Is the heat difference between a 920 and 860 REALLY that big?

[Dr Bass]

I am planning on putting together an i7 build here shortly. However I cannot decide between an 860 or a 920. A few things:

-The 4 memory slots of the 860 irk me a bit. Would definitely get 12g on a 920. I run 8g now on my 775 board. I do like the simplicity of the P55 boards quite a bit, and the lack of a giant northbridge cooler. So that part is definitely attractive for me.
-The higher heat of the 920 boards gives me pause. I would not want a machine dumping large amounts of hot air into my office space here. However the memory configs are more attractive. Power usage savings isn't a big deal because it's really not much per year. Just thinking heat issues here. I realize the cpu "differences" are basically a wash once at the same clock.
-Don't really care at all about future proofing. I've been using my 2.1ghz e6400 overclocked to about 2.6 since early 2007 or so. And it still runs pretty well in W7 64. I suspect whatever I get now will last at least until 2011 with no problems whatsoever.
-This machine will be used for what I do now, dev work (web and games), music production, HD video editing etc.

So...is the x58 REALLY the better choic here? Should I go for the "Easy 12g" boards in spite of the apparently much hotter platform? I will run a good aftermarket cooler and I have a raven rv02 for the box, so plenty of good airflow. So to reiterate, primary concerns with the x58 are heat production, primary concerns with the p55 are the memory slot numbers.

 

[RussianSensation]

What do you need 8GBs of ram for? and especially 12GBs? If you in fact do require a lot of memory then 1366 is the way to go. Otherwise 860 is better for mild overclocking/power consumption.

 

[Dr Bass]

Well...pretty much just what I said I guess. HD videos, programming, dev work, graphics work, music, and usually all at the same time. I keep up with the adobe products, and generally multi task quite a bit. I am just not sure 8g would cut it in another year or so, especially with CS5 coming out in early-ish '10.

I guess the bottom line is, is the 920 x58 platform so hot that it should be duly counted as a true negative? Will it heat up a room? I just wonder if that is overblown, and if the 860 will be nearly as hot in practice.

 

[faxon]

prescott was probably hotter than x58+920 lol. as far as temps go, think of it this way, you dont have to heat your office in the winter at all! its always great coming home and being like "omg, its cold in the house cause someone turned off the heat, but my room's still comfortable!". it can get to be pretty warm in the summer tho lol, but i live in calfornia so there's really nothing i can do to prevent that from happening even if i dont turn my computer on at all

 

[Dr Bass]

But can anyone compare it to the output of an equally clocked 860?

 

[Lonyo]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...howdoc.aspx?i=3641&p=8

~23w difference between the two PLATFORMS, which will also include things like the northbridge/southbridge.

 

[Dr Bass]

That doesn't seem like a lot...my last question in this regard (my apologies way in advance if these are nuisance questions, I am fairly ignorant on these specific topics regarding the heat dissipation), would that 23 watt difference really translate to much of a heat/degrees difference in what is being expelled out of the case? It doesn't seem like it would be that big of a difference based on those numbers. 23 watts isn't even half a typical light bulb.

 

[aigomorla]

uhhh...

how can the 920 and 860 be any different, besides the motherboard power draw?

There both based off the same arch.. basically the same chip.. only difference is the pin platform.

So i dont understand how they can be different.

If anything, people are freaking out because they are hotter then yorkfields, and about the same as kentsfields.
So from old gen to new gen, we didnt get cooler, we got a tad bit hotter.

But if your comparing an i7 860 (note its called i7) vs a i7 920... i dont see how they would be drastically different besides there own internal design specs.

If your looking at total power.. then yes.. thats because X58 are power hungry overclocking boards, and P55 is a mainstream consumer board.

 

[Markfw]

My new 920 is only 56c full load @ 3.8 and 1.3 vcore. Cooler than my yorkfields or kentsfields.

Yes I do have the megahalemn, but the other have a true 120.

 

[Cookie Monster]

uhhh...

how can the 920 and 860 be any different, besides the motherboard power draw?

There both based off the same arch.. basically the same chip.. only difference is the pin platform.

So i dont understand how they can be different.

If anything, people are freaking out because they are hotter then yorkfields, and about the same as kentsfields.
So from old gen to new gen, we didnt get cooler, we got a tad bit hotter.

But if your comparing an i7 860 (note its called i7) vs a i7 920... i dont see how they would be drastically different besides there own internal design specs.

If your looking at total power.. then yes.. thats because X58 are power hungry overclocking boards, and P55 is a mainstream consumer board.

On a stock vs stock basis, Id think that lynnfield will have the upperhand when it comes to power consumption and heat.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634&p=17

Idle
i7-870 = 87.4W
i7-920 = 115.9W

Load
i7-870 = 181W
i7-920 = 203W

 

[aigomorla]

On a stock vs stock basis, Id think that lynnfield will have the upperhand when it comes to power consumption and heat.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634&p=17

Idle
i7-870 = 87.4W
i7-920 = 115.9W

Load
i7-870 = 181W
i7-920 = 203W

Once again, its because of the variation of motherboards, and not the processor.

Both chips will draw 130W TDP. Why? becuase both chips are designed as a 130W TDP chip.

So your argument is moot, because its looking at everything including the difference in motherboards.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Actually lynnfields have a 95W TDP

 

[Ben90]

Both chips will draw 130W TDP. Why? becuase both chips are designed as a 130W TDP chip.

Core i7-920: 2.6GHz, 130w
Core i7-940: 2.9GHz, 130w
Core i7-950: 3.0GHz, 130w
Core i7-960: 3.2GHz, 130w
Core i7-965: 3.2GHz, 130w
Core i7-975: 3.3GHz, 130w

W3503: 2.4GHz, 130w
W3505: 2.5GHz, 130w
W3520: 2.6GHz, 130w
W3540: 2.9GHz, 130w
W3550: 3.0GHz, 130w
W3570: 3.2GHz, 130w
W3580: 3.3GHz, 130w

TDP doesn't mean anything

 

[T2k]

Once again, its because of the variation of motherboards, and not the processor.

Both chips will draw 130W TDP. Why? becuase both chips are designed as a 130W TDP chip.

So your argument is moot, because its looking at everything including the difference in motherboards.

1. You don't even understand what TDP means - HINT: it's not about what your CPU will dissipate.

2. Blaming mobos for higher CPU heat is similarly silly.

3. Lynnfield's TDP is 95W, not 130W like Bloomfield's.

 

[aigomorla]

*sigh*

okey i was wrong about the lynnfield's TDP...

But the heat...

920 vs a 860 @ same overclock. Courtsy of my pal 123bob on XS.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=235419

Drastically different eh?

Its the SAME HEAT @ identical overclock. When both processors are put @ 4ghz.. they behave almost identically.

Ive seen this kind of thread about 15 times already.

TDP doesn't mean anything

no TDP means a lot to a question in regards to heat and power draw.

Thats why low voltage cpu's have tdp's in 65W and AMD even has a 45W TDP processor.

In design the lower the number the cooler and less power it will consume.

 

[elconejito]

Whether its the CPU only, or the mobo + CPU thats generating the watts doesn't matter, does it? more watts = more heat right? which means more heat expelled into the room from his entire case (I bet GPU has a bigger influence on this). I think that's what the OP was getting after.

I can't think it would be *that* big of a difference where if you needed the 12GB it should dissuade you.

 

[aigomorla]

I can't think it would be *that* big of a difference where if you needed the 12GB it should dissuade you.

which is what im trying to get.

you dont look at the 860 vs 920 because of power draw or heat differences.
Because there near identical.

 

[troisanh]

x58 for future 6core gulftown.

 

[Pneumothorax]

I'm going to second the observation of the 920/x58 vs 860/p55 as I have both in my house right now in identical cases (P183) Both are o/c to about 4ghz and they both run about the same temp as both are cooled by megahalems. Lynnfields power savings are only mostly true when you're running closer to stock speeds and have the turbo mode on. With turbo off and both o/c to around 4 ghz, lynnfield will run just about as hot as bloomfield as the higher vcore required to reach those speeds. Look above as lynnfield is requiring much higher voltage than bloomfield.

 

[Dr Bass]

Hey guys, I appreciate all the feedback. I actually went with the x58 platform and am quite pleased with it. It runs great, and it ain't heating up the area so...

 

[lothar]

I'm going to second the observation of the 920/x58 vs 860/p55 as I have both in my house right now in identical cases (P183) Both are o/c to about 4ghz and they both run about the same temp as both are cooled by megahalems. Lynnfields power savings are only mostly true when you're running closer to stock speeds and have the turbo mode on. With turbo off and both o/c to around 4 ghz, lynnfield will run just about as hot as bloomfield as the higher vcore required to reach those speeds. Look above as lynnfield is requiring much higher voltage than bloomfield.

1.46v to overclock an i7 860 to 4 GHz?
Something's gotta be wrong there...Not consistent with what I've been seeing on the web.

 

[aigomorla]

1.46v to overclock an i7 860 to 4 GHz?
Something's gotta be wrong there...Not consistent with what I've been seeing on the web.

well thats his cpu.

Ive seen Others that can do it around 1.375 from what im seeing.

But they still get the same temps.

But the entire i5 vs i7 debate has been sat on, tested, and reported.
In the long run, the i5 isnt worth it unless your absolutely not overclocking.

But in regards to overclocking and heat, and power draw, ramp both cpu's at the same overclock, you'll get near exact results.

Oh btw the i7 has HT on while the i5 doesnt.
And you know how much difference HT ON makes on cpu temps.

 

[Markfw]

Here is an I7@ 4 ghz 1.312 vcore and 60c temps FULL LOAD 100%

Stupid question, how to I make the picture big ?

 

[lothar]

well thats his cpu.

Ive seen Others that can do it around 1.375 from what im seeing.

But they still get the same temps.

But the entire i5 vs i7 debate has been sat on, tested, and reported.
In the long run, the i5 isnt worth it unless your absolutely not overclocking.

But in regards to overclocking and heat, and power draw, ramp both cpu's at the same overclock, you'll get near exact results.

Oh btw the i7 has HT on while the i5 doesnt.
And you know how much difference HT ON makes on cpu temps.

Yeah, but this isn't an i5 vs i7 debate.
This is an i7 vs i7 debate.

 

[lothar]

Here is an I7@ 4 ghz 1.312 vcore and 60c temps FULL LOAD 100%

Stupid question, how to I make the picture big ?