Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I7 920 is dying... What to do?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 8, 2012 7:47:57 PM

My 4 year old 920 is finally dying after 4 years of 3.8Ghz or more (not so bad for a C0), and I am at a crossroad...

Upgrade to a 2600k, which means changing also MOBO, RAM and CPU cooler...

To stay with my 1366 socket for another year maybe, getting a i7 940 or 950 for less than $300, and then use the money for another item, like a SSD...

Thoughts?

More about : 920 dying

a b à CPUs
June 8, 2012 8:08:48 PM

plguzman said:
My 4 year old 920 is finally dying after 4 years of 3.8Ghz or more (not so bad for a C0), and I am at a crossroad...

Upgrade to a 2600k, which means changing also MOBO, RAM and CPU cooler...

To stay with my 1366 socket for another year maybe, getting a i7 940 or 950 for less than $300, and then use the money for another item, like a SSD...

Thoughts?

How did it die?
m
0
l
June 8, 2012 8:13:20 PM

Well, not dead already... but need to underclock from my previous 3.8 to remain stable. It doesn't even boot past 3.4, no matter what I do in BIOS.

I guess I forced it a lot for a C0 (as I said, I set the chip @ 3.8 minimum, and do a lot of video encoding and gaming). Always controlled the temps, but I guess a heavy used C0 @ 3.8 for 4 years would eventually fail
m
0
l
Related resources
June 8, 2012 8:13:59 PM

SSDs are amazing. Once you get one you cant go back. Also SSDs took a price dive ($120 for 128 gig and $200 for 256 gig crucial M4s on amazon). However sticking with old technology isnt a good choice either. What you could do is get the 2600k mobo ram and try to squeeze into an SSD if you can.

You could do:
Core I5 3750k with gigabyte motherboard for $370 and then GSkill 2x4gig(8 gig total) for $47
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?Ite...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

And then the crucial M4 128 gig http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... for $125

So $415 or new set up and $125 for SSD or if you want $215 for 256 gig. If you go 128 gig trust me it wont be enough (i have the crucial m4 128) so I use it for windows, my core games, then all my music movies and "fluff" goes on my 2 TB striped raid. I plan on upgrading to 256 gig soon though.

Final Thoughts:
Upgrade your rig without SSD (If you cant afford it) and get SSD later, they will only go down in price (Storage/speed to price ratio will drop faster than cpu speed to price ratio if that makes sense).
m
0
l
a c 144 à CPUs
June 8, 2012 8:17:53 PM

I'd go with another 920 and get a few more years out of your rig and then upgrade the whole thing.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2012 8:19:11 PM

plguzman said:
Well, not dead already... but need to underclock from my previous 3.8 to remain stable. It doesn't even boot past 3.4, no matter what I do in BIOS.

I guess I forced it a lot for a C0 (as I said, I set the chip @ 3.8 minimum, and do a lot of video encoding and gaming). Always controlled the temps, but I guess a heavy used C0 @ 3.8 for 4 years would eventually fail

That sucks ):
I can't imaging that happening to me though but i guess it will happen to every computer!
I say maybe you can look into ivy bridge...
m
0
l
June 8, 2012 8:21:45 PM

Before this, I was thinking of upgrading video and SSD. If I stay in X58, a new GPU won't be bottlenecked by the platform (even assuming a i7 @ 4Ghz or more)?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2012 8:28:23 PM

could always pick up a D0 stepping i7-920

at 4ghz it would still be good even by todays standards

get an ssd--as said prices have just tumbled finally

and dont think you would be bottlenecked

my 2nd pc with i7-920 @ 4ghz and gtx570 and intel ssd runs modern games fine

its all down to cash in the end up but the x58 motherboard and i7-920 is a long way from outdated

m
0
l
June 8, 2012 8:32:02 PM

Money is not an issue fortunately, but I always liked to expend wisely instead of loosely :-P
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2012 8:36:49 PM

plguzman said:
Money is not an issue fortunately, but I always liked to expend wisely instead of loosely :-P

hmm
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2012 8:56:55 PM

plguzman said:
My 4 year old 920 is finally dying after 4 years of 3.8Ghz or more (not so bad for a C0), and I am at a crossroad...

Upgrade to a 2600k, which means changing also MOBO, RAM and CPU cooler...

To stay with my 1366 socket for another year maybe, getting a i7 940 or 950 for less than $300, and then use the money for another item, like a SSD...

Thoughts?


If I were in your situation, I would the i7-960. Its just a updated version of the 920. I doubt you'll find a 920 anywhere, that same price range of like $300 is now the 960 which is the only quad core for 1366. I would get the 960 and just clock it up.

Or which is STILL cheaper than going with LGA1155/Sandy/Ivy is get the i7-970 for like $500. Depending on what you do, six overclock cored should give you a rig not to be messed with.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2012 9:02:43 PM

Yeah I'd probably just get another 1366 CPU if possible, although really upgrading to an 1155 Ivy with mobo wouldn't be that much more expensive and everything else carries over.
m
0
l
June 8, 2012 9:27:01 PM

In Amazon they have the 950 $269. 920 is @ $285 while 960 is @325
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2012 10:16:45 PM

Out of stock for now, but its right around 300 on most websites:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I'd get the 960, you have a higher stock clock to work with. Although I would not be surprised if the 960 is just a factory overclocked 920 just like all the other ones. I could be wrong, not really sure on that.

If you are a heavy multi-tasker, maybe get a 970. Although quad core is still great.
m
0
l
June 8, 2012 11:44:26 PM

And if I get the 950 at $269? Is not the same as a 920 but with higher default clock?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 9, 2012 12:58:10 AM

Yeah as far as I know. The 920, 930, 940, 950, 960 are same cpu's but different factory clocks. I do not know however. Only way to tell is see if a equally clocked 920 and 960 perform the same on a benchmark.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 9, 2012 1:07:55 AM

If money is not a issue, why not just get a new platform? 4 years has been long enough imo. And some one else also mentioned you can run into bottlenecks... not so much at 4GHZ. but if you have to high voltage feed your cpu for a long time just to cut a corner that you could be saving a nice components life well.... For the sake of the enthusiast... Please up your game!.
m
0
l
a c 201 à CPUs
June 9, 2012 1:14:13 AM

I'd grab a 950/960 and add a Mushkin Chronos Deluxe 120 GB for $99.99.......

.....nothing touches it performance wise *
.....nothing else has its long life *
.....nothing else costs $0.80 per GB

* except other SSD's with premium toshiba toggle mode flash

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4328/mushkin_chronos_d...

Quote:
To sum it all up with a bow on top, you get amazing performance, extremely long service life and a hassle free low price point on a drive that literally has very little competition in the marketplace.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 9, 2012 1:17:25 AM

even at 3.4ghz if you have a 4870x2 like in your sig i would think that would bottle neck before your cpu in current games, games still arent to hard on cpus of that class i would stick with 1366 and update whole lot when new consoles released i think games arent going to improve till then, even then the specs for the new consoles arent very high
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 9, 2012 4:19:09 AM

Rockdpm said:
If money is not a issue, why not just get a new platform? 4 years has been long enough imo. And some one else also mentioned you can run into bottlenecks... not so much at 4GHZ. but if you have to high voltage feed your cpu for a long time just to cut a corner that you could be saving a nice components life well.... For the sake of the enthusiast... Please up your game!.


I agree if money is not an issue. However check this out, made an interesting discovery. If you use the passmark CPU benchmarks, I found that within the 900s Nehalems, the clock speed to passmark score was pretty proportional. For example:

The Intel Core i7 920 @ 2.67Ghz does a 5518
The Intel Core i7 975 @ 3.33Ghz does a 6890

The Percent increase from 5518 to 6890 in passmark is exactly 24.864%. The percent increase from the clockrate of 2.67Ghz to 3.33Ghz is exactly 24.719%. The difference between these two *differences* is just 0.583%...of which the factor of a different computer parts can make. Theoretically, the value of the 975 should have been 6882 to be directly proportional, but small changing circumstances can account for that. If we use the 920 as a base to predict its passmark score if we increase clock from 2.67Ghz to 3.33Ghz, the value of direct proportion or theoretical is 6882...which is a mere 0.116% difference. I bet you make that number smaller if you use the exact same system. So within a certain architecture it appears clock to performance is very proportional. Another example is the 930 and 960...two different CPU's of one architecture:

The Intel Core i7 930 @ 2.8Ghz does a 5832
The Intel Core i7 960 @ 3.2Ghz does a 6632

Percent Difference in Clock: 14.286%
Percent Difference in Passmark: 13.717%
Percent Difference: 4.148%...surely a larger difference, but then again circumstances like other hardware may/may not account for that.

So I'm sure you can get a more accurate value if you take the 920/930/940/950/960/975 and average out all the possible differences in clock performance between all the combinations of those. However, if we use the first example with the two opposite sides of the range: 975 and 920 which had just 0.583% then a *nehalem* quad core at 4Ghz (overclocked) can give you theoretically:

Intel Core i7 960 @ 3.2Ghz does a 6632
Intel Core i7 960 @ 4.0Ghz does a 8290 + or - 0.583%

I've heard people pushing these cpu's well past 4Ghz and if the passmark represents any real-world value then 8290 is faster than a Ivy Bridge i5-3450 that many recommend for gaming, faster than a i7-2600...etc. So LGA1366 is still absolutely no slouch...it has great CPU's, overclockables very well, and provides good performance. I'd save money and get a 960, or if you can find a 965/975 of similar price, extreme editions.

However, I could be wrong in my calculations/perspective of passmark as a good benchmark or how it relates to clock to clock performance.

JackNaylorPE said:
I'd grab a 950/960 and add a Mushkin Chronos Deluxe 120 GB for $99.99.......

.....nothing touches it performance wise *
.....nothing else has its long life *
.....nothing else costs $0.80 per GB

* except other SSD's with premium toshiba toggle mode flash

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4328/mushkin_chronos_d...

Quote:
To sum it all up with a bow on top, you get amazing performance, extremely long service life and a hassle free low price point on a drive that literally has very little competition in the marketplace.


I can't find any good benchmarking data. Is a chronos faster than a Vertex 4?
m
0
l
June 9, 2012 6:21:44 AM

Thanks blackhawk and everybody for their advices, I guess I will be looking for a good price on a Nehalem, and will stay put with my X58 for another year maybe... So, a nice price for a Nehalem and a SSD, for now... Will keep you posted ;-)
m
0
l
June 14, 2012 3:32:55 PM

Well, found a Xeon W3520 in ebay for $160, from a very reputable seller, pulled new from a system (according to description). So now I can wait another year to upgrade... Already paid, will wait a few days for it.

Now will get a SSD and GPU...
m
0
l
a c 144 à CPUs
June 15, 2012 1:58:13 AM

Grats!
m
0
l
a c 122 à CPUs
June 15, 2012 2:28:17 AM

blackhawk1928 said:
Although I would not be surprised if the 960 is just a factory overclocked 920 just like all the other ones. I could be wrong, not really sure on that.

CPUs are not "factory-overclocked" to a given speed, they are factory-certified at that speed. Anything above factory-certified speed which is covered under warranty is the overclock.

Will a hypothetical 3GHz chip hit 4GHz given the right circumstances (say Vcc-core=1.3V, TJ=65C) and some luck? Probably.
Will that same hypothetical 3GHz chip hit 4GHz given the worst circumstances (say Vcc-core=1.2V, TJ=95C) a genuine 4GHz chip might be certified/guaranteed for? Probably not.

Buying parts with higher base clocks takes the guesswork and risk out of whether or not the chip will reliably run at the higher clock frequencies under the part's whole operating environment range, not only ideal case-by-case conditions.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2012 2:31:57 AM

Definitely get an SSD. People don't realize, until they have one, just how much of a difference they make. It'll make your rig feel like a brand new machine. I didn't believe the hype until I finally broke down and bought one, and as others have said, you really can't go back.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2012 6:22:53 AM

InvalidError said:
CPUs are not "factory-overclocked" to a given speed, they are factory-certified at that speed. Anything above factory-certified speed which is covered under warranty is the overclock.

Will a hypothetical 3GHz chip hit 4GHz given the right circumstances (say Vcc-core=1.3V, TJ=65C) and some luck? Probably.
Will that same hypothetical 3GHz chip hit 4GHz given the worst circumstances (say Vcc-core=1.2V, TJ=95C) a genuine 4GHz chip might be certified/guaranteed for? Probably not.

Buying parts with higher base clocks takes the guesswork and risk out of whether or not the chip will reliably run at the higher clock frequencies under the part's whole operating environment range, not only ideal case-by-case conditions.


Well I had no idea how that do it. However if I took a 920 and 960 and overclocked both to 4Ghz, do you think stability would be the same on average or would the 960 be more stable due to a higher stock frequency? Assume thousands of samples are taken for reliable data per say.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2012 2:45:49 PM

blackhawk1928 said:
Well I had no idea how that do it. However if I took a 920 and 960 and overclocked both to 4Ghz, do you think stability would be the same on average or would the 960 be more stable due to a higher stock frequency? Assume thousands of samples are taken for reliable data per say.


All depends on the yields they get. At best they'd be identical, at worst the 960 would require less voltage than the 920 to remain stable.
m
0
l
June 15, 2012 2:56:49 PM

I was actually just in your same boat. I had an i7 960 that died on me (I had pushed it to 4.5Ghz @ 1.46V for about 3 years. This happened just last week. So I decided to step up and upgrade to the X79 architecture with the i7 3930K. Let me tell you, I have not looked back since. It is WAY faster than the 960 and far more efficient. I am loving it. It is certainly a costly upgrade, but the socket 2011 is very young right now and will certainly outlive 1155/1156, and it is certainly future proof for a few years.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2012 3:03:37 PM

I would get a new platform.

If money's no issue, get the 3930K the above poster mentioned - that'll easily last you another 4 years.

If you wanna save some money, get the 3570K or the 3770K if you utilize hyperthreading.

EDIT: BTW I also own a 920 and am waiting for it to die =D
m
0
l
June 17, 2012 7:49:29 AM

plguzman said:
Before this, I was thinking of upgrading video and SSD. If I stay in X58, a new GPU won't be bottlenecked by the platform (even assuming a i7 @ 4Ghz or more)?


May I know the cooler used with this i7? Maybe if your cooling is better, you can stay with your 3.8. Don't upgrade yet, get the best out of your system.
m
0
l
June 17, 2012 7:51:54 AM

plguzman said:
Well, found a Xeon W3520 in ebay for $160, from a very reputable seller, pulled new from a system (according to description). So now I can wait another year to upgrade... Already paid, will wait a few days for it.

Now will get a SSD and GPU...


Xeon? That cpu isn't for gaming is it?
m
0
l
June 20, 2012 4:31:19 AM

The Xeon is the "server" version of the i7 920. People say that overclocks even better, that I will see soon. My C0 was never a good overclocker, I got 3.8 pushing it a little, but was unable to get stable past that. My temps were always very good, just wasn't a great chip... But for a C0 3.8 wasn't that bad.
m
0
l
June 20, 2012 4:59:42 AM

plguzman said:
The Xeon is the "server" version of the i7 920. People say that overclocks even better, that I will see soon. My C0 was never a good overclocker, I got 3.8 pushing it a little, but was unable to get stable past that. My temps were always very good, just wasn't a great chip... But for a C0 3.8 wasn't that bad.


If I'm right, aren't those xeon cpu's more expensive? Why not just get another i7?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2012 2:45:10 PM

$160 for that CPU is a good price. And yeah, Xeons are the top binned CPUs so it should be a good overclocker assuming the mobo plays nice with it.
m
0
l
July 2, 2012 7:17:32 PM

Well, the W3520 arrived. Installed and working perfectly. Gently overclocked to 4Ghz @ 1.27V stable. Will go for 4.2 or 4.3 today or tomorrow (as I think will use this CPU for a year, don't need to be so careful about durability)... My SSD arrives tomorrow.
m
0
l
July 3, 2012 11:36:21 PM

good luck with that. Hopefully it was the CPU getting fused that caused the slowdowns from overvolting before
I had somewhat the exact same issues....my i7-920 was at 4GHz for 2 years then it started getting throttled and BSOD and it turned out the original Asetek water cooler wasnt keeping up with the temps and it would crash at close to 90C...I replaced that with H60 by Corsair and it dropped back to the 40's Celsius and worked again.

Then I upgraded to i7-3930k and it hits 4.5 Ghz with a much smaller voltage increase than the i7-920 needed. No looking back...quad-channel memory has huge bandwidth.
m
0
l
July 4, 2012 2:37:15 AM

Got it to 4.2 stable with HT on (@1.35V). I will stay there for now. I have a H50, more volts are too much heat for my taste. I can stress the CPU (prime) and will go up to 80C... I have an Antec 900 and I'm thinking on moving to a H80 but not decided yet (I would like a H100, but it's difficult to fit in this case)... I think I will wait for Haswell before changing CPU.
m
0
l
July 4, 2012 6:39:40 PM

Yeah I had to get a case that had a 240mm slot on top...H100 sucking in intake from the cooler air on the top with a rear fan flowing back, two fans on the right side blowing onto the drives and RAM (mounted adjacent to the drive rack, one 120mm fan in front flowing to rear, and the PSU fan bottom-mounted with fan pushing up. 99% of the ambient air comes in from the top through the H100, the rest gets pushed to the rear from the 3 fans on the front and right side. The Windforce triple fans on the Gigabyte GTX670 also force air out the back...it gets warm behind the case for sure. At least the positive pressure keeps dust out as long as I keep the filter screens clean...

Even though I knew it had a top slot open for 240mm...the radiator itself almost impacts the motherboard because of the large heatsinks on the Asus P9X79 Pro just around the EATX power slot.

Now if there is a Haswell-E then I have a good upgrade path unless they drop LGA2011...in less than two years? heh possible. I doubt there will be an Ivy Bridge-E, unless they use better thermal materials on the CPU...wouldn't be enough of an upgrade anyway from SB-E.
m
0
l
!