15 months in now, with the i7 920

[Grooveriding]

i7 920 D0 @ 4.2 HT on here. Have no interest in Sandy Bridge from what has been shown so far.

Considering apart from some email and office tasks that are work related I just mainly game with my computer, I don't see the need to upgrade my CPU for a long while to see any gains in gaming.

GPU upgrades seem to be the constant but I see the i7 being fine for at least another couple years.

Great chip, easily the best CPU I've owned :thumbsup:

 

[Anubis]

have to agree my 920 is still cooking along at 4GHz flawlessly, only upgrade i would like now is a SSD, i dropped in a 6870 a few weeks ago.

maybe a larger case hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[Zap]

lately I've just been building SFF systems. WTF is wrong with me?

Maybe you finally realized that most computers are just big boxes that are mostly empty? :awe:

 

[KevinH]

I've had my Q6600 for 40 months now (that's about 3 and a half years for those a little weak in math), and I see no reason to buy a new chip. It may be holding its value really well, but that's just a positive spin on stagnation in the cpu market. As things are, I can see myself keeping this chip another 2 years.

It's been this way for AGES now. Outside of bleeding edge games that are cpu bound relative to gpu OR you are doing a VERY cpu centric tasts...hell a core solo in everday (not-gaming obviously) use shows NO difference from a top of the line chip.

Get an ssd to really feel a difference.

I just went from a core 2 duo system to an i7-950 @ 4.0ghz. Honestly...I just asked myself why the fuck did I just upgrade. Zero tangible difference...big fat zero.

You gotta love dudes that claim how much faster their newly built systems are. "Omg, everythign is so snappy!". It's because you just did a fresh format, morons...

Cpu power is soooooooooooooo far pass software with the exception of a VERY few cases taht it's just pathetic.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Got my i7 920 in Dec 2008, had to wait one month after release before stores had 1366 bolt-through kits for TRUE 120 in stock. The only semi-meaningful upgrade would be 970/980X, and both are way more than I'm willing to pay for, and I don't really need 6 cores. It does seem like a slowdown - taking OC into account, the fastest CPU out there is only like 20-30% faster on average than a mid-range CPU 2 years ago. My Radeon 4870 on the other hand is already showing its age...

Glad I waited for Nehalem, I was gonna buy Q9550 in Aug 2008 when they came out with the E0 stepping, but it was MIA until October, and I decided to wait another month to see what Nehalem brings.


@BigStyle
Yes, 1090T competes fine, but it only matches i7 from 2 years ago.

I agree 😀. This CPU is over 2 years old and it is still awesome. It is not even overclocked.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Another happy D0 920 user here. Built last March with 4x 2GB DDR3-1600, 4890 and EX58-UD3R Rev 1.0.
Looking to upgrade the vid card but only because the 4890 is going to the office 🙂
Will drop in a 980X (or some such) when the become cheap enough.

 

[RussianSensation]

But in reality - do we really need faster processors? How many people actually encode videos all day?

Phenom II X4 955 or Core i5 750 may be good enough today, but eventually, there will come a time when older processors will become too slow. It looks like the era of fast dual-core CPUs is about to come to end, but it took a long time for this to happen. Most games already play best with at least 3 cores. Intel and AMD can't just stop making processors though because people with older machines than yours or mine will want to upgrade. Plus, if progress ever stops, software will catch up, and that will create a bottleneck!

I agree with your point though that currently the increased performance beyond $200-250 price level brings diminishing returns outside of video/audio work, etc. However, I have no problem paying $200 for a processor upfront knowing that it won't bottleneck me in any games for 2+ years.

 

[killer8]

I've a Q6600 too, done since August 2007. Until recently it's held up well. This is longest I've ever gone without a computer upgrade on my main system.... since early 80s. Geesh.

I am really itching for January and will build a whole new SB system/SSD/ the works pronto.

 

[smakme7757]

I've a Q6600 too, done since August 2007. Until recently it's held up well. This is longest I've ever gone without a computer upgrade on my main system.... since early 80s. Geesh.

I am really itching for January and will build a whole new SB system/SSD/ the works pronto.

Same here. I was dead set on a i7-950 build seeing as they are so cheap now, but it looks like the i7-2600K will be better than that so it looks like it will be the way to go even though it is only a mainstream SD chip. At least this way i will be able to upgrade the cpu when newer ones are released. Couple that up with a new GTX 580 and i should be set for quite a while i'd say!

With that being said i have been extremely happy with my Q9450 which i have had since the start of 2008. I could probably use it out 2011, but now seems like a good time to upgrade.

 

[RaistlinZ]

My rule of thumb upgrade is approximately a 2x speed increase for the CPU

I'm still running the original E6700 Core 2 @ 3.2GHZ I purchased a little over 4 years ago. I looked at the i920 and did some benchmarking on one @ 3.8GHZ and it was around 50% faster than the E6700 for what I do (the most important benchmark for me).

I'll likely do my next upgrade for Sandy Bridge in Jan 2011 which should be close (I expect still a bit short) of my 2x requirement. I'm not holding out for the 2011 socket since Intel has already demonstrated the expected pricing model with their last release and not worth waiting another 12 months to find out it is too expensive!

That's a pretty good rule of thumb. My previous system was an Athlon 64 4000+. My current rig feels easily 10x faster for general use, especially with the help of the SSD.

I hope to keep this rig until the next big evolution after Sandy Bridge. Maybe 2013?

 

[smakme7757]

That's a pretty good rule of thumb. My previous system was an Athlon 64 4000+. My current rig feels easily 10x faster for general use, especially with the help of the SSD.

I hope to keep this rig until the next big evolution after Sandy Bridge. Maybe 2013?

I'm currently running on a Q9450 and as mentioned above i'm keen so see how this January release of Sandy Bridge goes in terms of jumping onto some new hardware, but to be honest i'm pretty sure my Q9450 would hold out until the end of 2011 for sure. It still runs everything smoothly and with my GTX 295 i can still run most games at High or Very High with a decent injection of AA and AF.

So i would say with a i7-930 you might not having the fastest CPU available but it will hold out until the end of 2012 no problems at all!

 

[nyker96]

So never mind the fact that there is not a single application AMD's top offering's cannot handle with grace? Or maybe never mind the fact that 99% of users wouldn't even be able to tell the difference between AMD/Intels top end CPU's?

That doesn't sound stagnant at all, that sounds like options.

This is not saying AMD chips are bad, I'm using an x4 and that's more than enough for my needs. But my point is, there's hardly any pressure from AMD $250+ so there's almost no movement in that sector in terms of new advances and faster cpus/cheaper pricing. Sure intel released some new chips but nothing exciting since i7 920, maybe just 980X but that's a novelty item.

In contrast look at the graphics card arena, since gtx260s->HD48xx->HD5xxx->fermi->fermi 2(GF 104s, newer GTX 580s)->HD6xxx. I mean in a time span of just two years or so, it's like wow, every 6 months something new there that's pushing the gpu envelop. non stop competition that's what I'm talking about. Also look at the price drops, nowadays you can have a $400 gpu from 2 years ago for lke $100 or less. Just got a GTX 460/768 for 115AR that beats out the older GTX 260s by 50% or so that was selling at $400 then. Look at the cpu pricing, that same old i7 920 is still on sale for $200 at MC like 2 years ago.

No innovation, no price change.

 

[SmCaudata]

I have a q9550 that is running strong. I see no reason to upgrade. As more everyday software makes use of GPU acceleration or compute features, there will be even fewer reasons to upgrade the CPU.

If I get some devices that I want to run at USB3 speeds or feel the need for SATA6 I may upgrade.

New processors are focusing on low power and HTPC applications. For gaming the Core2 processors are still going strong. The 1366 chips will likely go another 2 years IMO.

 

[justinm]

Very happy with my I7-860 at 3.8. I bought everything at launch and it has performed flawlessly at everything I've thrown at it. No complaints here. Next real upgrade will be an SSD drive.

 

[Maximilian]

i7 920 here, great little chip, dont know if i will keep it for a long time though as i get the upgrade bug pretty frequently.

 

[VirtualLarry]

All you folks are talking about quad-cores... I am still rocking my overclocked E2140s. I built a Q6600 rig a few years back, and I don't even use it. I'm going to pull it out though for the December F@H Holiday Race (See the DC forum for details), and throw in a pair of GTX460 1GB cards I picked up.

I think, even for gaming, the Core2Quads still pack a punch. Granted, i7-920/930/950 are better, but by how much? And is it worth it to upgrade, when you are already rocking a quad? I don't think so. Maybe Ivy Bridge, or perhaps if more software adopts AVX instructions, or SB's onchip video-encoder. But so much stuff is going to the GPUs these days, CPUs are taking a back seat.

 

[BD231]

This is not saying AMD chips are bad, I'm using an x4 and that's more than enough for my needs. But my point is, there's hardly any pressure from AMD $250+ so there's almost no movement in that sector in terms of new advances and faster cpus/cheaper pricing. Sure intel released some new chips but nothing exciting since i7 920, maybe just 980X but that's a novelty item.

In contrast look at the graphics card arena, since gtx260s->HD48xx->HD5xxx->fermi->fermi 2(GF 104s, newer GTX 580s)->HD6xxx. I mean in a time span of just two years or so, it's like wow, every 6 months something new there that's pushing the gpu envelop. non stop competition that's what I'm talking about. Also look at the price drops, nowadays you can have a $400 gpu from 2 years ago for lke $100 or less. Just got a GTX 460/768 for 115AR that beats out the older GTX 260s by 50% or so that was selling at $400 then. Look at the cpu pricing, that same old i7 920 is still on sale for $200 at MC like 2 years ago.

No innovation, no price change.

AMD is making the best CPU's it has ever made and they still aren't even close to achieving Intel's financial status or market presence. AMD will likely never come out from underneath the strain of Intels market and PR weight and that's the real problem.

It's catch 22, whatever AMD dose Intel can do better so you have to place yourself somewhere. GPU's are a perfect example. AMD is more than able to compete with nVidia on all levels and because of this, they are, with vengeance it would seem.

Doing the same on the CPU front almost drove AMD into the ground once before, I don't think they'll make that mistake again.

In the end both companies have to milk each and every architecture for all its worth. If AMD is always behind trying to catch up by releasing new parts to soon it would be the end of them and we all know Intel would rather sit around an rake in the dough. They're both still a business faced with turning a profit which takes time. No money, no innovation. Nobody wants to switch CPU sockets every year anyway.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

right now im posting with a pentium 6300 i got as a combo for $50. id love to have an excuse to replace it but it does anything i would do really well

 

[Makaveli]

This is a great thread OP.

I use to be only AMD for most of my builds but Nehalem changed that. I went from Socket 939 straight to 1366 what a crazy boost in speed that was. I built my rig in oct 2009, then dropped a 160GB G2 SSD in Dec 2009. With just over a year of use this is by far the fastest most stabled rig while overclocked i've ever owned.

My last Intel chip was a P2 350 everything after that was all AMD until i7. The only old piece in my rig is the 4890 which I won't upgrade until I see how the 6970 will do. I'm also planning on adding another 6 GB's of ram into the machine this xmas. So with 12GB's of ram and the new videocard possibly in Q1 2011 i'm pretty sure this machine will last 3-4 years easy.

Also being a SC2 player i'm glad I went this route i've seen my friends Phenom starting to choke in custom maps at his house and he is using a Phenom 965 + 5870 my rig played better with 920 @ 3.6 + 4890 in the same situation.

 

[nyker96]

AMD is making the best CPU's it has ever made and they still aren't even close to achieving Intel's financial status or market presence. AMD will likely never come out from underneath the strain of Intels market and PR weight and that's the real problem.

It's catch 22, whatever AMD dose Intel can do better so you have to place yourself somewhere. GPU's are a perfect example. AMD is more than able to compete with nVidia on all levels and because of this, they are, with vengeance it would seem.

Doing the same on the CPU front almost drove AMD into the ground once before, I don't think they'll make that mistake again.

In the end both companies have to milk each and every architecture for all its worth. If AMD is always behind trying to catch up by releasing new parts to soon it would be the end of them and we all know Intel would rather sit around an rake in the dough. They're both still a business faced with turning a profit which takes time. No money, no innovation. Nobody wants to switch CPU sockets every year anyway.

I agree with you that when AMD releases a new architecture at the wrong time, they suffer much more financially vs Intel but the fiasco that was Phenon I was their own doing, trying to beat intel by making a monolithic design that took forever to straighten out and was only like 10-20% more efficient per core than older A64. I think the project was badly run and all the delays/cost overruns doomed it. It is partly because Intel is a wealthy bastard who could run two basic architectures simultaneously (P4 and Core).

I think AMD cpu division needs to execute revisions like their graphics card group does. No great leaps just iterative improvements in design every 6 months. But let's be realistic here, even if they pull out all the stops, Intel's so much bigger it would be hard for them to win without Intel committing a slip-up like P4 again.