Page 1 of 3 1 2 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 43
  1. #1
    Senior Intel-lectual
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Author Profile

    Core i7 head-to-head: 1156 vs. 1366

    I was a bit bored last night and decided that since I hadn't fired up the 920 in while, I'd do a short water-cooled bench session with identical speeds between the P55-UD6 + Core i7 860 (1156) and the X58-UD4P + Core i7 920 (1366).

    There's nothing very scientific here, just comparative test on a whim. What it's not, is a comparison of newly released h/w against some tests in the bank from many months ago when the X58s and 920s were new. These were all done back-to-back on the same cooling, HDD, OS, vid card, memory, etc. The only things that changed were the mobo and CPU.

    1156 setup
    Core i7 860 ES
    Gigayte P55-UD6 (F3 BIOS)

    1366 setup
    Core i7 920 retail (D0)
    Gigayte X58-UD4P (F7 BIOS)

    Same hardware/software used in both setups:
    2x2GB from a Kingston KHX16000D3ULT1K3/6GX kit (dual-channel)
    Gigabyte 260 GTX SP 216 (stock cooling)
    VelociRaptor HDD
    Odin 1200W PSU

    Win XP SP3
    Forceware 190.62

    NexXxos XP water block
    2x BIPII rads in series with 1x Panaflo 120 H1A on each
    MCP-355 pump

    Both systems were setup as:
    - 21x200 boot & bench (920 = 20x + Turbo, 860 = 21x w/o Turbo)**;
    - All cores + HT were kept on for all benches;
    - Uncore set 18x on both. This is the highest setting for P55/860 and lowest setting for X58/920;
    - QPI set 18x on both. This is fixed on P55/860 and an underclock from the default 19x on X58/920 (and adjustable higher);
    - Memory had manually set primaries/tRFC, everything else was left on AUTO.
    - All EIST, speed step, C6/C7, etc. was disabled;
    - ALL voltages (including Vcore, Vdimm, Vtt, IOH, PCH, CPU PLL, etc.) were left on AUTO;
    - PCIe freqs were left on AUTO;
    - Vid card clocks were the same saved profile and clocks kept purposely low (700/1509 (linked)/1200) to avoid heat causing inconsistencies;

    ** I am not aware of anything changing (ie. internal timings, etc.) with "Turbo" being enabled to get the 21x multi on the 920, however, there is always that possibility and I didn't think of it until today. At some point, I may do a 20x run with both setups just to check.

    I just did a couple benches each since it was impromtu. I only used a single vid card so PCIe lane divisions didn't come into play...the card was getting the full 16x on both boards.

    These were the settings used for the benches. All mem subtimings are AUTO settings.

    P55-UD6 + Core i7 860



    X58-UD4P + Core i7 920



    3D06 - P55



    3D06 - X58



    SPi 32M - P55



    SPi 32M - X58



    wPrimes - P55



    wPrimes - X58



    Everest bandwidth - P55 (note: "not optimized" for Lynnfield yet)



    Everest bandwidth - X58



    There is definitely a hint in the Everest screens that there is more going on than meets the eye between the two (if the bench results didn't already say so). Even though the CPU, mem, QPI and Uncore are all at the same speed, the X58 still has a faster latency and slightly more bandwidth. I always take Everest results with a grain of salt because they can move around a bit, but SPi 32M is wholly dependant on CPU and mem. Given the CPU and mem are the same speeds (with slight differences in a few subtimings), the difference in 32M is very noticeable.

    So even an X58/920 "crippled" to P55/860 specs and in dual-channel mode, it still out-performs 1156, if just by a bit. It would not take much for the P55/860 to match the X58/920 at P55 settings. With identical settings as tested above, but with 1000MHz 7-8-7-88 mem timings on P55 instead, wPrime is nearly identical and 32M is less than 1s difference (3Ds don't improve as much however).

    On that note, between these two boards, it is much more difficult for me to run 1000MHz+ mem on the X58/920. On the other hand, the P55 board does just silly things with the same memory (>DDR3-2500 9-9-9-24). Suffice it to say, if it just takes a bit more memory clocks or a few timing tweaks to nearly equal X58/920 at the same setup, the P55 should be able to do it pretty easily if your mem is up to it.

    Long story short, Core i7 1156 is honestly not that far off of Core i7 1366 performance when set up evenly (and I know some game tests have 1156 beating 1366). Either way, as far as "mainstream" goes, P55/1156 is pretty damn good!

  2. #2
    Senior Intel-lectual
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Author Profile
    P55/860. Same settings as above except 1000MHz 7-8-7-20 mem instead of 800 6-7-6-20. Much more comparable to the X58/920 32M run above (8m 43.218s). 3Ds do not gain nearly as much on P55 with increased mem. I'll do some 3D compares when I have time.

    Last edited by Ross; 09-26-09 at 01:52 PM.

  3. #3
    Senior Intel-lectual
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Author Profile
    Reserved again in case I do more tests

  4. #4
    nice post!!! its odd that intel say that i5 is going to be mainstream - but the "i7" 1156 is as fast as an i7 1366!!
    "There's no fun in stock clocks - There's no heat either!"

  5. #5
    nice test!! its odd isnt it - that intel say i5 is mainstream - but the "i7" 1156 is as fast as an i7 1366!
    "There's no fun in stock clocks - There's no heat either!"

  6. #6
    Member Daddyjaxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Ormond Beach, FL.
    Well...they are both I7's. The only difference between the two is triple or double channel memory and PCIE which you negated by using one card and running both in dual channel. The 860 already starts out with a multiplier head start over the 920. You have to overclock the 920 more to get the same speed hence the slight score increase. You could see the same results comparing a 920 to a 920 on two different boards or a 920 vs a 940 on the exact same board at the same speeds with the 920 winning there too. I would expect any I7 to benchmark practically identical at the same speeds.
    I7-4960X w/EK Supermecy and red LED's
    Rampage IV BE with EK m/b block
    3 x 780TI Classifieds with EK full cover blocks and 3 x serial terminal connector
    64GB Corsair Platinum 2400 CAS10
    CaseLabs STH10 with Pedestal with Corsair AX1500i PU
    3 x XSPC RX480 and RX240
    EK res w/ 2 x MCP35X
    Photon 170 Res with MCP35X, EK Res with MCP35X
    Primochill LRT Black/Red 7/8" with EK/BP compression
    2 x 1TB Samsung 840, W/D 2 x 4GB Black and 2 x 3GB Black, and 1 TB W/D Black + 4GB W/D Wireless
    Win 8.1 Pro

  7. #7
    Senior Intel-lectual
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Author Profile
    The 920 isn't OC'd "more". Multi's only matter if you are running defaults or have fixed multi's. 940 is faster than a 920 at default only, but they are the same cores and a 940 set to 20x IS a 920. 920 vs. 940 in the same board at the same multi/BCLK will be identical (within a margin). The above benches are not using higher BCLK at a fixed multi to match CPU speeds, it's the same BCLK and multi, so they are clocked identically.

    Both are called Core i7 yes, but they are different, so is the chipset. Core i7 1156 is high-end maintstream and the goal was just to see how close 1156/P55 performance would be to 1366/X58 if X58 were downgraded and running at P55 limitations. The performance options of X58 are obvious and uncorked (ie. default setup or OC'd), the X58/9xx obviously has better performance per clock, but I wanted to see them compared on a level field.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    nzaneb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Northern Indiana
    Author Profile Benching Profile SETI Profile Heatware Profile
    Nice work Ross! Are you going to run any other 3D benches?
    N-Zane-B
    Forging the way for Overclockers.com World Domination
    Join us on the benching team
    !


  9. #9
    Senior Benchmark Addict
    10 Year Badge
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Hillsboro, OR
    Excellent test Ross. Pretty surprising actually. It's enough to matter for benchmark nuts like ourselves. 7 secs in 32M, 600 pts in 06...and that's with the uncore held constant and dual channel for the X58 as well. Don't know why the Lynnfield is lagging so much, but it's clearly noticeably behind...that 06 CPU score hit...damn.
    El<(')>Maxi: I still have your board...and I'm afraid I lost your address so I can't send it back...and my pm box is broken...and I can't remember where the PO is anyway

  10. #10
    Senior Intel-lectual
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Author Profile
    Quote Originally Posted by nzaneb View Post
    Nice work Ross! Are you going to run any other 3D benches?
    At some point, but not on water this weekend

    Quote Originally Posted by Gautam View Post
    Excellent test Ross. Pretty surprising actually. It's enough to matter for benchmark nuts like ourselves. 7 secs in 32M, 600 pts in 06...and that's with the uncore held constant and dual channel for the X58 as well. Don't know why the Lynnfield is lagging so much, but it's clearly noticeably behind...that 06 CPU score hit...damn.
    Yeah, it's a hit. I'm surprised X58 is still that far ahead at same everything. 600 in 06 is pretty big. I did a quick 32M on P55 same settings everywhere except mem @ 1000MHz 7-8-7 and it's almost dead even in 32M (like .5s diff). I'll post the screen later when I get home. 3D06 with the raised mem is still like 450-500 points behind.

    The 860 does OC a lot higher than the 920 on DI, so some 2D 860 LN2 runs might be in order this weekend. Come to think of it, I don't think I ever had the 920 on LN2. That might need a round for 3Ds too

  11. #11
    Benching Senior on Siesta
    Premium Member #8


    Brolloks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Land of Long Horns
    Author Profile Benching Profile Heatware Profile
    Nice data Ross, can you put another GTX 260 in their to see how the SLI scaling is between the two boards?

  12. #12
    Registered
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    When the i7 800 series drops in price a little more it will be a great value. But as long as the prices are simialr the x58 platform is the better choice.
    Last edited by Mega_Death; 09-25-09 at 12:18 PM.
    HAF 932, i7 920 @ 3.6GHz, Sapphire 4870 1GB, Sunbeam CCFP, Gigabyte X58-UD3R, Corsair XMS3 6GB, Creative Xtreme Gamer, Corsair 750HX

  13. #13
    Senior Intel-lectual
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Author Profile
    Quote Originally Posted by Brolloks View Post
    Nice data Ross, can you put another GTX 260 in their to see how the SLI scaling is between the two boards?
    I will do an SLI on both of these setups, but I'm pretty sure it will be more of the same...X58 out in front by a noticeable margin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mega_Death View Post
    When the i7 800 series drops in price a little more it will be a great value. But as long as the prices are simialr the x58 platform is the better choice.
    Point taken. I don't think it's going to take too long for the prices to come down though for either 1156 CPUs or mobos. I guess it depends how well they sell. Either way, it's just a matter of what you're willing to spend for what you want to get. Similar performance for noticeably cheaper always makes the decisions easier

  14. #14
    the P55 i think was made just for main stream computers for manufactures like dell, HP, Gateway, acer .....

    being that they integrated the north bridge in the CPU, only dual channel motherboards should be cheaper to manufacture and sell wholesale to these companies BUT like you said, the performance compared to the 1366 slot I7's are pretty close.

    in the coming year, the market is going to be flooded with Core i5 and core I3 machines, as well as some 1156 slot i7's for the higher end entertainment computers.

    being that gulftown (6 cores 12 threads) will be in Q1 as well as sandy bridge.

    http://www.brigs-family.com/?p=159

    after looking here, the 8 core 16 thread Nehalem-EX (Beckton)
    # up to 8 cores, up to 16 threads
    # 24MB shared L3
    # 45nm
    # 90/105/130W TDP
    # 4 FBD2 interfaces
    # 4 QPI links
    # Socket-LS (LGA 1567)
    # 44 bits physical address
    # 48 bits virtual address

    makes me
    CPU:INTEL Core I7 2600K (4.5Ghz)
    RAM:8GB Corsair XMS3 DDR3 1600mhz
    MOBO:ASUS P8P67 Pro rev 3.1
    GFX card:EVGA GTX 780 Ti
    HDD#1:Samsung 840 Pro 128Gb OS Drive
    HDD#2:Western Digital Caviar 500GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache Media/extra programs
    HDD#3:Wester Digital Green 1TB 7200 RPM
    Monitor: DELL 23" Widescreen LCD Monitor 1920x1080
    OS: Windows 8 PRO 64-Bit

  15. #15
    Senior Intel-lectual
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Author Profile
    Core i9 has already been benched. It's sick. 6/12 >6GHz frozen. OMG. I'm saving already

  16. #16
    Boulard83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Quebec - Canada
    nice reading !!!
    Boulard83 @ OvercloQc.com
    BTTB
    Gigabyte Z87X-OC WCed 4770k 2x8gb Ballistix 1600mhz cas8 Zotac GTX 780 Asus Xonar Pheobus
    OS Toshiba Q 256gb Games 2x Agility 4 256gb Raid0 Corsair HX850 Tecnofront HWD BenchTable Asus VE278Q 5760x1080

    HTPC Gigabyte H77m-D3H G2020 NT-06 2x4gb Patriot Viper 1600mhz Asus GTX 650 TI SB Recon3D
    X25-m 80gb Enermax 550w Lian Li PC-C60B

    Server Asus Z77m PRO 2500K NH-C12P 4x4gb G.Skill Ares 1600mhz
    Agility 4 128gb Corsair CX430M 2X 1TB Black 1x 2TB green

    KatPat Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 FX-8320 PH-TC14CS 2x4gb Patriot Viper 1600mhz GTS 450 + Accelero L2 Plus
    Samsung Evo 120gb Corsair HX750 Bitfenix Survivor White Asus VE247H

  17. #17
    disk11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Charlotte
    Heatware Profile
    I can't wait for the gaming tests.

    I was curious about the costs of the varible components so I look 'em up:
    860 setup: $539.98 (just newegg)
    920 setup: $509.98 (newegg cpu, ewiz mobo)

    Even using microcenter for processor prices, the 920 is still cheaper. Any word on when pricedrops will occur?
    My Heatware
    OCforums Metal Club member # 665
    OCforums Musicians Club member # 665
    Main/Gaming: i7 920, Noctua U12P-SE, Asrock x58 Extreme, 6GB pc16000 Gskill Pi, Powercolor 7870, 256GB Crucial M500, 160GB Intel 320, Lite-On DVD burner, 600W OCZ modX
    File server: AMD e-350, Asus E35M1-M Pro, 4GB Crucial, OCZ Vertex 3 (OS), 3x Toshiba 1TB RAID 5, 2x 2TB WD Green in RAID 1, Antec 900, Corsair 520HX

  18. #18
    Tech Savvy Member Alien432's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas, USA
    Author Profile
    Excellent work Ross !

    P55/i7 860 quieter and cooler but price wise i7 920 is a better value to me.
    Mobo - Gigabyte G1.Assassin2
    CPU - Intel 3820 4.5 @1.28v
    CPU HSF - Prolimatech Mega Shadow - Deluxe Edition
    GPU - <MSI 770
    Memory - G.Skill DDR3 4x4 16GB
    HDD - 240gb SSD + 150GB WD Raptors
    PSU - Corsair 1000W
    Case - Tech Bench
    Monitor - Samsung p270 Black 27" 5ms Widescreen LCD
    OS - Windows 7 Pro
    Heatware

  19. #19
    Member
    10 Year Badge
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Thanks for the info. Ross - Nice work!
    E6850 @ 3.6
    P5k Deluxe WiFi
    2GB Crucial Ballistix 8000 & 2GB Crucial Ballistix 8500 (4GB Total)
    BBA x1800XL w/ Zalman VF900 & RAM Sinks
    3 Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 250GB ST3250410AS Matrix Raid
    2 LITE-ON LH-20A1L-06 20X
    Gigabyte 3D Aurora 570
    Ultra X3 1000W
    Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme/Scythe S-Flex SFF21F
    Dell 2407

  20. #20
    Now 6GHz or Bust!
    4GHZ_or_bust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    socket 1156 is made for mid range mainly and has lower cost vs 1366. The biggest reason for cost difference has to do with the RAM. 1156 is dual channel and 1366 is tri channel. Designing tri channel takes more work, needs more traces, and costlier multilayer board than dual channel. OTOH tri channel has better RAM/CPU performance than dual channel.

    Another consideration when chopping for cheaper 1156 vs pricier 1366 is the PCIe support. At this time, 1156 has PCIe support built into CPU (pretty much killed off Northbridge chip) but is limited to 16x so those using high performance dual or tri video card in SLi or Crossfire will take serious hit but using single video card only, performance between both should be very close.

    Bottom line, if you plan to use mainly 1 video card (or 2 lower/mid range video cards that won't saturate 8x each), don't really need the faster CPU/RAM performance and don't plan to get the i9 at all, 1156 is much cheaper and both can overclock quite well.
    space for rent

Page 1 of 3 1 2 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •