Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I7 920 or i7 860?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 1, 2009 9:22:07 AM

Hi i would like to update my system,which system would you choose
A- Asus P6TD Deluxe with core i7 920 and mushkin redline 1600 mhz 6-7-6-18
B- Asus p7p55d Deluxe with Core i7 860 and mushkin redline 1600 mhz 6-7-6-18

I want a system for faster movie encoding(DVD to AVI,MPG1),games(i'm not a big gamer)ALL I WANT IS THE BEST PERFORMANCE.
Thanks

More about : 920 860

September 1, 2009 10:16:02 AM

Both Core i7 920 and Core i7 860 shares the same core, with minor differences on the structure. So they both should perform similarly. However, the i7 920 gives you the opportunity to upgrade to multi-GPU configuration, since its a much better platform for that (and currently the best platform on the market to do that as well).

a b à CPUs
September 1, 2009 11:24:53 AM

^+1 and i7 has Tri-Channel memory controller compared to the 860's dual-channel, which should make a difference in video encoding and other tasks...
So i7 920 would be a better option...
Related resources
a b à CPUs
September 1, 2009 9:55:39 PM

xaira said:
no one xept the most demanding enterprise users will ever require tripple channel memoryl


Except anybody who uses Photoshop for more than painting simple colours and anybody who does even rudimentary video.
September 1, 2009 10:43:43 PM

^+1. And the i7 920 is great for overclocking if you can get the D0 stepping.
September 1, 2009 11:06:14 PM

LePhuronn said:
Except anybody who uses Photoshop for more than painting simple colours and anybody who does even rudimentary video.


I think the jury's out right now.

Anandtech's early look at Lynnfield in video encoding and Photoshop did seem to show that clock-for-clock the i7-920 beats the Lynnfield equivalent, which implies that the extra memory channel does improve matters on these tests... but what we're getting isn't clock-for-clock, is it? i7-860 is (according to the latest webrumors) 2.8GHz, while the i7-920 clocks at 2.66GHz. A small difference, but on benches that are strongly clock dependent (and the implication of the Anand study is that there is some dependency, when you look at the 2.13GHz vs 2.66GHz comparisons) it could be significant.

Of course, as you guys have already suggested, overclocking might change the game.
September 2, 2009 7:31:35 AM

Thanks everyone for your advice,please keep sharing ideas.Thank you
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2009 8:40:33 AM

They're both pretty close, but I would go with the 920 if possible simply because of tri-channel memory. But you cant go wrong with either one.
September 2, 2009 9:08:24 AM

The Core i7 860 is quicker, period. Just go and read al the leaked benchmarks, expensive tri-channel memory makes bugger all difference for the home user/gamer, clock rates is where it's at and the 860 has the 920's number when it comes to clock rate and no amount of memory bandwidth is going to help it.

Also consider that the 860 is 95 watt TDP compared to the 920's 130 watt TDP, I have yet to see how this translates into lower temps and power savings but you can be bet it will offer an improvement. Also the Turbo mode on the 860 is highly aggressive, it can push the one of the cores to 3.4Ghz which is handy for single threaded games and apps and for those who don't want to overclock the CPU. For comparison the 920 on goes to 2.94Ghz in turbo mode. As far as overclocking goes the Lynnfields have been pushed to over 5Ghz on air, which compares to about 4Ghz/4.2Ghz for the Core i7 920.

At this point I would say the Core i7 860 will be the chip of choice but I would wait until the mainstream reviews come out to confirm early findings.
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2009 10:03:02 AM

Be that as it may, JeanLuc, the OP said he wants to do video work. Unless it's low-end consumer stuff (i.e. Movie Maker or Premiere Elements) then there is no discussion to be had - it's the triple-channel 920 and just clock it up to 3.4GHz where the stock cooler can still take it, so you don't have to worry about anything else.

So, to OP: how heavy is your video encoding going to be, and how often? How serious is your gaming?
September 2, 2009 12:06:23 PM

LePhuronn said:
Be that as it may, JeanLuc, the OP said he wants to do video work. Unless it's low-end consumer stuff (i.e. Movie Maker or Premiere Elements) then there is no discussion to be had - it's the triple-channel 920 and just clock it up to 3.4GHz where the stock cooler can still take it, so you don't have to worry about anything else.

So, to OP: how heavy is your video encoding going to be, and how often? How serious is your gaming?



Mostly likely he is doing low end consumer work, how many of us work for big video production companies? Anyway I'm not going to second guess the OP any longer, the benchmarks on the that Anandtech link above compare the chips clock for clock, at default speeds the Lynnfield 860 runs nearly 200 Mhz faster then the 920 and that's before any overclocking.

For me the big benefit of having a Core i7 920 is the X58 platform and having access to two full X16 slots running at X16 and X16 for SLI and Crossfire (bear in mind you can do video encoding on video cards these days) which is ideal for gamers who want the fastest setup. However if isn't a hardcore gamer the P55 single X16 and X8 slot should provide more then enough bandwidth for his purposes without the expense of triple channel memory and a X58 board.
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2009 12:15:25 PM

+1^
September 3, 2009 12:19:20 AM

LePhuronn said:
Be that as it may, JeanLuc, the OP said he wants to do video work. Unless it's low-end consumer stuff (i.e. Movie Maker or Premiere Elements) then there is no discussion to be had - it's the triple-channel 920 and just clock it up to 3.4GHz where the stock cooler can still take it, so you don't have to worry about anything else.

So, to OP: how heavy is your video encoding going to be, and how often? How serious is your gaming?


I want a system for faster movie encoding(DVD to AVI,MPG1),games(i'm not a big gamer)ALL I WANT IS THE BEST PERFORMANCE.
Thanks
September 3, 2009 8:50:18 AM

cauchy2k said:
I want a system for faster movie encoding(DVD to AVI,MPG1),games(i'm not a big gamer)ALL I WANT IS THE BEST PERFORMANCE.
Thanks


The Core i7 860 is your chip then, I do quite a bit of video encoding myself (I've moved all my DVD's to .Avi/XVID) and the only way to really speed things up is by having a faster CPU. Since the 860 and 920 share the same architecture the only the big difference in speed is the clock rate in which case the 860 has 200Mhz more than the 920. The same applies to gaming, more mhz’s the better triple channel memory won’t make any significant difference here.

I would still wait until the early reviews come out before making up your mind, the 920 still has it advantages in as much as it’s a more mature CPU that’s already seen a couple of revisions.
a b à CPUs
September 3, 2009 9:29:45 AM

i7 920.
September 4, 2009 12:37:51 AM

JeanLuc said:
The Core i7 860 is your chip then, I do quite a bit of video encoding myself (I've moved all my DVD's to .Avi/XVID) and the only way to really speed things up is by having a faster CPU. Since the 860 and 920 share the same architecture the only the big difference in speed is the clock rate in which case the 860 has 200Mhz more than the 920. The same applies to gaming, more mhz’s the better triple channel memory won’t make any significant difference here.

I would still wait until the early reviews come out before making up your mind, the 920 still has it advantages in as much as it’s a more mature CPU that’s already seen a couple of revisions.


I would like to know for sure which CPU can get safer and stable OC speeds,the winner in that test should be the chosen.
What do you think?

I have something in favor of triple channel (with 6gb) in my case,when I browse internet with IE8 Vista 64 SP2 with my current PC (4gb DDR2) i receive full memory warnings(i don't use pagefile)
Thanks
September 9, 2009 7:28:46 PM

If you don't use a pagefile when memory finishes and if any running app cant allocate new space in ram will simply crash. So for future if you want a super pc go with i7 920 you can put up to 24GB of ram. With i7 860 you will have limited ram up to 16 GB (and only dual channel), limited PCIe rails, and 8XX series will not have a 6core version, i don't know if there will be 9XX series for LGA1156 socket. But on other hand it's true that new 860 can beat 920 in few things and have only 95 TDP, but with good cooler you wont have to worry about it.
September 10, 2009 12:29:02 AM

Thanks Gucio for your post.It's been very helpful since I think I favor i7 9xx series,in my case affordable i7 920.I think Gulftown CPU's release is going to be very good for Bloomfield owners because it could make used i7 975 cheaper,so we could get yet better performance than i7 920 and of course than i7 8xx.I think i7 870 can beat many times i7 920 because of 870's higher clock and higher turbo speed increase.I'd like to see a benchmark of 870 stock vs 920 safe OC 3.8 ghz (knowing that i7 Lynnfield overclocks too PCI-e when you increase voltage or bus,so it's not a good safe overclocker) ,i think i7 920 would be the winner and the option to upgrade to current top of the line i7 975 when Gulftown i7 1xxx gets to the market or i7 1xxx itself if you have more money(by the way I read a recent article that states that early tests on i7 1xxx at 2.40 ghz shows important temperature decrease vs current i7 9xx.But that's what I think,I'd go with i7 920 OC'ed now and i7 975 for Q2 2010.If you have any suggestion please let us know here.
Gucio I think with 6 gb or better 12 gb should be OK for me for using my pc without pagefile since Vista 64 uses a lot of RAM and specially IE, too.I'd like to see how this behave under Windows 7 64-bit.
Thanks
September 10, 2009 9:19:18 PM

Good for you i'm currently saving money for a little render farm, and since 3ds max 2010 is out i'm going to switch from vray to mental ray which is a memory hug and needs fast memory transfers, so i was thinking about xeons before but the cost is way to high, so in my case faster memory i have more time i save. Since i7 9XX have triple channel ddr3 and can transfer up to 25.6GB/s and 8XX only 21GB/s so i will definitely go with i7. But for now i'm waiting till the prices drops to no more than 400$ and maybe i will go with 940 ;) 
September 11, 2009 1:10:31 AM

Gucio I have seen used core i7 940 at ebay at 349,you'd only have to buy a fan/heatsink solution.
September 11, 2009 1:28:49 AM

Hmmmm... used smells suspicious, can you post me a link?

edit: Never mind found even 2 more, hmmm maybe i will buy a used one 360$ seems like a good price instead of 559.99$
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 11, 2009 11:19:57 PM

200 Mhz difference doesn't matter. Has anyone looked at the stats on Intels website for the 920 vs 860?

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/corei7/specific...

Bus speed is 4.8 Gt/s for a 920 and 2.5 Gt/s for a 860. Even if an 860 is a little faster if the bottleneck is smaller BY HALF, then you push less data through. Its pretty simple! Turbo boost and over clocking don't mean anything again if you can only push through HALF the data of a 920's Bus. I would also agree with the earlier post of 920 = 24 GB of RAM and 860 = 16GB, if you want a power house for video encoding, gaming, or apps 920 wins again. Bus speed is key! Overclock your heart out of a 860 if you can't match the bandwidth (i.e. Bus Speed) of a 920 with triple channel memory then you can't come close to the power. Why would anyone think a 860 is faster?
September 11, 2009 11:28:15 PM

no one agree on a winner, both are good imo ><
September 12, 2009 3:44:25 AM

Quote:
200 Mhz difference doesn't matter. Has anyone looked at the stats on Intels website for the 920 vs 860?

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/corei7/specific...

Bus speed is 4.8 Gt/s for a 920 and 2.5 Gt/s for a 860. Even if an 860 is a little faster if the bottleneck is smaller BY HALF, then you push less data through. Its pretty simple! Turbo boost and over clocking don't mean anything again if you can only push through HALF the data of a 920's Bus. I would also agree with the earlier post of 920 = 24 GB of RAM and 860 = 16GB, if you want a power house for video encoding, gaming, or apps 920 wins again. Bus speed is key! Overclock your heart out of a 860 if you can't match the bandwidth (i.e. Bus Speed) of a 920 with triple channel memory then you can't come close to the power. Why would anyone think a 860 is faster?


Misconception, and I'm hoping my email is going to get that fixed. :( 

QPI is the connection between CPU and northbridge, and DMI between northbridge and southbridge. On 920, the 4.8GT/s is between the 920 and the X58 and there is a 2.5GT/s DMI port between X58 and the southbridge. On 860, the northbridge is on the CPU silicon (as is the QPI), and the DMI is between the CPU and the PCH (southbridge). There's no penalty on the 860 due to DMI vs QPI.

Bus speed is really a meaningless concept from that perspective, and other than "tradition" I don't know why it's specified in those terms on the website.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 13, 2009 8:19:26 AM

Let's not forget the i7 860 is the replacement for the i7 920. If you can get a good deal on the 920, I would go for that, otherwise it's the 860 for me.
December 3, 2009 3:24:34 PM

1977012,15,2496 said:
The Core i7 860 is your chip then, I do quite a bit of video encoding myself (I've moved all my DVD's to .Avi/XVID) and the only way to really speed things up is by having a faster CPU. Since the 860 and 920 share the same architecture the only the big difference in speed is the clock rate in which case the 860 has 200Mhz more than the 920. The same applies to gaming, more mhz’s the better triple channel memory won’t make any significant difference here.

I am also primarily interested in video editing, and image editing in Photoshop CS4. I have found trying to edit AVCHD encoded video completely hopeless on my Core Two Duo E6700 computer, overcocked to 3.2 GHz with 4 GB of ram. If Mhz is the only criterion important to video editing, then maybe the deciding factor could be the ultimate overclockable speed achievable with the 860 compared to the 920. I was about to buy a computer with i7 920 overclocked to 4 GHz, using Domino ALC water cooling. I am now undecided, wondering if the lower energy requirement of the 860 would allow even higher clock speeds at the same temperature, and would be the better choice for Hi Def video editing. I am guessing that more MHz possible with 860 would more than compensate for the loss of triple channel memory, but I do not know.

Any clarification on these issues would help me to decide.
December 4, 2009 8:43:34 AM

those 2 run pretty much on par with each other.. performance wise (meaning not only the cpu) I believe the i7 920 is a better buy for overclocking, SLI, and triple channel memory. BUT if it was me, whichever one is cheaper BECAUSE they pretty much run on par with each other :]

~mrcrybaby

p.s. 1156 mobos r WAY cheaper... although the ASrock x58 Extreme is a really good buy too.
December 17, 2009 1:55:44 AM

First, sorry about my english , I am near of change my setup , I want to use the X58 chisep but i don t know what motherboard should be better
December 17, 2009 1:56:33 AM

First, sorry about my english , I am near of change my setup , I want to use the X58 chisep but i don t know what motherboard should be better

a b à CPUs
December 17, 2009 2:24:48 AM

Use whichever overclocks better, have good reviews, and has a good price.

Look at the Gigybite and Asus boards.

someone lock this thread..
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 20, 2009 10:18:52 PM

Definitely stay away from the ASUS mobos. They have some of the raunchiest customer service when it comes to warranty issues or you need to fall back on the warranty agreement. Check out BBB and see their horrible rating. Plus, there are tons of complaints out there about them basically hanging customers out to dry when the call them and want them to honor the warranty agreement. I KNOW!!!
December 23, 2009 6:37:44 PM

the core i7 860 get higher score
because is higher clock than i7 920
sorry for my bad english
December 28, 2009 9:53:41 AM

Gucio said:
Good for you i'm currently saving money for a little render farm, and since 3ds max 2010 is out i'm going to switch from vray to mental ray which is a memory hug and needs fast memory transfers, so i was thinking about xeons before but the cost is way to high, so in my case faster memory i have more time i save. Since i7 9XX have triple channel ddr3 and can transfer up to 25.6GB/s and 8XX only 21GB/s so i will definitely go with i7. But for now i'm waiting till the prices drops to no more than 400$ and maybe i will go with 940 ;) 


You should talk to Draven, and read the rendernode article on this site. If you're setting up a render farm, then you should consider whether the increase in price from one chip to the next is worth it in terms of performance. You're not trying to set up a top notch gaming rig....just get as much CPU speed thrown at a rendering job for as little power and cost as possible. Cinebench is your friend here....you can stack the benchmark results and get an idea of the combined performance in a renderfarm. You also don't need to be using anything close to 24 GB of RAM on a rendernode, so that is inconsequential. Performance per dollar is the key.

I just set up a node with the i7 860 and 8 GB RAM. As a test, I did a small overclock, and ran a Cinebench 10 test -- score of 19,800! By comparison, the i7 920 stock scores 13,200, and the i7 940 stock scores 14,540. The i7 860 is a fast chip. Not sure overclocking a rendernode is a good idea though. These things are running 24/7 for a week at a time...it will be hard to keep an overclock stable. Just the cinebench test got the chip up to 67c, and I have 5 fans in this case. If you try to run an i7 920 at 4 gHz (as some are suggesting here) during a long render job, it will overheat and the node will shut down in the middle of your job.

For the price of the i7 860, bigger case (2U), the 1156 motherboard, DDR3 RAM, etc, compared to what I could use with a 775 socket Yorkfield chip, I'm not sure it makes sense to even use one of these in a rendernode. I could set up 2 nodes with Q9550 chips for close to the same cost (slightly more) and I would run a stable combined cinebench of about 23,000 without any overclocking. And if you're talking about jumping up to a 940 or a 975, then those 2 Q9550 nodes will come in WAY under the cost of the 940 and 975 nodes. IF you intend to overclock, by the time you pay for adequate cooling, you've accounted for a 3rd (or 4th) Q9550 node, and the combined rendering power of those 3 (or 4) nodes will crush the overclocked (and unstable) long term rendering performance of the 940 or 975.
January 5, 2010 10:00:35 PM

I'd like to just add that I purchased my system 1 month ago, and spent countless hours deciding whether to go with a p55 860 setup, or an x58 920 setup. COUNTLESS HOURS, I came to the conclusion that a 920 with a D0 stepping overclocked will always perform better at the same frequency than an 860. I was trying to find a reason to get an 860, there were many, but ultimately I chose performance over value. Despite what anyone will tell you, just believe me that the 920 is faster at matched frequencies, because if it wasn't, then I would not feel satisfied with my purchase, or many hours of research. But i do.
a b à CPUs
January 5, 2010 10:44:59 PM

congrats, to be honest to people saying an intel i7-860 performs the same as an 920. While it may hold true as of right now today, in 2-4 years time , new programs will come out taking advantage of the best mainstream technologies. Mainly more quad core/multicore support and taking advantage of more memory channels and stuff. We dont know what the hell is coming around the corner, theyre might be a new crysis game (blasphemy days...) or windows 2012 Dead on Arrival which instantly kills all the weaker computers. So who knows, but if you were the person who looks ahead, prepare as best as you can.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2010 6:59:06 PM

INTEL and EVGA is FTW for sure who need TRI-Channels anyway, windows 64 bits is no way better than windows 32 bits.
January 22, 2010 8:05:13 PM

I'm also in the process of a new build. However, I plan on doing less video encoding (I may in the future) and will be doing more gaming and some graphic work.
Someone had mentioned the 920 supporting multi-GPU technology. I'm doing my best to stay away from a crossfire setup to avoid headaches so I'll be getting a 5850/5870 which more than meets my needs for now, but I'm sure in the future I'll end up getting a second once I have a need for that much juice.
I'll also be getting a triple channel 6gb mem kit... I'm not super knowledgeable so is this where the trip channel controller comes into play?

In short I'm looking for best chip for daily tasks, gaming, and some light graphics stuff. However, I'd like it to be futureproof for a bit. I'm willing to overclock to a comfortably higher clockspeed.

I'm near a Microcenter so I can take advantage of the $230 in-store pickup deals for either chip, so price is a draw.

Any extra comments to the ones already made above are greatly appreciated.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 28, 2010 2:32:34 AM

Quote:
INTEL and EVGA is FTW for sure who need TRI-Channels anyway, windows 64 bits is no way better than windows 32 bits.

I love when 13 year old kids try to be knowledge. try to do some research next time before you post. your 32bit windows with your 2GB ram maybe good for you with game and internet. But a lot of us need to use system beyond 2 gb RAM which windows 32 bit can only address up to 3.25 gb RAM. this is where 64 bit come in, not only it can see beyond 3.25GB ram, but it will be more stable and run a lot of 64 bit application faster.
January 28, 2010 6:24:37 AM

Definatly i7 920
a b à CPUs
January 28, 2010 6:29:30 PM

Quote:
INTEL and EVGA is FTW for sure who need TRI-Channels anyway, windows 64 bits is no way better than windows 32 bits.

Shut-up, don't say things you don't know or people will make you look really dumb like i am about to do now.

-32bit windows supports 3.5gb of ram approximatly, it may be enough for your facebook and p*** but people actually use computers for other purposes like for thier job and serious applications. Moreover 64bit is faster and runs 64-bit software faster (its the future).

-And really? who does need triple channels anyway except for photoshopper, video editors, audio editors, cad, photo editors, encoders...etc

February 9, 2010 3:23:14 PM

Quote:
-And really? who does need triple channels anyway except for photoshopper, video editors, audio editors, cad, photo editors, encoders...etc


Just curious, is there a difference in memory/bus demands for video processing (editing/encoding) vs. constant pixel pushing (games/hdtv)? It seems to me that tri-channel memory would be better for constant throughput to the screen (PCIe slots), whereas video encoding and photo editing only need internal speed (clock/cache).

Both processors are almost the same in price (right now the 920 is actually cheaper than the 860 at Micro Center). I'm leaning toward the Lynnfield only because the 1156 mATX boards are cheaper. But I'd like to base my purchase on something other than price.
February 9, 2010 3:35:50 PM

Oh... and for the encoders and editors, does hyperthreading matter? I've read on some forums that it's best to disable it (so I'm also considering the i5-750). I'm building a system for pro audio recording. I want a multi-core setup, but I'm not concerned about graphics.
February 9, 2010 4:06:01 PM

ASUS P7P55D-E Deluxe is better than P7P55D Deluxe because it has an onboard SATA 3 and USB 3.0 support and it is a refreshed version of P7P55D Deluxe.

However, I would recommend P7P55D-E PRO more because it is cheaper while the Deluxe version will rip your wallet and it is like marketing hype more. The Deluxe is good if you are planning to run up to 8/9 Sata Drivers which is overkill while PRO version offers 7 SATA ports for 7 Sata drivers which is already enough (of course, most of people don't even run up to 3 hard disks in their system). The deluxe will also offer extra Gigabit Ethernet LAN Port but even 1 is enough unless if you are running a bigger home network or in the office. The 16 Phase powers on PRO version are enough (12+2=14 total Phase Powers) and 24 Phase Powers (17+2=19 Total Phase Powers) on Deluxe Version will not offer a lot of performance boost in overclocking over the Pro Version.

So save your money more and get the P7P55D-E PRO. :) 
a b à CPUs
February 9, 2010 4:30:07 PM

LePhuronn said:
Except anybody who uses Photoshop for more than painting simple colours and anybody who does even rudimentary video.




A double one for you.
a b à CPUs
February 9, 2010 4:31:26 PM

LePhuronn said:
Be that as it may, JeanLuc, the OP said he wants to do video work. Unless it's low-end consumer stuff (i.e. Movie Maker or Premiere Elements) then there is no discussion to be had - it's the triple-channel 920 and just clock it up to 3.4GHz where the stock cooler can still take it, so you don't have to worry about anything else.

So, to OP: how heavy is your video encoding going to be, and how often? How serious is your gaming?





And a triple one for that statement.
February 11, 2010 5:48:35 PM

cauchy2k said:
Hi i would like to update my system,which system would you choose
A- Asus P6TD Deluxe with core i7 920 and mushkin redline 1600 mhz 6-7-6-18
B- Asus p7p55d Deluxe with Core i7 860 and mushkin redline 1600 mhz 6-7-6-18

I want a system for faster movie encoding(DVD to AVI,MPG1),games(i'm not a big gamer)ALL I WANT IS THE BEST PERFORMANCE.
Thanks


Hi -- FYI after the same question and reading TONS of resources, I tried to sum up all the heat, light, and smoke into just the most significant differences: http://computingkeith.com/2010/02/10/choosing-a-new-cpu...

The basic conclusion: most of us would be happy with either CPU. If you're just looking for a faster system (e.g. upgrading from older P4 Xeons or older dual-core CPUs), the i7-860 will save you a few bucks, which you can put into more RAM/better HD's/graphics card etc. But if you're an avid overclocker, Photoshopper, or videographer, you might appreciate the extra bandwidth you might squeeze out of the i7-920.

-- Keith
!