Are those high end processors better in any way?

[TheBuzzer]

For example take the i7 Extreme.

Based from the specs it looks the same as the i7 2.66 but about 4x higher in cost.

So is it better in any way or if we overlock the i7 2.66 it would be just like the extreme one?

 

[moshpit]

For example take the i7 Extreme.

Based from the specs it looks the same as the i7 2.66 but about 4x higher in cost.

So is it better in any way or if we overlock the i7 2.66 it would be just like the extreme one?

I was going to say "what a strange question", but then thinking about it, a novice CPU overclocker might just ask this question, so here goes a fair answer to a fair question.

Yes and no. Yes, they would be basically the same overall. But, the Extreme Edition CPUs come with an unlocked multiplier making overclocking much easier. But, if clock speed is equalized between the i7 965 and i7 920 using overclocking, they will perform much the same with the only advantage going to the i7 920 because it had to use a higher bclock to get to the same clock speed as the i7 965. The bclock is the base clock that all clock speeds on the motherboard and the CPU derive their clock speeds from. Memory is a multiplier of block, Uncore is a multiplier of blcock, and CPU clock speed is also, a multiplier of bclock.

The same rules that apply to previous generation Core 2's, Pentium's, Athlons, Phenoms and all the other overclockable CPUs applies to Core i7 as well. 2 CPUs of the same architecture will perform nearly identically with identical clock speeds, regardless of model number, as long as all the other features remain the same. Since the only difference between 920 and 965 is the clock speed and a multiplier unlock on the 965, they will be exactly the same when overclocked to the same speed.

 

[Blazestorm]

They do make it easier, but it's definitely a way for Intel to make a shitload of money off the "extremists" I'm pretty damn sure it costs them basically the same amount of money to make the 920 vs. the 965...

Cause honestly, they could make all the processors unlocked multipliers, but then everyone really would just buy the 920's... (Instead of probably the 90% that do right now)

But I think the main reason is that people can build an entire I7 920 system for the cost of the 965... while it won't be that great of a system, that's still a comparison... and they could probably overclock the 920 past the stock speed of the 965... so it's really not designed for the person concerned about money or value... it's meant for those who want the best.

 

[moshpit]

They do make it easier, but it's definitely a way for Intel to make a shitload of money off the "extremists" I'm pretty damn sure it costs them basically the same amount of money to make the 920 vs. the 965...

Cause honestly, they could make all the processors unlocked multipliers, but then everyone really would just buy the 920's... (Instead of probably the 90% that do right now)

But I think the main reason is that people can build an entire I7 920 system for the cost of the 965... while it won't be that great of a system, that's still a comparison... and they could probably overclock the 920 past the stock speed of the 965... so it's really not designed for the person concerned about money or value... it's meant for those who want the best.

WAY past 965 stock speeds. How about 3.6Ghz on stock cooling and voltage? 400mhz faster then the 965 (turbo disabled, HT enabled). How's that for starters?

 

[Blazestorm]

Oh I know... was just saying a 3.2ghz would be easy to do...

Like my Q6600 @ 3.0ghz... all I did was bump the FSB to 333, everything else was left alone... I could probably get 3.4-3.6ghz but never bothered really.

I had an E5200 @ 4.0ghz but never got it prime stable (would last a couple hours before failing...) so I just stuck with a 3.6ghz...

I'm real lazy with overclocking.. if I have to spend more than 30 minutes total in BIOS I usually don't bother haha...

 

[Atech]

WAY past 965 stock speeds. How about 3.6Ghz on stock cooling and voltage? 400mhz faster then the 965 (turbo disabled, HT enabled). How's that for starters?

You assume that 965 can't be OC'ed.
Infact most of them OC better due to speedbinning and the unlocked multiplier.

Don't tell me that you are on the same "knowlegde" level about CPU's as you are about Vista/Win7 and their RAM usage?

 

[moshpit]

You assume that 965 can't be OC'ed.
Infact most of them OC better due to speedbinning and the unlocked multiplier.

Don't tell me that you are on the same "knowlegde" level about CPU's as you are about Vista/Win7 and their RAM usage?

HAHAHA! Don't be a noob. You already showed total lack of knowledge about memory usage yourself.

"Oh my, my Windows Vista ate 10Gb of my 12 without installing a single program"....

I still get tickled by that one. That's just funny stuff. When you learn how to read memory usage, come back then, until then, STFU.

I assumed nothing about CPUs. I answered a question per the way it was asked. The question was "Can a 920 be overclocked to STOCK 965 levels..." The answer is yes it can, in fact further then that.

Learn to read or shut up.

 

[moshpit]

and they could probably overclock the 920 past the stock speed of the 965... so it's really not designed for the person concerned about money or value... it's meant for those who want the best.

This was the question I answered. Next time you want to be insulting, make sure you know what your talking about or face looking as silly as you do now AND when you made crazy claims about Vista's memory usage. 10Gb out of 12 with no programs installed. Silliness.

 

[Atech]

HAHAHA! Don't be a noob. You already showed total lack of knowledge about memory usage yourself.

Link to those that might be fooled by mosphit:
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1034074278&postcount=246
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1034075587&postcount=248

"Oh my, my Windows Vista ate 10Gb of my 12 without installing a single program"....

I still get tickled by that one. That's just funny stuff. When you learn how to read memory usage, come back then, until then, STFU.

Lying won't help you, here is the OP (that you still don't understand):
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1034055807&postcount=221

I assumed nothing about CPUs. I answered a question per the way it was asked. The question was "Can a 920 be overclocked to STOCK 965 levels..." The answer is yes it can, in fact further then that.

Learn to read or shut up.

At the 965 can be OC'ed beyond the OC of a 920....so yes they have (read the tread title) a benefit over "stock" i7's.

 

[Uberbob102000]

Oh wow, epic fail on moshpit's part regarding the memory usage.
Atech is right about the 965 as well, it'll overclock better (granted not by much unless your on phase or LN2 as you'll be heat limited before anything) than the 920. In the long run, this doesn't matter, I have my 920 sitting at 4.2GHz and there is no point in having anything this fast except when I encode or render.

 

[moshpit]

At the 965 can be OC'ed beyond the OC of a 920....so yes they have (read the tread title) a benefit over "stock" i7's.

Reading comprehension for the lose, apparently. I wasn't answering the TITLE, I was answering a specific question within the thread. Your just being difficult because you feel silly for making crazy claims and being busted for it.

Fact is, I answered the question accurately, in the context it was asked. If you don't understand basic english and context, that's your problem, not mine.

 

[moshpit]

Oh wow, epic fail on moshpit's part regarding the memory usage.
Atech is right about the 965 as well, it'll overclock better (granted not by much unless your on phase or LN2 as you'll be heat limited before anything) than the 920. In the long run, this doesn't matter, I have my 920 sitting at 4.2GHz and there is no point in having anything this fast except when I encode or render.

Ummmm, are you on drugs? No, he's NOT right about 10Gbs used of 12 total with no programs installed. That's pure on bullcrap. What are you smoking?

 

[Atech]

Ummmm, are you on drugs? No, he's NOT right about 10Gbs used of 12 total with no programs installed. That's pure on bullcrap. What are you smoking?

The Vista/win7 use of RAM as cache still eludes this one...I sense much fear in him...

 

[Blazestorm]

Hehe... with 8GB in the system right now and only a few programs (Trillian, Foobar, Firefox) running I have 36MB free... 6.8GB cached...

 

[Dan_D]

I've yet to see a Core i7 920 that wasn't capable of 3.8GHz overclocks. This is with almost every X58 board I've ever worked with. It is possible that a Core i7 965 Extreme would out overclock a Core i7 920 in terms of maximum clock speed, but so far it seems like most of them have roughly similar clock speed ceilings for air cooling at least. About 4.2GHz or so is usually the most you are going to see give or take a few exceptions.

 

[cyclone3d]

Hehe... with 8GB in the system right now and only a few programs (Trillian, Foobar, Firefox) running I have 36MB free... 6.8GB cached...

"Cached" is technically not the same thing as "used".

So what if Vista has some files that you regularly use cached. If another program requests RAM. Vista will allow the "cached" RAM to be used by the program requesting it.

It isn't like Vista locks all other programs out of the "cached" RAM.

Just an FYI... even back in the Windows 3.x era there were programs that could do this. They did speed up the "loading" of programs just like Vista does. There were even one or two that allowed you to cache a whole CD to "speed up" your CD drive... back in the days of the 1x and 2x CD drives.

 

[Atech]

"Cached" is technically not the same thing as "used".

So what if Vista has some files that you regularly use cached. If another program requests RAM. Vista will allow the "cached" RAM to be used by the program requesting it.

It isn't like Vista locks all other programs out of the "cached" RAM.

Just an FYI... even back in the Windows 3.x era there were programs that could do this. They did speed up the "loading" of programs just like Vista does. There were even one or two that allowed you to cache a whole CD to "speed up" your CD drive... back in the days of the 1x and 2x CD drives.

We know that, it's mosphit that either dosn't understand "cached RAM"...or is unwilling to read and understand....he thinks my cached RAM is the physical swapfile on my harddrive..and other oddities.

 

[Blazestorm]

Yea, I'm not stupid either... I was saying the same thing...

It says 36mb free, but I know I really have access to close to 7GB...

Now when you run linpack at full stress you'll see like 8MB free and 0 cached... hehe

 

[moshpit]

We know that, it's mosphit that either dosn't understand "cached RAM"...or is unwilling to read and understand....he thinks my cached RAM is the physical swapfile on my harddrive..and other oddities.

Get Everest. Learn about memory usage. Cached means it's NOT used, it's CACHED. It's space that is available the moment something needs it. That means FREE. As in not USED, the thing you claimed repeatedly before. Shall I go back for quotes? You claimed 10Gb used up with no apps loaded. It's not used. Used means it's NOT cached or free in any way. You need to learn the terminology.

 

[alg7_munif]

"Are those high end processors better in any way?":
They have a higher stock clock speed? They might have a higher multiplier so overclocking could be easier but the max OC really depends on individual chips. Intel only guaranty that the CPU will run at the stock speed, OCing is always a draw of luck. You might find some cheaper CPUs that can reach a higher max overclock than some more expensive CPUs.

Btw, WTF does RAM usage have to do with this thread???

 

[Atech]

Get Everest. Learn about memory usage. Cached means it's NOT used, it's CACHED. It's space that is available the moment something needs it. That means FREE. As in not USED, the thing you claimed repeatedly before. Shall I go back for quotes? You claimed 10Gb used up with no apps loaded. It's not used. Used means it's NOT cached or free in any way. You need to learn the terminology.

No I didn't stop lying!
Here is the OP again (for the second time this thread):
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1034055807&postcount=221

After I finished installing eg Vista (and nothing else than Vista, updates and driverpacks) I only had ~6 GB RAM free (meaning it wasn't in use or being used a cache)...guess what will happen when I install programs?

Replacing ignorance with lies is a downgrade.