Discussion I7 930 and gen1 are still good CPU for Gaming

Aug 13, 2019
8
0
10
0
Hi, I entered this forum today just to comment on a thread about this CPU. Some guy was asking if it was good for gaming or not.
https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/is-the-intel-core-i7-930-2-8ghz-quad-core-cpu-good-for-gaming-still.3474795/
I posted my reply, it was a solved thread but in my view solved wrong.
Posted my experience with the CPU that I still use today. Playing Assassin´s Creed on high and having like 38 avg fps.
The post was answered by a guy( someone deleted my comment) that said I would not get that much fps on The witcher 3 etc..
I started The witcher 3 right now and well.
I got 50 fps average. Crowded areas drops to 35,40 All in ultra. 1080p.
Posted in a new thread because the other one was closed.
My configuration:
I7 930 @3.5Ghz with CoolerMaster H212
MB Gigabyte X58-USB3
8GB DDR3 1600mhz G.skill
GTX 1660 6gb Galax
SSD 120gb Sandisk
HDD 2 TB Samsung
Corsair Modular 450W
 
Last edited:

Gam3r01

Titan
Moderator
Can you provide some sort of evidence for your results?
The reason your reply was deleted is generally due to the age of the thread.

I would agree though, its not correct to call the i7 930 a "good" CPU for gaming.
Passable? Maybe.
 
Aug 13, 2019
8
0
10
0
Can you provide some sort of evidence for your results?
The reason your reply was deleted is generally due to the age of the thread.

I would agree though, its not correct to call the i7 930 a "good" CPU for gaming.
Passable? Maybe.
Yes, can I post screenshots or anyway which is best to show it.
The "good" CPU I meant was subjective.
The guy had a kit and seeing if he can maybe mount it and use for not "hardcore" gaming as he said.
In my opinion that CPU is doing great to at least an enjoyable gaming experience.
 

lordmogul

Honorable
Jun 14, 2014
364
5
11,165
150
Is it a bad CPU? No. Is it showing it's age? Yes.

I got a xeon X5460 @4.1 GHz (basically a Core 2 Quad) paired with a GTX 660 Ti and 8 GB DDR2 in my other rig and am surprised how well it can hold up.
No it can't play the latest and greatest on ultra. But for the fact that the CPU is 10 years old and the GPU is 6 years old they perform fine. Overwatch runs fine, GTA 5 runs okay, Doom 2016 runs okay.

To go b2t: even OCed the i7-930 close to what they're capable of (around 4-4.5 GHz) would drastically be the bottlenecking part for a GTX 1660. I got a i5-3570K @ 4.5 in my main rig limiting a 1060 6G

if you can get a X58 board for cheap the platform is okay for a used budget build. Especially with a cheap 6 core Xeon and good enough cooling for OC. That sits in a smiliar situation like a used FX-8350 or i5-2500K.
But even then some current i3 or Ryzen 3 build might be cheaper and will obviously more efficient. And those chips are easily twice as fast per core.
 
Reactions: thilugo
The 1660 is not that far ahead of a 1060, which during scaling testing a couple years ago, was saturated with an i5-7500 or so in tests a few years back...

It would not surprise me for an i7-920 to still be playable for many games....

In the below comparison, it looked to be capable of about half the FPS of a 7700 or 8700, or, 67 fps vs. 130 fps, or similar ratios...

It is however, slower than the i7-2600, which is well into the 'upgrade yesterday' point for most folks.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA_2kmVH9IQ
 
Last edited:
Jul 3, 2019
11
2
15
0
Average FPS doesn't show the minimums (frame drops) that can drastically affect how the game feels. For example, lets say you get 45fps most of the time but you also constantly drop to 10-15fps. The average would be lets say 35fps. You can also get the same average when getting fps that are between 40 and 30. The latter would offer better playable performance than the first because you would end up getting less drastic frame drops and the experience would be perceived as smoother/better. Good in this case is subjective. While one may don't care about the random frame drops another might find it very annoying/distracting and therefore not good enough for gaming.
 
Aug 13, 2019
8
0
10
0
Average FPS doesn't show the minimums (frame drops) that can drastically affect how the game feels. For example, lets say you get 45fps most of the time but you also constantly drop to 10-15fps. The average would be lets say 35fps. You can also get the same average when getting fps that are between 40 and 30. The latter would offer better playable performance than the first because you would end up getting less drastic frame drops and the experience would be perceived as smoother/better. Good in this case is subjective. While one may don't care about the random frame drops another might find it very annoying/distracting and therefore not good enough for gaming.
You are right, I'm not here saying its the best scenario for anyone. And I really pushed the configuration of most games. But to the average player who plays a MOBA, Overwatch, etc...
That config is cappable of 60 fps locked on higher graphics.
 
My 950 would run 4.6Ghz all day long and during the winter could get it up to 4.9Ghz on a full custom water loop. Like Boju said both of my 950 and 980x like the odd multiplier

Said same system is now my work computer with a 980x running at 4.27Ghz on all cores, will do 4.5Ghz but is real finicky, and 3 GTX 780 Ti gpus. I havent gamed on it in a while but would guess it could still hold its own on most games.
 
Reactions: boju

Karadjgne

Titan
Herald
Fps is all about the cpu. It pre-renders the frames according to the game code and it's own abilities. Those pre-renders then get shipped to the gpu which finish renders that into a picture and stuffs it on screen. Whether it can or cannot effectively maximize the amount of fps sent to it is dependent on the resolution and detail settings.

So there's no difference to the cpu whether the details are low or ultra, that's all gpu. If you are averaging 38fps on high and move that to ultra and get less, that's because it's gpu limited fps. If you lower settings and get more, same thing, gpu. But if changing to lower settings doesn't change fps much at all, then that's cpu limits being reached.

There's a fine line between playable and enjoyable, but a large difference between the two.
 
Aug 13, 2019
8
0
10
0
Fps is all about the cpu. It pre-renders the frames according to the game code and it's own abilities. Those pre-renders then get shipped to the gpu which finish renders that into a picture and stuffs it on screen. Whether it can or cannot effectively maximize the amount of fps sent to it is dependent on the resolution and detail settings.

So there's no difference to the cpu whether the details are low or ultra, that's all gpu. If you are averaging 38fps on high and move that to ultra and get less, that's because it's gpu limited fps. If you lower settings and get more, same thing, gpu. But if changing to lower settings doesn't change fps much at all, then that's cpu limits being reached.

There's a fine line between playable and enjoyable, but a large difference between the two.
Nice piece of info, I will mostly likely get a new kit next year and retire this 10 year one.
But I´m just amazed at how much I got of it.
 
Aug 13, 2019
8
0
10
0
Should try push that chip further. Nehalem likes odd multipliers, 21x199 for example i was able to push my 920 to 4GHz. Could have gone further but didn't want to push voltages too much.
I´m not an expert, used to run it at 3.8ghz but then it messed memory speed. My case is not airflow efficient and it can get to +80C. Will not spend money on better cooling.
 

boju

Champion
I´m not an expert, used to run it at 3.8ghz but then it messed memory speed. My case is not airflow efficient and it can get to +80C. Will not spend money on better cooling.
Fair enough

These are my settings, take what you will. System is still going too btw ;P

Copy paste, excuse caps
4GHz

SPEEDSTEP: DISABLED

CPU Ratio: 21
BCLK FREQ: 191
PCIE FREQ: 100
DRAM FREQ: 1149
UCLK FREQ: 2298
QPI LINK: AUTO

__


CPU VOLTAGE: 1.27
CPU PLL: 1.88
QPI/DRAM 1.27
DRAM V: 1.5v
C1E SUPPORT: ENABLED
HT: ENABLED
A20M: DISABLED
INTEL CSTATE: DISABLED

That was with a Noctua D12 cooler, never exceeded 68c with HT and Antec 902 case for airflow.

Downclocked ram from 1600 to keep stable.
 
Its been so long ago an many computers. But i use to have an excel sheet made out on my 950 that was down to multiplier, bclk, and voltage for each MHz. Then from that what ram speed and timings i could get.

I think it was 212 or 215 was the max BCLK i could get out of it which would influence the multiplier and ram speeds.

Here she was back in all her glory



Ran 3 loops, 1 for cpu, 1 for MB, and 1 for gpus, think those were my 480's. Ran push pull on all radiators with Scythe Ultra Kaze fans (20) that thing sounded like a jet engine. During the winter i would use cardboard and duct air from a window to the side radiators. The coldest i got it was 9c on GPUs and 15c on CPU.
 
Aug 13, 2019
8
0
10
0
Fair enough

These are my settings, take what you will. System is still going too btw ;P

Copy paste, excuse caps
4GHz

SPEEDSTEP: DISABLED

CPU Ratio: 21
BCLK FREQ: 191
PCIE FREQ: 100
DRAM FREQ: 1149
UCLK FREQ: 2298
QPI LINK: AUTO

__


CPU VOLTAGE: 1.27
CPU PLL: 1.88
QPI/DRAM 1.27
DRAM V: 1.5v
C1E SUPPORT: ENABLED
HT: ENABLED
A20M: DISABLED
INTEL CSTATE: DISABLED

That was with a Noctua D12 cooler, never exceeded 68c with HT and Antec 902 case for airflow.

Downclocked ram from 1600 to keep stable.
Would I benefit with lower RAM speed and better CPU speed? Tought I was at a good balance. But If I get improvements it's worth the try.
 
Aug 13, 2019
8
0
10
0
Its been so long ago an many computers. But i use to have an excel sheet made out on my 950 that was down to multiplier, bclk, and voltage for each MHz. Then from that what ram speed and timings i could get.

I think it was 212 or 215 was the max BCLK i could get out of it which would influence the multiplier and ram speeds.

Here she was back in all her glory



Ran 3 loops, 1 for cpu, 1 for MB, and 1 for gpus, think those were my 480's. Ran push pull on all radiators with Scythe Ultra Kaze fans (20) that thing sounded like a jet engine. During the winter i would use cardboard and duct air from a window to the side radiators. The coldest i got it was 9c on GPUs and 15c on CPU.
That is impressive to say the least. If hardware wasn't so expensive in my country I would have Fun building this.
 
I would go higher CPU speed over ram speed. I always tried to keep my ram speed around 1600Mhz but i was running Mushkin Blackline 1600Mhz CL6 ram 6x2GB. Much more above 1600Mhz i would have to start to raise the CL#'s

I went back through my old 3dmark scores and saw i was running my 950 @ 4.6ghz so most likely 23x200 and my ram was running at 2174Mhz not sure on the CL#
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/1341377
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS