i5 750 vs i7 920 for gaming (not overclocking)

[jinduy]

i'm doing some early research for a new rig as my system can no longer keep up with the games i'm interested in (currently on an amd 939 system).

been browsing a bit here and it seems that the i5 750 is the cpu of the moment since it's based on new technology and has better OC'ing capability.

the i7 920 costs about the same, but it's clocked significantly faster and has the simulated 8 cores (hyperthreading), so do you guys think the i7 920 would be better for me since i'm not going to overclock?

as i said, i'm looking to build a gaming rig that will last me another 4-5 years.

thanks!

 

[cbn]

i'm doing some early research for a new rig as my system can no longer keep up with the games i'm interested in (currently on an amd 939 system).

been browsing a bit here and it seems that the i5 750 is the cpu of the moment since it's based on new technology and has better OC'ing capability.

the i7 920 costs about the same, but it's clocked significantly faster and has the simulated 8 cores (hyperthreading), so do you guys think the i7 920 would be better for me since i'm not going to overclock?

as i said, i'm looking to build a gaming rig that will last me another 4-5 years.

thanks!

If you want a gaming rig that will last 4-5 years then you might want to consider a X58. I think the extra PCI-E lanes may be worth it (at some point you may want to use a SATA 3/USB 3 AIB....especially if SSD tech progresses at a good rate)

Take a look at the Asrock X58 Extreme. It only costs $169.99 at Newegg and my newbie opinion is that it could probably handle a PCI-E x4 add-in card while still being able to populate both PCI-E x16 lanes. This may be important in 2-4 years as a Future generation top end video card could be too much for a single PCI-E 2.0 slot.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

They are both really good choices, but I think the 920 might have the edge just because of the HT & is better suited to handle multiple GPUs.

 

[biostud]

If you run i5 with turbo mode (intels auto overclocking) it will most likely be faster in games than the i7-920.

 

[Ben90]

To clear the OP up, the 920 overclocks higher, but the 750 is clocked faster.

To make a perfect decision for you, we need to look at four processors: 750,860,920,AMD. To cut a crapload of variables out, im not going to go into AMD processors, as they can be a better price/performance ratio than intel processors, but cannot match the raw speed. So keep that in mind, if you don't mind loosing like 2 % in games AMD processors are a nice alternative.

So we got the three Intel processors: 750/860/920. Don't really fret too hard over this decision as there isn't really a huge difference between the three, but there are subtle differences. The Lynnfield platform uses a measurable amount of power less than the Bloomfield platform. If you want to stay "green" and not mess around in bios, I would cut the 920 off the list right now. You can under-volt Bloomfield processors more than Lynnfield processors however, so its possible to narrow the gap. (Please note that under-volting, like overclocking is not guaranteed. Also if you are uncomfortable messing in bios this option is not for you).

To continue looking at the differences between the two platforms, we have a few more pros for each side. Lynn will end up being slightly cheaper than Bloom as the x58 chipset is very expensive. Most people you ask believe that buying RAM for Bloom also costs more, however I believe its quite the opposite for two reasons. First off you have more flexibility as Bloom gets better performance out of the same dual channel RAM than Lynn, and if you do buy triple channel kits, they only need to be 1066 vs 1333 so the RAM/price ratio gets slightly higher.

Since you are not overclocking, the more aggressive turbo mode on Lynn will benefit you quite a bit vs the conservative Bloom. This, along with power consumption are the biggest benefits to going with a Lynn platform in my oppinion as stock performance between the 860/920, the 860 normally comes out on top in consumer applications.

There are two more benefits in my opinion in having a Bloom though. One that may or may not matter to you is multi GPU performance. X58 has a metric-crapload of PCI-e lanes while Lynn only has 16 available without going through the chipset. If you are going to definitely go SLI/Xfire I would go Bloom hands-down as that very minimal performance boost will matter the most in gaming.


Hyper-threading vs nothing. Ugh, I hate hyper-threading personally as its so random it makes comparisons hard. Either three things will happen: performance goes up, performance doesn't change, or performance goes down when enabling HTT. In games the net change normally ends up being around 3% faster after comparing a huge suite of games, things may change in the future though.


Honestly I know there are a lot of things I just rambled about, so it probably didn't help your decision that much. In short I would look at five things: SLI/Power consumption/RAM/Price/Computer power.
SLI=920
Power=750,860
Need more than 4, but less than 8GB ram?->920, otherwise doesn't matter much
Price=750
Computer power (at stock) = 860



Look at these charts to see how much gain/loss changes between processors:http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=109&p2=47

 

[Gillbot]

If you want a gaming rig that will last 4-5 years then you might want to consider a X58. I think the extra PCI-E lanes may be worth it (at some point you may want to use a SATA 3/USB 3 AIB....especially if SSD tech progresses at a good rate)

Take a look at the Asrock X58 Extreme. It only costs $169.99 at Newegg and my newbie opinion is that it could probably handle a PCI-E x4 add-in card while still being able to populate both PCI-E x16 lanes. This may be important in 2-4 years as a Future generation top end video card could be too much for a single PCI-E 2.0 slot.

You can get it open box for $118.

 

[shaolin95]

920 gets my vote too.

 

[brandonwh64]

yea i went from a 965BE AM3 @ 3.9ghz to a I7-920 @ 4.1ghz 1.275v and its way better than the AMD system

 

[blackrain]

I would go with the i5

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634&p=8

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634&p=16

 

[toyota]

OP, why are you saying that the i7 920 is clocked higher? they are both clocked at 2.66.


also I dont get the point of trying to make a pc to last 4 to 5 years. with your current system, even a $350 PC from Best Buy would provide a much better gaming platform. pc stuff just gets outdated pretty quick and now matter how much money you spend today it will be relatively slow in 5 years. I mean a $500 or $3000 pc from 2005 would both suck for modern gaming. really just build a bang for buck pc every 2 to 3 years with a couple of video card upgrades along the way if needed.

so really just go with the i5 750 since that has a cheaper platform. realistically though, no matter what you go with today, be prepared to upgrade to a new platform in about 3 years if you want the best experience.

 

[astrosfan315]

great post Ben! Thanks, I didn't know about the lanes on the chips. I went i5-750 as I'm only going to use 1 card, HD5850.

 

[jinduy]

sorry, for some reason i thought i saw that the 920 had a higher speed than the 750

perhaps it was just the benchmarks showing the 920 more or less edging the 750 so i assumed the 920 had a higher clock speed

great post Ben90 - no, you certainly did help!

 

[jinduy]

ok so tried to digest everything...

so i definitely do not want to go SLI/xfire since i'm not too keen on buying two of the same GPUs and then having to buy two more of the same if i wanted to upgrade. i'm on my 3rd GPU on my current rig.

so given that i have no interest in dual gpu setup, is the 750 the way to go?

 

[toyota]

ok so tried to digest everything...

so i definitely do not want to go SLI/xfire since i'm not too keen on buying two of the same GPUs and then having to buy two more of the same if i wanted to upgrade. i'm on my 3rd GPU on my current rig.

so given that i have no interest in dual gpu setup, is the 750 the way to go?

I would say yes

 

[cbn]

so i definitely do not want to go SLI/xfire since i'm not too keen on buying two of the same GPUs and then having to buy two more of the same if i wanted to upgrade. i'm on my 3rd GPU on my current rig.

so given that i have no interest in dual gpu setup, is the 750 the way to go?

Do you think you will want to use SATA 3/USB 3 in the future? The AIB for that **might** force you to only have PCI-E 2.0 x8 if you choose LGA 1156 (ie, Core i5 750 and the like). I am still waiting to confirm this.

Having only one slot running x8 for the video might affect your video card choices for the future. Or maybe it won't affect things that much. I really don't know.

P.S. You might also want to consider triple monitors at some point (If LCD prices continue to drop even further). This will benefit from greater the PCI-E lanes of the X58. In fact, Nvidia Surround View (or whatever they call it) requires SLI configuration to achieve the three needed DVI outputs.

 

[toyota]

Do you think you will want to use SATA 3/USB 3 in the future? The AIB for that **might** force you to only have PCI-E 2.0 x8 if you choose LGA 1156 (ie, Core i5 750 and the like). I am still waiting to confirm this.

Having only one slot running x8 for the video might affect your video card choices for the future. Or maybe it won't affect things that much. I really don't know.

P.S. You might also want to consider triple monitors at some point (If LCD prices continue to drop even further). This will benefit from greater the PCI-E lanes of the X58. In fact, Nvidia Surround View (or whatever they call it) requires SLI configuration to achieve the three needed DVI outputs.

why do you think everybody wants to buy 3 monitors plus the the corresponding gpu power needed to push them? you mention this in almost every thread even when there is no relevance whatsoever. he is trying to get a bang for buck system so I doubt his plans include triple monitor gaming.

 

[jinduy]

i don't have the real estate for the forseeable future for even dual monitors, but i may upgrade my 20 inch Dell ws to maybe 24 inches.

 

[cbn]

why do you think everybody wants to buy 3 monitors plus the the corresponding gpu power needed to push those. you mention this in almost every thread even when there is no relevance whatsoever. he is trying to get a bang for buck system so I doubt his plans include triple monitor gaming.

He wants a system that will last for 4-5 years right?

Well don't you think things might change in that time span? I am not just talking about LCD prices either. SSDs need to be considered also.

 

[toyota]

He wants a system that will last for 4-5 years right?

Well don't you things might change in that time span? I am not just talking about LCD prices either. SSDs need to be considered also.

his entire platform will need to be replaced before 4-5 years so again you are being silly suggesting that. I mean if you had a P4 system from 2005 its past time for a complete upgrade. again he is looking for bang for buck so I dont think along the way he will decide he wants 3 monitors and the gpus that need to fully push them for gaming.

 

[cbn]

his entire platform will need to be replaced before 4-5 years so again you are being silly suggesting that.

as i said, i'm looking to build a gaming rig that will last me another 4-5 years.

He said he doesn't want to replace his platform before 4-5 years.

 

[toyota]

He said he doesn't want to replace his platform before 4-5 years.

why do think that is? he is probably trying to get the most bang for buck seems and doesnt want to spend anymore money then he has to. how in the heck would buying 3 monitors and the gpus to push them fit into that plan? please stop suggesting this triple monitor gaming in almost every thread. he will need a platform upgrade well before then as trying to get 4-5 years out of a gaming system is pretty silly anyway. again look at systems from 5 years ago if you need any proof of that.

 

[cbn]

why do think that is? he is probably trying to get the most bang for buck seems and doesnt want to spend anymore money then he has to. how in the heck would buying 3 monitors and the gpus to push them fit into that plan? please stop suggesting this triple monitor gaming in almost every thread. he will need a platform upgrade well before then as trying to get 4-5 years out of a gaming system is pretty silly anyway. again look at systems from 5 years ago if you need any proof of that.

LGA 1366 could easily take him gaming for 4-5 years.

However, You make a good point about triple monitors. Not everyone likes the idea of using them. I, myself, think they sound really neat though. (I already use dual monitors)

So that leaves us with PCI-E bandwidth for a single monitor? Will the OP want to use SATA 3/USB 3 in the future? If so will an add-in-board reduce his Video card bandwidth to x8 or not? How much bandwidth will Future Video cards use? How much more demanding will Future graphics programs be compared to CPU ultilization?

A lot happens in 4-5 years. However, CPU competition seems to moving at a slower pace than it did back in 2005. I am not sure we will be making the same massive jump from Pentium IV with Intel fully in control now.

 

[bob5568]

I seriously doubt there is enough liklihood of correctly predicting the future of pcs over 4 or 5 years to base a buying decision on now.

 

[Munky]

If money is a factor, I'd go with the 750. And in 4-5 years any processor on any platform you buy today will be pretty much equally obsolete.

 

[cbn]

If money is a factor, I'd go with the 750. And in 4-5 years any processor on any platform you buy today will be pretty much equally obsolete.

Yeah, but we are talking a computer for games in this thread.

Gaming development is slower progression than other types of CPU programs right?

In fact, In some ways I would rather have the high end AMD board (that can handle dual x16) than the mainstream Intel LGA 1156 socket even though the Phenom II processsor is weaker.