S1156 platform launches sept 8th

[Shmee]

I am not sure how well the MSI boards OC though, if that is of any concern to you. I remember some bad OC reviews on the 1366 eclipse.

 

[taltamir]

spotted in microcenter:
P55 mobo @ 100$ - 20$ MIR
i7-860 (s1156) @ 230$
i7-920 (s1366) @ 200$

The i860 has out the box advantage of 2.8ghz stock and 3.46ghz turbo. while the 920 is 2.66ghz and 2.8 turbo.

also most people don't live near a microcenter

however, it is still up for grabs, we will see how speed and price match up. There has been suggestions that maybe triple chanel DDR is not as useless as some suspected. We will see

 

[Shmee]

Well, the way I see it, 6 GB is better than 4, and that is without filling all channels to stress the MCH while OCing.

 

[taltamir]

but 8GB is better still... while 12GB is paying too much for something that is not yet useful.
on the other hand, 3GB is ideal for 32bit if you are ignorant enough to insist on using it. (64bit is significantly FASTER, it is not just for ram)

mmm... i wonder how it will affect OCing now that the they are on the CPU, and not on the MCH...

 

[21stHermit]

Originally posted by: taltamir
(64bit is significantly FASTER, it is not just for ram)

By test? Or just wishful thinking? Link(s)?

 

[taltamir]

The theoretical max speedup is 400-500% increase
I personally benchmarked 7z to be 23% faster in 64bit than 32bit. I have seen online benchmarks showing 200% and 300% increases on HASH calculations. Although certain games and programs show 0% improvement...
firefox 64bit opens 100 tab stored sesssion MUCH faster than 32bit.

I don't just have a LINK on me, it was during the early days of 64bit when people still benchmarked performance differences.. that was YEARS ago.

first result on google:
http://www.pcstats.com/article...?articleid=1665&page=8

why is this?

The boost in 64-bit mode certainly proves this to be true. When dealing with numbers too large to store in its registers, the processor must split them up and store them in individual cache or system memory locations. This takes precious time. Obviously, doubling the space available in the registers and increasing the number of registers available will result in less data needing to be shuffled off to the cache or system memory for storage, increasing performance.

The extended registers are ONLY available in 64bit mode!

(one of the) best improvements?
RSA Key 4096 Optimized 2 Primes Decrypt
WindowsXP Pro w/SP1 (32 bit Mode): 12.75s
WindowsXP 64 (32 bit Mode): 12.73s
WindowsXP 64 (64 bit Mode): 2.97s

what we see here is a several hundred percent increase in speed.
this is all on a beta of XP64bit... we have come a long way since then...

 

[Shmee]

nice find! Good stuff! I had no idea that 64 bit was that much better than I thought! Though I have been a proponent of it for a while due to being a gamer with more than 4 GB of ram on 2 computers.

IMO they should try to phase out the 32 bit OS's, which will hopefully force increased support for them in terms of drivers and programs that have been not so good for them in the past.

EDIT: also, technically, wouldnt it be more correct to say that the MCH is on the CPU, instead of saying they are on the CPU and NOT on the MCH?

lol

 

[MarcVenice]

Wait for cheaper mobo's? ASRock is coming with mobo's and aren't matx mobo's supposed to be cheaper? ASRock is coming with one. And I bet Asus/Gigabyte and others will have some cheap-ass P55-mobo's too.

 

[alyarb]

i'm not crazy about the launch pricing but it's to be expected. i can't speak for P55, but the MSI X58M can get 920s to 4 ghz without any mosfet cooling, and it's $163 at ewiz. if you have a microcenter in your area, i7 is the better buy, especially if you overclock and/or are interested in gulftown.

 

[Acanthus]

I want more information before i bite.

1. Is hydra-100 on any of these boards, and does it work seamlessly with all games as was promised, at 90%+ scaling?

2. How are the i5s clocking out in the wild on cheaper mobos?

3. Is the hydra-100 a limitation for overclocking?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
3. Is the hydra-100 a limitation for overclocking?

And can the hydra-100 itself be overclocked? And does doing so provide any increase in fps?

 

[Keysplayr]

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2332653&enterthread=y

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Acanthus
3. Is the hydra-100 a limitation for overclocking?

And can the hydra-100 itself be overclocked? And does doing so provide any increase in fps?

I would think that the limitation would not be in the hydra-100 chip.

You can only get so close to 100% scaling, and 99% in Crysis is pretty damn close.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
I want more information before i bite.

1. Is hydra-100 on any of these boards, and does it work seamlessly with all games as was promised, at 90%+ scaling?

2. How are the i5s clocking out in the wild on cheaper mobos?

3. Is the hydra-100 a limitation for overclocking?

supposedly the hydra-100 is only used in CPGPU machines right now, and SOME mobos are supposed to lunch with a brand new hydra-200 chip.

 

[nyker96]

i don't see too much cash saved going 1156 vs 1366, since a comparable cpu sells for about the same money, so only save about $80 on the board and triple vs dual channel ram sticks. i think the new i5s make sense for people who just need a cut down version of i7 900s like less cache, no HT or some other features they don't need.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: nyker96
i don't see too much cash saved going 1156 vs 1366, since a comparable cpu sells for about the same money, so only save about $80 on the board and triple vs dual channel ram sticks. i think the new i5s make sense for people who just need a cut down version of i7 900s like less cache, no HT or some other features they don't need.

it isn't too much savings if you buy it at microcenter, most people don't live near a microcenter.

If you do, the i7 920 is a great deal

also there IS a NON cut down version of the i7 for the s1156

 

[nyker96]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: nyker96
i don't see too much cash saved going 1156 vs 1366, since a comparable cpu sells for about the same money, so only save about $80 on the board and triple vs dual channel ram sticks. i think the new i5s make sense for people who just need a cut down version of i7 900s like less cache, no HT or some other features they don't need.

it isn't too much savings if you buy it at microcenter, most people don't live near a microcenter.

If you do, the i7 920 is a great deal

also there IS a NON cut down version of the i7 for the s1156

You right about microcenter, they seem to have some unbelievable deals for 1366 (200 for a i7 920 etc). From the released pricing of 1156 parts, the non cut down versions are almost as expensive as the 1366 parts that has comparable feature set. If someone is interested on a near $300 part, I think they are better served with 1366 especially intel is planning to release 6 and 8 cores on the 1366 not too sure they will release higher core counts on the 1156 socket.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: nyker96

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: nyker96
i don't see too much cash saved going 1156 vs 1366, since a comparable cpu sells for about the same money, so only save about $80 on the board and triple vs dual channel ram sticks. i think the new i5s make sense for people who just need a cut down version of i7 900s like less cache, no HT or some other features they don't need.

it isn't too much savings if you buy it at microcenter, most people don't live near a microcenter.

If you do, the i7 920 is a great deal

also there IS a NON cut down version of the i7 for the s1156

You right about microcenter, they seem to have some unbelievable deals for 1366 (200 for a i7 920 etc). From the released pricing of 1156 parts, the non cut down versions are almost as expensive as the 1366 parts that has comparable feature set. If someone is interested on a near $300 part, I think they are better served with 1366 especially intel is planning to release 6 and 8 cores on the 1366 not too sure they will release higher core counts on the 1156 socket.

1. those 6 and 8 cores will cost an arm and a leg
2. The release prices listed are actually quite good for the 1156, it is microcenter that kinda fudges it.
3. Microcenter has awesome deals on the s1156 parts as well... with a mobo at 100$ - 20$ MIR and the i7-860 for 230$ or the i5 for 170$... neither processor is as good a deal as the s1366 one, but the mobos are a lot cheaper.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: nyker96
If someone is interested on a near $300 part, I think they are better served with 1366 especially intel is planning to release 6 and 8 cores on the 1366 not too sure they will release higher core counts on the 1156 socket.

Core i7 860 has 3.46ghz turbo mode for $230 and you can pick up an MSI mobo for $80 at Microcenter and a Gigabyte mobo for $90 at eWiz with laborday15 code. Core i7 860 competes more with core i7 940 not 920.

http://www.overclock.net/hardw...ore-i7-860-tested.html

Also, Core i9s will be Extreme Editions for $1k+. Both platforms have their advantages, but considering Core i7 860 is faster than Core i7 920 (except in WinRar), it is the better platform starter unless you care for 16x/16x CF/SLI. Another trump the Core i7 860 has is power consumption:
Idle: http://img.donanimhaber.com/im...5860_sgt1_dh_fx571.jpg
Core i7 860 = 97 watts
Core i7 920 = 145 watts

Load: http://img.donanimhaber.com/im...i5860_sgt2_dh_fx57.jpg
Core i7 860 = 158 watts
Core i7 920 = 251 watts
Core i7 940 = 275 watts

So you get almost 100 watts less power consumption with Lynnfield at load for similar or better performance.

When Sandy Bridge arrives, both Sockets 1156 and 1366 are probably going to be obsolete the same day.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: nyker96
If someone is interested on a near $300 part, I think they are better served with 1366 especially intel is planning to release 6 and 8 cores on the 1366 not too sure they will release higher core counts on the 1156 socket.

Core i7 860 has 3.46ghz turbo mode for $230 and you can pick up an MSI mobo for $80 at Microcenter and a Gigabyte mobo for $90 at eWiz with laborday15 code. Core i7 860 competes more with core i7 940 not 920.

http://www.overclock.net/hardw...ore-i7-860-tested.html

Also, Core i9s will be Extreme Editions for $1k+. Both platforms have their advantages, but considering Core i7 860 is faster than Core i7 920 (except in WinRar), due to its massively reduced power consumption and operating temperatures, it is the better platform starter unless you care for 16x/16x CF/SLI.

When Sandy Bridge arrives, both Sockets 1156 and 1366 are probably going to be obsolete the same day.

QFT

except the winrar bit... the i7-860 beats the i7-940 in winrar. And in most other benchmarks.

http://translate.google.com/tr...6_incelemesi-15413.htm

 

[Jumpem]

So the i7-860 3.46GHz turbo boost is for a single core only.

This will make a big difference in some games, but aren't alot of them taking advantage of multiple cores now? If so, isn't the turbo boost speed pointles for gamers?

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: Jumpem
So the i7-860 3.46GHz turbo boost is for a single core only.

I believe Turbo mode is for 2 bins (+133mhz each) for 4 cores, 2 bins for 3 cores, 4 bins for 2 cores and 5 bins for 1 core. So,

3.46ghz when using 1 core
3.33ghz when using 2 cores
3.07ghz when using 3/4 cores

Either way you slice it, for gaming, the videocard will be the limiting component between Core 2 Quad 45nm/65nm at 3.4ghz+, Core i7 2.66ghz, Core i7 860, or Phenom II 3.4ghz. All those processors are not going to help you run Crysis any faster --> That's what 5870 X2 is for.

But what Lynnfield gave Intel is a power consumption and performance advantage over Phenom II for essentially the same price. AMD will have to lower prices now. AMD will likely have to release 6 core processors in 2010, or be forced to sell $175 Phenom 965s.

 

[Jumpem]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
I believe Turbo mode is for 2 bins (+133mhz each) for 4 cores, 2 bins for 3 cores, 4 bins for 2 cores and 5 bins for 1 core. So,

3.46ghz when using 1 core
3.33ghz when using 2 cores
3.07ghz when using 3/4 cores

Either way you slice it, for gaming, the videocard will be the limiting component between Core 2 Quad 45nm/65nm at 3.4ghz+, Core i7 2.66ghz, Core i7 860, or Phenom II 3.4ghz. All those processors are not going to help you run Crysis any faster --> That's what 5870 X2 is for.

But what Lynnfield gave Intel is a power consumption and performance advantage over Phenom II for essentially the same price. AMD will have to lower prices now. AMD will likely have to release 6 core processors in 2010, or be forced to sell $175 Phenom 965s.

Thanks for the insight.

My plan now is for an i7-860 (leaning this way) or i7-920 plus 5870x2.

 

[RussianSensation]

Some new benchmarks from PCGamesHardware
* All Tests had: (1) HT ON (2) Turbo Mode OFF (3) GTX 285 (4) 1680x1050 0AA/0AF

Cinebench R10
Core i7 860 = 16,027
Core i7 920 = 15,219
Core i5 750 = 13,477
QX9650 = 13,162

Paint.NET 3.36
Core i7 860 = 17,569
Core i7 920 = 17,685
Core i5 750 = 24,360
QX9650 = 22,717

Truecrypt 6.2a
Core i7 860 = 118
Core i7 920 = 112.3
Core i5 750 = 88.8
QX9650 = 101
*Phenom II 965 wins this benchmark with 127 overall

x264 HD
Core i7 860 = 26.9
Core i7 920 = 25.3
Core i5 750 = 20.1
QX9650 = 21.2

GAMES:

Anno 1404
Core i7 860 = 46.4 fps avg / 45 min
Core i7 920 = 46.0 avg / 44 min
Core i5 750 = 40.5 avg / 38 min
QX9650 = 33.2 avg / 32 min

Far Cry 2
Core i7 860 = 68.7 avg / 54 min
Core i7 920 = 67.5 avg / 53 min
Core i5 750 = 66.7 avg / 53 min
QX9650 = 75.3 avg / 55 min

Grand Theft Auto 4
Core i7 860 = 33.3 avg / 30 min
Core i7 920 = 29.2 avg / 25 min
Core i5 750 = 40.1 avg / 34 min
QX9650 = 26.2 avg / 22 min
* It seems HT actually hurts performance in this game

Race Driver: GRID
Core i7 860 = 88.2 avg / 80 min
Core i7 920 = 81 avg / 74 min
Core i5 750 = 109.6 avg / 95 min
QX9650 = 88.3 avg / 80 min
* It seems HT actually hurts performance in this game

2 Takeaways:

1) Core i7 860 > Core i7 920
2) Turning off HT may be the best option for now in games, until games begin to use more threads.

 

[Jumpem]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Some new benchmarks from PCGamesHardware
* All Tests had: (1) HT ON (2) Turbo Mode OFF (3) GTX 285 (4) 1680x1050 0AA/0AF

Cinebench R10
Core i7 860 = 16,027
Core i7 920 = 15,219
Core i5 750 = 13,477
QX9650 = 13,162

Paint.NET 3.36
Core i7 860 = 17,569
Core i7 920 = 17,685
Core i5 750 = 24,360
QX9650 = 22,717

Truecrypt 6.2a
Core i7 860 = 118
Core i7 920 = 112.3
Core i5 750 = 88.8
QX9650 = 101
*Phenom II 965 wins this benchmark with 127 overall

x264 HD
Core i7 860 = 26.9
Core i7 920 = 25.3
Core i5 750 = 20.1
QX9650 = 21.2

GAMES:

Anno 1404
Core i7 860 = 46.4 fps avg / 45 min
Core i7 920 = 46.0 avg / 44 min
Core i5 750 = 40.5 avg / 38 min
QX9650 = 33.2 avg / 32 min

Far Cry 2
Core i7 860 = 68.7 avg / 54 min
Core i7 920 = 67.5 avg / 53 min
Core i5 750 = 66.7 avg / 53 min
QX9650 = 75.3 avg / 55 min

Grand Theft Auto 4
Core i7 860 = 33.3 avg / 30 min
Core i7 920 = 29.2 avg / 25 min
Core i5 750 = 40.1 avg / 34 min
QX9650 = 26.2 avg / 22 min
* It seems HT actually hurts performance in this game

Race Driver: GRID
Core i7 860 = 88.2 avg / 80 min
Core i7 920 = 81 avg / 74 min
Core i5 750 = 109.6 avg / 95 min
QX9650 = 88.3 avg / 80 min
* It seems HT actually hurts performance in this game

2 Takeaways:

1) Core i7 860 > Core i7 920
2) Turning off HT may be the best option for now in games, until games begin to use more threads.

Why would they do benchmarks with turbo off. That's a key point for the i7 860.