name. My 860 is a GREAT chip, I love it, but I'd be more inclined to call the entire 800 series i5. I don't think Hyperthreading on it's own should designate since certain dual core i5's have HT enabled.

The i7 moniker should be designated by socket type. Socket 1366 automatically comes with triple channel memory support and off-CPU PCIe controller (a good thing for multi-GPU setups, more lanes is always good and chipset level PCIe has more lanes then CPU level controllers at this point) and uses QPI to communicate with it's chipset opposed to DMI in the entire socket 1156 range. Socket 1156 chips only use QPI internally to the CPU itself and do not support external QPI links in any form.

I'd rename the entire 800 series to i5 and reserve i7 for chips with the beastly super-platform X58/X58A under it, not the econo P55 platform at all. Don't get me wrong, I'm using P55 as my main rig over X58 sitting right beside it. But I do recognize X58's superiority where it counts, and any CPU that can make use of that superiority is worthy of at least the i7 name.

Edit: While we're on the subject of "renaming", my GTX 580 seriously should have been called "GTX 485" or even "GTX490". I love the card, but nothing about it represents a new generation over GTX 480. I'll give AMD the nod this round for appropriate naming with the 6900 series, they changed out the whole architecture underneath from VLIW5 to VLIW4, a radical shader count reorganization that resulted in less SMs doing more work more efficiently. Still wasn't enough to win my dollar over the "refreshed Fermi", but I give credit where it's due and criticize where it's due as well. AMD earned a new generational name for it's release, Nvidia didn't. But Nvidia still earned my buck out of the deal, it's just plain faster where it counts for me.
__________________
Ci7 2600K @5Ghz/8Gb Patriot Viper II/Asus Sabertooth P67/EVGA GTX580 Black Ops/2x Patriot Torqx 128G(OS)/1Tb WD Black
Ci7 920/6Gb Corsair DDR3 1600/GA-EX58-UD3R/Radeon HD5870/750Gb Seagate ES.2(OS)/2x 2Tb WD Green
Ci7 860/4Gb Patriot Viper II/EVGA P55 SLI/Radeon HD5870/750Gb Seagate ES.2 (wife's rig)
Moshing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-11, 04:32 PM   #31
Maverickman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: South Florida
Posts: 527
Default Re: Core i7 920 a DUD at normal speed!

Of course it's true that the 920 has the same feature set as the 960 or any other Core i7 9xx series CPU. Still, it was clocked way TOO LOW by Intel. 2.66GHz is a JOKE! The 920 was just begging to be overclocked, and that's what just about everyone has done, all the way up to 3.6GHz +. At those speeds, you have a great CPU. Intel should have clocked its best CPUs at LEAST 3.00 GHz. Those of us stuck at 2.66GHz can only wish for better.
__________________
Core i7 2600 @ 3.7GHz
EVGA GeForce GTX 780 Superclocked 941 MHz
1TB Seagate HDD 7200 RPM 32MB Cache
16X BluRay-RW drive
Dell 30-inch U3014 monitor
Dell speakers
Maverickman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-11, 06:11 PM   #32
Moshing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 161
Default Re: Core i7 920 a DUD at normal speed!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maverickman View Post
Of course it's true that the 920 has the same feature set as the 960 or any other Core i7 9xx series CPU. Still, it was clocked way TOO LOW by Intel. 2.66GHz is a JOKE! The 920 was just begging to be overclocked, and that's what just about everyone has done, all the way up to 3.6GHz +. At those speeds, you have a great CPU. Intel should have clocked its best CPUs at LEAST 3.00 GHz. Those of us stuck at 2.66GHz can only wish for better.
Honestly, I can think of WAY better targets for your ire. Consider what you just said. "Those of us stuck at 2.66Ghz..." says it's a motherboard limit keeping you there. What other motherboard limits are you hitting though, making that 2.66Ghz chip seem even slower then it should? This has all been said before in this thread though, it's just common sense that the performance issues you are facing are not 920's lack of clock speed's fault, but a CRAPPY OEM motherboard that cut corners horridly and is probably running the worst chipset and memory timings possible, regardless of what ram you stuck in it.

You really need to face reality here. It's NOT the 920 in your rig that sucks, it's the rig AROUND the 920 that needs massive help.

Edit: I'd love to see a CPUz screenshot of the memory tab opened up to see what timings your motherboard is forcing. I bet your not even getting real 1333mhz memory speeds. It's probably stuck at 1066mhz and all 9's + 2T for latencies.
__________________
Ci7 2600K @5Ghz/8Gb Patriot Viper II/Asus Sabertooth P67/EVGA GTX580 Black Ops/2x Patriot Torqx 128G(OS)/1Tb WD Black
Ci7 920/6Gb Corsair DDR3 1600/GA-EX58-UD3R/Radeon HD5870/750Gb Seagate ES.2(OS)/2x 2Tb WD Green
Ci7 860/4Gb Patriot Viper II/EVGA P55 SLI/Radeon HD5870/750Gb Seagate ES.2 (wife's rig)
Moshing is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-11, 07:00 PM   #33
Roadhog
Resident Alien
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,776
Default Re: Core i7 920 a DUD at normal speed!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maverickman View Post
Of course it's true that the 920 has the same feature set as the 960 or any other Core i7 9xx series CPU. Still, it was clocked way TOO LOW by Intel. 2.66GHz is a JOKE! The 920 was just begging to be overclocked, and that's what just about everyone has done, all the way up to 3.6GHz +. At those speeds, you have a great CPU. Intel should have clocked its best CPUs at LEAST 3.00 GHz. Those of us stuck at 2.66GHz can only wish for better.
You are retarded. You buy a low end cpu, and expect it to perform like one of intels high ends?

If you want higher clock speed buy a higher clocked cpu. Or quit bitching about how you think a 920 is slow and overclock it. Derp
Roadhog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-11, 08:46 PM   #34
XDanger
Whaaat?
 
XDanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,728
Default Re: Core i7 920 a DUD at normal speed!

Be angry at HP or at yourself for buying it.
__________________
2500K 4.7ghz,P8P67Pro,120gb Force3, 8gb Vengeance,R9290,TX850v2,W7HP,LaCie Blue 22" crt COMMODORE 64 Silver Label 1Mhz/128D 4Mhz(Z80)
XDanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-11, 03:21 PM   #35
betterdan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Core i7 920 a DUD at normal speed!

If you don't want it, I'll take your 920.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-11, 05:12 PM   #36
XDanger
Whaaat?
 
XDanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,728
Default Re: Core i7 920 a DUD at normal speed!

It deserves a better home.
__________________
2500K 4.7ghz,P8P67Pro,120gb Force3, 8gb Vengeance,R9290,TX850v2,W7HP,LaCie Blue 22" crt COMMODORE 64 Silver Label 1Mhz/128D 4Mhz(Z80)
XDanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.