Which of these setups would you choose (860 vs. 920)?

[Flexion]

920

860

Hahaha... Not exagerrating, but there have been like 10-15+ threads on this topic and everyone is swinging out the platform that they own as the best. You're both right, but for your own reasons!



Same chip technology!!! Different Memory Configuration dual vs. triple. channel... LGA1366 better for SLI/CF!!! One dissapates a little less heat (LGA 1156), but heats up the same if you OC it! LGA1156 has a slight turbo advantage when 1-2 cores are loaded, but performs more or less the same (slightly slower because of the memory) as the 920 when all cores are loaded. The i7 920 is stronger for pro apps and video work.

 

[hungryJonJon]

$75 is not enough of a savings to justify going with 1156 instead of 1366. And if going with the LGA1366 platform, the OP can get 6GB instead of 8GB for even less of a price difference.

Sure it is, if all they need is 4GB then what good is 6?

You can't say stone cold 1366 is better or 1156 is better. Like I've said before, most people asking the question won't know the difference between 1366/1156 and then it comes down to dollars saved.

 

[PC_User]

Sure it is, if all they need is 4GB then what good is 6?

Triple channel = more RAM bandwidth.

You can't say stone cold 1366 is better or 1156 is better. Like I've said before, most people asking the question won't know the difference between 1366/1156 and then it comes down to dollars saved.

Sure you can. In absolute terms, one has more advantages when compared to the other. However, there are many subjective factors (i.e. budget, personal needs/uses, practical limitations) which cause people to purchase one over the other. Just because the LGA1366 is 'better' than the LGA1156 does not mean that everyone should buy the X58 platform. It all depends on a person's needs and such. If, however, the difference between the two setups ranges from $25-75, I see very few valid reasons to go with 1156 over 1366.

 

[hungryJonJon]

Triple channel = more RAM bandwidth.



Sure you can. In absolute terms, one has more advantages when compared to the other. However, there are many subjective factors (i.e. budget, personal needs/uses, practical limitations) which cause people to purchase one over the other. Just because the LGA1366 is 'better' than the LGA1156 does not mean that everyone should buy the X58 platform. It all depends on a person's needs and such. If, however, the difference between the two setups ranges from $25-75, I see very few valid reasons to go with 1156 over 1366.

Again, for people that are asking the question, they won't notice any of these benefits. Triple channel? I'd bet the majority of people that think they want triple channel don't even realize how they are benefiting from it.

Those subject measures are the most important factor in which is the best platform for most users. So no, you can't say which is a better platform for person A or person B without knowing those facts. Please remember the context of the threads we are posting in, threads where people generally want best bang for the buck for their needs else they'd all just go 1366 (for features they don't need and won't even notice).


And I think we're nitpicking over semantics here, we both have valid points and in the end most users that ask this question (920 v 860) couldn't notice the difference between either. Mainly triple SLI or 6-core is the biggest deciding factor.

 

[PC_User]

Again, for people that are asking the question, they won't notice any of these benefits. Triple channel? I'd bet the majority of people that think they want triple channel don't even realize how they are benefiting from it.

Those subject measures are the most important factor in which is the best platform for most users. So no, you can't say which is a better platform for person A or person B without knowing those facts. Please remember the context of the threads we are posting in, threads where people generally want best bang for the buck for their needs else they'd all just go 1366 (for features they don't need and won't even notice).

Assuming that they don't realize the benefits or won't benefit from them is simply your own assumption and may very well turn out to be a false one. I'm speaking from an objective point of view. It just seems to me that you keep posting that people should get the i7 860 instead of the 920 (in most threads where you post) because they won't notice the benefits of the i7 920 and because the 1156 is the better bang for the buck.

What you don't seem to realize is that both of your claims are quite subject and don't make the i7 860 any better relative to the i7 920. The fact of the matter is that the i7 920 + X58 is a better setup (in terms of performance, future upgrade options, RAM bandwidth, multi-GPU, etc). That is an objective fact. Whether or not it is justified or better for a specific individual A or B is a completely different story and should be decided by the person making the decision (with the help of forum members). This is the subjective part. However, simply stating that they won't notice the added benefits that i7 920 has to offer or that people don't know what they want or that the 1156 is the better bang for the buck is quite naive on your part. That's all I have to say about that.

 

[FoxhoundOp]

lol a guy with an i7 920 arguing that the 920 would be better and a guy with an 860 arguing that the 860 setup would be better. My best advice to you is to just read reviews, and look at the feature sets and come to your own conclusion about which one would be the best for your needs.

 

[hungryJonJon]

Assuming that they don't realize the benefits or won't benefit from them is simply your own assumption and may very well turn out to be a false one. I'm speaking from an objective point of view. It just seems to me that you keep posting that people should get the i7 860 instead of the 920 (in most threads where you post) because they won't notice the benefits of the i7 920 and because the 1156 is the better bang for the buck.

What you don't seem to realize is that both of your claims are quite subject and don't make the i7 860 any better relative to the i7 920. The fact of the matter is that the i7 920 + X58 is a better setup (in terms of performance, future upgrade options, RAM bandwidth, multi-GPU, etc). That is an objective fact. Whether or not it is justified or better for a specific individual A or B is a completely different story and should be decided by the person making the decision (with the help of forum members). This is the subjective part. However, simply stating that they won't notice the added benefits that i7 920 has to offer or that people don't know what they want or that the 1156 is the better bang for the buck is quite naive on your part. That's all I have to say about that.

You are missing my point, the objective and subjective parts combine to ONE decision about what is best for that individual. Yes, objectively 1366 is a better platform but when you take in the subjective parts for specific cases and individuals, no, 1366 is not necessarily the better platform for them.

When people are asking which they should get, I interpret that as they don't know what the extra features are and most likely don't need them/won't notice them. I think that's a fair assumption. When they say they'd like to save money and they don't know the difference, of course the cheaper one is the better one. 750 is probably the best bet but most people seem drawn to the 860 because of HT (though again, they most likely don't need it and aren't sure why they want it).


Again, which I've said many times already, the people asking "860 or 920" can buy either platform and will completely forget about the other one the day after the parts are ordered.

lol a guy with an i7 920 arguing that the 920 would be better and a guy with an 860 arguing that the 860 setup would be better. My best advice to you is to just read reviews, and look at the feature sets and come to your own conclusion about which one would be the best for your needs.

we're [H]ard [H]eaded?
(lame!)

 

[Jumpem]

Well I've decided to not overclock this time around. I am doing alot more than gaming on my PC these days. I want it absolutely stable, quiet, and I'm concerned with data corruption.

That makes the i7 860 the clear choice.

 

[PC_User]

Well I've decided to not overclock this time around. I am doing alot more than gaming on my PC these days. I want it absolutely stable, quiet, and I'm concerned with data corruption.

That makes the i7 860 the clear choice.

If you're not overclocking, then the i7 860 is 300 MHz faster.

Stability, quiet, and data corruption are not affected by your choice of CPU (i7 860 or i7 920).

 

[Jumpem]

If you're not overclocking, then the i7 860 is 300 MHz faster.

Stability, quiet, and data corruption are not affected by your choice of CPU (i7 860 or i7 920).

They are affected by overclocking though. I've decided an extra 5 fps isn't worth the noise and potential (though small) data corruption.

 

[PC_User]

They are affected by overclocking though. I've decided an extra 5 fps isn't worth the noise and potential (though small) data corruption.

False.

Are you saying that the i7 920 (when overclocked) will be noisier and more prone to data corruption than the i7 860? That's probably the most preposterous thing I have ever heard.

 

[Jumpem]

False.

Are you saying that the i7 920 (when overclocked) will be noisier and more prone to data corruption than the i7 860? That's probably the most preposterous thing I have ever heard.

I hope this is sarcasm.

 

[PC_User]

I hope this is sarcasm.

Unless you provide me with evidence showing that an overclocked i7 920 is noiser and more prone to data corruption, I stand by my words. You are funny, though.

 

[Zero82z]

You're both wrong. Technically overclocking does increase the risk of data corruption, but with a stably and reasonably overclocked system, the actual probability of that happening is astronomically small, and only marginally higher than when not overclocked. So it's really not a concern unless you're getting into extreme overclocking, or unless you're doing very sensitive simulation-type work, in which case you should be running a high-reliability server setup with ECC memory anyway and not this silly consumer-grade hardware.

 

[Jumpem]

Unless you provide me with evidence showing that an overclocked i7 920 is noiser and more prone to data corruption, I stand by my words. You are funny, though.

Well an overclocked 920 will likely require a louder CPU cooler, and a case with more ventilation and fans.

Otherwise, google "data corruption from overclocking" or " silent data corruption". The chances of data corruption are low; but I have family photos and home videos that are worth more to me than a few nore fps. Everyone's priorities are different.

 

[PC_User]

Well an overclocked 920 will likely require a louder CPU cooler, and a case with more ventilation and fans.

That has to do with overclocking the hard drive more than anything else. And why is an overclocked i7 920 more susceptible to such problems than an i7 860? I have never heard of anyone who won't overclock a CPU because he/she is worried about silent data corruption.

Otherwise, google "data corruption from overclocking" or " silent data corruption". The chances of data corruption are low; but I have family photos and home videos that are worth more to me than a few nore fps. Everyone's priorities are different.

As far as the louder CPU cooler, that's not quite true. While the i7 860 requires fewer watts (at load and idle), the difference in load temperatures is quite small (if at all existent), and is certainly not large enough to warrant a significant difference in the coolers used. Such a claim is erroneous.


Lastly, the difference between the two is much more than just "a few more fps."

 

[Drerex]

I'd have more RAM with the 860 though.

I just don't like the thought of buying the slower 920 (for more money even), and then relying on overclocking to get past the 860.

What!! The 920 has triple channel memory. Think like if you were driving in a big city. Now imagine you are on a 2 lane highway (860) with a traffic jam. That is when you wish you had a 3 lane highway (920).

 

[hungryJonJon]

What!! The 920 has triple channel memory. Think like if you were driving in a big city. Now imagine you are on a 2 lane highway (860) with a traffic jam. That is when you wish you had a 3 lane highway (920).

I think it's better described as:
920 is 10 lanes at 40MPH
860 is 6 lanes at 45MPH
It's rare for 6 lanes to be congested but certainly can happen in the right circumstances.

Yeah, 1366 has an extra channel but the memory controller is not on-die like 1156.
The on-die controller doesn't make it up completely but it does negate some and in the end, 1156 isn't too far behind unless you are running super intensive memory operations.

920 has higher bandwidth but 860 has lower latency.
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=781&type=expert&pid=3

some head to head encoding/transcoding numbers
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=781&type=expert&pid=5

benchmarks are benchmarks, interpret them as you will.

EDIT: Another memory test:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-750-core-i7-860-870-processor-review-test/15
920 faster read, 860 faster write.

I was trying to find an article that I read a few weeks ago where they overclocked 1156 memory against overclocked 1366 memory. I can't remember the results but I swear I read something like that.

 

[PC_User]

920 has higher bandwidth but 860 has lower latency.
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=781&type=expert&pid=3

some head to head encoding/transcoding numbers
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=781&type=expert&pid=5

benchmarks are benchmarks, interpret them as you will.



I was trying to find an article that I read a few weeks ago where they overclocked 1156 memory against overclocked 1366 memory. I can't remember the results but I swear I read something like that.

Those tests are performed at the stock CPU speeds. There is more of an advantage when the two are overclocked and operating at the same clock-per-clock.

 

[vjcsmoke]

Yeah, 1366 has an extra channel but the memory controller is not on-die like 1156.
The on-die controller doesn't make it up completely but it does negate some and in the end, 1156 isn't too far behind unless you are running super intensive memory operations.

This statement is incorrect. Both the i7 920 (1366) and i7 860 (1156) have on die memory controllers.
The memory controller on 1366 chips supports triple channels, on the 1156 only dual channels..
I think you are confusing the fact that the 1156 i7 860 also happens to have an on die pcie express links/controller.

Well I've decided to not overclock this time around. I am doing alot more than gaming on my PC these days. I want it absolutely stable, quiet, and I'm concerned with data corruption.

That makes the i7 860 the clear choice.

This is incorrect. If you are worried about data corruption there are 2 steps that you should take.

1. Buy a motherboard that supports ECC RAM and buy that. I don't care if you pick 1366 or 1156. This will guarantee the DATA in your RAM is correct.
2. Buy 3x identical hard drives and set up a RAID 5 configuration. This will guarantee non-corruption of data across your storage array. And if any corruption does occur, the data will automatically be corrected by interpolating data from the other 2 drives.

If you're really SERIOUS about data corruption - this is what you need to do. 1366 or 1156 socket has nothing to do with it.
Please don't make broad, sweeping, general statements like the 1156 chipset is less prone to data corruption than the 1366, because it is patently untrue.

 

[PC_User]

If you're really SERIOUS about data corruption - this is what you need to do. 1366 or 1156 socket has nothing to do with it.
Please don't make broad, sweeping, general statements like the 1156 chipset is less prone to data corruption than the 1366, because it is patently untrue.

Thank you. Finally a person who understands. We can't let these people just run amok here with false information. The purpose of the forum is to provide informative (and true) information rather than random unsubstantiated statements.

 

[hungryJonJon]

This statement is incorrect. Both the i7 920 (1366) and i7 860 (1156) have on die memory controllers.
The memory controller on 1366 chips supports triple channels, on the 1156 only dual channels..
I think you are confusing the fact that the 1156 i7 860 also happens to have an on die pcie express links/controller.

You are correct, it was not that I thought confused the on-die PCIe controller, I think I misunderstood the wording an some article (or they are mistakes? or maybe I'm still misunderstanding the article?)
http://hardocp.com/article/2009/09/07/intel_lynnfield_core_i5_i7_processors/

This new Intel P55 Express Chipset represents something very new in the world of computer motherboards. The "northbridge" is gone! With the IMC / Integrated Memory Controller now being on the processor die and Intel moving the PCIe controller onto the processor die as well, there is little need for discrete northbridge. Less silicon on the motherboard obviously frees up some room in designing the motherboard as well as making the motherboard less expensive to produce.

What we are "losing" with the P55 as compared to the X58 chipset layout may or may not make a difference to you. First and foremost, the P55 motherboards are going to support only dual channel DDR3 where the X58 motherboards will support triple channel DDR3 memory. The PCIe lanes are also scaled down for the P55 user. Either a single slot x16 or dual slot x8 PCIe cards can be used.

The graphic below shows you the basic transition that moving from X58 to P55 can make. One less chip on the motherboard to worry about!

And looking at the graphic they show, it looks like X58 has the memory controller off die? Or am I misunderstanding the wording?


However, looking at Anand's article (and other places), it's very clear both are on-die.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634

Is Hard's article wrong/mislabeled or am I just misreading it?

 

[Zero82z]

And looking at the graphic they show, it looks like X58 has the memory controller off die? Or am I misunderstanding the wording?

You are misunderstanding. There is nothing in that article that implies the LGA1366/X58 platform does not have an on-die memory controller (which it does have).

 

[hungryJonJon]

You are misunderstanding. There is nothing in that article that implies the LGA1366/X58 platform does not have an on-die memory controller (which it does have).

Are you sure?

The graphic below shows you the basic transition that moving from X58 to P55 can make. One less chip on the motherboard to worry about!

The graphic below it shows 2 platforms, the one of the left with a traditional, separate memory controller. The platform on the right is labeled Lynnfield with integrated memory controller. The text before says that the graphic below shows X58 to P55.

I think the article is a little mixed up. Shouldn't the graphic and the left platform show the IMC on the processor? It's not explicitly labeled as X58 but the text before it seems to suggest that it is.

Regardless, yes, it is on-die.

 

[Zero82z]

Are you sure?

Yes I'm sure. That graphic clearly labels the MCH as an "Intel 4-series Chipset", which obviously cannot be X58 since X58 is a 5-series chipset.

 

[WorldExclusive]

Once 1366 gets six cores w/ HT, there isn't anything that will bottleneck that system for years to come. I will skip Sandy Bridge in 2010 and wait for the 22nm chips in 2011-12.

 

[Jumpem]

Please don't make broad, sweeping, general statements like the 1156 chipset is less prone to data corruption than the 1366, because it is patently untrue.

I made no such statement. You misunderstood.

I simply said the i7 860 is the better choice if at stock speeds.

 

[Jumpem]

Lastly, the difference between the two is much more than just "a few more fps."

If you look at Anand's 5870 scaling article (http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3649). The average difference between a stock i7 860 and one at 4.2GHz with a 5870 is 3.4 fps.

Far Cry 2:
55/63.9 (i7 860 + 5870)
60/67.1 (i7 860 @ 4.2 + 5870)

HAWX:
58/73.1
64/75.2

RE5:
84/103.6
84/106.8

COH:
76/126.1
76/134.3

World in Conflict:
23/55
34/58

Battle Forge:
12/52.9
13/54.5

Batman:
102/177
106/180

 

[Zero82z]

Once 1366 gets six cores w/ HT, there isn't anything that will bottleneck that system for years to come.

You'd be surprised.

 

[Serpico]

If you look at Anand's 5870 scaling article (http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3649). The average difference between a stock i7 860 and one at 4.2GHz with a 5870 is 3.4 fps.

Far Cry 2:
55/63.9 (i7 860 + 5870)
60/67.1 (i7 860 @ 4.2 + 5870)

HAWX:
58/73.1
64/75.2

RE5:
84/103.6
84/106.8

COH:
76/126.1
76/134.3

World in Conflict:
23/55
34/58

Battle Forge:
12/52.9
13/54.5

Batman:
102/177
106/180

Yup, gaming benchmarks at high resolutions yield marginal gains with a CPU overclock and single video cards. Similar results were posted at Guru3D. Sure, you get big gains at extremely low resolutions when the GPU isn't the limiting factor, but I don't think anybody with a rig like that would willingly be playing the latest and greatest piece of eye candy at 640x480.

Its seems like you'd get more noticeable gains out of a single video card at high resolutions by overclocking that instead of the CPU. Its interesting, the GPU is still the limiting factor at 1920x1080 even with the latest and best performing video cards out there. That said, Crossfire changes things, the GPU finally stops being the limiting factor by then. About half of the games benchmarked show gains with a CPU overclock in conjunction with dual 5870s, compared to the same GPU setup and no CPU overclock at all.

 

[brom42]

First of all, I didn't read this whole thread, so I may be repeating stuff others have said. I have personally run both systems and this is my opinion.

I have/had the following systems: i7-920 (stock), i7-860 (stock) and an i7-950 (@4ghz).

Out of those systems, with day to day use the speed was as follows 920 << 860 << 950@4ghz. With everyday usage, VMs, video, and photoshop, I didn't notice any difference in ram speed. My Asus 1366 supports 12gb of ram, and my Intel 1156 motherboard supports 16gb. I know some 1366 boards support 24gb also, but to state that 1156 is limited to 8gb is wrong, they support 16gb. As DDR3 prices continue to drop, the 2x4gb kits should start to actually become affordable hopefully sooner than later. Right now 8gb is more than enough for me.

One of the biggest things that helped the 860 be much faster than the 920 was turbo mode. When I am only maxing out 1-2 cores, the 860 runs at 3.2ghz at stock. I know in the future as things become more multithreaded this difference will diminish, but right now at stock speeds the 860 is noticeably faster than the 920

I ended up selling off both my 1366 systems and keeping the 860. In my everyday usage, the 860 was just the best system all around. The other thing that made me keep the 1156 system is that in the big picture I won't be keeping any motherboard for that many years. With USB3 just around the corner, I will want a new board when they are available. It also looks like for at least the next year the 6 core CPUs will be limited to the $1000+ EE CPUs. I also found that the 860 used quite a bit less power than the 1366 systems. The CPU uses less power, no Northbridge to power and 2 less sticks of ram running.


The way I look at this argument is the question of SLI and Crossfire. If you are running multiple GPUs then get 1366, if not get 1156. I think that most people that make choices according to "future proofing" and other unreleased products are disappointed more often than not.

 

[Serpico]

I think that most people that make choices according to "future proofing" and other unreleased products are disappointed more often than not.

Totally agreed, futureproofing from a mobo/CPU standpoint almost never works out. By the time you're ready for a major upgrade (figuring that the average enthusiast does one every 18-30 months) it is generally time to throw out the motherboard and start everything from scratch anyways due to new CPU sockets, new RAM, moves like AGP to PCI-E or PATA to SATA, new tech like the upcoming USB3, etc etc. I gave up on trying to do in-line upgrades on the same motherboard way back in 2002. Planning for one is usually pointless, just buy the best machine for your budget at the given moment.