![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
LGA 1366 vs 1155
- Thread starter Nirad9er
- Start date
Furystrike
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2004
- Messages
- 1,535
Your 930 at 4.2 is still very fast. You might gain 10-30% by moving to a good 1155 overclock, but I'd wait for socket 2011 if I were you
LGA1155 gives better IPC and higher clockspeeds. However it's a mainstream platform which means less PCIe, less RAM channels (which means lower max ram at least until 8GB desktop modules appear) and for the moment at least a maximum of four cores (VS 6 on single socket LGA1366 and 2x6 on dual socket 1366)What is the difference between what I have, the i7 930 LGA 1366 and the new 1155?
It's no longer the best option for users who care mostly about performance of individual cores. It's still the best option for certain more speciallist situations though and is unlikely to dissapear from the market for some time.Is LGA 1366 already dead?
Afaict there is a 990x which is just about to come out and is a slight speed bump over the 980x. There may be other slight speed bumps but there won't be anything radially new.Will there be new chips for LGA 1366?
In Q3 2010 the high end sandy bridge stuff will be coming out. It is not clear whether it will be all LGA2011 or whether there will be a LGA1356 as well and if so how the processor range will split accross them (some sources say LGA2011 will be a sever only socket).
Last edited:
master noran
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2006
- Messages
- 2,825
It's no longer the best option for users who care mostly about performance of individual cores. It's still the best option for certain more speciallist situations though and is unlikely to dissapear from the market for some time.
Like what?
Like what?
tri sli
Applications that need more than 16GB of ram*Like what?
Applications that demand the reliability of ECC
Applications that demand special motherboard features (such as IPMI with KVM support) that aren't yet availiable on sandy bridge boards afaict.
Applications where the workload can spread across more than four cores and there is the budget to pay for either a 980x or a dual socket rig
Application that require more than 16 lanes of fast PCIe (whether tri-sli actually needs this or whether it can get by on a NF200 seems to be the source of a lot of arguments on here)
* I've seen one sandy bridge board that claimed to support 32GB but afaict intel desktop processors only support unregistered non-ecc memory and ive not seen any manufacturer selling 8GB unregistered non-ecc modules. Afaict there are no sandy bridge xeons yet.
Some of the differences are:
Memory controller is now on the CPU not the bridge chips. (Read below***)
IPC is vastly improved.
Hyperthreading units (model specific) is faster and more efficient
Price to performance ratio is vastly improved
***This is the reason for the most part that the base clock is locked between 100-103.x mhz. The memory controller I believe has a lot to do with that.
1366 can use triple channel (which IMHO is a crappy waste of money)
1155 can use dual channel only (but the memory controller on the die has improved latencies and throughput compared to being located on a north bridge or whatever)
Any of the above statements are from an amateur enthusiast and I make no claim to the absolute validity of those claims. Please take them with a grain of salt. My sources are just numerous hours of forums browsing and reading certain white papers.
Memory controller is now on the CPU not the bridge chips. (Read below***)
IPC is vastly improved.
Hyperthreading units (model specific) is faster and more efficient
Price to performance ratio is vastly improved
***This is the reason for the most part that the base clock is locked between 100-103.x mhz. The memory controller I believe has a lot to do with that.
1366 can use triple channel (which IMHO is a crappy waste of money)
1155 can use dual channel only (but the memory controller on the die has improved latencies and throughput compared to being located on a north bridge or whatever)
Any of the above statements are from an amateur enthusiast and I make no claim to the absolute validity of those claims. Please take them with a grain of salt. My sources are just numerous hours of forums browsing and reading certain white papers.
Some of the differences are:
Memory controller is now on the CPU not the bridge chips. (Read below***)
IPC is vastly improved.
Hyperthreading units (model specific) is faster and more efficient
Price to performance ratio is vastly improved
The memory controller was located on die for all of the Nehalems. Clock for clock the Sandy Bridge isn't really much faster than any nehalems, IPC is not "vastly improved".
Price to performance ratio is quite good however, especially if you plan on overclocking and get a chip and can hit 4.4Ghz+, you are right about this. This is a mainstream product though, so don't get too jizzy about it.
***This is the reason for the most part that the base clock is locked between 100-103.x mhz. The memory controller I believe has a lot to do with that.
1366 can use triple channel (which IMHO is a crappy waste of money)
1155 can use dual channel only (but the memory controller on the die has improved latencies and throughput compared to being located on a north bridge or whatever)
What about triple channel makes it a "waste of money"? You're still paying the same price per Gb regardless of how many sticks you buy. You can also run dual or single channel on those platforms as well. No one is forcing you to buy some marked up "matched set" of fancy triple channel memory.
You are correct that there have been some improvements to the memory controller.
wabbitseason
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,511
IPC is up 5% at the most, and likely within the margin of error. The real benefit of SB is the dramatically increased OC potential and reduced power draw.
IPC is up 5% at the most, and likely within the margin of error. The real benefit of SB is the dramatically increased OC potential and reduced power draw.
This is quite true as I am running 4.8 right now. 4.9 was making a bit more heat than was necessary and I really dont need to burn that much electricity.
I doubt that the first gen I7 would OC quite as smoothly as these do.
The memory controller was located on die for all of the Nehalems. Clock for clock the Sandy Bridge isn't really much faster than any nehalems, IPC is not "vastly improved".
Price to performance ratio is quite good however, especially if you plan on overclocking and get a chip and can hit 4.4Ghz+, you are right about this. This is a mainstream product though, so don't get too jizzy about it.
What about triple channel makes it a "waste of money"? You're still paying the same price per Gb regardless of how many sticks you buy. You can also run dual or single channel on those platforms as well. No one is forcing you to buy some marked up "matched set" of fancy triple channel memory.
You are correct that there have been some improvements to the memory controller.
I never said I made the chip!