Anyone upgraded a i7 920 to i7 3820?

[Dkcode]

If so what was the performance difference like in gaming?

Worth it?

 

[Grooveriding]

i7 920 4ghz to 3930k 4.7ghz. Saw some big gains in some games, absolutely none in others. Much of it was improved tri-sli scaling though.

I think you'd see gains on a single gpu / 2 GPUs in select games, Starcraft 2 would be one most notably, World of Warcraft would be another.

 

[nanaki333]

went from i7 950 to 2600K to i7 3930k. i saw no noticeable gains

 

[lehtv]

If so what was the performance difference like in gaming?

Depends on your GPU setup, your gaming resolution, and what games you play.

 

[Makaveli]

i7 920 4ghz to 3930k 4.7ghz. Saw some big gains in some games, absolutely none in others. Much of it was improved tri-sli scaling though.

I think you'd see gains on a single gpu / 2 GPUs in select games, Starcraft 2 would be one most notably, World of Warcraft would be another.

So basically you only saw gains in area's where you were cpu bottlenecked and there are only a few games that will benefit.

If I were you OP and i'm in the same boat even tho I just upgraded my 920 to a 970. Wait for Haswell!

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Went from a i7 860 at 3.4 to i7 2600k (initially at stock) with a single 6970 and the gains were not huge, but definitely noticeable, not much in terms of FPS but mostly in terms of smoothness in games and an overall better experience.

Btw, i7 860 at stock equals a i7 920 at stock AND i7 2600k at stock equals a 3820 at stock.

Even with a single GPU going from a 920 sub 3.5GHz to 3820 >4.5GHz will lead to a very significant increase in performance if smoothness in games and zero lagginess counts to you. If you only see FPS, then probably just some increase but in many games, but apart from FPS it is a good upgrade, worth it if you forget the other options available

With a tri fire system you will notice like 1.5-2 times the experience

 

[Dkcode]

I am running GTX 580 on a 1920x1080 res 120Hz monitor.

My CPU is at stock.

Games; well I got shitloads installed. I am thinking a new chip would make things seem smoother, something benchmarks can never really show you, like when I upgraded from a GTX 285 to a 580, FPS scores in BC2 and Stalker: CoP were already decent but the minimum frames went through the roof and the overall experience was much better.

 

[Dkcode]

Went from a i7 860 at 3.4 to i7 2600k (initially at stock) with a single 6970 and the gains were not huge, but definitely noticeable, not much in terms of FPS but mostly in terms of smoothness in games and an overall better experience.

Btw, i7 860 at stock equals a i7 920 at stock AND i7 2600k at stock equals a 3820 at stock.

Even with a single GPU going from a 920 sub 3.5GHz to 3820 >4.5GHz will lead to a very significant increase in performance if smoothness in games and zero lagginess counts to you. If you only see FPS, then probably just some increase but in many games, but apart from FPS it is a good upgrade, worth it if you forget the other options available

With a tri fire system you will notice like 1.5-2 times the experience

Thats exactly what I was wanting to know, thanks!

 

[AtenRa]

Except from a few selected games like SC2 and WOW, you will not see any performance gains at 1080p and above with a single graphics card from 920@4GHz vs 3820@4.5GHz.

Edit: Another game im thinking that you may see a performance gain is BF3 multiplayer in open large maps in 64 player servers.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

People who say that at higher settings the CPU doesn't help have no idea how games actually work.

I personally guarantee you that whether or not your FPS increase by a sufficient margin, your games will become much smoother and more enjoyable.

Back in 2005 in NFS MW people used to say A64 @ 2.4Ghz was enough, I had a 1900xtx and couldn't enjoy until I upgraded to a Core 2 Duo later, C2D at stock.
This was a game released when dual cores hadn't hit the market and according to people didn't even use 2 cores much.

So rest assured you will see a huge increase in minimum FPS and whether or not that increase is impressive, your games will become a lot smoother and the experience will be better.

I had read somewhere that a guy went from a 2600k to 3930k, the FPS were more or less the same but the smoothness was noticeably more in the 3930k setup even when the game was only using 4 or less cores.

So people who say otherwise haven't tried each PC with each configuration and played games personally on each setup.

From experience I can tell you that a CPU is at least as important as the GPU and the GPU basically helps with FPS, the smoothness comes from the CPU once the average FPS are in place.

 

[d4a2n0k]

People who say that at higher settings the CPU doesn't help have no idea how games actually work.

I personally guarantee you that whether or not your FPS increase by a sufficient margin, your games will become much smoother and more enjoyable.

Back in 2005 in NFS MW people used to say A64 @ 2.4Ghz was enough, I had a 1900xtx and couldn't enjoy until I upgraded to a Core 2 Duo later, C2D at stock.
This was a game released when dual cores hadn't hit the market and according to people didn't even use 2 cores much.

So rest assured you will see a huge increase in minimum FPS and whether or not that increase is impressive, your games will become a lot smoother and the experience will be better.

I had read somewhere that a guy went from a 2600k to 3930k, the FPS were more or less the same but the smoothness was noticeably more in the 3930k setup even when the game was only using 4 or less cores.

So people who say otherwise haven't tried each PC with each configuration and played games personally on each setup.

From experience I can tell you that a CPU is at least as important as the GPU and the GPU basically helps with FPS, the smoothness comes from the CPU once the average FPS are in place.

I noticed the same going from a i7 920 to a 2600k to a 3960x in BF3. Frame rate maximums only went up a few FPS with each upgrade but general smoothness and minimums went up drastically. I know the review charts dont show a difference buts its there and its not me trying to justify the purchases. I do gravitate towards the 64 player servers though.

 

[Grooveriding]

Except from a few selected games like SC2 and WOW, you will not see any performance gains at 1080p and above with a single graphics card from 920@4GHz vs 3820@4.5GHz.

Edit: Another game im thinking that you may see a performance gain is BF3 multiplayer in open large maps in 64 player servers.

Yeah, my bad for forgetting this one, as it's probably a more important one. I saw substantial gains in BF3 MP. It's hard for me to say how much was just straight CPU improving the game and how much was the CPU opening up SLI scaling, but there was certainly a component of both at work.

BF3 MP is super CPU intensive to the point it even benefits from HT enabled CPUs. And this was with my CPU at only 4.4 because the mobo I had at the time was a clunky Gigabyte POS.

Using these settings

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Honestly people who went from 2600k to 3930k would be able to explain the smoothness well compared to others who just look at review charts

 

[Makaveli]

I agree in BF3.

Going to a 6core i7 I noticed a difference in smoothness with heavy action I mostly play 64player MP maps also.

 

[Dkcode]

Nice one lads.

It confirms what I thought, benchmarks only tell half the story.

Looks like I might save up for a six core behemoth instead

 

[Makaveli]

Nice one lads.

It confirms what I thought, benchmarks only tell half the story.

This is the problem.

All the reviews only show numbers for single player as someone mentioned previously.

I also see the issue from the reporting side. How do you show accurate repeatable numbers in a MP game?

 

[Dkcode]

I noticed the same going from a i7 920 to a 2600k to a 3960x in BF3. Frame rate maximums only went up a few FPS with each upgrade but general smoothness and minimums went up drastically. I know the review charts dont show a difference buts its there and its not me trying to justify the purchases. I do gravitate towards the 64 player servers though.

Was this using a multi GPU set up where you noticed the gains going from a 2600K to 3960X?

 

[aaksheytalwar]

But honestly you can't compare 3820 to 3960X, 2600k to 3820 may have no/nearly zero improvement, but a 6 core EE is in a different ball park. However, 920 to 3820/2600k is a good improvement in smoothness

 

[Edrick]

Going from a 2500K to a 3820 I saw a very noticable improvement in BF3, especially in 64 player maps. Since that is one of the few games I play, I am happy with my upgrade.

 

[d4a2n0k]

Was this using a multi GPU set up where you noticed the gains going from a 2600K to 3960X?

No, just a single 7970.

 

[SHAQ]

Did any of you see a difference in Crysis/Warhead? I can turn the settings to minimum in Warhead and only get 60 FPS in some places. It's either a CPU bottleneck or a lousy engine. If I raise shadows to medium the FPS drops in the 50's. I can't believe people thought CE2 was such a great engine. CE3 is much more optimized.

 

[Don Karnage]

If so what was the performance difference like in gaming?

Worth it?

Worth it? Not at all. Wait for IVY

 

[fixbsod]

I don't get the constant wait for ivy claims. IB appears to be like 7% faster than SB and that gain is negated by what appears likely to be less oc'ability. So basically until Haswell comes out or intel releases something beyond a 2700k or 3770k ...

And speaking more specifically to the OP and your suggestion -- IB i7-3770k is NOT going to be much faster than an 2700k or 3820.

Worth it? Not at all. Wait for IVY

 

[Don Karnage]

I don't get the constant wait for ivy claims. IB appears to be like 7% faster than SB and that gain is negated by what appears likely to be less oc'ability. So basically until Haswell comes out or intel releases something beyond a 2700k or 3770k ...

And speaking more specifically to the OP and your suggestion -- IB i7-3770k is NOT going to be much faster than an 2700k or 3820.

Less Overclockability? I've seen one IB ES that overclocked like crap. SB ES chips were the same way.

X79 is a huge waste of money. I speak from experience. I bought into it. It wasn't worth it.

 

[bryanW1995]

People who say that at higher settings the CPU doesn't help have no idea how games actually work.

I personally guarantee you that whether or not your FPS increase by a sufficient margin, your games will become much smoother and more enjoyable.

Back in 2005 in NFS MW people used to say A64 @ 2.4Ghz was enough, I had a 1900xtx and couldn't enjoy until I upgraded to a Core 2 Duo later, C2D at stock.
This was a game released when dual cores hadn't hit the market and according to people didn't even use 2 cores much.

So rest assured you will see a huge increase in minimum FPS and whether or not that increase is impressive, your games will become a lot smoother and the experience will be better.

I had read somewhere that a guy went from a 2600k to 3930k, the FPS were more or less the same but the smoothness was noticeably more in the 3930k setup even when the game was only using 4 or less cores.

So people who say otherwise haven't tried each PC with each configuration and played games personally on each setup.

From experience I can tell you that a CPU is at least as important as the GPU and the GPU basically helps with FPS, the smoothness comes from the CPU once the average FPS are in place.

You should do some benchmarking with the mins charted on your cpu at 1. typical overclock you use, 2. stock, and 3. underclocked by something large, say ~ 40%. I'd be interested to see which games were severely impacted and which weren't.