is the i7 920 still a good CPU?

[1Cup1Tea]

Just now, glitchmaster0001 said:

funny thing is it was in this pinkish anti static bubble wrap and there was sticker on the wrap that said "Tested Working" 

http://valid.canardpc.com/6zlakp

24/7 from OCN club, 1.4v not really pushing it too hard either.

[Curufinwe_wins]

1 minute ago, 1Cup1Tea said:

http://valid.canardpc.com/6zlakp

24/7 from OCN club, 1.4v not really pushing it too hard either.

Couldn't say no to something like that.

 

Still either way the value on that motherboard is amazeballs.

[glitchmaster0001]

5 minutes ago, 1Cup1Tea said:

http://valid.canardpc.com/6zlakp

24/7 from OCN club, 1.4v not really pushing it too hard either.

lol i saw people get these things at 4.7GHz on freaking air cooling with around 1.4v mostly too. thats just insane though $55 CPU at 4.7GHz. still i wont be OCing high since my 430w PSU will restrict me most likely if i get it ill just aim at 3.3GHz or 3.6Ghz. basically i want to match an i7 3960X at stock turbo speed without breaking the bank in building this PC since i was able to get the most expensive part of the build for just $20 lol. 

[flibberdipper]

The 920 is still a pretty damn good chip. I mean, yes there'd be some bottlenecking in some games, but it's still a very solid CPU.

[glitchmaster0001]

53 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

1. Crysis 3 was THE ONLY game it won at. Yay for specific devs actually implementing multi-threaded calls.

2. No I didn't call the 4460 bad, I explicitly stated I wouldn't touch a 920 non-overclocked, and the OC done here is MUCH higher than the OP intends (shown 4GHz, OP aims for 3.3).

4. A 40-60% loss in single threaded performance from a 4460 to a 920 is a VERY big deal for many applications you wouldn't even consider that demanding normally (like emulators or high speed file transfers).

5. I explicitly said value was great.

6. power consumption is god awful on x58 compared to h97 so efficiency is abysmal, as I stated.

7. Connectivity is IMHO the biggest issue to overcome (as stated before), and while pcie add-in cards aren't that expensive, they still add to cost and complexity.

8. Newer instruction set support is a big deal for getting the most out of specific applications, and you will miss that. Things like encoding/decoding video will be much less efficient. The 920 might blatantly fail at some of them (like 4k HEVC decodes)

 

9. I AM NOT SAYING (and will not say) HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BOUGHT IT. Just pointing out that there are a crap load of improvements since then, and there are consequences as a result.

im fine with SATA Gen 2 and USB 2.0. I grew up poor and im used to being stuck with old stuff. hell my main current PC is using an AM2+ motherboard with DDR2 memory... only USB 2.0 and also SATA II. never owned or used an SSD ever in my life and as of now dont really see whats all the hype about. my HDD is still a SATA 2 one. as of power efficiency. im on an AM2+ platform so i know for a fact that my platform sucks ass at being energy efficient already.

 

EDIT: and yes i use my AM2+ PC to do all of my gaming still at 1080p including BF4 and Fallout 4. of course with a GTX 760 that my friend gave me for free when he upgraded to a GTX 960.   

[Curufinwe_wins]

8 minutes ago, glitchmaster0001 said:

im fine with SATA Gen 2 and USB 2.0. I grew up poor and im used to being stuck with old stuff. hell my main current PC is using an AM2+ motherboard with DDR2 memory... only USB 2.0 and also SATA II. never owned or used an SSD ever in my life and as of now dont really see whats all the hype about. my HDD is still a SATA 2 one. as of power efficiency. im on an AM2+ platform so i know for a fact that my platform sucks ass at being energy efficient already.  

Hence #9.

 

I'd totally recommend a USB 3.0 pcie card (speed improvements even on theoretically USB 2.0 devices.) IF you can get one cheap on ebay or something.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2053587.m570.l1311.R1.TR12.TRC2.A0.H1.Xpcie+usb.TRS0&_nkw=pci-e+usb+3.0&_sacat=0

 

The rest is what it is. 

 

SSD's are love, SSD's are life. I'd rather own a Phenom II x4 processor with a SSD than a 4790k without one (and in case you are wondering, I'm not just BS'ng that. I built for my parents a scrap 975BE build where the only things I bought were an SSD and a wifi card, and I'd use that system every day of the week over my i7-4720HQ HDD laptop. )

 

The QOL improvements are insane (and to be fair, SATA II doesn't actually make SSDs worthless, just reduces their already blistering max speeds. Random IOPs are the biggest improvements.)

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 hours ago, SLAYR said:

For $26 that is an amazing deal and will be on par with cpus like the 860k at stock speeds.

 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Athlon-II-X4-860K-vs-Intel-Xeon-W3520/3265vsm3585

^^this is your answer...it's about on par with AMD FX-4300 or athlon 860K which are now considered as ''entry level'' or low/mid-range ish...they are a good fit for GPU's such as GTX 950/960 for example...anything more than that and you'll not max out your GPU unless you do 4K 30FPS gaming.

 

If you plan a mid-range GPU like the ones i've mentionned...you'll be in great shape.

If you plan a GTX 1060/RX 480/390/390X/ GTX 980/ etc...then i think the CPU will leave you a bit salty.

[glitchmaster0001]

22 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

^^this is your answer...it's about on par with AMD FX-4300 or athlon 860K which are now considered as ''entry level'' or low/mid-range ish...they are a good fit for GPU's such as GTX 950/960 for example...anything more than that and you'll not max out your GPU unless you do 4K 30FPS gaming.

 

If you plan a mid-range GPU like the ones i've mentionned...you'll be in great shape.

If you plan a GTX 1060/RX 480/390/390X/ GTX 980/ etc...then i think the CPU will leave you a bit salty.

how about an X5650 what is it on par with at stock speeds? i plan to OC it to 3.3GHz/3.6GHz to hopefully land in the ballpark of a i7 3960X

[i_build_nanosuits]

4 minutes ago, glitchmaster0001 said:

how about an X5650 what is it on par with at stock speeds? i plan to OC it to 3.3GHz/3.6GHz to hopefully land in the ballpark of a i7 3960X

that's sandy bridge stuff right?

this is quite a bit faster...it's defenetly mid-range...high mid-range...good match for GPU's such as GTX 970 or R9 390 for example...probably even RX 480/GTX 1060 if you want newer cards.

It's a bit faster than FX-8350 and you should get somewhere along the lines of the i7-2700K with it if you overclock it a bit...it's good.

 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Xeon-X5650-vs-AMD-FX-8350/m355vs1489

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Xeon-X5650-vs-Intel-Core-i7-2700K/m355vs1985

[glitchmaster0001]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

that's sandy bridge stuff right?

this is quite a bit faster...it's defenetly mid-range...high mid-range...good match for GPU's such as GTX 970 or R9 390 for example.

It's a bit faster than FX-8350 and you should get somewhere along the lines of the i7-2700K with it...it's good.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Xeon-X5650-vs-AMD-FX-8350/m355vs1489

no its actually built in the time of the first gen i7s but still i wonder what happens if i overclock it to 3.5GHz

[1Cup1Tea]

3 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

that's sandy bridge stuff right?

this is quite a bit faster...it's defenetly mid-range...high mid-range...good match for GPU's such as GTX 970 or R9 390 for example.

It's a bit faster than FX-8350 and you should get somewhere along the lines of the i7-2700K with it if you overclock it a bit...it's good.

 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Xeon-X5650-vs-AMD-FX-8350/m355vs1489

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Xeon-X5650-vs-Intel-Core-i7-2700K/m355vs1985

No it's not, here is the XEON i7 920 @ 32nm.

 

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, glitchmaster0001 said:

no its actually built in the time of the first gen i7s but still i wonder what happens if i overclock it to 3.5GHz

i think this one is pretty good still...it lack a bit in the single-threaded performance but it has great multi-threaded performance...

it is really similar to the FX-8350 from AMD...a CPU that i would recommend to match with GTX 970 for 1080p gaming...will allow you to run high settings 60FPS in most games.

[glitchmaster0001]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

i think this one is pretty good still...it lack a bit in the single-threaded performance but it has great multi-threaded performance...

it is really similar to the FX-8350 from AMD...a CPU that i would recommend to match with GTX 970 for 1080p gaming...will allow you to run high settings 60FPS in most games.

dude its a $55 CPU.. cant argue that value for money though... and if you OC it im pretty sure you get some insane results 

[1Cup1Tea]

 

[glitchmaster0001]

4 minutes ago, 1Cup1Tea said:

snip

wow, but im not aiming to OC that high on this CPU, my 430w PSU will hold me back so im looking towards getting an X5650 and OCing it to 3.5Ghz and hopefully that will put me in the ballpark of a i7 3960x 

[i_build_nanosuits]

7 minutes ago, 1Cup1Tea said:

No it's not, here is the XEON i7 920 @ 32nm.

 

5 minutes ago, 1Cup1Tea said:

snip!

in both videos the GTX 970 GPU is pinned at 99% usage across the board...i see no problem with that CPU and GPU combo...as i said i think it's a great match?

[1Cup1Tea]

Just now, glitchmaster0001 said:

wow, but im not aiming to OC that high on this CPU, my 430w PSU will hold me back so im looking towards getting an X5650 and OCing it to 3.5Ghz and hopefully that will put me in the ballpark of a i7 3960x 

The E5640 is 80w TDP vs 130W on the 920, just get the Xeon.

[1Cup1Tea]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

 

in both videos the GTX 970 GPU is pinned at 99% usage across the board...i see no problem with that CPU and GPU combo...as i said i think it's a great match?

No you see you said the i7 920 won't handle it, the E5640 is the exact same CPU as the 920, just has more cache and is on a more efficient process, also code names Westmere-EP.

[i_build_nanosuits]

6 minutes ago, glitchmaster0001 said:

dude its a $55 CPU.. cant argue that value for money though... and if you OC it im pretty sure you get some insane results 

i know, why do i feel attacked here on every front?

i'm saying it's good...it's no 6700K...but it's not a weak CPU either...it's a good mid-range CPU at very reasonable price and should be paired with good mid-range GPU for optimum performance...GTX 970/R9 390/RX480...good good good...?

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, 1Cup1Tea said:

No you see you said the i7 920 won't handle it, the E5640 is the exact same CPU as the 920, just has more cache and is on a more efficient process, also code names Westmere-EP.

where did i say that?

at first i thought it was the sandy-bridge architecture...but looking at numbers forum userbenchmark.com i judged performance compaired to other chips i know how they perform like FX-8350 for example and this CPU match it very closely so i can safely confirm what type of performance it has and what kind of graphics cards it can handle in modern games...sorry if i have not been clear enough.

[glitchmaster0001]

1 minute ago, 1Cup1Tea said:

The E5640 is 80w TDP vs 130W on the 920, just get the Xeon.

you see the thing is i just bought a cheap W3520 for $6 (about the price of a decent lunch here) just so i can flash the BIOS to the latest version, then ima find a x5650 then OC to 3.6GHz so it will match a i7 3960X. then how much would you think i can profit from selling the rig. or should i just keep it as a spare kick ass PC.

[1Cup1Tea]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

where did i say that?

at first i thought it was the sandy-bridge architecture...but looking at numbers forum userbenchmark.com i judged performance compaired to other chips i know how they perform like FX-8350 for example and this CPU match it very closely so i can safely confirm what type of performance it has and what kind of graphics cards it can handle in modern games...sorry if i have not been clear enough.

Userbench is not a great benchmark obviously, that Xeon is Nehalem.

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

3 minutes ago, 1Cup1Tea said:

Userbench is not a great benchmark obviously, that Xeon is Nehalem.

 

 

i think it's fairly accurate...also it's based on user submission and it has test for both single-thread and multi-thread performance so it's good...

Also...the two CPU's in question were the W3250 (i7-920) and X5650 (i don't know they i7 counterpart) turns out the X5650 is noticeably faster across the board.

you can talk down userbench all you want...but fact remain that to compare CPU's against each other it's very very good...especially if they have similar architectures:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Xeon-X5650-vs-Intel-Xeon-W3520/m355vsm3585

500+ submissions for each chip...it's getting fairly accurate imho...

[glitchmaster0001]

2 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

i know, why do i feel attacked here on every front?

i'm saying it's good...it's no 6700K...but it's not a weak CPU either...it's a good mid-range CPU at very reasonable price and should be paired with good mid-range GPU for optimum performance...GTX 970/R9 390/RX480...good good good...?

well last time i made a thread here about how much i can sell my LGA 771 to 775 computer with an X5460 at 4.0GHz everyone on the forum bashed the shit out of the thread and said it was worthless and useless even though the benchmarks and tests i ran showed that it was on par with a FX 8320... the awesome thing about that PC was it had a P45 Chipset motherboard which was back then a high end board and the board i got is going on ebay for around $130 lol. hopefully no one decides to bash on this build. since it is using an X58 motherboard...  

 

2 minutes ago, 1Cup1Tea said:

Userbench is not a great benchmark obviously, that Xeon is Nehalem.

 

no the Xeon is a westmere since its a 32nm for both the e5640 and the X5650 

[1Cup1Tea]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

i think it's fairly accurate...also it's based on user submission and it has test for both single-thread and multi-thread performance so it's good...

Also...the two CPU's in question were the W3250 (i7-920) and X5650 (i don't know they i7 counterpart) turns out the X5650 is noticeably faster across the board.

you can talk userbench all you want...but fact remain that to compare CPU's against each other it's very very good...especially if they have similar architectures:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Xeon-X5650-vs-Intel-Xeon-W3520/m355vsm3585

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FInjBOXc.png&hash=3ba80a1bb009c4bf79668239db00c1cb