I7 860 vs i7 920

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
860 all the way. You do not need a 920 unless you encode video 24/7. The max I have seen anyone encode is 2-3 bluray movies a week. Even then, the time shaved will be minimal as long as you run ANY quad. Start her up in the morning, start encoding, take a shower + shave and boom, you're done encoding. The sockets are weird and from my knowledge so far it is 50/50 as to what Intel is going to do beyond 1156 vs 1366. I know the enthusiast 1366 will cost you more $$$ to upgrade your future but that is counterbalanced by the fact that they are more 'future proof'. Either way, 860 will more than suffice your needs for many years to come and for a lot cheaper. 860 gets my vote.
 
alright then thanks, that helped make up my mind. and your right, the 1366 are a hella ton more, for a decent one anyway.
 
Reasons to get 1366

1. Upgrade ability to hexacore
2. Ability to utilize triple channel channel memory which only hexacores are likely to benefit from
3. Ability to use high bandwidth storage like PCI-E SSD's and hi end RAID
4. Ability to use multiple x16 PCI-E lanes for graphics
 


The OP said medium gaming which knocks out reason 4 and movie applications which knock out all the rest. None of your points validate getting the 920 over the 860. If anything, it only serves to prove functions of the 920 that the OP does NOT need.

Case in point:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3641&p=4

Check out gaming + video encoding. Nearly identical in every respect.

Again, 860 > 920.
 



If you game none of these except 4 do you need to care about. This is the age old debate for 1366 elitist. It has been proven on this very site that having a 920 and triple channel memory does nothing for your games.

Ask youself how your gonna use your cpu. Do you do heavy encoding? Do you run mya or other memory intensive applications? Do you want to run sli or a single card?

I just built a i7 860 monster with an intel ssd among alot of other goodies. I choose 1156 not because I couldnt afford 1366, but because I built a rig that suits MY NEEDS not because a 1366 user can laugh at me cause im not elite like him. I dont care about sli at all because thats not what I using my rig for. I have a 285 that I reused cause im waiting for fermi and then that will be changed.

Point is that if you can say yes to mya and other memory hogs than go 920. If your gonna use sli than you can investigate going 860 because on this very site it has been proven there is little(like 5% drop in fps) performance drop in going pci 8/8.

Also everybody thats an 1366 elitist keeps touting this hexacore chip. Are you seriously gonna buy a hex chip when they havent even enabled applications and games to use more than 2 cores?? Also this hex chip price. It has been estimated that they will start at around 500 bucks and go well into the thousands. There is a VERY select few that would even come close to needing this processing power for home use.

But hey anything that makes people feel "better than" other people they will buy even if they dont need it.

I mean come on people you not trying to make a computer thats self aware or levitate off your desk. We all fighting to stay "current" but people go overboard. But if you feel like you need to contribute to skynet, than go right ahead.

Jack im not attacking you just took some of your talking points my friend.

 
C'mon i7 920 is superior, but the main prob is buying a motherboard. Socket 1156 are having a mobo release spam, because they are cheaper.
 


1. 1k cpu and no new mobo? How about realistic upgrades like Sandybridge, oh right, that's 1156.
2. Benefits?
3. 1156 run these just fine. You should look up DMI and how it's entirely separate bus than the ondie PCIE.
4. The difference between x16/x16 vs x8/x8 is not realized outside of benchmarks, even there it's such a minor hit that's the only reason people bring it up is to support antiquated systems. For a single GPU solution 1156 will outperform 1366 due to on-die PCIE and not having to route through QPI. NF200 boards allow 1156 to support tri/quad solutions at better framerates than 1366.

1156 runs cooler, overclocks at lower volts, performs better in single card solutions and typically runs about 150$ cheaper then a comparable 1366.

Lynnfields in general run at 95w tdp, have more aggressive turbo. 920 is far from superior to a comparable 860. You kind of got that one backwards Shrew. The reason anyone would go with a 920 is because of the 1366, but even that's been shown to be fallacy at this point.
 
I agree that for your apparent needs an 860 will be plenty of processor for you. I have one myself and love it. Also, I agree with silky salamander about getting an ssd for a boot drive...HUGE improvement for any system. I've been reading a lot lately online looking for ways to tune my system, and there are quite a few people talking about what I noticed in all my benchmarks = hdd's are the biggest bottleneck. I've heard that RAID can be smooth as silk or tricky as a fox, not to mention expensive (a good hardware controller seems to be a must), so for my uses its a no. In addition, triple channel memory ATM seems to only affect a select few applications so I'm not all in on that point either. Is a 1366 platform awesome? YES!!! Do you need it? More than likely no. My current setup (check my profile) is rock solid and I have no regrets.
 


You do realize that a person can "game" and do other things.

I just built a i7 860 monster with an intel ssd ...
Click to expand...

Looks like 3 matters too now.

Point is that if you can say yes to mya and other memory hogs than go 920. If your gonna use sli than you can investigate going 860 because on this very site it has been proven there is little(like 5% drop in fps) performance drop in going pci 8/8.
Click to expand...

On how many games ? Any games of 2011 or 2012 ?....how much faster are today's cards than the ones of two years ago ? I upgrade CPU and GFX, as do my sons, every two years....5 % today on a last generation card doesn't really address two generations from now does it ?
 


Ugh.... I have no clue what you're pointing out... the fact of the matter is GPUs these days bottleneck CPUs so... who the hell cares about NEXT gen cards when we are already behind? I think you are confusing games that primarily run on DUAL CORES vs. CPU bottlenecking on quad cores. If a game can run on 6 cores or 8 threads then you might have a point but you're dead wrong if you think cards are holding back CPUs.
 
Don't know how you took such a wild turn as I am making no such argument.

Your argument - The x8 PCI-E limitation is meaningless because it only had a 5% decrease in fps using a last generation GPU, the 285.

My counterpoint - I don't much care about what the 1156 penalty is on the last generation GFX card, used for playing the big games XMas 2008. What I care about is:

1) Going 4 years between builds, and building a new machine here in 2010, I am much more concerned about how big that 1156 PCI-E penalty is going to be when we play the games of Xmas 2010 and 2011 using a next generation card installed in a build of today.

2) Doing the mid life CPU / GPU upgrades after two years, I am much more concerned about how big that 1156 PCI-E penalty is going to be when we play the games of Xmas 2012 and 2013 using the GFX cards two generations removed from the 285 used in your example.

I might be way off the mark here but I think it's a pretty safe bet that the cards two generations removed from the 200 series will have substantially more bandwidth than what the 285 pushes out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom