old but good?

So I have had a i7 930 for the longest time it was over clocked to 3.5 ghz. but now I have gotten a i7 980x for next to free. Looking at bench marks it is slightly better than the 6700k when clocked to 4.0ghz. I was really shocked to see this. and going from 3.33 to 4 ghz is not hard. I expected a new i7 quad to complacently smash a first gen i7 6 core. I don't feel like I will have to upgrade any time soon after receiving this cpu. Any sure fire ways for over clocking this for minimal heat or is it the same as the i7 930? anything will help and would love to have a discussion about this.

The exta cores help so its kind of hard to compare a quad to a hex core. Glad you got a deal on one, iloiked on eBay they are listed for 300ish. I picked up x5660 for $70 oces to 4ghz, for the price its hard to beat. Probably the cheapest way to get an Intel hex core, it runs rosie and oce that hex is going to be like that 930.

okay cool so this was probably the easiest upgrade to get twice the performance that I had. since it is a 32nm vs a 45nm will it run cooler? or be just as hot because of the extra cores?

What benchmark are you seeing a 980x being better than a 6700k? For the vast majority of circumstances the 6700k would be much faster.

I am basing this on passmark benchmarks.

Well multi core is different the single core on a performance basis. Using r11.5 and r15 for multi core testing eve at 3.6ghz the x5660 does pretty well. Depending on the test it can go back and forth, no replacement ve smaller nm at the same clock speed single core. Maybe im just saying that o justify buying that other x58setup off eBay ffor 250. Lol

I fully agree the 6700k will have major advantages over the 980x, but at the same time I will be doing a lot of multi tasking and cpu heavy tasks. I am willing to overclock it more than 4.0 ghz. I am wondering what ghz it would take to get the same single core performance.

6700k 980x 930

PassMark (Single core) score 2,318 vs 1,444 vs 1212
cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 8,981 vs 4,731 vs n/a
geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 17,189 vs 14,533 vs 7,522
cinebench r10 32Bit score 36,746 vs 27,056 vs n/a


just found all of these. the 6700k is faster in many places. most likely due to architecture. but for more than$150 USD less I got the i7 980x. I think for anyone running a LGA 1366 with a old I7 or I5 that wants much more power without breaking the bank this is very good.

Yes if your usage can take advantage of the 6 cores it's not bad. Especially taking into account the cost of upgrading to an 1150 setup vs a good deal on a processor swap. If your usage doesn't really to what a quad can do it's pretty much wasted money to me.

I will be rendering video and gaming. I found my i7 930 was under powered for twitch streaming and playing games, music, chrome, and other applications not to mention the lack of pcie lanes. I think I read the i7 980x has 32 pcie lanes where as the i7 930 has 20. this will stop my major bottleneck with me dual gpu. when over clocked I noticed that everything ran so much better. I think I backed off to 3.3 ghz on my 930 for heat reasons while I was on air. went to water and temps went down. so having two more cores and starting at a better clock I hope gives much more.

these are first gens, they dont have PCIE on-package like latter ones do. this was the last of the traditional setups of NB/SB, latter ones since pcie lanes got moved the cpu simply have the PCH. which allowed them to put the SB with the NB, there are still some pcie lanes but the ones that matter are on the cpu. i belive it was second gen i's that put pcie lanes on the cpu/die/on-package. what the 980x has the 930 or my x5660 doesnt haven is a faster QPI speed at stock. not sure how it translates but my link speed is showing 3.6ghz since im running a 200mhz bclk. the 980x over the 930 is also a smaller process so per core 980x at the same speed even if a quad is going to be a bit better in terms of performance.