i7 and OC'ing--what am I missing?

[Evenkeel]

Slowly working towards speccing out a new build. I think I have misunderstood the overclocking capabilities of previous Intel procs, because before the i7, I thought you needed an "Extreme" version to OC (officially, I mean). For example, my current rig has a OX9650, which oddly is still selling for the same price I paid for it over a year ago.

Anyway...

I first thought that only the Core i7 965 "Extreme" would OC, but I've read that all 3 procs OC. So my question is this:

What exactly do you get--other than a few hundred more MHz--if you buy a 965 over a 940? Or even a "lowly" </sarcasm> 920?

Because just about everything I've read says all these chips are very, very fast. And for the price diff btwn the 940 and 965, I could add a second Radeon 4870X2 to the new rig, for example.

So--as far as the i7's go--is the 965 mainly just a good way to empty out your wallet?

 

[PCTC2]

The "Extreme" editions are the only processors with unlocked multipliers. This means you can overclock without changing the base clock the motherboard runs on (FSB for pre-i7, BCLK for i7).

All enthusiast level hardware allows you to change this clock to overclock, since you can't raise the multiplier of the standard non-Extreme chips. With this comes motherboard strain and instability if extra voltages aren't applied where needed. So no, all Core 2 Duo/Quad/i7's will overclock, but only the Extremes allow you to just change the multiplier that the CPU frequency is attained by.

 

[polarbear6]

i dont know know abt the rest of u people but i say 700 hundred bucks for that extra 0.34 ghz is not worth it

i dont see anything special in the 965 (sentence open for reconsideration)

may be just may be
it might overclock better (again sentence open for reconsideration ;p)

read some review or anything of that sort

but do remember it is easy as easy to take a 3.0 ghz cpu to 3.6 ghz as it is to take a 2.6 ghz to 3.0 ghz (may be)

 

[exar333]

I don't think the 940 is "worth it" without watercooling and the 965 isn't "worth it" unless you watercool or phase cool it. Obviously, this may change if you don't plan to overclock, but thats how I see it.

 

[aigomorla]

non extreme:

See how my multi is at 19x. Actually its 20x 21x with tubro on, but i7 920's overclock better on the 19x multi.

http://i125.photobucket.com/al.../aigomorla/Linpack.jpg

Now my Extreme Edition chip. You see how the multi is at 27x? The Extreme edition is able to go actually up to 64x.

http://i125.photobucket.com/al.../aigomorla/Final-1.jpg

Its the limitation of the multi that sets the price of these chips.


The OC limitations of both is still a luck of a draw. Ive seen 920's which hold 4.2 stable, then again, 4.125 linpack stable on HT on a i7 is pretty impressive at that feat also.

 

[Evenkeel]

If I wasn't planning to OC, or it isn't that big a deal, it sounds like the 920 is the best bang-for-the-buck, yes? It's still a very fast proc, isn't it?

That extra $700 (btwn the 920 and 965) could buy a whole lot of the rest of the new rig's components.

If I compared the 920 to my QX9650 w/its 4GB DDR3 Crucial (non-Ballistix) memory, is the performance of the 920 going to wow me? (Assume similar specs, tho I'd probably put in 6GB RAM in the tri-channel 920 mobo.)

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Evenkeel
If I compared the 920 to my QX9650 w/its 4GB DDR3 Crucial (non-Ballistix) memory, is the performance of the 920 going to wow me? (Assume similar specs, tho I'd probably put in 6GB RAM in the tri-channel 920 mobo.)

no.


Sakura, my QX9650 is only a little bit higher then EVA my 965 (stupid HT). 4.2 vs 4.125

Most of it is unoticable.

The only time i notice is when EVA is loaded 100% of the time vs Sakura, Cuz eva gets about 67% more work done then Sakura.

Theres not that many people that got an i7 because they "needed it".

Reason i got it was pure greed. :X