Socket 1366 obsolete, SMT a 'gimmick'

[Kon37]

1366 is almost always faster on the same clock, specially if you turn off HT in both.
For those that want max performance, better sli/crossfire, triple channel, 1366 is the way to go.

 

[flaminggerbil]

1366 is almost always faster on the same clock, specially if you turn off HT in both.
For those that want max performance, better sli/crossfire, triple channel, 1366 is the way to go.

Has it not been proven enough times that for nearly all tasks triple channel and the extra lanes make *** all difference? DURP HURP.


Also this argument seems to be going round in circles at a rediculous rate, cant we all just agree that future proofing is pointless, 1156 is the best value for money out of the two and that if you've got buckets of cash and are going tri-sli then 1366 is the only option?

 

[jimmysmitty]

Shut up.

Best argument ever?

Has it not been proven enough times that for nearly all tasks triple channel and the extra lanes make *** all difference? DURP HURP.


Also this argument seems to be going round in circles at a rediculous rate, cant we all just agree that future proofing is pointless, 1156 is the best value for money out of the two and that if you've got buckets of cash and are going tri-sli then 1366 is the only option?

Three channels, as I said before, make no difference in most common day use apps. Some will benefit. But if you want the advantage of more memory so you wont have to use virtul memory, its easier on 1366 since you can get 6GB which is plenty for now.

1156 is better value for the money, but that by no means says future proofing is useless. I paid the same for my Q6600 that most people did for their E6850/E8500 and wont have to upgrade the CPU as often. I can probably hold out till beyond Sandy Bridge/Bulldozer but those with a dual core will more than likely have to upgrad at that stage or before.

 

[werxen]

Has it not been proven enough times that for nearly all tasks triple channel and the extra lanes make *** all difference? DURP HURP.


Also this argument seems to be going round in circles at a rediculous rate, cant we all just agree that future proofing is pointless, 1156 is the best value for money out of the two and that if you've got buckets of cash and are going tri-sli then 1366 is the only option?

The concept of future proofing gets a off a lot of here. I have stated future proofing is the dumbest concept since 2 years ago yet it is still being pushed. People are so stupid these days, seriously.

 

[MU_Engineer]

Best argument ever?



Three channels, as I said before, make no difference in most common day use apps. Some will benefit. But if you want the advantage of more memory so you wont have to use virtul memory, its easier on 1366 since you can get 6GB which is plenty for now.

The two DIMMs per channel limit with conventional unbuffered memory does make LGA1366 with its three channels a more compelling platform than the two-channel LGA1156 (or AM3) platform. However, you can get 8 GB of memory inexpensively on an LGA1156/AM3 platform as four 2 GB sticks. If you're willing to pay a lot, you can get 16 GB on LGA1156/AM3. I'd probably suggest going to a dual-socket setup that has 8+ memory slots and takes registered memory if I was going to go that route. The added RAM slots let you use less-expensive smaller DIMMs and registering lets you stuff a larger amount of cheaper, smaller memory ICs on a DIMM than you can on unbuffered DIMMs. A 4 GB registerered DDR3 DIMM is about half as much as an unbuffered one.

1156 is better value for the money, but that by no means says future proofing is useless. I paid the same for my Q6600 that most people did for their E6850/E8500 and wont have to upgrade the CPU as often. I can probably hold out till beyond Sandy Bridge/Bulldozer but those with a dual core will more than likely have to upgrad at that stage or before.

1156 is a less-expensive platform, but it has some drawbacks. You mentioned that it has a smaller maximum RAM capacity. Another drawback is that the LGA1156 chips' on-die PCIe controller provides fewer lanes than the LGA1366 chips' X58 northbridge (or AMD's 790FX northbridge for that matter.) That is frequently of no consequence, but people who want to run multiple GPUs or a GPU and other high-bandwidth cards like discrete SATA controllers will prefer the increased PCIe bandwidth of an X58/790FX platform. The last and potentially most important feature of LGA1366 is that Intel has released six-core CPUs for LGA1366 and may or may not do so for LGA1156. You noted your Q6600 had a lot more life in it than contemporary Conroe/Wolfdale CPUs due to the higher core count. I'll bet the six-core units perform better on future apps than their contemporary quad-cores do as well.

 

[andy5174]

1366 is almost always faster on the same clock, specially if you turn off HT in both.
For those that want max performance, better sli/crossfire, triple channel, 1366 is the way to go.

No at all! 920 is faster than 860 in very very few applications that are RAM intensive(not equal to channel intensive) due to LGA1156 has 2 less RAM slot.

For example most LGA1366 owners gave 3x 2GB RAM, whereas most LGA1156 owners have 2x 2GB RAM. Hence, LGA1366 owners have 2GB more RAM available
so that their PCs perform better in RAM intensive apps.

Read through the WHOLE article linked below for 920 vs 860 vs 750:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3641&p=1

 

[Kon37]

No at all! 920 is faster than 860 in very very few applications that are RAM intensive(not equal to channel intensive) due to LGA1156 has 2 less RAM slot.

For example most LGA1366 owners gave 3x 2GB RAM, whereas most LGA1156 owners have 2x 2GB RAM. Hence, LGA1366 owners have 2GB more RAM available
so that their PCs perform better in RAM intensive apps.

Read through the WHOLE article linked below for 920 vs 860 vs 750:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3641&p=1

really?
in this crysis benchmark, an i5 750 @ 4.0 have a lower score than a i7 920 at stock.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/03/01/intel-core-i7-930-cpu-review/7

the i7 920 is there, despite the name.

 

[warmon6]

really?
in this crysis benchmark, an i5 750 @ 4.0 have a lower score than a i7 920 at stock.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/03/01/intel-core-i7-930-cpu-review/7

the i7 920 is there, despite the name.

it could just be me but i think there something wrong in the results...... Any other bench that i have seen shows the core i5 either on par or faster than core i7 920 when it comes to gaming. Mainly due to the high turbo with core i5.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=109&p2=47&c=1

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_corei5750_corei7870/10.htm

Although overall, depending on what your doing, 1 cpu will be faster than the other.

Game will most likely be better on the core i5 750, As there mostly no difference between it and the 920 in terms of performance, although cost of the system build will be noticeable.

If your doing something like rendering, The triple channel memory and the ability to have some more system memory than the P/H 55, H57 setups, the core i7 920 will be better.