Guess My Sig will be changing soon

Q

QuadDragon

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Messages
250
I just found this awsome combo deal on newegg to replace my c2duo 6850.

Im guessing ill be quite a bit of difference in speed.

1 x ($19.99) CPU COOLER CM| RR-910-HTX3-GP R - Retail $19.99
1 x ($159.99) MB MSI P55-GD65 1156 RT - Retail $159.99
1 x ($299.99) CPU INTEL|CORE I7 860 2.8G R - Retail $299.99
1 x ($169.99) MEM 2Gx2|PATRIOT PVV34G2000LLKB RT - Retail $169.99
1 x ($-45.00) DISCOUNT FOR COMBO #259113$-45.00
1 x ($-19.99) DISCOUNT FOR AUTOADD #4760$-19.99

total sub $600

Can't wait for it to get in.
 
Definitely let us know how the new system performs coming for a c2d. I'm getting the upgrade bug too.
 
Uh no, I'll trade you!

My point was P55 and Lynnfield are the hot items right now so I can see why he/people want it over X58 and a 920.
 
Shane_c82 said:
Uh no, I'll trade you!

My point was P55 and Lynnfield are the cheaper/faster items right now so I can see why he/people want it over X58 and a 920.
Click to expand...

That's how the statement should read. And that's how the prices should be, but sadly :(
 
maybe newer, but less powerful for the same price. and it limits your upgrade path for cpu's and gpu's. so to intentionally nerf yourself just to be able to say "i'm the first kid on the block", well........
i could see if the mb's offered newer features, but they just sound like p45 boards to me.
 
vanilla_guerilla said:
maybe newer, but less powerful for the same price. and it limits your upgrade path for cpu's and gpu's. so to intentionally nerf yourself just to be able to say "i'm the first kid on the block", well........
i could see if the mb's offered newer features, but they just sound like p45 boards to me.
Click to expand...


I chose the Lynnfeild because I figure it will scale better than the Bloomfield processor when I overclock it. Also I only use one GPU at the moment. a 4870 x2
 
QuadDragon said:
I chose the Lynnfeild because I figure it will scale better than the Bloomfield processor when I overclock it.
Click to expand...
Where did you get that idea from? Lynnfield CPUs haven't proven to be any better than Bloomfield chips when it comes to overclocking.
 
vanilla_guerilla said:
maybe newer, but less powerful for the same price. and it limits your upgrade path for cpu's and gpu's. so to intentionally nerf yourself just to be able to say "i'm the first kid on the block", well........
i could see if the mb's offered newer features, but they just sound like p45 boards to me.
Click to expand...
If he hadn't have mentioned overclocking it, then the 860 is at least equal to if not slightly greater than the 920 in a lot of areas (the 920 only seemed to lead the 860/870 in benchmarks where extra memory bandwidth was needed). Given the lower power consumption/ thermal output of the 860 vs. the 920 and its better Turbo mode (given how many applications are still single-threaded), when not overclocking, I'd hardly call it "self-nerfing" to go with the 860.

That having been said, he did mention overclocking it, so yeah, he made a questionable if not bad choice, lol.
 
ToastyBread said:
If he hadn't have mentioned overclocking it, then the 860 is at least equal to if not slightly greater than the 920 in a lot of areas (the 920 only seemed to lead the 860/870 in benchmarks where extra memory bandwidth was needed). Given the lower power consumption/ thermal output of the 860 vs. the 920 and its better Turbo mode (given how many applications are still single-threaded), when not overclocking, I'd hardly call it "self-nerfing" to go with the 860.
Click to expand...
Well, the only reason the 860 does better was because of its slightly higher stock speed. If they were running at the same speed, the 920 would be equal or better compared to the 860 in every situation (as you can see in the [H] clock for clock comparison).
 
Zero82z said:
Well, the only reason the 860 does better was because of its slightly higher stock speed. If they were running at the same speed, the 920 would be equal or better compared to the 860 in every situation (as you can see in the [H] clock for clock comparison).
Click to expand...

Yes, which is why I specified if he didn't plan on overclocking. At equal speeds, the 920 does perform equally. But when users go stock and don't overclock, the 860 will be faster due to its higher clocks out-of-box, and so it's a perfectly fine argument.

Both stock, both out of box, in a situation where the user isn't intending to overclock, the 860 will almost always outperform the 920, especially in situations where a single core is running and Turbo mode is going.
 
Does anyone know the power rating of a 920 with HT off? If turning HT off lowers load temps about 10C (at least in my case), that's gotta lower the power rating as well.
 
MassiveOverkill said:
Does anyone know the power rating of a 920 with HT off? If turning HT off lowers load temps about 10C (at least in my case), that's gotta lower the power rating as well.
Click to expand...

I don't know that it'll actually change much, if at all. The 750 and 860/870 are all rated at 95W TDP, even though the 860 and 870 have the 4 HTs.

HT is due to some replication in the core of certain features, but not the execution hardware. Thus, if I recall correctly, the features that are replicated, such as the data registers, require relatively little power in general, and so whether it's enabled or disabled, you won't likely see much of a decline in power consumption (as the execution components, which aren't replicated for HT, will still be on no matter what).
 
Toasty, take a look at some reviews, you'll notice how reviewers in general point out HT being a power hog feature. Also, the TDP means very little in terms of real power consumption.
 
I would highly suggest an 1366 over 1156. It seems to be a little better and a little cheaper.

Also take into consideration x8 pci-e lanes will become saturated with next gen cards.
 
tvih said:
Toasty, take a look at some reviews, you'll notice how reviewers in general point out HT being a power hog feature. Also, the TDP means very little in terms of real power consumption.
Click to expand...

Have some reviews to show where they state that HT is a "power hog"? I know that it consumes more power (just look at http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/power-consumption-in-real-time-threaded-application/ where it results in a 10% increase in power), but I've never seen it called a "power hog". I'd just be interested in just what type of power consumption results they were seeing.

Oh, and how does TDP mean "very little" in terms of "real power consumption"? As far as I've ever known, a processor, under load, will consume whatever it's TDP value is. Thus, an i7 920 would consume 130W when all eight logical cores (four physical cores) are running. An 860 would consume 95W TDP at full load. When you see benchmarks saying "system power consumption at idle", that's not the CPU power consumption...

Anand, in his write-up of Lynnfield and how Turbo works, explained processor power consumption fairly well. You should review it: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634&p=4

Edit - I should have added, that while the processor can exceed its TDP, from what I understand, doing so will result in it beginning to lower its speed in order to adjust for the higher power consumption. Of course adjusting the voltages and overclocking changes that. But at stock settings, a processor at full load shouldn't exceed its TDP if peak performance is desired.
 
Last edited:
10% is not insignicant. I'm not saying HT increases it by a boatload, but it's still a noticeable difference. Maybe "power hog" was too strong a term, but it's pretty much what some reviews stated. Hardwarecanucks calls it the "power-hungry Hyper-Threading feature" for example.

And yes, TDP means little in a many cases, and you've known wrong. Sorry if it sounds harsh, but it's just true, and you're not alone in making that error.

To prove my point - for example, have a look here. The E5200 and E3300 dual cores have a TDP of 65W. The 5200 uses up a maximum of around 31.2W, and the E3300 a maximum of 20.4W. Hardly 65W, no? Similarly a Q9400 won't use 95W, which is its TDP.

You can look up the definition of what a TDP number means exactly, but in practical terms a CPU often never uses that much power even under 100% load. This of course varies between CPU models (and even individual CPU units of the same model), but the end result is that you can't trust the TDP for real power consumption. It can tell you that if the CPU meets its intended specifications it shouldn't ever end up exceeding that number (because it wasn't designed to), but it can also be far less.
 
ToastyBread said:
As far as I've ever known, a processor, under load, will consume whatever it's TDP value is.
Click to expand...
No. The TDP value is the worst-case scenario maximum power consumption for a particular core version. Not only does that mean that in 95% of cases a CPU will consume considerably less than its TDP, but it also means that between different CPUs that are clocked differently and/or have different amounts of cache but use the same core, the lesser CPUs will consume less power even though their TDP is the same.
 
ToastyBread said:
If he hadn't have mentioned overclocking it, then the 860 is at least equal to if not slightly greater than the 920 in a lot of areas (the 920 only seemed to lead the 860/870 in benchmarks where extra memory bandwidth was needed). Given the lower power consumption/ thermal output of the 860 vs. the 920 and its better Turbo mode (given how many applications are still single-threaded), when not overclocking, I'd hardly call it "self-nerfing" to go with the 860.

That having been said, he did mention overclocking it, so yeah, he made a questionable if not bad choice, lol.
Click to expand...

I think I am missing something here WHY is it questionable choice if overclocking comes into play?
 
Get what your wallet wants :) I'm happy with my i7 860 and pleased with the performance. Honestly, if the mid- to high end 1366 mobos were not so expensive, I probably would have gone that route a long time ago.
 
QuadDragon said:
I think I am missing something here WHY is it questionable choice if overclocking comes into play?
Click to expand...
Because the 860 won't reach any higher speeds than the 920 would, and clock for clock the 920 performs either identically to or better than the 860 depending on the situation. So there's absolutely no reason to get an 860 if the total system cost will be comparable to what you'd pay to get a superior setup with an X58 board and 920 CPU instead.
QuadDragon said:
600 was all I wanted to spend. But im still a bit confused. Isn't the overclockability of the i7 860 gonna give me a higher clock speed hence more performace for a single GPU than the i7 920 at 2.66?
Click to expand...
Obviously an overclocked 860 will be faster than a stock-clocked 920, but an overclocked 920 is better than an overclocked 860.
 
Zero82z said:
Because the 860 won't reach any higher speeds than the 920 would, and clock for clock the 920 performs either identically to or better than the 860 depending on the situation. So there's absolutely no reason to get an 860 if the total system cost will be comparable to what you'd pay to get a superior setup with an X58 board and 920 CPU instead.

Obviously an overclocked 860 will be faster than a stock-clocked 920, but an overclocked 920 is better than an overclocked 860.
Click to expand...

Well Hell, I assumed that the 860 would overlock higher than the 920 based on TDP and the fact it was allready at 2.8 would be the saving grace of buying it. I guess Ill have to settle for what Ive ordered and hope the clarksdale will be socket 1156 for furture upgrade purposes since the 920 is getting phased out.
 
Reject the shipment or RMA it back and order the 920 setup. Now I've ordered over $50k worth of stuff from Newegg, so they pretty much don't charge me to send stuff back, but you've got nothing to loose by trying, especically if you're exchanging parts.
 
MassiveOverkill said:
Reject the shipment or RMA it back and order the 920 setup. Now I've ordered over $50k worth of stuff from Newegg, so they pretty much don't charge me to send stuff back, but you've got nothing to loose by trying, especically if you're exchanging parts.
Click to expand...

Well I haven't ordered 50K worth of stuff but I have ordered over 10K. To be honest though I am kind of looking forward to the 860 vs the 920. I see you managed to get your Stepping D0 to 4ghz at 1.3 volts, but not everyone is having that kind of luck. With the Turbo function for single threaded apps im not even sure if overclocking the 860 with be worth it. Besides all I will have is the crappy TX3 coolermaster heatsink until I can order the bolt through kit for my TRUE. I will be using the time in between to run it at stock speed and break the board in etc.

Any idea what the stepping will be for the 860?
 
3.6-3.8 Ghz on a D0 should be a walk in the park especially after you put the TRUE on. If you're set on the 860 then I guess there's no more point in arguing. Good luck with your new setup, nonetheless you'll be happy with it over what you have now.
 
Woohoo! check out the new SIG, now if only I could get turbo boost working properly I would be happy.
 
i have a 920 with turbo and HT turned off, oc'd to 3ghz stock cooling and it stays 25deg away from tmax under full load. memory is a little below 1333(cant remember exact) and there are no volt changes. prime stable. i would totally buy another one of these again instead of 860.
 
hungryJonJon said:
QuadDragon,
what kind of temps are you getting with the TX3?
Click to expand...

I am seeing around 30 degrees Idle and I saw 60 degrees after a 12 hour stress test of prime 95 at full load on all 8 cores. I am looking at getting the coolermaster V8 as soon as my mounting bracket comes in from the netherlands to lower the temps a bit.
 
Ah ok, yeah that is about in line with my temps with the stock cooler. I'm waiting for 1156 bracket for my Thermalright Ultra.

Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top