Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Questions on Turbo Mode

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 14, 2009 10:28:11 PM

I'm starting to understand how Intel's i7 turbo mode works, but I have some questions. How does turbo mode change when you overclock the processor? Can you manually change the extent of turbo mode in the bios? Why do people say that the i7 860 turbo mode works better than the i7 920?

More about : questions turbo mode

November 15, 2009 3:21:41 AM

My confusion over this technology stems from the comparison of the 860 and 920. I have read that the 860 is better for gaming, because it has a higher clock and higher turbo mode. But I've also read that the 920 can overclock higher. If the 920 can overclock higher, then wouldn't it be better? So, if they are both overclocked to 3.6Ghz, would turbo mode make a difference?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
November 15, 2009 4:10:23 AM

Dougx1317 said:
I'm starting to understand how Intel's i7 turbo mode works, but I have some questions. How does turbo mode change when you overclock the processor? Can you manually change the extent of turbo mode in the bios? Why do people say that the i7 860 turbo mode works better than the i7 920?


Each chip runs at a Multiple x BCLK. At stock both run at 133 MHz. Turbo mode for both chips will increase the multiplier based on the number of active cores and the current draw. The 920's base multiplier is x20; the 860's is x21. The 920 is limited to a max multiplier of x22. The 860 can hit x26. So the base speeds are 2.66GHz (920) vs. 2.80 GHz (860) and the max turbo speeds are 2.93 GHz (920) vs. 3.46 GHz (860). That's why people say the i7 860 turbo mode works better.

On either processor, when you change the BCLK your total speed changes accordingly. Doing the math if you set BCLK to 160 the 920 could hit 3.52 GHz while the 860 might hit 4.16 GHz. In reality this is not a trivial feat, most who do more than a 'mild' overclock disable Turbo because it can increase instability. Also architectural changes with the 1156 chips introduce some additional challenges at higher overclocks. The only direct control you have over Turbo is that you can turn it on or off, you cannot leave it on but flip a switch to make the max multiplier, for example, 25 - I think that's what you were getting at.

I think you'll find these two articles helpful:
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634&p=...
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=364...

Dougx1317 said:
But I've also read that the 920 can overclock higher. If the 920 can overclock higher, then wouldn't it be better?quotemsg]

If that's true, and if your goal is to get the fastest possible speed, then yes. If they're looking to take advantage of turbo benefits to get the fatest possible chip and enjoy power or heat savings, or are just not comfortable with running a machine at its outer limits, then no.

2011188,2,343480 said:
So, if they are both overclocked to 3.6Ghz, would turbo mode make a difference?
said:


The second article above shows a max base speed at 3.53GHz while leaving turbo on (which results in a max speed of 4.16GHz). Certainly as you move up towards 4GHz you'll hit a stability point where Turbo will have to be turned off. You may find this follow-up on overclocking interesting: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=364...
m
0
l
Related resources
November 15, 2009 5:02:04 AM

Thanks for the articles.
Quote:
On either processor, when you change the BCLK your total speed changes accordingly. Doing the math if you set BCLK to 160 the 920 could hit 3.52 GHz while the 860 might hit 4.16 GHz. In reality this is not a trivial feat, most who do more than a 'mild' overclock disable Turbo because it can increase instability.
So, if I'm planning to overclock, I should get the 920? Would it be slower at dual threaded applications? Would there be any performance advantage to keeping turbo mode on, or is it just power and heat? And how much power and heat does it save?
Quote:
Also architectural changes with the 1156 chips introduce some additional challenges at higher overclocks.
I've read a lot about these challenges. Is the result simply that you can't get as high of stable clock on the 860? How much lower is its max? Would it make it more difficult for an amateur overclocker, like myself, to figure out?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
November 15, 2009 8:46:24 AM

i7-860 v.s. i7-920

i7-860 wins at 95% of the time currently.

The 920 will definitely beat 860 in the future when triple channel's potential is fully utilized, BUT you will definitely see some new products which is better and cheaper then.

Hence, I wouldn't suggest anyone getting the 9xx unless they want to upgrade to the EXTREMEly expensive core i9 which will be available in EXTREME edition only.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
November 15, 2009 12:33:13 PM

Source: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=364...
Quote:
Below are our application benchmark results comparing Lynnfield to Bloomfield, with turbo disabled, and both platforms running DDR3-1333 at 7-7-7-20 timings. Unlike our standard test beds I've forced the CPUs into their highest performance mode so they are always running at 2.93GHz. The only difference between the two chips is that the Bloomfield is an underclocked Core i7 975 so its un-core runs at 2.66GHz compared to 2.40GHz for the Lynnfield. The real world impact of that difference is negligible:




It shows that even the best i7-9xx at higher clock is not much better than i7-8xx at lower clock.

Hence, it is reasonable to see that i7-860 which has higher clock than i7-920 being better in most of the case.
m
0
l
November 15, 2009 4:19:46 PM

Thanks for the links. Does the fact that they are testing the 920 vs 870 instead of 860 make a difference? I guess the bottom line is that I can upgrade to a 920 6GB of RAM system for only $75 more than the 860 4GB of RAM system. For such a small difference in price, isn't the 920 the better choice? Or is the 860 actually better? Does this change when I overclock?
Quote:
i7-860 wins at 95% of the time currently.
So, overall, you're saying that the 860 is actually a faster processor?
m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
November 15, 2009 5:32:08 PM

Most of your questions are somewhat subjective to your ultimate goals, financial situation, and desire to experiment with new BIOS/settings. I hesitate to give you Yes/No answers because I do not know what your experience or priorities are. However I'm happy to help wade through the numbers. I think everything you're looking for is in these articles. And if you want someone to tell you definitively what to do, I'm sure they'll be along shortly to offer you their opinion.

I hope you've read the 3 articels I posted earlier. Here's another that will be useful from Tom's: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i5,2410....

The reason I refer to these articles is they are written by professionals who had the advantage of testing both architectures. I don't have the luxury or pleasure of being able to do the same and will not claim to speak with any type of false authority.

Dougx1317 said:
So, if I'm planning to overclock, I should get the 920?

From what I have read you can hit or get close to 4GHz on either chip using air. Beyond that I don't know. If you're looking to set records or really make the system scream, the Bloomfield architecture is probably a better bet. But again I'll refer to my opening comments.

Dougx1317 said:
Does the fact that they are testing the 920 vs 870 instead of 860 make a difference?

It looks like you're talking about this article: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=364...
It clearly states that they are testing with an underclocked i7 975 not a 920. I could not find what Lynnfield chip they are testing with but I belive they are using the 860 because of two facts. First they say they "forced the CPUs into their highest performance mode so they are always running at 2.93GHz." Second, that the 860 (stock) can run 4 cores at a max speed of 2.93GHz. I could be misinterpreting, it is possible they are testing the i7 975 vs. the i7 870.

The point of that portion of the article is to compare the two architectures. The authors show that when set to the same speed and with Turbo turned off "the extra memory controller of Bloomfield is responsible for a 3.5% performance advantage on average".

Dougx1317 said:
I guess the bottom line is that I can upgrade to a 920 6GB of RAM system for only $75 more than the 860 4GB of RAM system. For such a small difference in price, isn't the 920 the better choice?


Whether $75 for a 3.5% increase (with no turbo, and all settings equal) is a better choice is going to differ for everyone. That's really up to you and your wallet. There are other differences between the two. When you read the last page of the first article you saw some reasons why you might pick Bloomfield over Lynnfield, and vice-versa. Re-read this page and it should help clarify things for your situation.

You asked a lot of questions and I tried to give some guidance to them. If I missed one that you're really struggling with, ask again and I'll tackle that point more directly.
Share
November 15, 2009 6:00:43 PM

The articles do give a lot of useful information, but I'm having a hard time relating to some of the facts they pose. The biggest is the price difference. When comparing the 860 and 920, they look at $88 more for the 920 plus the motherboard and RAM. But I'll be buying the processor from Microcenter, where the 920 is actually $30 cheaper. This makes the price gap significantly less, so their support of the 860's cheaper price doesn't really apply as much.

3.5% increase is not worth the $75, but this is without turbo mode or overclocking. I'm not going to push my PC to the edge, but I will overclock to 3.6-3.8Ghz depending on temperatures. Also, will the increase become larger with time? When will things like triple channel RAM become a real advantage? And I know the new i9 will be on the socket 1366, but will there ever be any affordable upgrades on the 1366 socket?

I've also read that the 920 offers 16x/16x on crossfire and sli. This is suppose to make it a more attractive setup for people with multiple high end GPU's. What would qualify as high end? Would I want to consider that an advantage if I might have two 4890's in the future? I can only find comparisons for the 5xxx series.

Sorry I'm worrying so much about two similar setups at similar cost. This is just my first big upgrade ever, and I want to make sure that I won't regret it.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
November 15, 2009 6:58:09 PM

I'm going to tackle these sets of questions 1 at a time.
Dougx1317 said:
I've also read that the 920 offers 16x/16x on crossfire and sli. This is suppose to make it a more attractive setup for people with multiple high end GPU's. What would qualify as high end? Would I want to consider that an advantage if I might have two 4890's in the future? I can only find comparisons for the 5xxx series.


I did some research last week for a similar question by another poster in this forum. Different people have different opinions on this. I've never done it myself, but I tried to find a review so the poster could make up their own mind. One difference to note, some boards with 2 PCIe 2.0 x16 lanes run in x16, x4 mode. Nvidia does not certify or license SLI for these. And you do NOT want to CrossFire on these.

Here's some things I found. Basically, as you pointed out, it seems that there is a difference but most-notably at the highest-end GPUs. For example, you get more out of quad-core CF/SLI GPUs (such as 2x 4870x2) when dealing with x16,x16. However, at 2x single card setups the gains seem to be much more modest. Marginal even. It depends on your GPU. And bear in mind some of these reviews are doing x16,x16 on the top end Intel 1366 / i7 9xx chips.

Here's an article from Tom's. It has lots of good data, but is using quad-GPU setups. The conclusion puts things in perspective.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i5-lynnfield,2...


Here's another article, I pulled out this quote but you should still give it a read. "The P45 offers dual PCI Express x8 operation in CrossFire mode compared to dual x16 on the 790FX, X48, and X58 boards. However, we did not notice any performance differences between dual x8 and dual x16 operation when comparing the P45 to the X48 in offline testing utilizing our resolutions and quality settings."
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3506&p=1


And from a review of Lynnfield (comparing to CF/SLI on Bloomfield), when dealing with dual (2x single) GPUs "For the most part, the X58 platform was only a couple of percent better in scaling." However when moving up to more intensive, and more expensive, quad (2x dual) GPUs "Almost across the board the quad-GPU results significantly favor X58."
Keep in mind this is in a stress test running all settings at their max, resolution at 2560 x 1600 but with no AA. You can read this here:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=363...


Unfortunately there are a lot of possible configurations and so finding your exact setup tested and evaluated is always difficult. However, according to Tom's November GPU Hierarchy chart the GTX 275 is on the same 'level' as the 4890 ( http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/best-graphics-card,review... ). So the last link above may be comparable to what you are considering, in which case the conclusion is "the X58 platform was only a couple of percent better in scaling."
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
November 15, 2009 7:03:39 PM

Dougx1317 said:
Sorry I'm worrying so much about two similar setups at similar cost. This is just my first big upgrade ever, and I want to make sure that I won't regret it.


Just a thought, and I don't want to throw a wrench into the work done so far, but why aren't you comparing the i5 750 vs. the i7 920? If you're going to overclock and end up turning off turbo anyway, then you may get a better value from i5 750 which also sells at a 'discount' from MicroCenter.
m
0
l
November 15, 2009 7:52:03 PM

I am running i7 920, Gig MB, with for the moment 4 gig OCZ 2000 of memory - my Bios is set to normal operation with turbo and it has no problems running - I am experiencing on overclock at minmum of 3.50 - 3.80 which according to what will work is acceptable. The difference 750 vs 920 is more bang for the buck, if you are happy with saving money and running at lower speeds, than go with 750 or possible 860 - I don't believe you will have the total package overclock features with those - this is subject to debate.

Good luck in your choice!
m
0
l
November 15, 2009 7:56:49 PM

Quote:
Here's an article from Tom's. It has lots of good data, but is using quad-GPU setups. The conclusion puts things in perspective.
http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,2379.html
So, the message that I'm getting from this is that if the highest I'll go is two 4890's or 5850's, the 920's additional lanes won't have a significant impact. The other links seem to support this basic idea as well. Is that about right? The graphs are a little confusing to me. In the first link, many framerates stay the same when the second 4870x2 is added.

Quote:
Unfortunately there are a lot of possible configurations and so finding your exact setup tested and evaluated is always difficult. However, according to Tom's November GPU Hierarchy chart the GTX 275 is on the same 'level' as the 4890 ( http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/best [...] 723-8.html ). So the last link above may be comparable to what you are considering, in which case the conclusion is "the X58 platform was only a couple of percent better in scaling."
Thank you for this link. The hierarchy chart will be very useful when looking at graphics cards.

Quote:
Just a thought, and I don't want to throw a wrench into the work done so far, but why aren't you comparing the i5 750 vs. the i7 920? If you're going to overclock and end up turning off turbo anyway, then you may get a better value from i5 750 which also sells at a 'discount' from MicroCenter.
That really does undo a lot of my research, but if I get a better computer for less money it will be worth it. The i5 750 build I just calculated came out to $155 less than the i7 920 and $80 less than the i7 860. I've seen reviews that say the i5 750 overclocks very well, but I assumed that being an i5 meant that it had other disadvantages. What makes the i5 750 and i7 860 different? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the i5 750? (I feel like I'm starting over) I just saw that the i7 doesn't have HT, which means only 4 threads instead of 8. That makes me feel that it is much less future proof.
m
0
l
November 15, 2009 8:53:09 PM

This quote from one of Ekoostik's links seems to say it all:

"You “lose” two things in stepping down from an LGA 1366-based interface to the LGA 1156 Core i7 (three things if you go for a Core i5). There’s the triple-channel memory architecture, enough PCI Express 2.0 via X58 to give each graphics card in a CrossFire or SLI config its own x16 link, and, in the case of i5, you also lose Hyper-Threading."

I don't think that I will use the 8 threads very often. Will I need these at some point in the next 3 years or will 4 cores hold me over?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
November 15, 2009 9:49:01 PM

Dougx1317 said:
I don't think that I will use the 8 threads very often. Will I need these at some point in the next 3 years or will 4 cores hold me over?


Many applications cannot yet take advantage of more than 1 thread, let alone 4 or 8. The question may depend more on how heavy you multi-task, or on specific media centric applications. Still the gains from additional cores are not linear, especially when we're talking about a 'synthetic' 8. Many people are happier to have a faster, overclockable 'less-core' system. I have read anecdotal reports from other forum users of easier overclocking with the 750 because HT makes the 860 run hotter. Personal choice again, I'm happy with my 860 but do I need those extra threads? Probably not.

Tom's tackled the question of how many cores are enough in a 2 part series of recent articles (this year, April and then August).

How Many CPU Cores Do You Need?
and
Part 2: How Many CPU Cores Do You Need?

m
0
l
November 15, 2009 10:34:58 PM

ekoostik said:
Many applications cannot yet take advantage of more than 1 thread, let alone 4 or 8. Tom's tackled the question of how many cores are enough in a 2 part series of recent articles (this year, April and then August).

How Many CPU Cores Do You Need?
and
Part 2: How Many CPU Cores Do You Need?

These articles support my theory that I don't need 8 threads. The difference between 3 and 4 cores in games was almost nothing. Do you think that $80 for an i7 860 would be justified with the chance 8 threads may come in handy in the next 3 years? Is the fact that they're "synthetic" cores make them less useful if you needed more than 4 cores?
Quote:
I have read anecdotal reports from other forum users of easier overclocking with the 750 because HT makes the 860 run hotter.

I haven't heard of this. Are the 750's suppose to overclock better than the 860's? Here's a nice article about overclocking the i5 750. They seem to think that it overclocks well, but the same is said about the 860. The turbo on the 860 looks much better than the 750 0r 920.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i5-750-overclo...

You've mentioned that most people disable turbo boost when they overclock. If I did a mild over clock of 3.0Ghz so the turbo boost would be 3.667Ghz, would that work or be a good idea? What about 3.2Ghz and 3.867Ghz? Is the problem just that the turbo boost may take the processor over its stable limit?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
November 15, 2009 11:33:03 PM

Dougx1317 said:
Do you think that $80 for an i7 860 would be justified with the chance 8 threads may come in handy in the next 3 years?

Personal preference. For me it was justified, but my timeline is more like 5-8 years.

Dougx1317 said:
Is the fact that they're "synthetic" cores make them less useful if you needed more than 4 cores?

They are less useful than 8 cores because they are still sharing physical resources. That being said, you can't get an 8 core chip, at least at this price. You also won't likely find yourself in a position where you need more than 4 cores any time soon. So while the answer is Yes, it's largely philosophical. If you want the ability to run 8 threads, you can't do much better than this - you can't really do anything other than this (at this price).

Dougx1317 said:
Quote:
I have read anecdotal reports from other forum users of easier overclocking with the 750 because HT makes the 860 run hotter.

I haven't heard of this. Are the 750's suppose to overclock better than the 860's? Here's a nice article about overclocking the i5 750. They seem to think that it overclocks well, but the same is said about the 860. The turbo on the 860 looks much better than the 750 0r 920.


I shouldn't have mentioned that, broke my own rule. As I said, it was anecdotal. And as I look around now I can't find anything to back it up. Here's another review of an overclock with little difference in experience between a 750 and 870: http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-750-core-i7-860-8...

Dougx1317 said:
You've mentioned that most people disable turbo boost when they overclock. If I did a mild over clock of 3.0Ghz so the turbo boost would be 3.667Ghz, would that work or be a good idea? What about 3.2Ghz and 3.867Ghz? Is the problem just that the turbo boost may take the processor over its stable limit?


That is exactly the problem. But at those speeds you should be fine with turbo on. In one of the reviews we've been passing around they got to 3.33GHz at stock voltage with Turbo on and air cooling. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=364...

On a related note, the first page of that review sums up why I went with the 860 over the 870 and 750. "The 870 has great turbo modes, but it's nearly twice the price of the 860. The Core i5 750 wins in the price department, but it lacks Hyper Threading - part of what makes Nehalem so tasty in the first place." The CPU was the one area of my build where I "splurged". I decided I wanted the extra turbo boost and I wanted the hyper threading, even though I really didn't need either. Having a Micro Center nearby helped, too.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
November 15, 2009 11:47:13 PM

Dougx1317 said:
Thanks for the links. Does the fact that they are testing the 920 vs 870 instead of 860 make a difference? I guess the bottom line is that I can upgrade to a 920 6GB of RAM system for only $75 more than the 860 4GB of RAM system. For such a small difference in price, isn't the 920 the better choice? Or is the 860 actually better? Does this change when I overclock?
Quote:
i7-860 wins at 95% of the time currently.
So, overall, you're saying that the 860 is actually a faster processor?

The link I gave you is definitely a 860 vs 920!

It seems that you prefer the 920, then get the 920. As you said the price difference is minimal and so does the performance, so get whatever suits your preference.
m
0
l
November 16, 2009 12:30:53 AM

Quote:
As you said the price difference is minimal and so does the performance, so get whatever suits your preference.
You make it sound so easy. I'm leaning towards the 860 now. It has features like higher clock, higher turbo, and hyperthreading, but lacks the less useful features like triple channel memory and 16x/16x support. (Plus, it's the mid-priced choice. Typical consumer behavior.)
Quote:
my timeline is more like 5-8 years.
Wow. A computers life is considered 3 years when depreciating. I can't imagine building a computer today and using it until the end of 2017. Hopefully the 8 threads will be useful then.
Quote:
That is exactly the problem. But at those speeds you should be fine with turbo on. In one of the reviews we've been passing around they got to 3.33GHz at stock voltage with Turbo on and air cooling. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipse [...] i=3641&p=8
Thank you for that article. That really makes the 860 sound like the processor for me. You can have a 3.2Ghz quadcore and 3.8Ghz dualcore in one processor. This sounds like a good balance of power and efficiency. Then, years from now, I can overclock it to a 4Ghz quadcore to meet my needs then. The hyperthreading sounds very unnecessary, but I have a strange craving for 8 threads.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
November 16, 2009 12:58:16 AM

Merely 3 years life for such a great CPU?!

The Q6600 was released in early 2006 and it is still an upper end processor being more than sufficient most of the time.

OC the Q6600 to 3GHz is very easy making it immensely close to the Q9550 which is significantly but not much worse than the i7-920.

I don't think you will have any problem with Q6600 for 2 more years from now unless you want the top performance.

BTW, even my 5-year old Pentium 4 630 is more than enough for daily working.

Good luck on your new build!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
November 16, 2009 1:06:50 AM

Dougx1317 said:
Wow. A computers life is considered 3 years when depreciating. I can't imagine building a computer today and using it until the end of 2017.

Yes but when coming out of my wallet it's life lasts much longer :)  My i7 860 build replaced a 1.5GHz P4 that I'd been putting up with for far too long, it was around 8 years old.

Dougx1317 said:
I have a strange craving for 8 threads.

Careful, you're catching the fever! That's the craving I got. I just couldn't let the opportunity pass me by, especially at Micro Center CPU prices.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
November 16, 2009 1:09:07 AM

Quote:
Careful, you're catching the fever! That's the craving I got. I just couldn't let the opportunity pass me by, especially at Micro Center CPU prices.


Give me Microcenter!!!
m
0
l
November 16, 2009 1:17:34 AM

Quote:
BTW, even my 5-year old Pentium 4 630 is more than enough for daily working.
I actually have a Pentium 4 630 working right now, too. But that processor was released in 2005. Tell me if it's still working in another 4 years. Although, I'll probably keep the processor for a good 4-5 years myself.
Quote:
Careful, you're catching the fever! That's the craving I got. I just couldn't let the opportunity pass me by, especially at Micro Center CPU prices.
Microcenter does make the upgrade very tempting. I think I am catching the fever. Or maybe that's swine flu.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
November 16, 2009 1:22:15 AM

P4 630 released in early 2005 and it's almost 2010 now, so it's five years old already. Besides, I didn't say that it will last another 4 years.

My point is that considering merely 3-year life for a 860 is totally a waste.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
November 16, 2009 1:26:30 AM

Why don't you get i5 instead if there's not a Microcenter nearby. It's on par with 860 except in photo&video editing and SYNTHETIC(useless) benchmark.
m
0
l
November 16, 2009 1:41:49 AM

I'll keep my next processor until it can't do what I need it to do, but 3 years is just how accountant look at it. I've got a microcenter ten minutes from my house. I told my realtor that was a requirement. The i5 750 is a good deal, but the 860's higher clock, higher turbo, and 8 threads seems worth the $80 extra. Plus it has the i7 brand which will give me satisfaction and may even give it a higher resale value.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
November 16, 2009 1:46:01 AM

You are lucky to have a microcenter nearby and 860 is the no brainer choice if that's the case.
m
0
l
November 16, 2009 3:21:47 AM

Quote:
I have read anecdotal reports from other forum users of easier overclocking with the 750
I finally found an article that supported this claim. The 860 got a "poor" overclock of 4.09Ghz compared to the 750's 4.2Ghz. It doesn't sound like anything I'll worry about. They discuss that some benchmarks are actually worse with hyperthreading, but can't you just turn it off? I don't know why that could even be considered a con?

"The i7-860 didn't overclock quite as well, going from 2.8GHz to 4.09GHz"
"This 'thread stalling' explains why more complicated tasks might run slower with Hyper-Threading enabled."
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2009/09/08/intel-...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
November 16, 2009 3:25:54 AM

Yeah, i7-860 FTW if you have a microcenter nearby!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
November 16, 2009 11:10:34 AM

So, after sleeping on it, did you make a decision?
m
0
l
November 16, 2009 1:37:34 PM

Yes, I'm going to go with the i7 860. It seems to have everything I need and only a few things I don't. I'm going to wait until black Friday to buy the parts, since things like the motherboard and RAM should be on sale.

Thanks for all of your help. You've helped me not only get the best processor for me, but I will also probably not regret it. Thanks.
m
0
l
November 16, 2009 10:15:29 PM

Good Luck to you - let us know what your end result is with overclock - over 4.0 is above normal and if it works - it will be great!

Keep Pushing Forward - Let's not go back to Dos! :pt1cable: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
November 16, 2009 10:33:59 PM

Good luck on the rest of your components, hope whatever remaining choices you have are easier! Have fun.
m
0
l
!