i7 920 vs 860

[Collider]

Hi All,

I'm sure this has been a common food for thought for a lot of us as we followed the Lynnfield coverage. I wanted to get some opinions out there on the which CPU you would get and reasons why, if you were to upgrade to i7. I've been reading reviews and looking at benchmarks and seems that the two chips trade blows in different areas.

Here's what I have for pros/cons:

920
Pros:
- Triple Channel support (aprox 5-7% performance gain in some areas)
- Better/easier overclock
- Option of upgrading to Gulftown next year
- Better SLI/XFire performance

Cons:
- Price ($150-200 depending on ram/mobo choice)
- Less aggressive turbo mode (not a con if overclocking)

860
Pros:
- Price (cheaper ram/mobo)
- Aggressive Turbo modes

Cons:
- Slower SLI/XFire
- Dual channel ram
- no Gulftown support
- harder to oc

Please feel free to add / correct items on this list.

 

[RDaneel]

I think it comes down to this: will you be using a multiple video cards? If so, you want the dual x16 capability. If not, save some money and wattage and get Lynnfield.

This is the right litmus test to me because the answer also tells you what kind of user you are. If you're not using dual video cards, you probably don't care about 5% mem performance or need to run a 30" LCD in Crysis at 90fps. If you are, you do, and you're already spending so much that there's no reason not to get Brookdale.

Just my two cents...

 

[Ben90]

Power consumption is a huge pro for the lynnfield platform

 

[v8envy]

All I gotta say is 2.8 ghz at .8675 volts (that's right, I shaved a whole .06 volts by enabling LLC and locking the 21x multiplier), 8 threads of prime95 + 4 instances of eve-o stable. Try that with a Lynnfield.

I <3 my 920.

 

[Munky]

I disagree on the cons of Lynnfield. It has been shown to be faster sometimes than Bloomfield with dual video cards, so you can't say it's universally slower; I call it a wash.

Dual channel ram is a pro in my book because it's cheaper and I've seen very little practical benefit from triple channel ram in reading the reviews. Having only dual channel actually gives it lower latency too.

It may or may not support some version of Gulftown in the future, you can't say with certainty that it won't. But for now 4 cores/8 threads is more than enough for gaming and most other tasks. Single-thread performance is still an important factor too.

Harder to OC - that's a subjective matter, and each cpu is different in terms of OC potential. I've seen plenty of Lynnfields reach 4ghz, so I don't see what the fuss is about.

The benefits of Lynnfield are tangible and readily visible, from lower cost to faster turbo mode and lower power consumption. Those are here and now. The supposed disadvantages are more academic and subjective, and if money matters, I wouldn't even count them against Lynnfield.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: v8envy
All I gotta say is 2.8 ghz at .8675 volts (that's right, I shaved a whole .06 volts by enabling LLC and locking the 21x multiplier), 8 threads of prime95 + 4 instances of eve-o stable. Try that with a Lynnfield.

I <3 my 920.

That's darn impressive for sure! But I would guess the majority are buying 860 / 920 to overclock the crap out of it.

So comparing what voltage is required to runs at 2.8ghz is probably irrelevant to those people. My Lynnfield is already doing 76-77*C at 4.0ghz on Prolimatech Megahalems. I can't see 920 overclocking much beyond 4.1ghz on air cooling for 24/7 operation. 920 will require lower volts to get to 4.0ghz though

I'd go for the cheaper platform and put the rest into the videocard or SSD instead.

 

[firewolfsm]

But the 920 at 8675 volts might have the same power consumption as a lynnfield at 1V.

 

[zod96]

I had the same problem a week ago. I went with the I860. Mainly because I only use 1 video card. I think for a single video card the I860 is the better route. If I had gone the I920 route it would have been about $200 more. And that's too much to ask for when your getting like 3-5% more performance. And that is if your running stock. If you overclock then its even less. I have I7 860 overclocked to 3.6 and my friends system running an I7 920 with triple channel ram is overclocked to about the same, maybe a little less. My system beats his in most benches, yet he paided like $200+ more than I did.

 

[imported_Scoop]

Originally posted by: v8envy
All I gotta say is 2.8 ghz at .8675 volts (that's right, I shaved a whole .06 volts by enabling LLC and locking the 21x multiplier), 8 threads of prime95 + 4 instances of eve-o stable. Try that with a Lynnfield.

I <3 my 920.

So that equals about what 860 draws with default voltage. That's nice.

 

[aigomorla]

X58 better watercooling options.
X58 Better board layout on most occasions.. (less problems with heat sinks)
X58 Overall better Overclocking experience...

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
But the 920 at 8675 volts might have the same power consumption as a lynnfield at 1V.

ummm.... lynnfield is too slow for me...

I dont belong in this thread because im a 975 owner..
very soon to become an i9 Gulftown owner....

But what i tell people, if the price difference isnt that much of a burden... and usually it isnt when you see the complete price tag, grab the X58.

Hands down the 920 is a solid good value expecially if ur overclocking.
Get an aftermarket sink, and i have yet to see even a C0/C1 not make 3.8ghz with 8 threads.

 

[ayabe]

The "slower" turbo mode is listed as a con?

Maybe if you're sticking with the default clocks, if you're doing any serious OC'ing you shouldn't be using it.

Edit - Duh that's in the OP, NM. I would remove it though, a monkey on meth could hit 3.8 in about 2 minutes so anyone seriously considering a 920 and running it stock is a strange fellow.

 

[Collider]

Thanks for all the input guys. Keeping in mind price/performance ratio I have to say I'm more inclined to go with the 860 and invest the ~ $200 savings into an SSD. Also I prolly wont get around to overclocking this rig till some time later next year so I will def enjoy the aggressive turbo of the 860.

 

[RussianSensation]

Intel or OCZ Vertex

 

[Collider]

Intel's x-25m g2 80gb (maybe a 2nd one later on in raid-0)

 

[Jumpem]

i7 860 because I am staying stock. In which case it is clearly faster then the i7 920.

If you are overclocking it's basically a wash, with a slight advantage to the i7 920.

 

[Ben90]

Originally posted by: munky
I disagree on the cons of Lynnfield. It has been shown to be faster sometimes than Bloomfield with dual video cards, so you can't say it's universally slower; I call it a wash.

Dual channel ram is a pro in my book because it's cheaper and I've seen very little practical benefit from triple channel ram in reading the reviews. Having only dual channel actually gives it lower latency too.

It may or may not support some version of Gulftown in the future, you can't say with certainty that it won't. But for now 4 cores/8 threads is more than enough for gaming and most other tasks. Single-thread performance is still an important factor too.

Harder to OC - that's a subjective matter, and each cpu is different in terms of OC potential. I've seen plenty of Lynnfields reach 4ghz, so I don't see what the fuss is about.

The benefits of Lynnfield are tangible and readily visible, from lower cost to faster turbo mode and lower power consumption. Those are here and now. The supposed disadvantages are more academic and subjective, and if money matters, I wouldn't even count them against Lynnfield.

While i will agree that Lynnfield has some nice attributes to it, i absolutely hate people saying that Dual channel is cheaper than triple channel. If you throw the exact same dual channel ram into a x58 it will perform better than the lynnfield counterpart.

Ram can only be the same price or cheaper on a x58; it is impossible for ram to be more expensive on a x58 unless you have the shitty smackover...

*edit*

And overclocking is ~slightly~ better on 920s as well, 4ghz on 95% of d0s is a breeze, i can do that on a stock cooler, most with aftermarket coolers see 4.2-4.4, and 4.6 isnt too exclusive with water cooling (emphasis on too, some chips cant make 4.6)

The power consumption imho though is the best selling attribute of lynnfield. The 750 is really the only processor i can hands down recommend, because it just rocks in its price category, the 860 basically depends on your application, and the 870 is reserved for l2n

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Ben90

Originally posted by: munky
I disagree on the cons of Lynnfield. It has been shown to be faster sometimes than Bloomfield with dual video cards, so you can't say it's universally slower; I call it a wash.

Dual channel ram is a pro in my book because it's cheaper and I've seen very little practical benefit from triple channel ram in reading the reviews. Having only dual channel actually gives it lower latency too.

It may or may not support some version of Gulftown in the future, you can't say with certainty that it won't. But for now 4 cores/8 threads is more than enough for gaming and most other tasks. Single-thread performance is still an important factor too.

Harder to OC - that's a subjective matter, and each cpu is different in terms of OC potential. I've seen plenty of Lynnfields reach 4ghz, so I don't see what the fuss is about.

The benefits of Lynnfield are tangible and readily visible, from lower cost to faster turbo mode and lower power consumption. Those are here and now. The supposed disadvantages are more academic and subjective, and if money matters, I wouldn't even count them against Lynnfield.

While i will agree that Lynnfield has some nice attributes to it, i absolutely hate people saying that Dual channel is cheaper than triple channel. If you throw the exact same dual channel ram into a x58 it will perform better than the lynnfield counterpart.

How so, if Bloomfield only supports DDR3 1066, and most have lower uncore clocks? If anything, I'd say with everything else being equal, Lynnfield will have better dual-channel memory performance than Bloomfield.

 

[RussianSensation]

I honestly have no idea how you are getting 4.0ghz 24/7 at 100% load on the Core i7 stock cooler.

Prolimatech Megahalems and TRUE get 70-80*C at 4.0ghz on the 920 D0. So what are your temperatures?

 

[v8envy]

My experience is: the stock cooler is barely adequate for 2.66ghz, and struggles at 2.8 with below 1v voltage and 10666 RAM. Intel's own docs have the stock cooler unable to keep the CPU from throttling at above 40C ambient. I can't imagine the CPU would function without severe throttling at 4 ghz (or more importantly, 1.25+ volts), especially with faster RAM.

Factor in not every i7 being able to hit 4ghz on default voltage and... you must have God's own CPU, or you live in an igloo at the bottom of a very, very deep mineshaft.

 

[aigomorla]

LOL i have around 71C as my max core on linX with 4.4ghz /w 1.38Vcore

So who wants to try water?

 

[Ben90]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Ben90

Originally posted by: munky
I disagree on the cons of Lynnfield. It has been shown to be faster sometimes than Bloomfield with dual video cards, so you can't say it's universally slower; I call it a wash.

Dual channel ram is a pro in my book because it's cheaper and I've seen very little practical benefit from triple channel ram in reading the reviews. Having only dual channel actually gives it lower latency too.

It may or may not support some version of Gulftown in the future, you can't say with certainty that it won't. But for now 4 cores/8 threads is more than enough for gaming and most other tasks. Single-thread performance is still an important factor too.

Harder to OC - that's a subjective matter, and each cpu is different in terms of OC potential. I've seen plenty of Lynnfields reach 4ghz, so I don't see what the fuss is about.

The benefits of Lynnfield are tangible and readily visible, from lower cost to faster turbo mode and lower power consumption. Those are here and now. The supposed disadvantages are more academic and subjective, and if money matters, I wouldn't even count them against Lynnfield.

While i will agree that Lynnfield has some nice attributes to it, i absolutely hate people saying that Dual channel is cheaper than triple channel. If you throw the exact same dual channel ram into a x58 it will perform better than the lynnfield counterpart.

How so, if Bloomfield only supports DDR3 1066, and most have lower uncore clocks? If anything, I'd say with everything else being equal, Lynnfield will have better dual-channel memory performance than Bloomfield.

Ahh touche` on supported stuff. I forgot p55 goes up to 1333. However, take note of "If you throw the exact same dual channel ram into a x58 it will perform better than the lynnfield counterpart." Sure its not supported, but who has problems with anything under ddr 1600. Dont forget 1336 has a IMC.

This basically reinforces what everyone already knows: stock settings-> 1156 Overclock->1336


And im 17 away from tjmax in prime95. HT is off though, so im sure everyone is going to bash on me. I dont need it, and im sure i would throttle with Intel burn test and HT. When are you ever going to see the load of Intel burn test though in real life? Hell even prime95 is overkill. My 24/7 temps are ~30 away from tjmax running 4 folding at homes, thats the most stressful thing my processor has to deal with in real life

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
I honestly have no idea how you are getting 4.0ghz 24/7 at 100% load on the Core i7 stock cooler.

Prolimatech Megahalems and TRUE get 70-80*C at 4.0ghz on the 920 D0. So what are your temperatures?

Yeah, I'm calling shens on that part.

 

[Ben90]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
I honestly have no idea how you are getting 4.0ghz 24/7 at 100% load on the Core i7 stock cooler.

Prolimatech Megahalems and TRUE get 70-80*C at 4.0ghz on the 920 D0. So what are your temperatures?

Yeah, I'm calling shens on that part.

When is anything at 100% load? Anyone got a 4xxx series card from ATI?

As a reminder, TDP is not an absolute maximum, rather it?s a maximum based on what?s believed to be the highest reasonable load the card will ever experience. As a result it?s possible in extreme circumstances for the card to need power beyond what its TDP is rated for, which is a problem.

That problem reared its head a lot for the RV770 in particular, with the rise in popularity of stress testing programs like FurMark and OCCT. Although stress testers on the CPU side are nothing new, FurMark and OCCT heralded a new generation of GPU stress testers that were extremely effective in generating a maximum load. Unfortunately for RV770, the maximum possible load and the TDP are pretty far apart, which becomes a problem since the VRMs used in a card only need to be spec?d to meet the TDP of a card plus some safety room. They don?t need to be able to meet whatever the true maximum load of a card can be, as it should never happen.

Why is this? AMD believes that the instruction streams generated by OCCT and FurMark are entirely unrealistic. They try to hit everything at once, and this is something that they don?t believe a game or even a GPGPU application would ever do. For this reason these programs are held in low regard by AMD, and in our discussions with them they referred to them as ?power viruses?, a term that?s normally associated with malware. We don?t agree with the terminology, but in our testing we can?t disagree with AMD about the realism of their load ? we can?t find anything that generates the same kind of loads as OCCT and FurMark.

Regardless of what AMD wants to call these stress testers, there was a real problem when they were run on RV770. The overcurrent situation they created was too much for the VRMs on many cards, and as a failsafe these cards would shut down to protect the VRMs. At a user level shutting down like this isn?t a very helpful failsafe mode. At a hardware level shutting down like this isn?t enough to protect the VRMs in all situations. Ultimately these programs were capable of permanently damaging RV770 cards, and AMD needed to do something about it.

Is every single 4xxxx unstable?

 

[RussianSensation]

Well I run SETI@home, unless I am playing an occasional videogame or encoding video. So while it's not 100% per say, it's at least 99% It gets hot enough!

 

[SolMiester]

Lynnfield with Hydra MSI Big Bang FTW