'Max' GPU for a 5 yo PC? i7-920 etc

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

yhelothar

Lifer
Dec 11, 2002
18,409
39
91
A cheap and awesome upgrade for the CPU is the Xeon Westmere hexcores. You can get a 5650 or 5660 for around $60-80. This runs on the 32nm process so it'll overclock better than the i7 920 with less power and run cooler and you'll have the hexcore bonus with games that support it.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
A cheap and awesome upgrade for the CPU is the Xeon Westmere hexcores. You can get a 5650 or 5660 for around $60-80. This runs on the 32nm process so it'll overclock better than the i7 920 with less power and run cooler and you'll have the hexcore bonus with games that support it.
yeah I have seen this suggested a few times but never looked into it. they only costs 60 to 80 bucks though for a 6 core cpu?
 

KaRLiToS

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2010
1,918
11
81
Says the guy who heard from another guy that heard from another person. He never had first hand experience but seems to know better than anyone.

Happens every thread.

Russian, dont waste too much time.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
Says the guy who heard from another guy that heard from another person. He never had first hand experience but seems to know better than anyone.

Happens every thread.

Russian, dont waste too much time.
so you are at your some old passive aggressive crap yet again. I posted links to exactly what I was talking about that backed up why I said what I did so stop your trolling.:rolleyes:
 

KaRLiToS

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2010
1,918
11
81
so you are at you some old crap yet again. I posted links to exactly what I was talking about so stop you trolling.:rolleyes:

Check this quote.

I dont disagree with you at all about your upgrade suggestions. again my main point here was that the first gen i7 cpus were not all that great like some people seem to think.

Why do you even argue with me and Russian when you don't have a clue. Yes compare a i7 920 at 2.66ghz with C0 stepping with the last CPU of Core2Quad.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
Check this quote.



Why do you even argue with me and Russian when you don't have a clue. Yes compare a i7 920 at 2.66ghz with C0 stepping with the last CPU of Core2Quad.
you are too busy trying to be a jerk that you only see what you want to see. look at the freaking links as even clock for clock it was no better in some games and even occasionally worse. all thats right there and you darn well know it. and yes i already said that I was talking about pre DO cpus and clearly showed a link saying 3.8 appears to be about max for those. I am sick of you starting your crap and taking things out of context.
 
Last edited:

KaRLiToS

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2010
1,918
11
81
you are too busy trying to be a jerk that you only see what you want to see. look at the freaking links as even clock for clock it was no better in some games and even occasionally worse. all thats right there and you darn well know it. and yes i already said that I was talking about pre DO cpus and clearly showed a link saying 3.8 appears to be about max for those. I am sick of you starting your crap and taking things out of context.


The links???? I'll show you something that I don't need links.


________________________________________________

Do you wanna know what is first hand experience???

Check I still have my i7 930 Template with rampage III Extreme

Code:
Target CPU Frequency                  4294MHz
Target DRAM Frequency                1636MHz

LN2 Mode                              [No]***
QPI Loadline Calibration              [Yes]***

Sync Mode                             [Enabled]
AI Overclock Tuner                    [Manual]
OC From CPU level Up                  [Auto]
CPU Ratio Setting                     [21]  
CPU Turbo Power Limit                 [Disabled]

>CPU Configuration----------------------------
CPU Ratio Setting                     [21]
C1E Support                           [Disabled]
Hardware Prefetcher                   [Enabled]
Adjacent Cache Line Prefetcher        [Enabled]
Intel(R) Virtualiyation Tech          [Enabled]
CPU TM Function                       [Disabled]
Execute Disable Bit                   [Disabled]
Intel(R) HT Technology                [Enabled]
Active Processor Cores                [*ALL]
A20M                                  [Disabled]
Intel(R) SpeedStep(TM) Tech           [Disabled]
Intel(R) C-STATE Tech                 [Disabled]
C State package limit setting         [Auto]
----------------------------------------------

BCLK Frequency                        [204]
PCIE Frequency                        [102]
DRAM Frequency                        [1636]
UCLK Frequency                        [3672]
QPI Link Data Rate                    [Auto]

Memory Configuration Protect          [Disabled]

>DRAM Timing Control--------------------------
CAS# Latency                          [7]
RAS# to CAS# Delay                    [8]
RAS# PRE Time                         [7]
RAS# ACT Time                         [18]
RAS# to RAS# Delay                    [Auto]
REF Cycle Time                        [72]
WRITE Recovery Time                   [Auto]
READ to PRE Time                      [Auto]
FOUR ACT WIN Time                     [Auto]
Back-To-BackCAS# Delay                [Auto]

Timing Mode                           [1N]
Round Trip Latency on CHA             [Auto]
Round Trip Latency on CHB             [Auto]
Round Trip Latency on CHC             [Auto]

WRITE To READ Delay(DD)               [Auto]
WRITE To READ Delay(DR)               [Auto]
WRITE To READ Delay(SR)               [Auto]
READ To WRITE Delay(DD)               [Auto]
READ To WRITE Delay(DR)               [Auto]
READ To WRITE Delay(SR)               [Auto]
READ To READ Delay(DD)                [Auto]
READ To READ Delay(DR)                [Auto]
READ To READ Delay(SR)                [Auto]
WRITE To WRITE Delay(DD)              [Auto]
WRITE To WRITE Delay(DR)              [Auto]
WRITE To WRITE Delay(SR)              [Auto]
----------------------------------------------

CPU Differential Amplitude            [Auto]
CPU Clock Skew                        [Auto]
IOH Clock Skew                        [Auto]
------------ Extreme Engine Digi+ ------------
Digi+ PWR Mode                        [T-Balanced]
PWR Volt. Control                     [Auto]
Load-Line Calibration                 [Auto]
CPU Voltege OCP                       [Enabled]
CPU PWM Frequency                     [Auto]

Extreme OV                            [Disabled]
Extreme OC                            [Disabled]

CPU Voltage                           [1.35v]
CPU PLL Voltage                       [1.55025v]
QPI/DRAM Core Voltage                 [1.30625v]
DRAM Bus Voltage                      [1.65625v]

>DRAM REF Voltages----------------------------
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA          [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA          [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB          [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB          [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHC          [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHC          [Auto]
----------------------------------------------

IOH Voltage                           [1.24591]
IOH PCIE Voltage                      [1.53756v]

ICH Voltage                           [1.12666v]
ICH PCIE Voltage                      [1.51106v]

---------- Spread Spectrum Control -----------
CPU Spread Spectrum                   [Disabled]
DRAM Spread Spectrum                  [Disabled]

And a pic of the system

P1000295.jpg~original


And this is with the Q9650 Sorry I was at 4,275Ghz

Code:
MB Intelligent Tweaker(M.I.T.)

CPU:Q9650
MOBO: EP45-UD3P Rev 1.6
Bios: Newest

Robust Graphics Booster ..................: Fast
CPU Clock Ratio ..........................: 9x
Fine CPU Clock Ratio......................: -
CPU Frequency ............................: 4.27 GHz (475 x 9)


Clock Chip Control 
Standard Clock Control
CPU Host Clock Control....................: [Enabled] 
CPU Host Frequency (Mhz) .................: 475
PCI Express Frequency (Mhz) ..............: 100
C.I.A.2 ..................................: [Disabled]


Advanced Clock Control [Press Enter]
CPU Clock Drive...........................: 900mv
PCI Express Clock Drive...................: 900mv
CPU Clock Skew (ps).......................: 100ps  
MCH Clock Skew (ps).......................: 100ps


DRAM Performance Control
Performance Enhance.......................: [STANDARD]
Extreme Memory Profile (X.M.P.)...........: Auto
(G)MCH Frequency Latch....................: [400MHz]
System Memory Multiplier .................: 2.00D
Memory Frequency (Mhz) ..............1066.: 950        (1:1)
DRAM Timing Selectable ...................: [Manual]


Standard Timing Control
CAS Latency Time..........................: 5
tRCD .....................................: 5
tRP'......................................: 5
tRAS......................................: 15 


Advanced Timing Control ...................
tRRD......................................: 4
tWTR......................................: 4
tWR.......................................: 8
tRFC......................................: 68
tRTP......................................: 4
Command Rate (CMD) .......................: 0


Driving Strength Profiles
Driving Strength 

(Channel A) 
Static tRead Value........................: 9
tRD Phase0 Adjustment.....................: 0
tRD Phase1 Adjustment.....................: 0
tRD Phase2 Adjustment ....................: 0
tRD Phase3 Adjustment.....................: 0
Trd2rd(Different Rank)....................: 8 
Twr2wr(Different Rank)....................: 8
Twr2rd(Different Rank)....................: 7
Trd2wr(Same/Diff Rank)....................: 9
Dimm1 Clock Skew Control..................: +200ps 
Dimm2 Clock Skew Control..................: +200ps

(Channel B)
Static tRead Value........................: 9
tRD Phase0 Adjustment.....................: 0
tRD Phase1 Adjustment.....................: 0
tRD Phase2 Adjustment ....................: 0
tRD Phase3 Adjustment.....................: 0
Trd2rd(Different Rank)....................: 8
Twr2wr(Different Rank)....................: 8
Twr2rd(Different Rank)....................: 7
Trd2wr(Same/Diff Rank)....................: 9 
Dimm1 Clock Skew Control..................: +200ps
Dimm2 Clock Skew Control..................: +200ps


Motherboard Voltage Control

CPU
Load-line Calibration ....................: [Enabled]
CPU Vcore….………...............1.250v.......: 1.3625
CPU Termination…............ 1.200v.......: 1.34
CPU PLL…………………...............1.500v.......: 1.63
CPU Referen.………….............0.760v.......: 0.888

MCH/ICH
MCH Core……………................1.100v.......: 1.340
MCH Reference….……............0.760........; 0.930
MCH/DRAM Ref.…...............0.900V.......: 1.030
ICH I/O………………................1.500V.......: 1.500
ICH Core…………...……............1.100V.......: 1.100

DRAM
DRAM Voltage ……..............1.800v.......: 2.060
DRAM Termination .…..........0.900V.... ..: 1.030
Channel A Reference .........0.900V.......: 1.030
Channel B Reference .........0.900V.......: 1.030

Advanced Settings
Limit CPUID Max. to 3.....................: [Disabled]
No-Execute Memory Protect.................: [Enabled]
CPU Enhanced Halt (C1E)...................: [Disabled]
C2/C2E State Support......................: [Disabled]
x C4/C4E State Support....................: [Disabled]
CPU Thermal Monitor 2(TM2) ...............: [Enabled]
CPU EIST Function.........................: [Disabled]
Virtualization Technology.................: [Disabled]

58006692_vbattach143290.jpeg



PIC of the system.

SDC10079.jpg
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
and what the heck does your 930 have to do with what I said? the pre DO 920 chips typically went to only 3.8 according to reviews. I never said 4.0 or more could not be achieved on later revisions. I made that perfectly clear when I replied to russian that I was thinking about the pre DO chips.
 
Last edited:

KaRLiToS

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2010
1,918
11
81
and what the heck does your 930 have to do with what I said? the pre DO 920 chips typically went to only 3.8 according to reviews.

Ok man....according to reviews.

Do you have any indications that he has a C0 or C1?? Who cared about C1 and C0 anyway?
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
Ok man....according to reviews.

Do you have any indications that he has a C0 or C1?? Who cared about C1 and C0 anyway?
yeah those things you occasionally link to when they back up what you have to say. but please tell us more about your 930 which is not the same thing as pre DO 920. and I have no idea what revision he has but neither do you. :rolleyes:
 

KaRLiToS

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2010
1,918
11
81
This is your first quote

4ghz is insane for those old chips. even if possible that would be a ridiculous amount of power used.

and sorry but the first gen i7 cpus were not all that impressive. in some cases they could not even beat the Core 2 quads even at the same clocks.


Older chips in general? Or what? What is old chip, i7 990x? i7 870??? At this point, it is clear you don't know what you are talking about but guessing...again.
Even if you see a review with a i7 920 vs Q9650 with a GTX 285, it doesn't mean the Q9650 will handle a R9 290 the same way a i7 920 will. Even if they are both overclocked. (Pfff, pre D0... it is called C0...stepping)

yeah those things you occasionally link to when they back up what you have to say. but please tell us more about your 930 which is not the same thing as pre DO 920. and I have no idea what revision he has but neither do you. :rolleyes:

A i7 930 is EXACTLY the same thing as a i7 920 D0, just with different clocks. Actually it is the multiplier that is different, THAT IS ALL. But you must know that, heh?

http://www.overclock.net/t/538439/guide-to-overclocking-the-core-i7-920-or-930-to-4-0ghz/0_30

We are getting off topic. Sorry everyone. But I don't like when a subject is misleaded.
 
Last edited:

crashtech

Lifer
Jan 4, 2013
10,695
2,294
146
No matter the specific number, the OP has significant untapped CPU potential that could be unleashed via overclocking. I still think in these cases an Nvidia GPU is more appropriate, they need less CPU to perform well.
 

Zorander

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2010
1,143
1
81
OC the core i7 920 to 3.2GHz and above and get a AMD R9 290. OC the card to 1GHz and you are set to go for a long time. ;)

Next year upgrade to Windows 10 with DX12 and enjoy.
This.

I upgraded from a Lynfield to Devil's Canyon recently. It made me realize the Lynnfield (overclocked) was no slouch. What I actually appreciate from the upgrade was the better power and thermal efficiency. My min & max temps and overclock ceiling significantly improved. Performance-wise the first-gen Core processors will still manage well with reasonably up-to-date GPU.

p.s. I recommend the 970 if you can spare the cash; should you decide to upgrade one day, you can move it to the new system.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
A cheap and awesome upgrade for the CPU is the Xeon Westmere hexcores. You can get a 5650 or 5660 for around $60-80. This runs on the 32nm process so it'll overclock better than the i7 920 with less power and run cooler and you'll have the hexcore bonus with games that support it.

I totally forgot about that. Thanks for the reminder! If he can sell his i7 920 for $50, this could be an epic upgrade swap. Those 32nm 5650s overclock well beyond 4Ghz. :D

I dont disagree with you at all about your upgrade suggestions. again my main point here was that the first gen i7 cpus were not all that great like some people seem to think.

I am not sure what's up with those FC2 results from Bit-tech you posted but it's possible those are early reviews with less than mature X58 drivers / that specific Mobo bios. Looking at more recent benchmarks of FC2 and other games, i7 920 OC does very well against i7 3770K OC when comparing 680 max overclocked:

GTX680-games-1a.jpg

GTX680-games-1.jpg

Source

Since we are even recommending R9 290 card, let's look at how i7 920 @ 4.2ghz + GTX690 compares against i7 3770K @ 4.8Ghz.

MainCht-2.jpg

MainCht-11.jpg

Source

Once again, 3770K @ 4.8Ghz is faster but I can't say it's earth shattering. I am seeing 10-15% tops.

There were a couple of reviews comparing i7 920 OC against Haswell but I can't seem to find it readily. If he can't reach an overclocked of 3.8Ghz or so, he can swap the CPU to one of those 6-core 32nm Xeons mentioned in the thread. Those babies hit 4.5Ghz on X58!
 
Last edited:

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
I totally forgot about that. Thanks for the reminder! If he can sell his i7 920 for $50, this could be an epic upgrade swap. Those 32nm 5650s overclock well beyond 4Ghz. :D
:sneaky:


and where do you find those cpus? ebay? I never even heard of them until I saw them being suggested for upgrades on some other forums.
 

Magic Carpet

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2011
3,477
234
106
I still think in these cases an Nvidia GPU is more appropriate, they need less CPU to perform well.
According to my tests, in CPU limited situations neither vendor performs really well. Games you play and features required is what should be bothering you, imo. Geforce and Radeon both have strong and weak points. "Personality" should be the deciding factor, not looks.
 
Last edited:

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
:sneaky:


and where do you find those cpus? ebay? I never even heard of them until I saw them being suggested for upgrades on some other forums.

It's not that hard to find the X5650 for $90-95 (This CPU used to cost $999). Global Computer Sales and ETARATECH have them for $95-96 with shipping included:

http://www.amazon.com/2-66GHz-Intel-...ords=xeon+5650

On e-Bay, you can find these for $70 easily:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/INTEL-XEON-...433?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f3ed42a09

or

http://www.ebay.com/itm/614735-001-...US_Server_CPUs_Processors&hash=item51bebe84a0

There is a massive thread on these and people are reporting very good overclocking on Asus X58 boards:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2335636&page=69

I am sure he can offload that i7 920 for $50 and that would make this a very cheap upgrade in the meantime and he will get 3900-4000mhz overclock and 6-core 95W TDP on 32nm.

The 32nm 6-core Xeon LGA1366 hype is real :)

attachment.php

attachment.php


But you don't need to go wild like that. A member Burpo was able to hit 4.6Ghz at very good voltage. Therefore, 4Ghz is a cake walk on these.

24x7-_zpsc90bdf79.jpg

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2335636&page=61
 
Last edited:

ocre

Golden Member
Dec 26, 2008
1,594
7
81
Don't buy into the crap about athe 920 being slower than the core 2 duo....or the claim that they aren't faster

Every think back and remember for a minute.

There was a reason behind the gaming inconsistency. It was the new feature: hyperthreading. When it came to game engines of the day, it could actually hurt performance. This was really well known at the time and most gamers opted to turn it off or buy CPUs without HT. We are talking about a time when multi threaded game engines was a joke, a time where a dual core CPU was all u needed for gaming. Things have completely changed. We went from a time that a faster dual core was preferred to now. Dual cores struggle to hit 30fps in modern titles

But yeah, back in the e8400 days things were very different. A time when HT could actually cause a notable performance hit.
Whether it was a driver issue or game engine issue or a combo of both, doesn't matter. The world has changed. Those issues are long in the past.
Today's games are very very different. Your crap out of luck with a dual core and threaded game engines have taken over. Its not a dream anymore, it is the reality.

Toyota is posting completely irrelevant information
 

ronbo613

Golden Member
Jan 9, 2010
1,237
45
91
People sure get fired up over video cards.

Glad to hear my gray haired i7 Lynnfield still has some legs(I think that's what I'm reading).
 

rgallant

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2007
1,361
11
81
People sure get fired up over video cards.

Glad to hear my gray haired i7 Lynnfield still has some legs(I think that's what I'm reading).
first time today so not so bad, wait till amd has the faster high end card,
 

Magic Carpet

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2011
3,477
234
106
Once again, 3770K @ 4.8Ghz is faster but I can't say it's earth shattering. I am seeing 10-15% tops.
Yeah, the speed is there. But like I said earlier, the only problem is power consumption. My 4770K at load consumes less power than 920 at idle. That 6-core Xeon might fare better, though.

psu_idle_power.png

And it gets "better" here.
psu_load_power.png
 
Last edited:

XLer8or

Member
Mar 18, 2002
56
0
61
I started out with a i7 920 on the x58 platform. My second PC had a C2Q Q6600. The I7 smoked it in just about anything even at stock. The newer cards all have pci-e 3.0. The X58 is limited to pci-e 2.0. Someone posted benches like last week of pci-e 2.0 vs. 3.0 but cant find them. It did show a hit though.

Currently the x58 platform is my second PC with i7 980(non-x). Its still a great platform but IMHO is good for something like a gtx770 from my experience and guestimation. IF you can't find a great deal on the gtx 770 then go to a r9 290 for cheap.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
Don't buy into the crap about athe 920 being slower than the core 2 duo....or the claim that they aren't faster

Every think back and remember for a minute.

There was a reason behind the gaming inconsistency. It was the new feature: hyperthreading. When it came to game engines of the day, it could actually hurt performance. This was really well known at the time and most gamers opted to turn it off or buy CPUs without HT. We are talking about a time when multi threaded game engines was a joke, a time where a dual core CPU was all u needed for gaming. Things have completely changed. We went from a time that a faster dual core was preferred to now. Dual cores struggle to hit 30fps in modern titles

But yeah, back in the e8400 days things were very different. A time when HT could actually cause a notable performance hit.
Whether it was a driver issue or game engine issue or a combo of both, doesn't matter. The world has changed. Those issues are long in the past.
Today's games are very very different. Your crap out of luck with a dual core and threaded game engines have taken over. Its not a dream anymore, it is the reality.

Toyota is posting completely irrelevant information
maybe you should pay more attention before making your comments. I was saying it was not much faster than the Core 2 QUAD. which it clearly isnt in those reviews as it even lost to it a couple cases even at same clockspeed. those acting like it was some massive jump over Core 2 quads for gaming are living in fantasyland. HT rarely will help the i7 and you know that and can still actually slow down a game by couple fps.
 
Last edited:

plonk420

Senior member
Feb 6, 2004
324
16
81
I started out with a i7 920 on the x58 platform. My second PC had a C2Q Q6600. The I7 smoked it in just about anything even at stock. The newer cards all have pci-e 3.0. The X58 is limited to pci-e 2.0. Someone posted benches like last week of pci-e 2.0 vs. 3.0 but cant find them. It did show a hit though.

Currently the x58 platform is my second PC with i7 980(non-x). Its still a great platform but IMHO is good for something like a gtx770 from my experience and guestimation. IF you can't find a great deal on the gtx 770 then go to a r9 290 for cheap.

at 16x, there's no notable differences between pci-express 1.1, 2.0, and 3.0

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Ivy_Bridge_PCI-Express_Scaling/
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GTX_980_PCI-Express_Scaling/