x58 or p67

P

Poisoner

Gawd
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
835
I cannot decide. I know SB is faster per clock but I do not like the idea of multiplier overclocking. I do want a system that will last me for the next four or five years and I will probably go with Intel if Bulldozer does indeed perform like the rumors say (No discussion of this please). I do games, web browsing and so does the wife. The wife also likes to have about 40 tabs open so ram is important for me. Can't think of much else to say.
 
Oh yeah, this build will be under water so I can get some fast clocks and tweak it to death. My final expenses for this build will be about $2500, buying it one part at a time over the next three months.
 
Poisoner said:
I know SB is faster per clock but I do not like the idea of multiplier overclocking.
Click to expand...
Why don't you like the idea of multiplier overclocking?
Poisoner said:
The wife also likes to have about 40 tabs open so ram is important for me. Can't think of much else to say.
Click to expand...
40 web tabs? That doesn't use up that much RAM to point that you need more than 16GB of RAM. I have 47 tabs between Chrome and Firefox + 20 tabs in notepad + 4 PDF files open as of this moment and I'm onyl using 4GB of RAM.

Unless you absolutely need more than 16GB of RAM, really no point to get the X58 chipset. I don't see a valid practical reason to dislike multiplier overclocking when it's been shown to work relatively well.
 
I know its a silly prejudice, but I just like the effort it takes to adjust the ram strap and voltages, QPI, etc. For me, multiplier overclocking just takes a lot of the fun out of it. I was thinking I would get either 8gb or 6gb, depending on chipset. Obviously, no more than 12gb if I decide to dive into photo editing and video editing. We have a ton of photos of our son, with no computer except this crappy laptop.

My last build was a i5 760 on a p55 sli. I had to sell it, but I had a lot of fun overclocking, lapping the heatsink, testing different thermal pastes.
 
Well here's the deal: Are you willing to pay MORE money for LOWER performance in order to make it HARDER to overclock?

That's the question you need to answer. Is your desire to "have fun" overclocking worth the extra money and lower performance?
 
Danny Bui said:
Well here's the deal: Are you willing to pay MORE money for LOWER performance in order to make it HARDER to overclock?

That's the question you need to answer. Is your desire to "have fun" overclocking worth the extra money and lower performance?
Click to expand...

For myself, the performance difference isn't that important. I know its about 10%, but I worry more about minimum frames than absolute maximum. And yes, the harder overclocking is worth it. I squeezed 4.4ghz out of my old Lynnfield.
 
Poisoner said:
For myself, the performance difference isn't that important. I know its about 10%, but I worry more about minimum frames than absolute maximum. And yes, the harder overclocking is worth it. I squeezed 4.4ghz out of my old Lynnfield.
Click to expand...

Then there you go: Pay the higher costs for your enjoyment.

It doesn't look like you're really open to the idea of a SB setup and it appears that your enjoyment for harder overclocking is substantial.
 
You should wait a month for the Sandy Bridge E chips which offer a lot more in terms of overclocking, quad channel ram and what not.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3960x-x79-performance,3026-15.html
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4847/looking-at-sandy-bridge-e-overclocking

The Mobo+CPU (hex core) will be less than $1K. That should leave you with a lot for the rest.

This way you can later upgrade to the IvyBridge based (22nm) node chips down the line.

Only issue is that the first gen of motherboards with the SB-E are going to be lacking a few things so you will have to wait another 5-6 months for the stable setups.

If I were you, I would get the rest of the stuff together (like 4 x 4GB RAM) and go with a i5 2500K+Z68 Mobo combo which you can get for less than $300. Then when the SB-E stuff is mature, just get rid of the 2500K setup and plug in the SB-E mobo.

The X58 is now reaching its End Of Life period so not the best time to put a lot of bucks there.
 
Last edited:
aviat72 said:
You should wait a month for the Sandy Bridge E chips which offer a lot more in terms of overclocking, quad channel ram and what not.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3960x-x79-performance,3026-15.html
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4847/looking-at-sandy-bridge-e-overclocking

The Mobo+CPU (hex core) will be less than $1K. That should leave you with a lot for the rest.

This way you can later upgrade to the IvyBridge based (22nm) node chips down the line.

Only issue is that the first gen of motherboards with the SB-E are going to be lacking a few things so you will have to wait another 5-6 months for the stable setups.

If I were you, I would get the rest of the stuff together (like 4 x 4GB RAM) and go with a i5 2500K+Z68 Mobo combo which you can get for less than $300. Then when the SB-E stuff is mature, just get rid of the 2500K setup and plug in the SB-E mobo.

The X58 is now reaching its End Of Life period so not the best time to put a lot of bucks there.
Click to expand...

That's why I'm recommending LGA1155+Z68 exclusively - especially for cheapskates.

22nm Ivy will also be an LGA1155 part - in fact, it will work in quite a few existing Z68 motherboards; while some will need replacement due to lack of certain parts on the motherboard itself, anywhere from a quarter to a third only need BIOS/UEFI updates.

Further, if you have a MicroCenter nearby, keep an eye open for deals (their current deal I've nicknamed "Vitamin K" is a prime example - save $40 on an i5-2500K and Z68 motherboard bought together; with an i7-2600K, the instant savings double to $80).
The spread between i3-2100 and i7-2600K alone is normally $180 at MicroCenter - thanks to this deal, it's been nearly halved ($105) with the same Z68 motherboard (ASUS P8Z68-V LX - Ivy-ready with an update) and same RAM (Crucial Ballistix Sport CL10 4GBx2 DDR3-1600) - $288.73 for i3 vs. $393.72 for i7-K, including tax.

Remember, I did say that I'm an admitted cheapskate - normally, i7-K would not only be overkill, but mucho expensivo overkill for what I do (I don't have even ONE game that can make use of more than two cores, and only one application usage - virtualization - that can use more than two); therefore four+four (physical+virtual) - with or without Turbo Boost - at normal prices would be pretty darn pointless. (In fact, for my normal usage, i5-K - not i7-K - would make better sense.) However, at these prices, even an admitted cheapskate would be hard-pressed to pass up i7-K at practically i5-K prices.
 
1155 gets my vote, 1366 is a good chipset but unfortunately its going to retire soon and the i7 2600K pretty much outshines in almost every benchmark as well. And not to mention 1155 processors uses less power than 1366's CPU's as well, and based on 32nm compared to Intel's 45nm quad cores.
 
Poisoner said:
For myself, the performance difference isn't that important. I know its about 10%, but I worry more about minimum frames than absolute maximum. And yes, the harder overclocking is worth it. I squeezed 4.4ghz out of my old Lynnfield.
Click to expand...

Actually, I worry more about the average frame rates than either the minimum or the absolute maximum. And in my instance I had trouble with both heat and stability overclocking the BCLK by much: My old Bloomfield i7-920 never ran stably above 3.6GHz despite being of the D0 stepping. And the i7-950 I used to have could run at 4.0 GHz but no higher due to thermal issues (the CPU temperatures began to exceed 90°C at even 4.1 GHz with a good air cooler). And my previous 950 had relatively high minimum frame rates but only mediocre average frame rates and relatively low maximum frame rates. So, to me overclocking of an older, less efficient platform is definitely not worth the trouble.
 
Danny Bui said:
Then there you go: Pay the higher costs for your enjoyment.

It doesn't look like you're really open to the idea of a SB setup and it appears that your enjoyment for harder overclocking is substantial.
Click to expand...

agreed..
 
Ummm want my rig ? lol, I am on the other end of the spectrum, I want an easier overclocking system. 4.2 just seems so measly after all these SB rigs doing 5+GHz, but not worth around $700 for a 10% increase, more of a sidegrade.
 
I know your mind is already made up, but really you could build a whole i5 SB rig for the cost of just the i7 970, which if you look at benchmarks really is not worth it compared to i7 950/930. The ONLY way you would feel a difference from a quad i7 to hex would be if you do 3D rendering or something like that.
 
Regardless of what the rest of us think, if you're stuck on going 1366, I wouldn't be surprised if there's another price drop (secondary market, if not some retailers as well) once 2011 comes out and 1366 is officially supplanted and no longer can be argued as a "current" enthusiast board.
 
The only reason that you should go for 1366/Intel® Core™ i7-990X Extreme Editions is that you are doing some high end audio/video creation, you can't wait, and you have more money then you need. The only area in which a socket 1366 processor beats the 2nd generation Intel Core processor is in the high end audio/video creation or high end multi-threading applications. Otherwise the 2nd generation Intel Core processors are the best options out there for a great system.
 
Yup, what everyone else said. Unless you need the PCIe lanes X58 provides, but go with Z68, not P67 or wait a few months.
 
Buying used x58 parts is very inexpensive nowadays, so if you buy used, go for x58. Otherwise, if buying new, just buy P67/Z68. Or if you want old style overclocking, get a FX-8120 setup, that will give you old style FSB overclocking.
 
Adzsask said:
I know your mind is already made up, but really you could build a whole i5 SB rig for the cost of just the i7 970, which if you look at benchmarks really is not worth it compared to i7 950/930. The ONLY way you would feel a difference from a quad i7 to hex would be if you do 3D rendering or something like that.
Click to expand...

I am buying high end parts no matter what I get and between all three choices they cost within $200 dollars.
 
E4g1e said:
Actually, I worry more about the average frame rates than either the minimum or the absolute maximum. And in my instance I had trouble with both heat and stability overclocking the BCLK by much: My old Bloomfield i7-920 never ran stably above 3.6GHz despite being of the D0 stepping. And the i7-950 I used to have could run at 4.0 GHz but no higher due to thermal issues (the CPU temperatures began to exceed 90°C at even 4.1 GHz with a good air cooler). And my previous 950 had relatively high minimum frame rates but only mediocre average frame rates and relatively low maximum frame rates. So, to me overclocking of an older, less efficient platform is definitely not worth the trouble.
Click to expand...

I've decided against upgrading to i7/x68 and will keep my x58. I have a 920 now (IIRC I got in conservatively up to 3.2), MC has the 960 for $200...how well was the 960 at OC'ing? Thanks.
 
your 920 would be a better o/clocker..they all o/clock bout the same unless you hit the golden chip..
just stay with the 920...SB does not really intrest me with the rig i have...maybe slighter faster in some things[SB] but the difference is not worth upgrading or side gradeing ...wait for x79 and see , that may be the ticket but u better start saving money now...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top