• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

32nm question (going to get a I7 920 or 860) what to do?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

atm743

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
OK guys. i know i made a thread like this in the past but i want to be FOR SURE on what to get.

I just sold my Macbook Pro 13" (late 2009) on ebay :attn: so im super happy to say im upgrading my computers E6750 to a I7 :bday:

Now i REALLY want a gulftown, but i wont have 900+ to dump on a cpu. BUT i wanted to know if i didn't skip over anything new with these new Clarksfield and Arrandale cpu's that came out. i know these are I5 and I3's and they are Dual cores with HT, turbo and dedicated graphics. BUT i know they they are 32nm. Gulftown is going to be 32nm but i wanted to know if they are going to make a re-fresh of the current 920 or 860 I7's. The 920 came out fall of 08 and the 860 came out in September of 09. I'm more leaning in getting a 920 cause of the higher memory bandwidth and later compatibility of the cpu socket BUT i don't want to dump 600+ on a new cpu, motherboard, and ram if a die re-fresh is coming out soon.

it seems weird that they did not make a 32nm i5 quad or 32nm i7 yet. will these re-fresh's come later this year under the Sandy bridge name?


now 860 vs 920. i've keep on getting mix opinions saying that the 860 is a tad faster at some benches. i really dont care about very small performance hits. My main reason im going I7 is that i do allot of video encoding (1080p blu ray rips to MKV) and currently it takes 8+ hours to do a full 2 hours video and want to chop that down. I was thinking the higher memory bandwidth Bloomfield offers would help out with this. I will also be gaming :D

well what do you guys think.

also what motherboards would you recommend. I've been looking at the EVGA boards and i like what they offer. I do plan on overclocking this (want to get at least 4.0ghz with whatever cpu i end up getting.)
 

Evilsizer

Senior Forum Spammer
Joined
Jun 6, 2002
tri-channel doesn't offer that much over dual channel. from past benchmarks you take a latency hit using tri over dual. Not only that but using tri over dual didnt improve encoding speed at all. I7 is already fast, you want to help it encode faster get a SSD or two for raid-0 array.

for the cpus your talking two different sockets, 860 being lga1156 vs 920 lga1366. yes in stock form the 860 is faster because it is higher clocked 2.8ghz vs [email protected]. if both where clocked the same they both would preform the same.

Take what offers the most upgrade-ability down the road. Get a LGA1366 with a 920 or 940, then later if you have the money you can get a 32nm hex core. 32nm LGA1366 cpus are suppose to be out later this year. whiether or not LGA1156 will see 32nm i5/i7 upgrades is in the air. while the current dual cores out for lga1156 are 32nm. these cpus have the IMC with the onboard video, not with the cpu. how much of a difference this will make is hard to say. the other thing to remember is that i7 860 has a 2.5GT/s DMI buss vs 4.8 GT/s QPI for the i7 920.
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/corei7/specifications.htm

even with both at 4ghz, they should encode about the same. though like i said about being able to upgrade, i would take a LGA1336 setup.
 
OP
atm743

atm743

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
tri-channel doesn't offer that much over dual channel. from past benchmarks you take a latency hit using tri over dual. Not only that but using tri over dual didnt improve encoding speed at all. I7 is already fast, you want to help it encode faster get a SSD or two for raid-0 array.

for the cpus your talking two different sockets, 860 being lga1156 vs 920 lga1366. yes in stock form the 860 is faster because it is higher clocked 2.8ghz vs [email protected]. if both where clocked the same they both would preform the same.

Take what offers the most upgrade-ability down the road. Get a LGA1366 with a 920 or 940, then later if you have the money you can get a 32nm hex core. 32nm LGA1366 cpus are suppose to be out later this year. whiether or not LGA1156 will see 32nm i5/i7 upgrades is in the air. while the current dual cores out for lga1156 are 32nm. these cpus have the IMC with the onboard video, not with the cpu. how much of a difference this will make is hard to say. the other thing to remember is that i7 860 has a 2.5GT/s DMI buss vs 4.8 GT/s QPI for the i7 920.
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/corei7/specifications.htm

even with both at 4ghz, they should encode about the same. though like i said about being able to upgrade, i would take a LGA1336 setup.

Thanks for the reply :) the reasons you stated was why i was more leaning to slot 1366. was thinking the quad 32 nm refreshes would come out on it.

what are your thoughts on this EVGA motherboard? and are D0 easy to come by. i dont want to get shafted with a C0.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813188039
 

Evilsizer

Senior Forum Spammer
Joined
Jun 6, 2002
unless you buy from some lesser known Etailer you may get a C0. most if not all retailers/etailers will have the newer D0's. i have C0 i bought from brollocks, does rather well for him. i need a new cooler the ninja with socket 478 clips is making bad contact(so poor cooling).

why go with that board? IMO it is overpriced for what it is considering this board is cheaper with 3way sli(that is if your going to use 3way sli).
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813188046
or even
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813188049

if i where going ATX i would get this board
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128423
or possibly this one(depending if i needed the features)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128422


im more into smaller FF with a strong GPU. which i will need to upgrade down the road for Bioshock 2. im really happy with my Gene board...
 

jgv115

Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2009
Location
Australia
I think there will be a 1156 quad BUT it won't be better than the 750.

If Intel will release a mid-range quad better than the 750 then they will have to drop the price of the 750 and let the 32nm quad take over.
 

Hey Zeus

New Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Location
Heaven
I think there will be a 1156 quad BUT it won't be better than the 750.

If Intel will release a mid-range quad better than the 750 then they will have to drop the price of the 750 and let the 32nm quad take over.

It's going to OC like a mofo. Thats all that matters
 

jgv115

Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2009
Location
Australia
Just wonderin' can Intel put 2 core i7 dies in 1 chip and make a 8 core CPU? Like what they did with the C2Q
 

Hey Zeus

New Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Location
Heaven
Just wonderin' can Intel put 2 core i7 dies in 1 chip and make a 8 core CPU? Like what they did with the C2Q

What they did with the C2Q is a very ineffective way to make a quad and it really isn't even a true quad.

Can they? Yes
Will they? **** NO :)
 

87dtna

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
I think there will be a 1156 quad BUT it won't be better than the 750.

If Intel will release a mid-range quad better than the 750 then they will have to drop the price of the 750 and let the 32nm quad take over.

Why is that? Just charge more for the 32nm, thats intel's solution to everything. Just charge more. Probably like $300 for a 32nm quad. Yup thats more than an I7, but apparently people are dumb enough to buy the new I5 600 series when it's more expensive than a 750 just because it's 32nm.

When the E3200 came out, which is an E5200 with less cache, the E5200 price went from $52 to $65, and the E3200 rolled in at $52. Hmmmm, interesting huh? Now we get a less cache wolfdale dual core for the same price, and everybody was excited about it! yay! :temper: :shrug:
 

Hey Zeus

New Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Location
Heaven
Why is that? Just charge more for the 32nm, thats intel's solution to everything. Just charge more. Probably like $300 for a 32nm quad. Yup thats more than an I7, but apparently people are dumb enough to buy the new I5 600 series when it's more expensive than a 750 just because it's 32nm.

When the E3200 came out, which is an E5200 with less cache, the E5200 price went from $52 to $65, and the E3200 rolled in at $52. Hmmmm, interesting huh? Now we get a less cache wolfdale dual core for the same price, and everybody was excited about it! yay! :temper: :shrug:

Intel can't price the 32nm quad's higher then the current 1156 versions. No one would buy them especially since amd's are so cheap. What WOULD rock would be a 32nm 750 with 12 megs of L3 :)
 

87dtna

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Intel can't price the 32nm quad's higher then the current 1156 versions. No one would buy them especially since amd's are so cheap. What WOULD rock would be a 32nm 750 with 12 megs of L3 :)

LOL, dude how can you say that? It's already being done. 600 series I5's are more than the 750.
 

Hey Zeus

New Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Location
Heaven
LOL, dude how can you say that? It's already being done. 600 series I5's are more than the 750.

They're dual core's tho. There's no reason to price a 32nm quad based off the 750 any higher then 249.99. **** i'd pay up to 300 for a 32nm Quad :)
 

Evilsizer

Senior Forum Spammer
Joined
Jun 6, 2002
Why is that? Just charge more for the 32nm, thats intel's solution to everything. Just charge more. Probably like $300 for a 32nm quad. Yup thats more than an I7, but apparently people are dumb enough to buy the new I5 600 series when it's more expensive than a 750 just because it's 32nm.
There is no place for calling people dumb because they buy a i5 6xx. If you dont know the difference between a i5 750 or i5 6xx's. then do your self a favor and check out the reviews/specs on the i3 5x0/i5 6xx's.

Intel can't price the 32nm quad's higher then the current 1156 versions. No one would buy them especially since amd's are so cheap. What WOULD rock would be a 32nm 750 with 12 megs of L3 :)
yea they can, switching to a smaller process costs money. they have to make that money some how, even if 32nm allows more dies per wafer. Simply because 32nm will oc better is another reason it will priced a bit higher. Don't also forget that going down to a smaller process also reduces heat as well. If the 32nm quad core gets a higher clock then it will have a slightly higher price. Intel will then lower the price on the i5 750's. It all depends on what price points intel is trying to hit with the cpu.

As it is intel doesnt have that many fab's on 32nm. the main focus of the 32nm fabs is going to be for server cpus first. since the lower end xeons on LGA1366 will be 32nm. You can bet money on Intel will have LGA1136 32nm cpus first. You also need to remember the current 32nm cpus are not like current 45nm. In that they have a lower cpu buss speed. second the IMC is now part of the IGP and not with the CPU. It is easier for intel to get 32nm dual core dies worked out alot easier then native quad core dies. That is what makes it more cost effective for intel to push a 32nm CPU with a 45nm IGP/IMC. Assuming intel has high yields per wafer and selling a lot of 32nm dual cores+IGP to oems and retail. Intel can make a lot more money per cpu because of the higher yields per wafer and it being 32nm for more dies per wafer.

Everything intel does has logic behind it, wiether you see it or not. Intel's 32nm will still out preform AMD's dual core and i'm willing to be it out preforms the X3 too.


*edit*
They're dual core's tho. There's no reason to price a 32nm quad based off the 750 any higher then 249.99. **** i'd pay up to 300 for a 32nm Quad :)

you dont get it though, the i3 and i5 6xx's are not based on the i5 750 core. it is more like a C2D with HT and IGP, then the i5 750.
 

87dtna

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
There is no place for calling people dumb because they buy a i5 6xx. If you dont know the difference between a i5 750 or i5 6xx's. then do your self a favor and check out the reviews/specs on the i3 5x0/i5 6xx's.
.


I could care less about SPECS, I care about performance. Who cares about IGP, it was intel's dumbest design yet because the IMC goes through the IGP now which makes it slower. The 661 has the fastest memory speed because it has the fastest GPU, but the 750 still crushes it.

Take a look at performance reviews here-
http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-650-660-661-review-test/11

The I5 750 looses 1 benchmark to an I5 661 overclocked to 4.2ghz. Thats right, a STOCK clocked I5 750 VS a 661 at 4.2ghz, and it looses 1 benchmark.

You also need to remember the current 32nm cpus are not like current 45nm. In that they have a lower cpu buss speed.


? It's still 133 mhz bus speed just like the 750 and 860.
 
Last edited:

FlahsMemory

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
I have found that ripping is much faster on the i7 only because you can rip more at the same time. The way the i7 works is that it just dedicates threads to ripping leaving others free so you can do whatever else you want while it is still ripping. In some cases many people prefer that over just using your total processor to rip faster. But that is not how it works. For instance when I ripped a video with a q6600 it took me like 80%+ of my processor and 3 hours+ to convert a 2 hour and 18 minute 10gig mkv to xvid. With my i7 860 I can convert only a bit faster. It took a little over 2 and half or so hours but it only uses 15 -18%% of my processor to do so. I can do many other things in the process of ripping even converting another movie etc. however.

Now there is two things you may want to know about. 1) SSD shows significant all around improvement in performance so like what was stated that should be considered in your next build and 2) nvidia is going to release its own card which the rumors are saying will off load converting to the GPU and it will be much faster. They already have one but the next generation gt300 will be very much optimized for converting video. As of right now it is unofficial but I think it is safe to say that fermi will have better conversion since even the gt200 series have some power over converting with badaboom software.

The 920 and 860 are both great processors and actually if you own one I wouldn't even care about upgrading in the near future since they are so powerful as is.

However if you want to have the very best system for overclocking and running multiple highend GPUs I suggest get the 920. IMO that is all what they are good for at the moment over the 860.

Like what was posted before if you run stock and just want a decent quiet efficient machine then I would go with 860 or even 750. The cool thing about the 860 is that with turbo boost u can see your processor cores going up to 2.9ghz for all to 3.2 for some or 3.4ghz for single thread with out even overclocking which is really efficient. I run my processor with the stock heat sink and only if I run something that pushes the processor to its limit I get like 80C tops but in everything I do which includes converting and basic benchmarking I never see over 55c at stock. My process idles at 25c on the stock heatsink according to realtemp. Basically the 860 has better efficiency over the 920 but the 920 can over clock much easier and safer.

Eventually however you will want to consider getting a better heatsink even if you do not over clock just because the build quality of the intel is crap and is unreliable.
 

Evilsizer

Senior Forum Spammer
Joined
Jun 6, 2002
I could care less about SPECS, I care about performance..
after reading this, it is all i needed to read. The i3 5x0/i5 6xx's were aimed at a different market segment which you don't count in. If you don't see that, then that doesn't make other people dumb.