• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Anyone upgraded a i7 920 to i7 3820?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
You still didn't get it. The minimum fps increase but not that much. But even at the same fps the game feels a lot smoother, less jerkiness if at all, less lag, a faster and snappier experience despite nearly same fps. You can only experience it, you can't show it on a chart. You need to use it to believe it.
 
fixbsod said:
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.
Click to expand...
I hope ib\z77 is not too much faster than sb , if it is we'll have to start a sb owners support group to ease them into the next paradigm.
 
I can't say whether ivy will be smoother than SB, though IMO it probably will at least to some extent. But fps won't go up by more than 10% or so on average and are unlikely to make any or much difference in most or all cases. But smoothness is a different ball game, however it may be no where as big a jump as 960 to 2600k, this jump might be a bit smaller
 
Don Karnage said:
Less Overclockability? I've seen one IB ES that overclocked like crap. SB ES chips were the same way.

attachment.php


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

What platform did you upgrade from and what was it about the X79 platform you thought was a waste of money?
 
Don Karnage said:
Less Overclockability? I've seen one IB ES that overclocked like crap. SB ES chips were the same way.

attachment.php


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

one example where its being force fed 1.9+ volts equates to an obvious suicide run with sub zero cooling and doesn't mean much to those of us looking for indications of practical overclocks and realworld performance and usage

we all know Ivy is going to be an amazing overclocker as long as you can cool it

the fear with Ivy is that its going to take more than highest end air and closed loop water cooling to really take Ivy higher than what Sandy can already do, and even with a beefy custom water setup it might not be enough to truly distance itself with tangible performance differential. From my i7 930 @ 4GHz to my i7 2600K @ 4.8GHz, it would take a 5.76GHz Ivy to equal that level of improvement I saw from Bloomfield to Sandy, and from early indications that seems like pipe dream, even with high end water.
 
but a lot of people think sb @5.0 with 7\24 1.5 v is a suicide run,

I'll be coming from a 920 so 5.0 and low voltage is sort of what I'am looking for.
-water temps on my loop never pass 21c with 4 rads so could be interesting.

-if intel puts out ib retail that runs @ 95c on as little as 1.25v[ 4.8] with high end cooling as the es showed, it will be deem as a dud\failure and people will past on it ,and undo billions of PR\R&D intel has invested in cpu's -just can't see it myself.
-also means ib-e and haswell \haswell-e will be the same high temps.[sq. mm per watt.] so kiss those off also.
 
1. a suicide run is something that is guaranteed to die sooner rather than later, running at 1.5v can be considered foolhardy, but if the chip is indeed kept cool enough to be stable for 24/7 use then that's a different story

2. no one said Ivy wouldn't be an amazing upgrade from Nehalem, just that it doesn't look good for those who already have had a lot of success with Sandy.

3. the success or failure of a series will not be dictated by the enthusiast crowd, we're the vast minority. If Ivy doesn't smash Sandy in overclocking it will have a miniscule impact on Intel's margins because the majority of Ivy chips are going to have homes in laptops and ultrabooks, not enthusiast desktop rigs. As vocal and dedicated as we may be, we're simply not that important. Heck, its why X79 is largely irrelevant.


Its entirely possible that the doom and gloom outlook on Ivy doesn't come to pass, and that it turns out to be just as good as Sandy was over Bloomfield, and I am certainly hoping for it, but that doesn't mean I expect it. Right now I'd say I'm cautiously optimistic in expecting to be able to hit 5.2 to maybe 5.3GHz on an H100, although I'm really hoping for something over 5.5GHz and very well may upgrade to custom water if that's what it takes to hit such speeds.
 
rgallant said:
just posting this , no way the normal user system ,but the 2.0 vs 3.0 is always of interest to many peeps
as the thread question includes a pci-e 2.0 vs 3.0 platforms.
-came across a user review of 4 x gtx 680
2.0 vs 3.0 -looks like +45% for pci-e 3.0
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...ight*-display-and-computer-edition-2012/page6
post 132.
Click to expand...

Interesting indeed! So what happens if IB doesn't OC with air cooling as well as SB but we need 3.0? I'm looking to upgrade in the next month.

Does that leave 3930K,3820 or any SB mobos that have the NF200? chip? I saw some SB mobos early on that had extra PCIe lanes but I don't see any now.
 
aaksheytalwar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your example is from a game 7 years ago and from a processor upgrade that is easily one of the best jumps in 1 generation in the past 8-10 years.
 
You still don't get the point. The same thing happened from e4500 to e7200 and from q9550 to i7 860. If you don't get it, either you don't want to get it or don't have the ability to comprehend it.
 
aaksheytalwar said:
You still don't get the point. The same thing happened from e4500 to e7200 and from q9550 to i7 860. If you don't get it, either you don't want to get it or don't have the ability to comprehend it.
Click to expand...

Hurr Hurr:

20085.png


(and nobody buys a i7 860 to play things at medium quality)

Oh...And don't speak to us again in this thread.
 
I wasn't talking of FPS. I was talking of smoothness. Clearly you don't have the ability to understand higher level stuff. I reiterated several times that it wasn't about FPS but about smoothness, no chart shows that. And noobs don't know this. And you are not contributing so please dont post here again. The OP's question has been answered.

Our expectation here are that everyone engages in honest and polite discourse. Attacking the intelligence of other posters in this manner will get you in a large amount of trouble in a short amount of time.
-ViRGE
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottom line, if you have the money for a 3820, get it. You will notice some gains right away, and you will be ready for IB-E (if Intel releases it).

OR, if you think your 920 is good enough for now, wait for Haswell. That is the best advice we can give you at this time.
 
Last edited:
Edrick said:
Bottom line, if you have the money for a 3820, get it. You will notice some gains right away, and you will be ready for IB-E (if Intel releases it).

OR, if you think you 920 is good enough for now, wait for Haswell. That is the best advice we can give you at this time.
Click to expand...

This
 
All right thanks for your advice lads.

I'll be hanging on to see how IB stacks up for now. Either way I am staying put until I have saved enough spare money, at which point I might just slap a six core SB-E in this bad boy just because I can. If IB is not a significant move forward anyway (which we all know is only a incremental improvement).

Also what is the crack at the moment with Haswell. Does anyone know if its going to be like the x58 gen - high end first and mainstream later or like vice versa like Sandy?

Edit: This article might have answered my question.
 
Last edited:
Edrick said:
Bottom line, if you have the money for a 3820, get it. You will notice some gains right away, and you will be ready for IB-E (if Intel releases it).

OR, if you think your 920 is good enough for now, wait for Haswell. That is the best advice we can give you at this time.
Click to expand...

Intel will release IVB-E. I promise you this.
 
Edrick said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you believe it was cause of the hyper threading the processor had?
 
I could run farcry 2 and crysis on my a64 single setup acceptably subject to my gpu and settings. But that doesn't mean moving to a dual core didn't make it smoother. Despite the same fps, a better CPU resulted in a better experience. I am not saying you won't get 60 fps min in an ancient game, you will. But it still won't be as smooth with those same 60 fps as on a modern CPU. I have tried it several times with the same result each time.

Even a game like the 1990s Dave ran snappier on a64 venice than on a a64 Winchester because of the later having just half the cache. But both gave similar min fps and avg fps in games of the time. But the experience was different. You are not as experienced about all this as you want to be. Posting benchmarks won't help, I know all this and a lot more 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top