Nehalem i7 920 to Kaby Lake... upgrade or wait?

[Headfoot]

You would 100% notice a difference if you're gaming or doing other CPU intense tasks, especially if you upgrade your GPU. You won't notice much difference if you just browse the web and that sort of thing.

Going from a 2500k @4.5/ddr3-1600 to 5820k @ 4.4/ddr4-3200 was night and day for gaming because of how much less stutter I got. RAM speed definitely has something to do with stuttering too which you can only get on a more modern platform. Especially for Skylake.

 

[Justinbaileyman]

No need to hop on a new platform yet just do a small $65 dollar upgrade to either a X5650 or x5670 and thats all you'll really need.You'll notice huge performance gains.

 

[Dave2150]

No need to hop on a new platform yet just do a small $65 dollar upgrade to either a X5650 or x5670 and thats all you'll really need.You'll notice huge performance gains.

Spending money on old technology with no warranty is rather foolish imo. Those xeons use so much more power when overclocked to 4Ghz+, get very hot and the x58 platform is truly ancient in terms of it's feature support.

Much better to get an up to date platform with all the latest tech imo, plus full warranty and higher resale value

 

[Justinbaileyman]

WOW you must be rich to be able to just buy all new stuff then huh? So you gonna buy the OP all new stuff cause not everyone has the funds to buy new stuff like you!! He already has the x58 platform so upgrading it makes more sense then buying all new z170 stuff when there is no upgrade path and its already pretty much a dead end since Z270 is right around the corner.Might as well spend the $65 for an awesome 6c/12t upgrade and save your self some extra cash for when the new stuff comes out. I dont know but $65 vs. $500 make more sense to me.

 

[laamanaator]

Spending money on old technology with no warranty is rather foolish imo. Those xeons use so much more power when overclocked to 4Ghz+, get very hot and the x58 platform is truly ancient in terms of it's feature support.

Much better to get an up to date platform with all the latest tech imo, plus full warranty and higher resale value

No, those Xeons don't get very hot, in fact they run quite cool even when they are OC'd to 4 GHz+. My friend has a X5660 OC'd to 4,4 GHz, and it's max temps in IBT are way under 80C. So no, they don't run hot. +A new platform would cost him almost 10 times more than a 6-core xeon.

 

[Rifter]

intel has been improving its products, just not in the way you want. which may not even be possible with any technology that's going to be available anytime soon - doubling clock speed just isn't sitting out there anymore.

Thats fine, they could add more cores if they cant do clockspeed, The fact of the matter is since AMD fell out of the CPU landscape intel has been innovating very little. Not that i blame them if i was running a company to make money id probably kill off most R&D as well if i had no competition, it just sucks for us consumers.

But here we are 8 years after and still using 4 cores because intel locks the 6 or 8 cores behind their server platforms. Other processing needs have become highly parallel with GPU having 1000's of cores now and even cell phones jumping to 8 now and probably 12 by the end of 2017. Does no one else find it laughable that their cell phone has more cores that their desktop CPU?

I just hope Zen is competitive enough to scare intel into getting back into marching forward with technology instead of coasting.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

A modern i7 should be about twice as fast as the stock i7-920 was. If you find yourself CPU limited, you'll notice the improvement. If you aren't (you aren't, by the way) you won't really notice the improvements. For most office tasks, etc., I wouldn't kick an i7-920 out of bed for eating crackers, IYKWIMAITYD.

Overclocking the 920 cuts into that advantage, but it also turns the 920 into a nice little AMD-style space heater.

 

[Arachnotronic]

But here we are 8 years after and still using 4 cores because intel locks the 6 or 8 cores behind their server platforms. Other processing needs have become highly parallel with GPU having 1000's of cores now and even cell phones jumping to 8 now and probably 12 by the end of 2017. Does no one else find it laughable that their cell phone has more cores that their desktop CPU?.

You can buy an X99 platform today and stick a processor with anywhere from 4 to 22 cores into the socket. Why don't you do so if more cores is your thing?

 

[Dulanic]

I'm with you. Same CPU and still kicking. I'm thinking of waiting to see what AMD Zen will look like and price at. For now my i7 920 is plenty fast.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

No, those Xeons don't get very hot, in fact they run quite cool even when they are OC'd to 4 GHz+. My friend has a X5660 OC'd to 4,4 GHz, and it's max temps in IBT are way under 80C. So no, they don't run hot. +A new platform would cost him almost 10 times more than a 6-core xeon.

FWIW, "hot" means different things for different CPUs. 80C is no biggie for modern CPUs (which have max temps over 100C in some cases.) But the X5660's max temp is 81C, so saying it's "way under 80C" isn't as impressive. Most OCers would be uncomfortable with temps over 70C, IMHO. Meanwhile, an overclocked Core 2 Quad really should be in the 50s.

That said, if it works, and it's cheap, it's hard to argue with it. Be a little careful with your temps and it will last a long time.

 

[Rifter]

You can buy an X99 platform today and stick a processor with anywhere from 4 to 22 cores into the socket. Why don't you do so if more cores is your thing?

simple, money, they are ridiculously overpriced, due to complete lack of competition. Thats why Zen really needs to be at least competitive or we are all doomed to using 4 cores forever.

 

[Dave2150]

simple, money, they are ridiculously overpriced, due to complete lack of competition. Thats why Zen really needs to be at least competitive or we are all doomed to using 4 cores forever.

Intel already plans to introduce 6 core mainstream CPU's with the upcomming 'Coffeelake'. So no, we won't be stuck on 4 cores forever. I suggest you do some research before making false statements.

 

[Burpo]

@dave_the_nerd
That's t-Case temp (not actual core temp) of 81C on the Xeons. For comparison sake the i7-920 is only 67.9C, and it throttles much earlier than the 32nm Xeons.
http://ark.intel.com/products/37147/Intel-Core-i7-920-Processor-8M-Cache-2_66-GHz-4_80-GTs-Intel-QPI
Even the i7-5960X is 66.8C..
http://ark.intel.com/products/82930...ssor-Extreme-Edition-20M-Cache-up-to-3_50-GHz
It has been my experience those Xeons start to throttle at 96C (as measured by Coretemp or HWInfo).

 

[laamanaator]

FWIW, "hot" means different things for different CPUs. 80C is no biggie for modern CPUs (which have max temps over 100C in some cases.) But the X5660's max temp is 81C, so saying it's "way under 80C" isn't as impressive. Most OCers would be uncomfortable with temps over 70C, IMHO. Meanwhile, an overclocked Core 2 Quad really should be in the 50s.

That said, if it works, and it's cheap, it's hard to argue with it. Be a little careful with your temps and it will last a long time.

If you didn't know, IBT pushes everything older Haswell to the max, meaning his gaming temps are at max 65C. And that max temps is maximum recommended sustained temp (meaning 24/7), not the absolute maximum. Most OCers are comfortable with temps 80C when running a power virus, I'm comfortable with temps up to 90C when running a power virus, so don't make that kind of generalizations( <- is that even a proper sentance?)

 

[ElFenix]

Thats fine, they could add more cores if they cant do clockspeed, The fact of the matter is since AMD fell out of the CPU landscape intel has been innovating very little. Not that i blame them if i was running a company to make money id probably kill off most R&D as well if i had no competition, it just sucks for us consumers.

But here we are 8 years after and still using 4 cores because intel locks the 6 or 8 cores behind their server platforms. Other processing needs have become highly parallel with GPU having 1000's of cores now and even cell phones jumping to 8 now and probably 12 by the end of 2017. Does no one else find it laughable that their cell phone has more cores that their desktop CPU?

I just hope Zen is competitive enough to scare intel into getting back into marching forward with technology instead of coasting.

That's because here we are eight years later there's still barely anything out there that can use more than 4 cores.

Meanwhile there's tons of users out there who benefited from increased integrated graphics to play League of Legends on their notebooks which now can last all day in part due to improved CPU power consumption. Again, Intel has improved performance but not in the way that you want. And as you pointed out Intel will happily tell you more cores.

The only thing that's "lazy" is Intel taking so long to get those server parts out to the market compared to the desktop / notebook parts

And maybe the best phone soc is all of 2 cores.

 

[Dave2150]

No, those Xeons don't get very hot, in fact they run quite cool even when they are OC'd to 4 GHz+. My friend has a X5660 OC'd to 4,4 GHz, and it's max temps in IBT are way under 80C. So no, they don't run hot. +A new platform would cost him almost 10 times more than a 6-core xeon.

These Xeons put out an extreme amount of heat when overclocked - something that not everyone enjoys. Once you increase the voltage and overclock, they emit hundreds of watts worth of heat, all for what, subpar performance compared to Haswell/Skylake?

Even if you control the temperatures, you cannot 'stop' the CPU from emitting hundreds of watts worth of heat when heavily overclocked to 4Ghz+, not to mention the extra power consumption.

 

[severus]

I see no point in upgrading so I agree with the original post. I have a 2500k at around 4.4ghz and a r9 280x. I can play BF1 at high settings with around 80/90 FPS in most instances with 0.1% lows around 40fps~ I just bought this 144hz 1080p BenQ monitor and I see no reason to use a higher resolution screen. No point in competitive gaming at a high res anyway. Low res gives you the advantage of the enemies player models being larger and easier to see, hence why in matches I will typically run a 4:3 resolution like 800x600 or in some cases 640x480. I suppose for me it's not about how it looks, but about how much of an advantage I can gain over the enemy in a competitive game.

As far as raw processing power for every day tasks, I think the 920 is still a fine chip. Ideally, I'd use a 6 core Xeon in your motherboard and there is plenty of data on the net and youtube about this improvement. If gaming, the 6 core could be coupled with a 1060 or the low cost deal on the Fury ($260) at Newegg or Microcenter.

 

[laamanaator]

These Xeons put out an extreme amount of heat when overclocked - something that not everyone enjoys. Once you increase the voltage and overclock, they emit hundreds of watts worth of heat, all for what, subpar performance compared to Haswell/Skylake?

Even if you control the temperatures, you cannot 'stop' the CPU from emitting hundreds of watts worth of heat when heavily overclocked to 4Ghz+, not to mention the extra power consumption.

Actually, these Xeons 'emmit' way less heat than the first gen i7 procs, both at stock and when OC'd. So when upgrading from a 45nm Bloomfield to one of these xeons you actually get reduced power consumption. When OC'd to 4,4-4,5GHz, these Xeons get around 1000CB in Cinebench R15, which is about equal to a i7 6700K@4,5GHz, so no "subpar performance". Yes the single-threaded performance is lower, but modern games can benefit from 6c/12t, and older games rarely need more single threaded performance than what these can offer.

But you are right that these xeons do output some heat, but it's actually a benefit in winter when it's cold.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Yah, OP if you want to play around get one of those 32nm chips, I prefer the W series over the X for overclocking. Make sure your bios is updated, and that your motherboard supports it first. They are alot of fun!

 

[Rifter]

Intel already plans to introduce 6 core mainstream CPU's with the upcomming 'Coffeelake'. So no, we won't be stuck on 4 cores forever. I suggest you do some research before making false statements.

I'll believe it when i see it, if zen bombs i seriously doubt this will happen. Time will tell.

 

[Dave2150]

I'll believe it when i see it, if zen bombs i seriously doubt this will happen. Time will tell.

It's already on the official roadmaps. Intel has to set these pretty much in stone months or years ahead. It's coming, 100% fact. They don't really have a choice with Zen launching next year.

 

[jackstar7]

Yeah, to deviate that far from a roadmap would likely have serious ripples for their investors.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Intel already plans to introduce 6 core mainstream CPU's with the upcomming 'Coffeelake'. So no, we won't be stuck on 4 cores forever. I suggest you do some research before making false statements.

Yep, the 4+4e SKU with SKL will be replaced with a premium 6+2 SKU.

 

[Arachnotronic]

It's already on the official roadmaps. Intel has to set these pretty much in stone months or years ahead. It's coming, 100% fact. They don't really have a choice with Zen launching next year.

Sure they do, based on the 40% IPC claim and the clocks that the chips seem to be running at, Intel will have these Zen parts well handled with Broadwell-E.

The 6 core mainstream chips are more likely being done because the gaming notebook OEMs want to be able to market more cores.

 

[Arachnotronic]

simple, money, they are ridiculously overpriced, due to complete lack of competition. Thats why Zen really needs to be at least competitive or we are all doomed to using 4 cores forever.

How are they "overpriced"? Intel sure sells a lot of these chips to customers who actually need them (server/workstation). They gladly pay for them.