Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I7 Questions

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 11, 2009 1:21:03 AM

I'm looking to upgrade my Q6600. My question is regarding the longevity of the two types of sockets: 1366 and 1156. I would be fine with the i7-860, but I don't want to spend the money on the CPU/Mobo upgrade and then have to buy the 1366 socket to upgrade later. That has me looking at the i7-920, which paired with the more expensive mobo is slightly out of budget.

What's the news on this and what would you all recommend?

More about : questions

November 11, 2009 1:31:16 AM

"So where does this leave Core i7 900 series owners and their X58 motherboards? Well first and foremost, those who built a Bloomfield/X58 setup can rest assured that their system has many years left in the tank. Secondly, they will have exclusive access to Intel's upcoming Core i9 'Gulftown' 32nm six-core processors, and maybe even some faster quad-core 32nm Core i7 models. There is an upgrade path for LGA1366, but it just won't be cheap. On the other hand, the new LGA1156 platform appears to be a bit of a dead end in some ways as the i7-870 will probably be the highest-end LGA1156 processor available for the foreseeable future. If you want to upgrade above the i7-870 to say one of Intel's upcoming high-end processors, you will have to buy a whole new platform. Let us tell you, the upgrade path just got a whole lot more difficult when you move up the Intel lineup from mainstream to high-end."

Quoted from http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...

Personally, I'd go with the 920, but I might be a bit biased (I love mine).
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 11, 2009 4:25:40 AM

Mmm. I agree. Socket 1366 is the way to go. If you NEED to buy now, (depending on your board of course!), go for the Xeon W3520 instead of the i7 920. The Xeon is tested to a higher standard and can handle much more complex mathematical operations. It also has a much better stock heatsink and has great overclocking potential. It's like buying an i7 965 for $20 over the price of an i7 920! :) 

If you can wait, wait until Q1 2010 until the i7 930 replaces the 920. It will most likely be 32nm already and will be 2.8GHz standard. :) 
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 207 à CPUs
November 11, 2009 4:37:42 AM

Count me in on the 920 / 1366 route
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 11, 2009 8:22:49 AM

Zinosys said:
The Xeon is tested to a higher standard and can handle much more complex mathematical operations. It also has a much better stock heatsink and has great overclocking potential. It's like buying an i7 965 for $20 over the price of an i7 920! :) 


Has the Xeon actually been overclocked to reveal its potential? Given that the D0 Stepping i7 920 can hit 4GHz on air good chips go 4.5GHz+ on extreme cooling, is there reason to buy anything other than i7 920 for X58?
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 4:03:48 PM

^

Nope, no reason to go higher IMO.
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 4:13:24 PM

I'll add my vote for a i7 920. I just built a second i7 using a Gigabyte UD3R board that cost $190 from Newegg and a 920 from Microcenter that cost me $235. Add in $144 for 6 gig of ram and there was a working system for $569. That's cheap and it has a good upgrade path in the future. So why settle for less?
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 4:20:24 PM

The real question is what are your primary uses for your computer. Many things I don't think you will see gains in to be honest. You will have a new arch to safeguard you from obsolescence for a couple years but my migration from a E8400 to the i7920 DO was nothing remarkable for what I do. For the $$ it kind of pissed me off to be honest.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 11, 2009 5:28:31 PM

Zinosys said:
Mmm. I agree. Socket 1366 is the way to go. If you NEED to buy now, (depending on your board of course!), go for the Xeon W3520 instead of the i7 920. The Xeon is tested to a higher standard and can handle much more complex mathematical operations. It also has a much better stock heatsink and has great overclocking potential. It's like buying an i7 965 for $20 over the price of an i7 920! :) 

If you can wait, wait until Q1 2010 until the i7 930 replaces the 920. It will most likely be 32nm already and will be 2.8GHz standard. :) 



Does anyone actually use stock HSF's supplied by Intel ?
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 6:37:41 PM

ulysses35 said:
Does anyone actually use stock HSF's supplied by Intel ?


Not me for sure.
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 7:38:16 PM

ulysses35 said:
Does anyone actually use stock HSF's supplied by Intel ?


Are they that bad?
I've always used the stock HSF from AMD, and they work fine.
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 7:43:54 PM

Zinosys said:
Mmm. I agree. Socket 1366 is the way to go. If you NEED to buy now, (depending on your board of course!), go for the Xeon W3520 instead of the i7 920. The Xeon is tested to a higher standard and can handle much more complex mathematical operations. It also has a much better stock heatsink and has great overclocking potential. It's like buying an i7 965 for $20 over the price of an i7 920! :) 

If you can wait, wait until Q1 2010 until the i7 930 replaces the 920. It will most likely be 32nm already and will be 2.8GHz standard. :) 

it 930 IS NOT going to be 32nm. If it was 32nm people would've known about months ago, and intel would be shouting about how they have a 32nm quad core out by Q1 2010. Also the i7 930 is just a revamp of the i7 920, like the 975 to the 965 and the 950 to the 940 etc. It's just meant to give people more of a reason to buy the 1336 socket, because the i7 860 at stock out does the i7 920 at stock... It's probably going to end up being $50 more then the i7 920 too. I am not 100% sure on this but I highly doubt it will be 32nm.
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 8:06:16 PM

dunklegend said:
Are they that bad?
I've always used the stock HSF from AMD, and they work fine.


In a word, yes.

The one and only time I tried the stock heatsink from Intel, the CPU overheated with only the most minor overclock. Since then I've mainly used a TRUE on the Intel chips, with a V8 put on the last one. I can't say that the AMD heatsinks are much better, though I am using an AMD stock heatsink meant for a FX chip on on old s939 4400+. That does well enough for minor overclock. Any serious overclocking will take a good cooler, or the chip will get too hot.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 11, 2009 8:06:35 PM

The 1156 is not a dead end platform. This is totally wrong. There are plans that 32nm processors are going to be made for it. They may even release a VERY high mhz dual core 32nm. Its mentioned here, near the end discussing 1156 mb's.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/p55-motherboard-ove...
Just because they MAY not have a server level 6 core and beyond chip in a current road map for 1156 does not mean they won't or a consumer even needs it!
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 8:23:00 PM

notty22 said:
The 1156 is not a dead end platform. This is totally wrong. There are plans that 32nm processors are going to be made for it. They may even release a VERY high mhz dual core 32nm. Its mentioned here, near the end discussing 1156 mb's.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/p55-motherboard-ove...
Just because they MAY not have a server level 6 core and beyond chip in a current road map for 1156 does not mean they won't or a consumer even needs it!


Average consumer won't need a 6 core chip for sure. For that matter, the average consumer hardly needs a dual core chip, much less a quad core. But there are those of us, myself included, who will put a 6 core chip to its full use. And that is one of the reasons I'm all in favor or the 1366 socket. But need of a 6 core aside, it I'm going to spend a lot of money on a new platform, I like to get the best I can afford. And at present, an i7 mobo and a 920 is fairly cheap.
m
0
l
!