Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

I7 920 at 3.33 vs i7 980x stock

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 29, 2010 7:51:12 AM

Hello there it's around 4am and my brain no longer function as it should and after browsing ebay looking for a deal on 980x I just asked myself. From what I understand i920 and i7 975 same thing internally with different clock speed and in theory 920 at 3Ghz will work same as 975 at 3Ghz (correct me if I am incorrect) and now here we go we have new big biy with 6 Cores and 12 Threads .... sounds impressive but is it ... my 920 works at 3.33 from very first boot and I loven it ! So set clocks aside we have new 6 cores and that gotta be something worth over 1K .... anyhow my question is i7 920 at 3.33 Ghz overclok VS 980x at stock (3.33) speed .... anyone did this "kind" of test yet ?

Thanks guys !

P.S

I am thinking if few years I'll be able to get 980x or something better at that time to max out my LGA1366 socket ...and then it hit me .. usually even best CPU from previous generation can't compete with even slowest from new generation ..... and then again best core 2 extreme vs i7 920 ...oh man I am totally off subject now .....

later

More about : 920 980x stock

a b à CPUs
March 29, 2010 8:29:58 AM

You make a valid point for someone with a non-functioning brain... ;-)

The 920 when overclocked will perform similar to a stock 975, so yes, there is no reason in my view to spend 1k on a high-end CPU. As far as the 980 is concerned, there are VERY few people that really need 6 cores at this point, and it's just too damn expensive. So enjoy your 920, and don't lose any more sleep on the subject.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 29, 2010 9:03:37 AM

At same clock speeds, they really shouldn't differ much at all. The only advantage that the i7 980X has apart from the unlocked multiplier is that it has 12MB L3 cache, which would help I'm guessing on very multi-threaded applications. On most of Tom's i7 980X vs 975 EE, in single-threaded/less or equal to four core benchmarks, they performed the same. I'm supposing this would be the same with an i7 920 @ 3.33GHz.
m
0
l
Related resources
March 29, 2010 3:18:21 PM

Also i think what is worth saying is that if you were happy to OC your 2.6Ghz to 3.3ghz u would be equally happy to OC that 6 core from 3.3 Ghz to around 4Ghz

so its a lil unfair to compare the OC speed to the stock as i can imagine if u did get the 980 you would be OC that as well, specially as its a dam fine OC'er

Plus with the 6 core u get an advantage for video encoding ect.

Though if ur a gamer there is basically no real performance gain for that kind of money, the £700 differnace could be spent on a lot more fun things in life :) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 29, 2010 3:35:32 PM

The Intel Core i7 975 Extreme Edition does have a faster QPI link-rate then the Normal Intel Core i7's. The Extreme Editions have 6.4 while the rest have 4.8. Moreover, not only does the 975 have a much higher Stock Clock, it has an unlocked multiplier.

The Intel Core i7 980X Extreme Edition also has a major advantage over Quad-Cores in Games that can utilize 4 Cores. The reason is, if you have a game that can run on 4 physical cores on a 4/Quad core CPU, those same cores also have to handle your OS along with all your background services/processes/apps. If you have 6 Cores, you can offset those background tasks to 2 cores while leaving 4 empty and dedicated cores just for your quad-cored application.
m
0
l
March 30, 2010 4:59:24 AM

Very nice guys !

I just love overclocking this bad boys !!! Actually without that my 920 is bottleneck for my 4870x2 .... and I am talk about big time bottleneck ..
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 30, 2010 5:36:57 AM

blackhawk1928 said:
The Intel Core i7 975 Extreme Edition does have a faster QPI link-rate then the Normal Intel Core i7's. The Extreme Editions have 6.4 while the rest have 4.8. Moreover, not only does the 975 have a much higher Stock Clock, it has an unlocked multiplier.

The Intel Core i7 980X Extreme Edition also has a major advantage over Quad-Cores in Games that can utilize 4 Cores. The reason is, if you have a game that can run on 4 physical cores on a 4/Quad core CPU, those same cores also have to handle your OS along with all your background services/processes/apps. If you have 6 Cores, you can offset those background tasks to 2 cores while leaving 4 empty and dedicated cores just for your quad-cored application.


You don't need the extra two cores to handle the OS. Running the OS uses very little cpu resources and it will make zero difference in games. There is really no advantages in games let alone a major one.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
March 30, 2010 12:04:27 PM

mildiner86 said:
Also i think what is worth saying is that if you were happy to OC your 2.6Ghz to 3.3ghz u would be equally happy to OC that 6 core from 3.3 Ghz to around 4Ghz
so its a lil unfair to compare the OC speed to the stock as i can imagine if u did get the 980 you would be OC that as well, specially as its a dam fine OC'er

Plus with the 6 core u get an advantage for video encoding ect.

Though if ur a gamer there is basically no real performance gain for that kind of money, the £700 differnace could be spent on a lot more fun things in life :) 

+1. Best Bang for Buck...
An i7 920 when OC to 3.33Ghz becomes an i7 975 and whatever the difference in price between these two CPU's is money saved.
But if someone wants an OC'd i7 975 to 4.0GHz, then that is another story.
Share
April 9, 2010 2:37:31 AM

Best answer selected by XAKEP.
m
0
l
!