Hardware Intel Lynnfield Core i5-750 & Core i7-860, i7-870

no, LGA1156 goes all the way from low-end to performance. only the motherboard needs a change as current p55 don't have video-out ports on its back, so cannot make use of the video capabilities.

 

Surely if its aimed at lower end then video outputs would be essential. I can understand them not adding them to enthuasts boards since they often want a high end graphics card, but alot of low end users still only only type up word doc, browse the internet, watch dvds or the odd game on facebook or WOW at most. Seems abit strange that the manufactures done that.

 

The P55s are aimed at enthusiasts. No average person is going to need 2 8x PCIe lanes, the special BIOS and overclocking tools, etc...

They will probably release a stripped-down version with the display port on the I/O.

 

Ahhhh thanks for clearing that up. I feel dense now >.>

 

but thats not what Im asking so far to me the I5 doesnt look that impressive at all or worth investing into compared to the Core i7 920 rigs, it seems that the 920 rigs is much more future proof and needing less upgrades over its long life. So what I was asking is why would people build an I5 or its version if i7 over say a i7-920 rig. Again price aside what reason would there be to go with the i5 line.

 

i5 and i7 1156 would be more impressive if:

1) The motherboards were cheaper. You can get a very good X58 motherboard for $200, why would I pay the same for a mainstream socket, Dual channel RAM, and less PCIe bandwidth? Good P55s need to be around $150, to be competitive, with the #200 price point reserved for the top-of the line models.

2) DDR3 Ram was cheaper. Or, the motherboards and CPUs need to support DDR2 and DDR3 RAM.

3) The CPUs need to be cheaper. $200 for the i5 is ok, but $300 for the i7 860 is ridiculous, especially considering that you can get a i7 920 for $260.

 

Surely thats a mute point now. Everywhere I look DDR3 is the same price and in some cases cheaper than DDR2

I agree that the processors should be cheaper, but shouldn't it be that the price of the entire platform (LGA1136) should be cheaper? Again the price of the 920 won't matter in a few months since intel said that they won't be producing it anymore.

.

 

Then buy it now!!

 

DDR3 is not necessarily cheaper than DDR2. Sure, OCZ may be selling 6GB of DDR3 1600 for $99, but that is a rare occurrence. Most 4GB sets of DDR2 are priced below $100, while most 6GB DDR3 sets are priced above $120, with the top-of-the-line models over $200. For instance, the top Corsair Dominator DDR2 set (4GB) costs $106 after rebates. The top DDR3 set (6GB, and not Dominator GT) costs $229.

106 divided by 4 = $26.50 per stick

229 divided by 6 = $31.20 per stick

Even the cheap stuff is more expensive. The cheapest DDR3 (1333) 4GB set is $72, while the cheapest DDR2 (800) 4GB set is $39 after rebates.

So, most DDR3 RAM still has a ways to go before it can compare to DDR2.

Not sure if your are talking about 1156 or 1366, but if you are talking about 1156 then, yes, that's what I have been saying. If Intel wants i5 to go mainstream, then they need to make the motherboards cheaper and find a way to make RAM cheaper or allow the motherboards to use DDR2 until the price of DDR3 can compare to DDR2. If you are talking about 1366, it is supposed to be expensive. The motherboards are aimed at Enthusiasts, which is why they need more PCIe bandwidth, better BIOSes, etc...

 

I would but they screwed up the processing on my student loan

 

why does this seem so confusing? Why does Bit Tech advise to buy the 920 over any i5 chip and Annandtech cannot stop gushing about the pure awesomeness of the i5 line? In most regards I view BT as the bottom line, but Shimpi is like prolific and has just some amazing analysis (like his trilogy on SSD's - untouchable) and that's where the confusion comes in.
Bindi has been hinting before the disclosure was lifted , and even after it was lifted that the 920 was the chip to get. I took that as the Gospel. So do I take Shimpi as the New Testament then about the i5 vs i7 debate? take Shimpi because he's shouting down the word from the Mount with the new 'truth' and following it up with more and more analysis (after the initial 20 page article of course)?
After reading all the comments here, people are claiming no upgrade necessary if you're still sitting on a Q6600, but what if you have C2D P35 at that? Upgrade? And to what? interesting to see such a divide in views between BT and AT at least, usually you are like siblings with the same conclusion, just different methods of getting there.

 

AT is a little over-enthusiastic about 1156, methinks.

Anything they say about Intel, I take away the hyperbole because they're prone to laying it on a little thick. :/

 

i think Anandtech is basing their recommendations on US price, where RAM price isn't inflated, motherboard are affordable and CPU price doesn't have a huge import VAT slapped on.

think of it like this, MSI offer + i5 + 2/3 of current RAM price, i5 platform will be a winner.

q6600 is a very able chip, people using something like q6600 + P35 have no reason to upgrade at all. (unless they won the CPU and motherboard )

 

Basically i5 IS fantastic but its price vs performance isn't People sitting on a Q6600 for gaming don't really need to upgrade provided its overclocked and if they do want to upgrade, the manual overclocking of the 920 offers far better value for money. wuyanxu summed it up perfectly really. As far as im aware tho intel offer bundled packages that in some cases make it cheaper than the 920 an in those situations you have to weigh up the pros and cons of each platfom, ie 16XPCI lanes for crossfire/SLI, processor upgrades (if the platform is around when gaming catches up) etc.

 

Reading through the i5 vs i7-920 comments it seems to me its rather a question which board type to get: 1366 or 1156.
And that depends on the question if you are planning to use one or more gfx cards.
On one gfx card the gaming performance seems to be comparable...
The big difference shown in this test is the power consumption which equates to heat.
Isn't just looking at the cost factor a bit short sighted here?
And are you planning to test the board Gigabyte GA-P55-UD3?

 

In the article the q9650 was overclocked, what was it overclocked to? I have gone through the article and can't seem to find any mention of what speed the OC'd version of the q9650 was running at.

 

How did you get your i5 750 to 22x multiplier? I can only get 20 though the BIOS allows me to select 21, it doesn't use it!

 

Did you guys disable Turbo Boost in BIOS when over clocking the I7-860 CPU? I am currently planning on overclocking my 860. I am wandering which way to go... Leave the Turbo B. enabled and overclock or disable all the way

 

Just leave it on and it'll give you an extra multiplier in some cases, or, if you want a set fixed clock speed where you find the absolute stable limit, just turn it off