Im going i7 920, i don't care that much about power comsomation, and i like the fact that with the 920, you can achieve good overlock ON STOCK voltage, thats not the case anymore with the Lynnfield, plus i don't like the pci-e on the uncore thing... Having to overlock the pci at the same time of the cpu , higher voltage, this could cause problem in the long run IMO.
All of this makes me think the 920 will be much easier to work with while overclocking. But's the new perfomance of the turbo boost v.2 makes my decision harder to take thats for sure.
While the difference between 2×8 and 2×16 is immaterial at pedestrian resolutions like 1680×1050, 2×16 can be up to 7% faster at SLI/CF-friendly resolutions like 1920×1200 or 2560×1600.
1. Anyone who currently owns a Bloomfield should simply overclock their chip, pair it with some good DDR3-1600 (or better), and watch the Lynnfield run away crying. The two chips may offer the same core frequencies and memory speeds, but that extra memory channel and wider PCIe bus will put Bloomfield ahead.
2. Anyone looking to buy into the Nehalem should wait for Westmere. It makes the entire Lynnfield vs. Bloomfield debate obsolete: More cores, cooler cores, faster cores, and more overclockable cores will put Westmere ahead of both Bloomfield and Lynnfield, and it's only five months away.
The biggest conflict I see isn't Lynnfield vs Bloomfield; it's Core i5 750 vs the Phenom II X4 Black Editions. The i5 750 has the Phenom II set square in its sights.
Something i wonder with the read of the first reviews of the Lynnfield,
I don't see many chart with overlocked temp for the Lynnfield, those cores takes a lot of juice (voltage) to overlock, wich should result in more heat generation in theory, they say it runs cooler than the 920, i wonder by how much when you go higher than 3.6 Ghz.
Plus more juice should have an impact on the PCIe uncore if 24/7, PCI doesnt like to be pushed that hard i think.
1. Anyone who currently owns a Bloomfield should simply overclock their chip, pair it with some good DDR3-1600 (or better), and watch the Lynnfield run away crying. The two chips may offer the same core frequencies and memory speeds, but that extra memory channel and wider PCIe bus will put Bloomfield ahead.
2. Anyone looking to buy into the Nehalem should wait for Westmere. It makes the entire Lynnfield vs. Bloomfield debate obsolete: More cores, cooler cores, faster cores, and more overclockable cores will put Westmere ahead of both Bloomfield and Lynnfield, and it's only five months away.
Based on your article and my experience with my Q9450, I'm in full agreement with this assessment. I see no need to upgrade to a Nehalem based system until Westmere launches. I run a single GTX 285 as my graphics, and my CPU is not a bottleneck. It might be if I had TWO 285s, but for a single one, it's more than enough.
Problem is that i found a buyer for my actual rig, and i must buy one to sold mine before he change his mind lol :P And by the time westmere comes out my actual rig wont worth any money at all so its now or never i think (single core...)
Otherwise i would wait for westmere to take the best decision, but thats why i'll chose and a 920, because when westmere will be out for a year or so, it will go down in price and then i'll switch with the same board (hopefully, if intel does change his mind and a bios update comes out to support westmere on my board) :P
The OCZ FAQ on DDR3 memory claims that modules running at speeds above 1600 MHz require an architecture involving intermediary register chips to avoid serious drains and bounces. Can anyone comment on this and if so, who has put out system components that implement such an architecture, without which I would assume that the ability to actually use the DDR3 memory at those speeds to be untenable?
The maximum "stock" DDR3 speed supported by Bloomfields and Lynnfields is DDR3-1600. Some only support 1333 (i5 750). Bloomfield and Lynnfield are perfectly capable of running at DDR3-2000 speeds if you know what you're doing with overclocking, however. I'm not sure if that answers your question or not.
The maximum "stock" DDR3 speed supported by Bloomfields and Lynnfields is DDR3-1600. Some only support 1333 (i5 750). Bloomfield and Lynnfield are perfectly capable of running at DDR3-2000 speeds if you know what you're doing with overclocking, however. I'm not sure if that answers your question or not.
Hello Robert,
I know that the 1600+ MHz speeds can be achieved by turning up the clock multiplier, but the OCZ FAQ has me wondering if those speeds are not really usable unless you have a specialized architecture that includes intermediary register chips; which is how it appears to read. If so, then unless I read about a motherboard/chip-set that incorporates intermediary register chips, which I have not so far, I'll have to assume that you while you can achieve those speeds you can't really use them. If the i5 and i7 motherboards and perhaps or other DDR3 compatible configurations on the market already incorporate such features then someone please comment.
Here is the link to the OCZ DDR3 FAQ and I've quoted the relevant paragraph:
"It is very likely that the entire scenario of broadcasting addresses and commands to every chip will become the limiting factor for the DDR3 performance if performance is defined as frequency. It is a simple equation in which the power that is used to drive addresses and commands across the bus will cause some serious drains and bounces above 1600 MHz and the only way to avoid this is to use registers as intermediate chips between the controller and the chips on the modules."
Sincere thanks for the last two paragraphs, in particular the 1 - 4 listings, which made more sense to me than anything I've read in all the PC mags in the last few weeks. I have now decided to go with an i5 build(your 'Option 3'), as I want the maximum bang for my gaming buck and I want it now!
1. Anyone who currently owns a Bloomfield should simply overclock their chip, pair it with some good DDR3-1600 (or better), and watch the Lynnfield run away crying. The two chips may offer the same core frequencies and memory speeds, but that extra memory channel and wider PCIe bus will put Bloomfield ahead.
2. Anyone looking to buy into the Nehalem should wait for Westmere. It makes the entire Lynnfield vs. Bloomfield debate obsolete: More cores, cooler cores, faster cores, and more overclockable cores will put Westmere ahead of both Bloomfield and Lynnfield, and it's only five months away.
Nice overview of the differences, agree with #1 as that will essentially negate the artificial gains from an improved Turbo mode on Lynnfield. I probably would've broke out the PCIE lane and bandwidth advantage to a #3 though, as the disparity in bandwidth may become more of an issue with this next-generation of GPUs (Cypress and Fermi), particularly the X2 variants.
As for #2, I don't agree with that based on current leaked roadmaps. 32nm Westmere is looking to be the most insignificant Tick cycle on Intel's Tick Tock mfg. cadence ever from a mainstream performance POV. Currently, it only has plans on the extreme high-end with the 6C Gulftown and the low-end with a 2C Clarkdale. There's no direct transition or die shrink planned for 4C Lynnfield and Bloomfield, so unless you want to spend $1000+ for the XE Gulftown, current 4C offerings are probably as good as its going to get until 32nm Sandy Bridge, which will be the Tock sometime in late 2010 or early 2011.
My major problem with Intel's current socket fiasco is that the feature that was most responsible for bifurcating the high-end and mainstream sockets, tri-channel over dual-channel memory, offers the least benefit in actual performance. Its understandable why they went with QPI, for the additional bandwidth in the server storage and 2P market (which also gave gamers another 20 PCIE lanes), but I would've much rather had a single unified LGA1188 (figure the QPI is about 32 pins and traces, 240 pins for DDR3, can check Intel's whitepapers for exact pin specs) or whatever instead of the two platform Intel solution we have now.
Thrax
🐌Austin, TX Icrontian
Comments
Im going i7 920, i don't care that much about power comsomation, and i like the fact that with the 920, you can achieve good overlock ON STOCK voltage, thats not the case anymore with the Lynnfield, plus i don't like the pci-e on the uncore thing... Having to overlock the pci at the same time of the cpu , higher voltage, this could cause problem in the long run IMO.
All of this makes me think the 920 will be much easier to work with while overclocking. But's the new perfomance of the turbo boost v.2 makes my decision harder to take thats for sure.
We could debate the need for all the confusion with another socket, but I won't ;*)
Something I've been wondering about for awhile!
1. Anyone who currently owns a Bloomfield should simply overclock their chip, pair it with some good DDR3-1600 (or better), and watch the Lynnfield run away crying. The two chips may offer the same core frequencies and memory speeds, but that extra memory channel and wider PCIe bus will put Bloomfield ahead.
2. Anyone looking to buy into the Nehalem should wait for Westmere. It makes the entire Lynnfield vs. Bloomfield debate obsolete: More cores, cooler cores, faster cores, and more overclockable cores will put Westmere ahead of both Bloomfield and Lynnfield, and it's only five months away.
I don't see many chart with overlocked temp for the Lynnfield, those cores takes a lot of juice (voltage) to overlock, wich should result in more heat generation in theory, they say it runs cooler than the 920, i wonder by how much when you go higher than 3.6 Ghz.
Plus more juice should have an impact on the PCIe uncore if 24/7, PCI doesnt like to be pushed that hard i think.
Thankx
Based on your article and my experience with my Q9450, I'm in full agreement with this assessment. I see no need to upgrade to a Nehalem based system until Westmere launches. I run a single GTX 285 as my graphics, and my CPU is not a bottleneck. It might be if I had TWO 285s, but for a single one, it's more than enough.
Otherwise i would wait for westmere to take the best decision, but thats why i'll chose and a 920, because when westmere will be out for a year or so, it will go down in price and then i'll switch with the same board (hopefully, if intel does change his mind and a bios update comes out to support westmere on my board) :P
It's having to explain to my wife why I NEED to upgrade when Westmere gets here!!!:eek3:
^this
From the Philippines.
Hello Robert,
I know that the 1600+ MHz speeds can be achieved by turning up the clock multiplier, but the OCZ FAQ has me wondering if those speeds are not really usable unless you have a specialized architecture that includes intermediary register chips; which is how it appears to read. If so, then unless I read about a motherboard/chip-set that incorporates intermediary register chips, which I have not so far, I'll have to assume that you while you can achieve those speeds you can't really use them. If the i5 and i7 motherboards and perhaps or other DDR3 compatible configurations on the market already incorporate such features then someone please comment.
Here is the link to the OCZ DDR3 FAQ and I've quoted the relevant paragraph:
http://www.ocztechnology.com/drivers/DDR3_faq.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registered_memory
Desktop systems do not use registered memory, so it's a non-issue. Desktop systems can go up to DDR3-2133, and it's perfectly usable.
As for #2, I don't agree with that based on current leaked roadmaps. 32nm Westmere is looking to be the most insignificant Tick cycle on Intel's Tick Tock mfg. cadence ever from a mainstream performance POV. Currently, it only has plans on the extreme high-end with the 6C Gulftown and the low-end with a 2C Clarkdale. There's no direct transition or die shrink planned for 4C Lynnfield and Bloomfield, so unless you want to spend $1000+ for the XE Gulftown, current 4C offerings are probably as good as its going to get until 32nm Sandy Bridge, which will be the Tock sometime in late 2010 or early 2011.
My major problem with Intel's current socket fiasco is that the feature that was most responsible for bifurcating the high-end and mainstream sockets, tri-channel over dual-channel memory, offers the least benefit in actual performance. Its understandable why they went with QPI, for the additional bandwidth in the server storage and 2P market (which also gave gamers another 20 PCIE lanes), but I would've much rather had a single unified LGA1188 (figure the QPI is about 32 pins and traces, 240 pins for DDR3, can check Intel's whitepapers for exact pin specs) or whatever instead of the two platform Intel solution we have now.
Thank you for making my decisions much easier.