[Bubbafat]

Was debating about an i7 since christmas was rolling around, and wanted to get an idea of what i may get, and was curious to what the diffference was between the 1366 and 1156? i know its a different platform but is there any performance differences or anything?

 

[Spyhop]

210

 

[makotech222]

if your getting a new cpu for christmas, i suggest waiting till around january. the new cpus from intel are coming, i forget what they are called, buts its 32nm and 6 cores/12 threads. 1366 socket, i think too.

 

[Spyhop]

There's always a reason to wait. Always. Just buy when you want.

 

[Squall-Leonhart]

this is more an i7 vs i5 question.

the i7 has HTT, Triple Channel controller and a full PCIE2 interface.

the i5 has no HTT, Dual channel, and the pcie2 is limited to 1 16x card and several 4, 2 or 1x slots.

 

[lagunareturns]

i agree and wait, even if you end getting the same cpu in the long run its better for you because if intel releases even more cpus then the current ones will drop in price...

but if you must know i7 900 series are better for multitasking as it doesnt disable cores to make other cores faster, while i7 800 series will disable cores to make the other cores faster essentially speeding up tasks designed for a single core...

also take account that currently mobos for i7 900 series are tri channel while the i7 800 series are dual channel...

in all honesty i have seen benchmarks where the i7 800 series (especially the high end ones and when they are overclocked) beat the i7 900 series but i havent see a real benchmark that truly takes multitasking into account... reason that i care for multitasking is to run emulators like pcsx2 and dolphin which takes advantage of multiple cores (especially when you use software rendering in pcsx2)

unless i see a real multitasking benchmark i think choosing between 900 and 800 series is to decide if you want more speed in multitasking or for single task

 

[Spyhop]

HTT

This is meh

 

[makotech222]

There's always a reason to wait. Always. Just buy when you want.

yeah but the wait in this case is only like a month. the next cpus after that will be next december for sandy bridge.

32nm=4.8ghz overclock

 

[Bubbafat]

Mhm, i i like multi-tasking, always has its uses. So i think i may stick with a 1366 i7. I noticed the dual channel on the 1156 i like tri-channel (always thought boards should have 6 or more ram slots) But I dont think i will be able to afford the 6 core that will be released. it may be christmas but santa is poor in this rough economy. But hopefully prices of the current 900 series gets dropped january.

Although i do like the idea of a 4.8ghz

 

[runawayprisoner]

Depends on whether or not you run Crysis while encoding an HD video clip of you doing stuffs with your girlfriend, while listening to punk music, while leaving a 3Ds Max window open with an unfinished model, while leaving an IDE open maybe for debugging your emulator or game or software, while running Windows Live Messenger, and Yahoo and AIM, and all of that while you're browsing the web for pr0n on 48 different websites from 12 different countries. And you absolutely must be able to see any of those 1 second after you switch...

Because honestly, I can do all that except the encoding part on my netbook, and the game ain't Crysis.

But hey, more powah is good powah, right? Just remember... Try software tweaks first.

 

[makotech222]

i use to think i wouldnt be doing any of that rap, but nowadays i regret not having a quad core

 

[runawayprisoner]

What for? Your machine runs too slow to edit a 3D model? Or is your game running too slow? There's actually a stark difference between the two.

If it's a casual game, or you're editing a low-poly model for a fun game project and not exactly a precise architectural complex, then you won't need a "quad core" at all. Trust me... been there, done that. The performance improvement even for multi-tasking is not exactly that high, and that's saying... I was using a 4GHz quad-core.

If you're playing a very demanding game, or you play games and render things at the same time, or you encode stuffs, then yeah, the quad will help.

Hell, nowadays, I find it hard to find the difference between multi-tasking with a decent single-core processor and any processor with more than two cores. Provided your OS and softwares are tweaked alright, that is. Having too many keyloggers or Trojans or adwares monitoring your system can potentially slow things down a lot. And you definitely don't need an Antivirus or anti-adware, spyware, or popup blocker software unless you want to lose like 50% of your performance for nothing at all. Just don't open weird stuffs or visit weird websites and you'll be fine. Psh... get pr0n from trusted sources... and better yet, pay for them.

 

[Squall-Leonhart]

just go cheap, get a 920 or 930 and overclock

 

[PsyMan]

Go for 1366. Also, be sure to get a mobo with 6 RAM slots (there are mobos out there with 3 or 4).
In case you don't want to spend cash for an extra audio card some mobos come with integrated X-FI (through software, but still above most other integrated solutions) which means various extra SFX plus EAX support.
Another thing to consider is connectivity. Be sure to get a mobo with at least 8 SATA and one eSATA connectors (or even two eSATA) since everything that comes out lately uses that interface.
SAS support is a plus if you can get a cheap mobo with integrated support for it, especially if you want extra reliability and such.

My opinion however is to wait a bit. Not because of new CPUs coming out and such but because of those:

1. USB 3 is going to be out one of these days so wait until mobos supporting 1366 CPUs implement it.
2. SATA 3 (6 Gbps) is going to be out too one of these days so wait for it to be implemented too.

It's not wise to build a new system right before new technologies come out on the marker. You end up outdated fast, not to mention that if you don't mind the system being outdated you can get it far cheaper right after the new stuff come out.

This is not a new expansion card or CPU that can be easily replaced coming out. These are connections on the mobo itself that if they end up outdated you'll have to get more expansion cards in the future to support the new stuff. The system will end up bloated, not to mention that the integrated connections on the mobo will end up unused.
In short, be patient... unless you're willing to spend your cash for nothing.

 

[Princess Garnet]

USB 3.0 adapter cards will likely be released. The same thing goes for SATA 3. We have USB 2.0 and SATA II cards.

SATA 3 is mostly useless anyway. Heck, SATA II is questionably useless. Disks get, what, ~100MB/s typically at most (I know there's some that likely get more, but I'm talking "normal" here)? Most of their time is spent doing less speed tasks even. SATA (I) did 150MB/s. SATA II is 300MB/s. 600MB/s is way uneeded right now. Maybe it'll help for SSDs, but those aren't quite here yet, and won't be by tomorrow either.

The extra speed for USB 3.0 will really only matter for external disk drives I'd imagine, and maybe a few other niche things. For the most part, it's also not worth specifically waiting for.

This new stuff won't be cheap at first either, and he's already stated not being able to go the high end expensive route.

I agree with Spyhop. Unless it is within a month for a super major release and you plan on getting said release, then just go for it now. Otherwise, you'll be waiting forever and always worrying about what could had been if you waited a few more months, all the while you're worrying with that thought in the back of your head instead of enjoying what you have. Too many people seem to lack contentment.

 

[PsyMan]

As far as I remember USB 2 and SATA II were not needed either just when they came out... but they were a couple of months later.
Of course if people plan to buy another new PC in a couple of months I'm OK with it.

 

[Cid Highwind]

I agree with Psyman, it's nice having things integrated on your board and USB3.0 is certainly one of those welcomed features, unless you could get a mobo with e-Sata for external harddrives. Still, those are only for storage (typically), so you don't need a transfer rate higher than 30MB/s per se, although it is most welcome when in a rush. Playing HD movies directly from it however is certainly not a problem.

SATA III... Well, SSD can't saturate SATA II, but I'm not fully up to date about the progress it's making in speed.

Looking at your current motherboard Bubba, I do think that you'll appreciate an upgrade, so I suggest to draw your own conclusions from this thread and to simply strike when there's a good deal. Black Friday's coming up, isn't it?

 

[Squall-Leonhart]

intel aren't implementing USB or SATA 3 in the near future.

 

[Princess Garnet]

As far as I remember USB 2 and SATA II were not needed either just when they came out... but they were a couple of months later.
Of course if people plan to buy another new PC in a couple of months I'm OK with it.

USB 2.0 wasn't "needed" months after launch. Even now, it's really just hard drives and flash drives that "really need" it.

SATA II wasn't needed months after released. In fact, like I just said, it arguably still isn't needed even today! It's like how AGP8x was replacing AGP4x, when the cards themselves were still only at about AGP2x level needs.

You'll only need to happen to get it as a side effect when you do happen to upgrade, and then the feeling of having that update of that specific technology will be nice, but you needn't shape a decision around it. New features are nice to have if the "I'm outdated" feeling (nothing more than a feeling) bothers one that badly, but unless he "needs" these features, it is not worth putting a purchase off for months just for them (are they even around the corner anyway?).

 

[Cid Highwind]

Easy pick then I guess: Consider AMD.