i7 1366 vs i7 1156 Vs i5 series

[visbits]

Does any one have a full layout of where all the processors mesh up at stock clocks for performance, and will there be any more cpus going to 1156? seems like this is kinda a one time gig to get some cheaper cpus out on the market.

Thanks

 

[Boulard83]

http://www.presence-pc.com/tests/intel-core-i5-23179/

http://www.pcworld.fr/article/mater...e=alldoc&utm_medium=tout&utm_campaign=pcworld

 

[kevy8up]

is there a reason why those articles aren't in english?

 

[Boulard83]

haha sorry loll ! i didnt cared about language .. i speak french ...

same one from TOMS but in english
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i5-gaming,2403.html

the other one is a french site ..

 

[jgv115]

HotHardware mentioned that the 920 and the 870 (or the 860 forgot which one) are the same processors. It's just one runs on tri channel memory, one runs on dual. One runs on X58, one runs on P55.

I think there will definitely be more processors for the 1156 socket. Just not now.

 

[Evilsizer]

the funny part about reading most of the reviews. is that they dont bench the i7 860 but only the 870. now the problem i see is that clock to clock with ht there is no comparsion. since i only have seen i7 920's used, noting close to the clock of the 870. some will think i7 1156 is faster since it is a higher clocked one vs the i7 920. when in fact it isnt clock to clock faster, lga1156 uses the DMI buss vs QPI on 1366. the DMI buss is a good thing in a way but is slower then QPI.
*edit*
should be to compare clock to clock, down clock or drop the multi on the i7 870 for i7 920 speeds. lost track the 860 isnt clocked at 2.66ghz but would have been nice to have a 850 in the line up then....

HotHardware mentioned that the 920 and the 870 (or the 860 forgot which one) are the same processors. It's just one runs on tri channel memory, one runs on dual. One runs on X58, one runs on P55.

I think there will definitely be more processors for the 1156 socket. Just not now.

maybe the dies are but the LGA11566 cpus is the same size physical size as LGA775 cpus.

 

[atm743]

the funny part about reading most of the reviews. is that they dont bench the i7 860 but only the 870. now the problem i see is that clock to clock with ht there is no comparsion. since i only have seen i7 920's used, noting close to the clock of the 870. some will think i7 1156 is faster since it is a higher clocked one vs the i7 920. when in fact it isnt clock to clock faster, lga1156 uses the DMI buss vs QPI on 1366. the DMI buss is a good thing in a way but is slower then QPI.
*edit*
should be to compare clock to clock, down clock or drop the multi on the i7 870 for i7 920 speeds. lost track the 860 isnt clocked at 2.66ghz but would have been nice to have a 850 in the line up then....




maybe the dies are but the LGA11566 cpus is the same size physical size as LGA775 cpus.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-750-core-i7-860-870-processor-review-test/

review of both 860 and 870

 

[MadMan007]

I still want to see a review with a few decently oc'd Core 2 CPU thrown in, maybe a C2Q at 3.6-3.8 and a C2D at 3.8-4.0. Heck oc the i5 and i7 too, or not, I just want to see how genuine oc'd rigs compare to these 'stealth oc' Turboboost rigs.

 

[Boulard83]

The BEST reviews are done CLOCK for CLOCK. I like to see when they take 4-5 CPU, clocked at "3.2ghz" and lets see how they perform. Cause in these review, the closest PROC to what i have is the Q9550s but he is running 2.83ghz .... or the QX @ 3.2 that is closest to me.

I have this rig for 6month now. Im about to swap to new gear since i feel outdated but the performance gain isnt going to be what im looking for. Ill kee this Q9550 till i see someting rweally better for my use ( mainly gaming/webbing )

 

[wickedout]

They did this topic over at AMDzone.com and they just ripped some guy about Intel core i-5. Poor guy. Lol!

 

[MadMan007]

The BEST reviews are done CLOCK for CLOCK. I like to see when they take 4-5 CPU, clocked at "3.2ghz" and lets see how they perform. Cause in these review, the closest PROC to what i have is the Q9550s but he is running 2.83ghz .... or the QX @ 3.2 that is closest to me.

I have this rig for 6month now. Im about to swap to new gear since i feel outdated but the performance gain isnt going to be what im looking for. Ill kee this Q9550 till i see someting rweally better for my use ( mainly gaming/webbing )

Clock-for-clock isn't necessary because different parts and components will clock differently. I'm just more curious to see a full set of benchmarks with overclocked C2D, C2Q and Phenom II versus overclocked non-turboboosted (and sure, oc+turboboosted) i5/i7 because right now with Turboboost no one is posting the speed at which the CPU runs and if it's a high Turboboost speed there's less oc headroom for the i5/i7. It's really not hard to run a few more CPUs through a set of benchmarks.

 

[visbits]

I want to see performance wise where every cpu stands stock, like they use to do for athlon xp ect.

 

[MadMan007]

Well you're all set then because that's basically every review out there! Turboboost is a 'stock' feature so for a 'stock' comparison leaving it on is fine.

 

[solstice]

Based on what I have seem, I really don't see a reason for i5. I would go with i7 8xx with HT enabled or i7 920. The price delta is too small. HT is definitely worth the price. You can see significant improvement in video encoding specifications. I suspect in the future as games start to use more CPU for physics/AI, you will see more boost from HT.


Personally, I like i7 920 better than i7 8xx.

 

[Evilsizer]

Based on what I have seem, I really don't see a reason for i5. I would go with i7 8xx with HT enabled or i7 920. The price delta is too small. HT is definitely worth the price. You can see significant improvement in video encoding specifications. I suspect in the future as games start to use more CPU for physics/AI, you will see more boost from HT.


Personally, I like i7 920 better than i7 8xx.

that may not be pushed as much as you think... since NV demo'd real time AI of flying planes or something. they listed some ungodly amount of planes that could be handled via gpu vs cpu. the cpu could only handle, if i recall right, 400 planes. NV gpu has something like 1000+ planes at once...

 

[jgv115]

Based on what I have seem, I really don't see a reason for i5. I would go with i7 8xx with HT enabled or i7 920. The price delta is too small. HT is definitely worth the price. You can see significant improvement in video encoding specifications. I suspect in the future as games start to use more CPU for physics/AI, you will see more boost from HT.


Personally, I like i7 920 better than i7 8xx.

You don't see the point of a mainstream CPU not a enthusiast one.

It's just like motherboards, standard ones have all the "necessary features", enthusiast ones have more "cooler" features. Some people don't need necessary features.

Not everyone in the world plays games all on high and does hours of video encoding. The world is not ruled by computer enthusiasts.

 

[visbits]

Yeah, I always see people buying these boards with 4 and 8 pci-e slots then using 1 video card in them... I buy the board for what I'm going to use it for.


Once i9 comes out think intel will drop i7 920 for 1366?

 

[FudgeNuggets]

From what I can tell after doing a lot of reading on the CPUs. Less intensive stuff like most games will be fine with an i5 but if you're going to do any rendering or video transcoding then you're going to want to go with the i7. The heavy duty stuff really takes advantage of the tri-channel memory and the hyperthreading which the i5s lack.

 

[Boulard83]

Im waiting for GOOD multigpu review. Im not encoding/rendering. but maybe DX11 card are going to send me away from multiGPU cause AMD speak of 50% more performance inthe HD5870 vs the HD4890 .... if Nvidia comes with similar or even better GPU ill stick with singleGPU. if not, SLI GTX3xx or CF HD58xx on a I7 or P55 if good.

 

[Ancient_1]

the funny part about reading most of the reviews. is that they dont bench the i7 860 but only the 870. now the problem i see is that clock to clock with ht there is no comparsion. since i only have seen i7 920's used, noting close to the clock of the 870. some will think i7 1156 is faster since it is a higher clocked one vs the i7 920. when in fact it isnt clock to clock faster, lga1156 uses the DMI buss vs QPI on 1366. the DMI buss is a good thing in a way but is slower then QPI.
*edit*
should be to compare clock to clock, down clock or drop the multi on the i7 870 for i7 920 speeds. lost track the 860 isnt clocked at 2.66ghz but would have been nice to have a 850 in the line up then...

[H] did with i5 750, i7 870, i7 920, QX6800, and a PhII 955