Any reason to upgrade to 1156, if you already have high-end 775?

[VirtualLarry]

Really, is it worth it to drop $500-600 on a new platform, just because it's new and you can?

Given that the cheaper I5 750 doesn't even have hyperthreading, then is there any real improvement over the high-end 775 platforms? Does the FSB hold back the 775 platform that much?

Personally, I'd rather stand put with my 3.6 Q6600, and get some value for my money, than drop the cash for a new platform right now. I'd rather wait for 32nm CPUs, SATA-6G and USB3.0, and cheap, good-sized SSDs to materialize before I jump ship.

After all, what kind of value do you get for your computer systems, if you upgrade more than you use them?

(I should be one to talk though, I just put together the Q6600 last year, and I don't really even use it for anything, although I figure DVD shrinking should go faster.)

I'm going to re-arrange my stable of PCs once Win7 releases, because I've got $500 worth of Win7 pre-orders, and plan on reformatting everything and installing Win7 64-bit and not looking back. (That from an XP die-hard, actually a W2K die-hard before that.)

 

[Isura]

The i7 920 makes more sense as an upgrade, performance and cost wise. More memory bandwidth, 16x in sli vs 8x, and better overclocker.

 

[CurseTheSky]

Originally posted by: Isura
The i7 920 makes more sense as an upgrade, performance and cost wise. More memory bandwidth, 16x in sli vs 8x, and better overclocker.

Numerous reviews have said that triple channel vs. dual channel memory makes little difference in real life performance. You may notice it on benchmarks, but that's about it.

Anandtech's article stated that 1366 i7s tend to overclock better at stock voltage, but there haven't been any major overclocking shootouts between 1156 i5s and i7s, and 1366 i7s yet. For all we know, a high-end 1156 motherboard and processor will overclock like mad. 1156 chips also had a better turbo mode advantage.

Two 16x PCI-E slots is the biggest advantage to 1366 i7s at this point, and you won't notice the difference unless you're running bleeding edge hardware. That may change with the next generation of graphics cards (coming out very soon), but for the average Joe, 8x/8x shouldn't be an issue. 1156 processors also have the PCI-E controller on-die, which should offer better latency for single GPUs (though, like triple channel memory on 1366, it may offer no noticeable benefit).

1366 will have six-core Gulftown CPUs available at some point, but may also be limited to "extreme" (expensive) CPUs later on.

Personally, I'd go with whichever is cheaper overall, unless you intend to use very high end SLI / Crossfire configurations, or tons of memory (over 8GB; the two extra slots will allow you to buy less expensive DIMMs and still manage greater total memory - for example 4x2GB vs. 6x2GB). I'll be buying 1156 personally.

 

[TitusTroy]

worth upgrading my E8400 to Lynnfield?

I'm also torn as to whether or not this will have any performance benefits...I only have a single GPU setup and don't plan on going SLI/Crossfire anytime in the near future...is there enough benefits to justify an upgrade from an E8400 to any of the new Lynnfield i7's or even the i5?...I'm also not big on manual overclocking and would rather remain at stock while using the Turbo Mode to do any overclocking of my CPU...price is not an issue, I'm basically interested in raw performance benefits

have the Lynnfield i7's/i5 caught up to the Penryn dual core's in terms of a good gaming CPU?...or will it be better to upgrade my GPU with a new DX11 card over any CPU upgrade?

 

[bfdd]

The reason I went 1366 was because I was able to pick up the i7 920 from Microcenter for 200. Other than that I might of gone i5. Now I'm trying to figure out which motherboard I want to use

 

[Isura]

I'm pretty skeptical of the newest anandtech article. The 920 is cheaper than the 860, and prices of x58 boards have dropped. It's a better upgrade path for next gen GPUs and 6-8 core processors. Lynnfield has low power consumption and should work great out of the box (turbo is a big improvement) for non overclockers. I'm probably waiting for the 920 to drop in prices further and going that route.

 

[phillyman36]

I have an Asus p5q-e (p45) mobo and a q9450. I just brought a i7 860 and an Evga mobo. Im either going to give my mobo, ram, and cpu to my aunt who needs a new computer or sell it to a friend. I also really don't do any manual overclocking and use only one video card. The way I figure im set until Sandybridge and the newer platform is faster and i can take advantage of the turbo mode for a slight performance boost. I may not have needed it but i wanted it so i got it.

 

[Piano Man]

I can see why the i5 might be appealing to budget consumers who don't want to overclock, but honestly, I see no reason in going with any of the new i7's over the i7 920.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...lynnfield-cpu-review/3

As you can see from Bit Tech's review, once you overclock the i7 920, it pretty much equals or beats the new i7s. Its a cheaper chip with more expensive MoBos, plus you can put in hex-cores in the future.

Basically, if you overclock, and can scrounge the extra $$, I'd personally get a D0 i7920. If I was building a system for mom, I'd go i5 all the way.


Just my 2 cents.

 

[a123456]

Is there a particular application or game that you'd like to speed up that your 775 isn't taking care of? If not, why upgrade? Prices will only get cheaper over time. You can probably modify your OC a little bit and see if it makes a difference in the games you play. If the fps stays close to the same, then you're GPU limited anyway. 1156 is faster but if you're not going to do anything with the extra power, there's no point in upgrading. Turbo mode is useless if you do a max overclock with the extra volts, as mentioned in the AT review.

I agree with Isura. There's not enough price difference currently between the 860 and 920 for the 860 (and definitely not the 870) to be worth the buy. So it's the choice among not upgrading, going 750 or going 920 (especially if you live near a Microcenter).

 

[Pollock]

How about this situation: you have a Microcenter nearby and can get an i5 760 for $180, an i7 860 for $230, or an i7 920 for $200 (all plus tax). I do not intend on using high-end SLI/Crossfire, but I would like tons and tons of ram, especially as DDR3 becomes cheaper. 4x2GB would be great on S1156, but the 6x2GB easily allowed by S1366 would be nice too. I would overclock, naturally, but only moderately so as to keep vcore and temps well in check.

Obviously motherboard price is a factor to consider, but lower end S1366 boards are probably superior to S1156 boards in their price range, at least in terms of features. S1156 will gain a price advantage a couple of weeks after launch, but in the meantime, that's the situation.

 

[monovillage]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[netxzero64]

just stay with what setup you have... if you have a quad core processor that would still be fine... upgrade isn't necessary unless you have an upgrade itch and a lot of cash to spend

 

[Rezist]

I'd like to wait for 32nm I just built a budget system and I like low power/low heat systems.
While I'd like to buy an AMD 32nm system who knows how long that will take so I'll jump on a Intel one when the prices drop.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

You'd get the same (or more) performance at lower power consumption. That Q6600 must be sucking a lot of juice at 3.6 GHz...

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Reason #1 cool rig in your signature

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Originally posted by: Piano Man
I can see why the i5 might be appealing to budget consumers who don't want to overclock, but honestly, I see no reason in going with any of the new i7's over the i7 920.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...lynnfield-cpu-review/3

As you can see from Bit Tech's review, once you overclock the i7 920, it pretty much equals or beats the new i7s. Its a cheaper chip with more expensive MoBos, plus you can put in hex-cores in the future.

Basically, if you overclock, and can scrounge the extra $$, I'd personally get a D0 i7920. If I was building a system for mom, I'd go i5 all the way.


Just my 2 cents.

If I was building a system for mom I would get the cheapest core 2 duo I could find.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: PieIsAwesome
If I was building a system for mom I would get the cheapest core 2 duo I could find.

Heck, I'd get a Pentium Dual Core or Athlon II dual core. Core 2 Duo is overkill for her web browsing and email. Heck, an Atom 330 mobo/CPU combo for $85 would be sufficient for mom.

 

[Ben90]

Im going to quote this chart from now on because Anand seemed to miss it completely with his review:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...lynnfield-cpu-review/3

The chart confirms my belief that the 1156 cpu's did so well against the 1366 because they ramped the hell out of them with turbo... 3.6GHz on a stock single threaded application? no duh its going to perform better than a 2.83ghz 920...

Where most of the market share is though, stock for stock the 1156's are a godsend because its basically better performance/cheaper/more power effective, but for most of AT users (the ones that overclock) a 1366 system is better in most ways for a slight premium. It really isnt that much more expensive though as the 920 and 860 cost the same, and technically RAM will either be cheaper or the same in favor of the 1366 comparatively speaking... I say this because you can use the exact same ram on the 920 (dual channel) and you will actually get better performance then u would the 1156 system, but if you want more than 8 gigs, you are going to have to shell out an arm and a leg for 4gb dimms while u might be able to get by with 12gb on the 920

 

[biostud]

the most sensible to ask is wether or not you have any software that doesn't fast enough on your current setup, and based on your the system in your sig, the answer would be no.

If I had your rig I would go for a SSD drive as the next way to burn extra money.

 

[themisfit610]

Do you encode video (especially), or do anything else that uses tons of threads?

If yes, get an i7, either 1156 or 1366.

If you're just a gamer, stick with your 775 system, unless you're just itching for an upgrade, or are honest-to-god actually CPU limited

~MiSfit

 

[Keysplayr]

The achillies heel of the 1156 CPU's could very well be that integrated PCI-e controller. As you overclock the CPU in current i7 9xx rigs, you lock the PCI-e speed so it doesn't raise the MHz as you increase CPU speeds. With the i5/1156 i7, there is no way to lock that PCI-e controller speed. As you increase CPU speed, you also increase the PCI-e speed, which video cards do not seem to like very much and cause instability. This was mentioned in Anandtechs review posted up yesterday. I'm not really sure how true this is, or even if it matters, because I believe he reached 3.9 GHz with one of the i7's. Either the 860 or 870.
That's a big jump, and he didn't mention any instability related to graphics cards used.

I dunno. Food for discussion.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
The achillies heel of the 1156 CPU's could very well be that integrated PCI-e controller. As you overclock the CPU in current i7 9xx rigs, you lock the PCI-e speed so it doesn't raise the MHz as you increase CPU speeds. With the i5/1156 i7, there is no way to lock that PCI-e controller speed. As you increase CPU speed, you also increase the PCI-e speed, which video cards do not seem to like very much and cause instability. This was mentioned in Anandtechs review posted up yesterday. I'm not really sure how true this is, or even if it matters, because I believe he reached 3.9 GHz with one of the i7's. Either the 860 or 870.
That's a big jump, and he didn't mention any instability related to graphics cards used.

I dunno. Food for discussion.

Bingo, and it's undesirable for more than just GPU cards too. Stand-alone hardware raid cards don't like the PCIe bus to be monkeyed with too much either.

It's not a drop-everything OC is dead on 1156 deal, but because we do have this 1366 option which is known and doesn't have PCIe locking issues it really makes it difficult to argue (IMO) that low-end 1156 is the way to go for an enthusiast budget OC'ing rig.

As I see it, 1156 didn't change much here. X3's and PhII 9x5's changed things for the budget enthusiast, i7 920 D0 changed things for the budget enthusiast. But despite all the pre-release suspense, I'm not seeing lynnfield doing much for the budget enthusiast.

You are making considerable compromises on the potential of your rig all in the name of saving a few dollars over the build cost of an AMD or i7 rig.

(caveat: I reserve the right to change my opinion in Nov when Clarkdale is released)

 

[ArizonaSteve]

I'm sticking with my X3350 @ 3.2GHz and P35 MB for now. I will probably wait for the post-Nehalem generation before upgrading.

 

[deimos3428]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
I just put together the Q6600 last year, and I don't really even use it for anything, although I figure DVD shrinking should go faster.

Emphasis added. Upgrading would be a complete waste of money.

 

[nyker96]

performancewise, I doubt you can get more than 20-30% on your old 775 q6600 setup even considering 1156s can do 4Ghz+. but if you just wanna get it cause it's new, why not if you have the cash, indulge yourslef a little ain't a sin. But if you can wait for bit, like I am debating on upgrading my e7200 to the current 1156 quads or wait for the next 32nm revision. I think I'd go for 32nm comes out, who knows by then maybe we will even have some offering from amd, giving me more platform choices. also I want to hear more about sandy bridge. i have some reservation going 1156 cause intel ins't planning to put newer 6-core or 8-cores on it. giving it more time will clear things up.