I'm planning to build a new PC. Due to budget restraint. Is the stock cooler suffice for the time being? I was thinking of getting the H50 but I need to sacrifice it to get the HD-5870. I'm not going to OC but will run the PC 24/7. Thanks in Advance.
No OC I7-950/i7-960
- Thread starter PC_Plum
- Start date
-
- Tags
- CPUs Processors
robertomad
Distinguished
- Mar 27, 2009
- 203
- 0
- 18,690
Sorry but I'm set with i7 950 or i7 960. i7 920 will be obsolete when i7 930 come out. The other parts are easy to upgrade IMO unlike CPU. And I need more power without OC because I'm going to ue my PC as server/workstation.
ares1214
Splendid
- Dec 15, 2009
- 4,471
- 1
- 22,960
what??? the i7 920 will not be obselete! the 960, 950, and 920, and 975 all have the exact same build, so if one of them is obselete(7 years from now) , they all will be obselete. the 930 is just going to be 200 MHz faster and cost 150 more dollars. it might be 32 nm, but nobody know. my 955 gives me more perfromance then i ever need, so i think a 920 will easily be more than enough. atleast go with the 950 if you are going to waste money, it cost 400$ less. getting a 920 with an ssd will easily outperform a 950 with a hdd.
robertomad
Distinguished
- Mar 27, 2009
- 203
- 0
- 18,690
Obsolete is not the right word. What I mean is phase out. Once I found that article I will put it here. This will be the same as the i7-940 replaced by i7-950, i7-965 replaced by i7-975, and rumor has it even the i7-950 will be replaced by i7-960 next year. Here in the UK i7-950 is almost the same price as i7-960, actually scan.co.uk has cheaper i7-960 compare to novatech or overclockersUK's i7-950.
ares1214
Splendid
- Dec 15, 2009
- 4,471
- 1
- 22,960
who cares if its new model comes out. just because the i7 960 was "phased out" by the 975, does that mean the 960 all the sudden gives bad, or worse performance. phased out is when you can buy a i9 1020 six core for 279.99$, not when you get an extra 300 MHz for an extra 300 dollars, and like i said a 920 with a ssd would beat a 960 with a hdd.
They are literally the same processors (i.e. 920/930/950/960) just the later models are bit more efficient and slightly faster, but the i7 is not and never will be for some time the bottle-neck of an program's performance.
atleast wait for the i7-930, if you that desperate to get a new model
I have a i7-920, and clocked it at 2.9Ghz with no extra heat produced, and at that time I save ~250 POUNDS ($350+) buying that than the i7-940! but they are running at approx. the same speed
atleast wait for the i7-930, if you that desperate to get a new model
I have a i7-920, and clocked it at 2.9Ghz with no extra heat produced, and at that time I save ~250 POUNDS ($350+) buying that than the i7-940! but they are running at approx. the same speed
warmon6
Splendid
- Jul 24, 2009
- 4,169
- 5
- 22,965
Heck nearly all the i7's 9xx (as of now) has the same (or nearly the same) overclock speed of like 4.2 - 4.5 ghz. That why no one ever recommend the EE i7 because the the i7 920 can nearly match the same preformance when overclocked to same speed. $300 vs $1,000, i go with the $300 cpu.
I don't want to offend anybody.
Here is where I'm coming from. I had a pc that I use for almost how many years now and it's starting to bagger-up. Basically whenever I turn it on It's like saying "I want to retire! Pleeease!" When I first bought that it's like the 920 vs the other chips. So I went for the one in the middle like what I'm doing again. During those days OC is not really an easy option. But then again even if it is I still wouldn't. I guess this is a different time now. It might be a marketing strategy for intel to make more money. But when user OC they adjust the voltage level, they need a good cooler, a good mobo, a good memory , a good psu , etc... (which is like additional cost compare to just get the basics), then they have to test the stability of the system. Probably most of them get it stable but there still a percentage who doesn't, which means they have to do another trial and error or research, hassle...the like . It might give thrill for the enthusiast. But for user like me who only want to get on with their work without having to worry about all those things and don't like additional stress (might be Over acting Here) because they are already stress with their jobs or with their life.
I have been googling a lot about differences of these chips. And people keep on saying get the 920... 940 or 950 or 960 is not worth it... If there is a person out there who will provide some concrete evidence of the long term benefit of OCing 920 vs using other chips at stock clock then these questions will answered. Evidence between Power Consumption voltage not only the chip but also the whole system of 920 OC to 950 vs 950@ stock. With computation of how much money you will save when you buy it vs when using it. Life span of the chips when OCed and not OCed. A person that is not biased.
This is a challenge. And I guess that will change a lot because people from Intel will be awaken that consumers are not stupid not like me. And maybe... just maybe, they will think before creating the same marketing strategy. Because until there are people out there like me then Intel will become richer and richer.
Here is where I'm coming from. I had a pc that I use for almost how many years now and it's starting to bagger-up. Basically whenever I turn it on It's like saying "I want to retire! Pleeease!" When I first bought that it's like the 920 vs the other chips. So I went for the one in the middle like what I'm doing again. During those days OC is not really an easy option. But then again even if it is I still wouldn't. I guess this is a different time now. It might be a marketing strategy for intel to make more money. But when user OC they adjust the voltage level, they need a good cooler, a good mobo, a good memory , a good psu , etc... (which is like additional cost compare to just get the basics), then they have to test the stability of the system. Probably most of them get it stable but there still a percentage who doesn't, which means they have to do another trial and error or research, hassle...the like . It might give thrill for the enthusiast. But for user like me who only want to get on with their work without having to worry about all those things and don't like additional stress (might be Over acting Here) because they are already stress with their jobs or with their life.
I have been googling a lot about differences of these chips. And people keep on saying get the 920... 940 or 950 or 960 is not worth it... If there is a person out there who will provide some concrete evidence of the long term benefit of OCing 920 vs using other chips at stock clock then these questions will answered. Evidence between Power Consumption voltage not only the chip but also the whole system of 920 OC to 950 vs 950@ stock. With computation of how much money you will save when you buy it vs when using it. Life span of the chips when OCed and not OCed. A person that is not biased.
This is a challenge. And I guess that will change a lot because people from Intel will be awaken that consumers are not stupid not like me. And maybe... just maybe, they will think before creating the same marketing strategy. Because until there are people out there like me then Intel will become richer and richer.
About the 920 replaced by 930
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel-to-Replace-the-Core-i7-920-with-Core-i7-930-125534.shtml
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel-to-Replace-the-Core-i7-920-with-Core-i7-930-125534.shtml
ares1214
Splendid
- Dec 15, 2009
- 4,471
- 1
- 22,960
ok, cpus are meant to last about 10 years before dieing. thats right 10 years.some last longer. i have never seen a cpu die, because it was replaced when it lost its usefulness. overclocking it takes 0-5% off of its lifetime, so even if you do oc it, you will replace it by the time it dies if it dies. you could even keep it at stock and it would perform BEAUTIFULLY as it is EXTREMELY FAST. look at these benchs:
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=254&Itemid=63&limit=1&limitstart=5
see, even at stock it is almost the same as the 940, and when it is oc'ed, it beats it. also, it would be so easy to get it to oc to 3.0 GHz, up the voltage, up the frequency, up the cooling, repeat process until not stable, or until satisfactory oc. that isnt even going into all of the other things you can do to get it above 4.0 GHz, where it will destroy and eat anything. if you saved the 300-750 dollars, you could buy a better mobo, better ram, and a ssd, which would also give you way better performance than just a 950 with 1333 MHz ram and a 7200 rpm hdd. you really need to trust what we are saying, as it is very much the truth. watch a video on youtube that pits ssd vs hdd. ssd blows hdd out of the water, and wont bottle neck your system. you put the fastest cpu in the world with a hdd, and you waste your money. i dont mean to sound mean, but hope this helped
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=254&Itemid=63&limit=1&limitstart=5
see, even at stock it is almost the same as the 940, and when it is oc'ed, it beats it. also, it would be so easy to get it to oc to 3.0 GHz, up the voltage, up the frequency, up the cooling, repeat process until not stable, or until satisfactory oc. that isnt even going into all of the other things you can do to get it above 4.0 GHz, where it will destroy and eat anything. if you saved the 300-750 dollars, you could buy a better mobo, better ram, and a ssd, which would also give you way better performance than just a 950 with 1333 MHz ram and a 7200 rpm hdd. you really need to trust what we are saying, as it is very much the truth. watch a video on youtube that pits ssd vs hdd. ssd blows hdd out of the water, and wont bottle neck your system. you put the fastest cpu in the world with a hdd, and you waste your money. i dont mean to sound mean, but hope this helped
warmon6
Splendid
- Jul 24, 2009
- 4,169
- 5
- 22,965
better question is, what are you going to use it for?
Just gaming or calculation intensive task? If it's just gaming then i would go after a Core i5 or AMD phenom II x4 as they perform the same as a core i7 but are cheaper options.
To show a comparison, Here is difference between core i7 920 and 965. (they dont have the 960 so the 965 is the closest i can get to it.)
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=47&p2=45
There not much of a difference. This is why core i7 920 (sooner to be the 930) is the most recommended cpu of the i7's. We just dont see why pay the extra money for just little performance gains.
Just gaming or calculation intensive task? If it's just gaming then i would go after a Core i5 or AMD phenom II x4 as they perform the same as a core i7 but are cheaper options.
To show a comparison, Here is difference between core i7 920 and 965. (they dont have the 960 so the 965 is the closest i can get to it.)
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=47&p2=45
There not much of a difference. This is why core i7 920 (sooner to be the 930) is the most recommended cpu of the i7's. We just dont see why pay the extra money for just little performance gains.
ares1214 :
ok, cpus are meant to last about 10 years before dieing. thats right 10 years.some last longer. i have never seen a cpu die, because it was replaced when it lost its usefulness. overclocking it takes 0-5% off of its lifetime, so even if you do oc it, you will replace it by the time it dies if it dies. you could even keep it at stock and it would perform BEAUTIFULLY as it is EXTREMELY FAST. look at these benchs:
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=254&Itemid=63&limit=1&limitstart=5
see, even at stock it is almost the same as the 940, and when it is oc'ed, it beats it. also, it would be so easy to get it to oc to 3.0 GHz, up the voltage, up the frequency, up the cooling, repeat process until not stable, or until satisfactory oc. that isnt even going into all of the other things you can do to get it above 4.0 GHz, where it will destroy and eat anything. if you saved the 300-750 dollars, you could buy a better mobo, better ram, and a ssd, which would also give you way better performance than just a 950 with 1333 MHz ram and a 7200 rpm hdd. you really need to trust what we are saying, as it is very much the truth. watch a video on youtube that pits ssd vs hdd. ssd blows hdd out of the water, and wont bottle neck your system. you put the fastest cpu in the world with a hdd, and you waste your money. i dont mean to sound mean, but hope this helped
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=254&Itemid=63&limit=1&limitstart=5
see, even at stock it is almost the same as the 940, and when it is oc'ed, it beats it. also, it would be so easy to get it to oc to 3.0 GHz, up the voltage, up the frequency, up the cooling, repeat process until not stable, or until satisfactory oc. that isnt even going into all of the other things you can do to get it above 4.0 GHz, where it will destroy and eat anything. if you saved the 300-750 dollars, you could buy a better mobo, better ram, and a ssd, which would also give you way better performance than just a 950 with 1333 MHz ram and a 7200 rpm hdd. you really need to trust what we are saying, as it is very much the truth. watch a video on youtube that pits ssd vs hdd. ssd blows hdd out of the water, and wont bottle neck your system. you put the fastest cpu in the world with a hdd, and you waste your money. i dont mean to sound mean, but hope this helped
Thanks ares1214 for your response. I'm actually aware of the performance difference but in terms of voltage usage comparison for the system as a whole. My PC is always on 24/7 literally so I need to know if there is a long term benefit i.e. additional electricity bill because of OC.
As for your comment about lifetime of CPU, maybe your right about the CPU, but how about the other components. I just read a forum here that a user OC and his MOBO died.
The question I was talking about is the Stock cooler. It's winter season at the moment so I could wait until summer to buy a new Cooling system.
warmon6
Splendid
- Jul 24, 2009
- 4,169
- 5
- 22,965
If you dont over clock, then stock cooler more than fine.
As for overclocking and hardware failure, If you get quality parts and get them new at the same time, they show be fine from many years. The most common failures are: (greatest to least)
1.HDD(s)
2.PSU
3.Fans
After that MB's, ram, gpu, ect.. are all about the same scene there no moving part. The least likely to fail hardware is the CPU it self. Cpu are the highest quality part in your computer. There warranties from both Intel and AMD are that a cpu should last 3 years. If it failed in 3 years (doesn't matter if it was running 24/7 or not.)
http://www.intel.com/support/processors/sb/cs-020033.htm#2
http://support.amd.com/us/warranty/Pages/SupportWarrantyServices.aspx
As for for reliability, even though you want a good cpu. the 920 would still be a better option. As long as your programs can uses all 8 thread the i7's offer then you probable wont even see the difference between them all. (no matter what you pick, all the i7's can get it done quick.)
ares1214
Splendid
- Dec 15, 2009
- 4,471
- 1
- 22,960
if you get a quality mobo, it wont die. the most common way for a mobo to die is when it is shocked in building, or power surge. other than that, mobo death isnt common. i would be more worried about the hdd, as it has a disc moving 120 revolutions a second, and that is why you buy an ssd. the 920 is a virtual octa-core, so even if it was at 2 GHz it would still be good.
Here is my specs that I'm going to order in Overclockers UK
CPU: Intel Core i7 950 D0 Stepping (SLBEJ) 3.06Ghz
GPU: XFX ATI Radeon HD 5870 1024MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card
MOBO: Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD7 Intel X58 (Socket 1366) PCI-Express DDR3
MEMORY: Corsair XMS3 6GB (3x2GB) DDR3 PC3-12800C9 (1600MHz)
PSU: Corsair HX 850W ATX Modular SLI Compliant Power Supply
CASE: Coolermaster Storm 'Sniper' All Black (Mesh) Edition Case - Black
COOLER: Corsair H50-1 High-Performance CPU Watercooler
HDD: Western Digital Caviar Black 500GB SATA-II 32MB Cache - OEM
CPU: Intel Core i7 950 D0 Stepping (SLBEJ) 3.06Ghz
GPU: XFX ATI Radeon HD 5870 1024MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card
MOBO: Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD7 Intel X58 (Socket 1366) PCI-Express DDR3
MEMORY: Corsair XMS3 6GB (3x2GB) DDR3 PC3-12800C9 (1600MHz)
PSU: Corsair HX 850W ATX Modular SLI Compliant Power Supply
CASE: Coolermaster Storm 'Sniper' All Black (Mesh) Edition Case - Black
COOLER: Corsair H50-1 High-Performance CPU Watercooler
HDD: Western Digital Caviar Black 500GB SATA-II 32MB Cache - OEM
How about bottleneck (look at the 9th blogger)
http://www.overclock.net/ati/600760-i7-920-bottleneck-5870-a.html
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Intel SSD 320 series fried diode (?) CR3, one contact, should I remove it?
- Started by kornsoud
- Replies: 7
-
-
-
-
Question Can I just upgrade my graphics card or should I be upgrading my processor as well for UE5?- Started by Tolstoy1990
- Replies: 7
-
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Question Microsoft Defender found Trojans on my PC- Latest: Tommy Sawyer
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram