Reviews - Intel Core i7 930 CPU review - busting through 4GHz

Quote:

---

We examine the newest chip in Intel's Core i7 LGA1366 arsenal.

---

Read more.

It appears to be a great chip I cant see a lot of numerous i920 users, like myself, switching now. The benefits over 920 are small even with overclocking. Anyone getting a x58 board now should jump on this chip like a shot!

I hope that's a bad ES, my 920 D0 reaches 4GHz at 1.175v with my crude akasa nero.

although it could also be that newer D0's have lower OC ability

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HW_90

I hope that's a bad ES, my 920 D0 reaches 4GHz at 1.175v with my crude akasa nero.

although it could also be that newer D0's have lower OC ability

---

You might want to bear in mind that these tests were done using a stock Intel HSF.
There are some mixed results for overclocking these already, and there are always going to be good/bad batches. 4.6 stable on air is the highest I've seen so far I beleive (and that's before they were technically publicly available).

Looking forward to Tuesday when mine arrives now (along with a Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R and 6GB Corsair XMS3, DDR3 PC3-12800), as I have been holding off on an upgrade until they got released - nice that the CPU, motherboard & RAM I wanted were also on the "Today Only" deals at Scan. :) Makes it all of £2 more than a deal they were doing on the 920 about a week ago - seems like good value to me.

nice review - woulda rocked more if the AMD was clocked to 4Ghz (or close) for comparison ;)

PS - now thats just - wots the phrase: "c-teasing" to say:


"We know of only one processor which is faster; it returns a x264 HD benchmark metric of 46.1fps for the second pass, easily besting a 4GHz Core i7. You'll have to wait a few days to find out what it is."

Seeing as you gots the 890GX, i'm hoping its what I'm waiting for :>

Why do I feel like the the only one who's penis isn't falling off over this chip, its had a simple speed boost., that's it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zoomee

nice review - woulda rocked more if the AMD was clocked to 4Ghz (or close) for comparison ;)

PS - now thats just - wots the phrase: "c-teasing" to say:


"We know of only one processor which is faster; it returns a x264 HD benchmark metric of 46.1fps for the second pass, easily besting a 4GHz Core i7. You'll have to wait a few days to find out what it is."

Seeing as you gots the 890GX, i'm hoping its what I'm waiting for :>

---

Really ?

Love how it states "estimated price" as £215, just in case the likes of Scan increase prices to fall in line with the other etailers. Sure enough, it's £230.

Yay, pocket lining time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by this_is_gav

Love how it states "estimated price" as £215, just in case the likes of Scan increase prices to fall in line with the other etailers. Sure enough, it's £230.

Yay, pocket lining time.

---

I know the feeling, I should have known before the release, I feel stupid for waiting that extra month to be honest. They had 920s going on aria a while back for just under the £200 mark. Same thing is happening with the DX 11 ATi GPUs :(

:censored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zoomee

nice review - woulda rocked more if the AMD was clocked to 4Ghz (or close) for comparison ;)

PS - now thats just - wots the phrase: "c-teasing" to say:


"We know of only one processor which is faster; it returns a x264 HD benchmark metric of 46.1fps for the second pass, easily besting a 4GHz Core i7. You'll have to wait a few days to find out what it is."

Seeing as you gots the 890GX, i'm hoping its what I'm waiting for :>

---

Think of a six-core chip that's about to be released soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Terbinator

Why do I feel like the the only one who's penis isn't falling off over this chip, its had a simple speed boost., that's it.

---

That's pretty much all it is. It's a simple refresh of the 920 which is getting discontinued.
Perfect for people like me that don't own a S1366 system and are wanting to upgrade - but I see no point in any 920 users upgrading.

I recently saw another large e-tailer say that their 920 prices are actually going to go up as stock level decreases... so see very little reason why people looking for new systems now would want to go for a 920 over a 930 now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tarinder

:censored:

Think of a six-core chip that's about to be released soon.

---

I think there might be a hint on the first page of the article:

Quote:

---

Intel has a pre-CeBIT present for the enthusiast. It comes in the form of a new Core i7 chip for the performance-class X58 platform.

Those of you who think it's the much-heralded six-core Core i7 980X CPU will be disappointed - for a short while yet.

---

Although it would've been nice to have a review of the AMD 800-series chipsets before one turned up randomly in an Intel review... ;)

AMD's Thuliban is also released soon. Hexacore.

I'd say more likely its AMD's chip rather than a 6 core intel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mercyground

I'd say more likely its AMD's chip rather than a 6 core intel.

---

Despite Tarinder saying, in the article, that Intel's 6-Core i7 980X is coming soon? And the fact that this new processor returns 46.1fps for x264 2nd pass, vs 21.9fps for a quad core Phenom II?

Assuming the benchmark scales perfectly with cores & clock speed, a 6 core Phenom II would have to be clocked in the region of 4.7GHz to achieve 46.1fps (either that or Thuliban has managed a *huge* per clock performance increase over Phenom). On the other hand (again, assuming perfect scaling) a 6core i7 would only need to be clocked at about 3.15GHz to manage that result. So which do we think is more likely - an almost 5GHz hexacore Phenom, or a 3.2GHz Hexacore i7? I know which I'd put my money on...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scaryjim

Despite Tarinder saying, in the article, that Intel's 6-Core i7 980X is coming soon? And the fact that this new processor returns 46.1fps for x264 2nd pass, vs 21.9fps for a quad core Phenom II?

Assuming the benchmark scales perfectly with cores & clock speed, a 6 core Phenom II would have to be clocked in the region of 4.7GHz to achieve 46.1fps (either that or Thuliban has managed a *huge* per clock performance increase over Phenom). On the other hand (again, assuming perfect scaling) a 6core i7 would only need to be clocked at about 3.15GHz to manage that result. So which do we think is more likely - an almost 5GHz hexacore Phenom, or a 3.2GHz Hexacore i7? I know which I'd put my money on...

---

GTX 480 with CUDA ? :stupid:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scaryjim

Despite Tarinder saying, in the article, that Intel's 6-Core i7 980X is coming soon? And the fact that this new processor returns 46.1fps for x264 2nd pass, vs 21.9fps for a quad core Phenom II?

Assuming the benchmark scales perfectly with cores & clock speed, a 6 core Phenom II would have to be clocked in the region of 4.7GHz to achieve 46.1fps (either that or Thuliban has managed a *huge* per clock performance increase over Phenom). On the other hand (again, assuming perfect scaling) a 6core i7 would only need to be clocked at about 3.15GHz to manage that result. So which do we think is more likely - an almost 5GHz hexacore Phenom, or a 3.2GHz Hexacore i7? I know which I'd put my money on...

---

Man I REALLY REALLY hope its the AMD chip as I don't want to buy Intel unless I REALLY have to. I'm assuming Hexus are under NDA like allot of other sites with their hands on the 890GX chipset already, hence no review yet. Also bear in mind the Hexcore chips are supposed to have 'Turbo boost' technoloy just like the Core i7's.....

Either way it would have been good to see how an AMD P2 clocked at 3.8Ghz (average oc ) would have taken on the Intel's.... I'm still swaying towards a 980setup with a 965BE, as opposed to intel i930 (which would be like £200 more and not worth the extra for my needs - bit of encoding and loads of gaming)

Can you tell I REALLY don't like Intel? LOL :)

intel have 6 core? /me goes to hunt.

Wow i have been sleeping. :-/ Not like me to miss that.

Guess changing their bus really is paying dividends. Ah well. Rock and Roll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Terbinator

GTX 480 with CUDA ? :stupid:

---

I got a slice of the moon you can buy?

Seriously I dont believe NV can sort this clusterfark out before the end of the year (and i mean get /reasonably/ priced cards into regular buyers hands that are competitive to ATI's 5 series with FULLY working DX11.)

600bucks for a card? Yeah right. Dream on.

It does seem we are adding more and more cores with higher clocks just for the fun of it.

As a gamer mostly I also do a lot of video editing/encoding with AVCHD and HDV footage, now I can see a slight advantage to the i7's but the cost to gain over my Q9550 at 3.6Ghz just isn't worth it. Dare I say that my current processor is more than fast enough and at no point have I thought 'I wish this was faster' on both gaming and encoding fronts.

Am I alone in thinking 'whats the point?', it cost me just short of £300 for a Q9550, X48 board and 8GB DDR3. Bang for buck I must be on the money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zoomee

Man I REALLY REALLY hope its the AMD chip ...

---

I'd love it to be the AMD too, I really would - but I don't see any way they can pick up that kind of performance boost without a major overhaul of their CPU architecture - and that's not due until 2011 with Bulldozer. And even then, the rumours I've heard about Bulldozer don't suggest that it will necessarily be an i7 killer, let alone whatever new CPU Intel bring out in the mean time... :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tarinder

hose of you who think it\'s the much-heralded six-core Core i7 980X CPU will be disappointed - for a short while yet.

---

Dang! :( That\'s some seriously sexy silicon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Percy1983

It does seem we are adding more and more cores with higher clocks just for the fun of it.

As a gamer mostly I also do a lot of video editing/encoding with AVCHD and HDV footage, now I can see a slight advantage to the i7's but the cost to gain over my Q9550 at 3.6Ghz just isn't worth it. Dare I say that my current processor is more than fast enough and at no point have I thought 'I wish this was faster' on both gaming and encoding fronts.

Am I alone in thinking 'whats the point?', it cost me just short of £300 for a Q9550, X48 board and 8GB DDR3. Bang for buck I must be on the money.

---

I have to agree with you. I upgraded following a water leak which blew my PSU asnd Mobo, splashing out on Core i7 920. It overclocks easier, but when I compare my benchmark scores for my single card system they are quicker, but it's not by a lot. The difference is certainly not giving me any tangible benefits.

It is nice though. REALLY nice. The X58 platform is so easy to work on.:rockon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Percy1983

Am I alone in thinking 'whats the point?', it cost me just short of £300 for a Q9550, X48 board and 8GB DDR3. Bang for buck I must be on the money.

---

I'm in the same situation, only slightly lesser specs (Q6600 at 3GHz, Q33 board, 6GB DDR2). Only reason I OC'd my Q6600 to 3GHz is because I feel I can do this safely with the cooler I have (Megahalems).

To make a jump to a newer system with equal or better specs based on DDR3 will easily cost me £400+. Video rendering and Ableton Live are pushing my workstation very hard, but I don't see the point in upgrading right now when the "huge" jump in performance an i7-930 would get me, comes with an equally hefty pricetag.

Got to say I was lucky with my system as I got the DDR3 at £20.99 per 2Gb (Crucial 1333mhz) hence why I went for 8GB.

Assuming the AMD chips are around the perfomance levels of my Q9550 I would say they are a great buy. Buy all means if you needed absolute cutting edge speed get a i7 but the value AMD and 775 intels offer right now really can't be beaten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Percy1983

Assuming the AMD chips are around the perfomance levels of my Q9550 I would say they are a great buy.

---

Hexus's review of the 965BE on release put it equal to, if not marginally ahead of, the Q9550. It's certainly good value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scaryjim

Hexus's review of the 965BE on release put it equal to, if not marginally ahead of, the Q9550. It's certainly good value.

---

I'd be more than happy if that was the case with a 890/965BE combo. It's vey hard to find reviews of overclocked (which I will be doing) 965BE's v's Intel chips.

I had to give my Q6600@3.2/P45/5850 away, but was more than happy with its power, yet feel sooo sad (especially having to use a cruddy acer 8530g laptop now!)

This will be a complete new build for me and being an AMD fan (not a extreme fan boy- but just a fan) I'd prefer to have the same power (Q6600) albiet AMD. Need to support the competition otherwise intel will start slacking and innovation will suffer as a result. Just like everyone so far is pointing out - who needs all the power of i7? I'd rather save myself £200 and settle for something which will rock at the same FPS in games (even at 4Ghz the Corei7 doesnt gain much on the 965BE for gaming)

890 will support the Hexcore stuff coming from AMD, hence give me anviable cost/performance upgrade path where as I doubt I will be able to afford the cost of the Intel hexcore alternative.

Now if only I can be patient enough to wait a couple of weeks......:mrgreen:

I do think AMD have really started to take a few slots on the value front, yes they may not have the top end but if they offer better value for the 'normal' user then sales should pick up. Problem is many people will compare the top end processors and if Intel have the best top end they will assume that follows right down the line.

I have been with Intel for a good while now as it took AMD a while to catch to core2's, but I do seem to be a source of advice on computer building for many and the last processor I built a system with was an AMD 620 on a 785G board, the value offered there is amazing.

I do look forward to a return to AMD one day, it will just take a while for my current processor to be outdated so it may all change.

Fantastic, it is now even more costly ... -_-

£238.72 and rising!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darren

Fantastic, it is now even more costly ... -_-

£238.72 and rising!

---

This is because the £/$ exchange rate falling steadily over the last few weeks.

The pounds been in a slow free fall against the dollar for a while now as shown on the graph at the following link

"Better than the decent Core i7 920 in every way" = exactly the same but a higher multiplyer which can be done in most if not all bioses

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxx11111

"Better than the decent Core i7 920 in every way" = exactly the same but a higher multiplyer which can be done in most if not all bioses

---

the 920 doesn't have 22x multiplier though even with turbo

honestly I'm thinking about getting this as a (poorly overclocking) 920 owner if user reviews can show that it'll hit 4.8GHz with the Venomous X.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee @ SCAN

This is because the £/$ exchange rate falling steadily over the last few weeks.

The pounds been in a slow free fall against the dollar for a while now as shown on the graph at the following link

---

That's pretty shocking..
Hopefully it will improve over the next few month :ill:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thrustmaster

That's pretty shocking..
Hopefully it will improve over the next few month :ill:

---

Hopefully it won't, eh? :D

I've got an Alienware Area-51 shipping to me as I type this. Should be here in a week and a half or so. It's got an i7 930 in it. 6gigs DDR3 1333mhz, GTX 480. 2TB Raid 0 because.. Why not? Came out to about $4,000 all said and done. My first real computer, you could say. Could I have built it for less? Hell yeah. But after running on junk for the last decade, you get to the point where you just don't care, you just want something that just works, out of the box. Good to know I should be able to clock it up to 4ghz no problem though. That was really my biggest concern. Not for gaming so much, I compose music. And a meaty CPU is a must.