New i7 930!

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

02-16-2010, 05:06 AM
OC Nub

I ordered a 960, should get it today or tomorrow. After seeing results with these new chips I have my doubts on how well it will OC.
02-16-2010, 08:05 AM
Badfastbusa

Well this is something...

I bought 3 930's so far, 2 of the same batch which was 3001A187 (Great batch so it seems) and 1 of another batch 3001A135 (which was crap)! The best so far done 4.0ghz at only 1.17v-1.18v (load, and it was fluctuating back and fourth, but mostly on 1.17v)... Got up to 58c during load on the hottest core running linx and IBT! Not bad if you ask me... I also got 4.4ghz stable on air at 1.37v.
02-16-2010, 11:40 AM
bt_medic04

Quote:

Originally Posted by trn

It's not luck of the draw, intel just can't produce chips as good as they did in 2008 weeks 45 and 49. Why? I have no clue?

sure they can. those chips that are as good as what you mentioned just get binned higher. those 2008 week 45 and 49 were able to be binned higher, however demand for the 920 wasnt being met at that point in time, so they found themselves sold as 920's rather than 940's or 965's. thats just the way it goes sometimes
02-16-2010, 12:44 PM
Sam_oslo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Badfastbusa

Well this is something...

I bought 3 930's so far, 2 of the same batch which was 3001A187 (Great batch so it seems) and 1 of another batch 3001A135 (which was crap)! The best so far done 4.0ghz at only 1.17v-1.18v (load, and it was fluctuating back and fourth, but mostly on 1.17v)... Got up to 58c during load on the hottest core running linx and IBT! Not bad if you ask me... I also got 4.4ghz stable on air at 1.37v.

Good to hear, and hopefully we can see mor good batches. Post some screens of your results for us, would ya?
02-16-2010, 01:30 PM
Musho

Are they going to release a W3530 soon as well? I would rather buy the Xeon equivalent of this 930.
02-16-2010, 05:11 PM
Badfastbusa

why spend the extra money if the 930's are doing so dang well! 4.0ghz stable at 1.7v is pretty good last I checked! This was actually the best chip out of 13 of them that I know of that have been tested though.
02-16-2010, 05:19 PM
kill_a_wat

Thats some good news on the 1.17v 930@4ghz. Some screenies would be nice *hint hint*
02-16-2010, 05:59 PM
radaja

well for me(just my opinion) 4GHz w/1.17v is average.
now 4.2GHz w/1.17v is what i call a great chip.like the i7-920
3845-3849 batches.most of them can do 4.2ghz with 1.20v
02-16-2010, 06:15 PM
flesheatinvirus

Absolutely no doubt. My 3849B041 runs at 4510 at 1.38v 24/7.:D
02-16-2010, 06:29 PM
zsamz_

Quote:

Originally Posted by radaja

well for me(just my opinion) 4GHz w/1.17v is average.
now 4.2GHz w/1.17v is what i call a great chip.like the i7-920
3845-3849 batches.most of them can do 4.2ghz with 1.20v

:yepp::yepp:

Quote:

Originally Posted by flesheatinvirus

Absolutely no doubt. My 3849B041 runs at 4510 at 1.38v 24/7.:D

my 3849B018 runs 4.63 passes linx with 1.4v
i was thinkin of gettin a 930 for higher multi but the odds of gettin a 4.6 chip on air is verry low
02-16-2010, 06:34 PM
OC Nub

4.0ghz@1.17vcore is above average for newer batch chips. Can you post a screen of your stability run?

There were older batch 920's mentioned that were just insane overclockers but they aren't making them like that anymore. I have a new i7-960 that is a real POS. It requires 1.456vcore load for 4400mhz. This is probably the worst chip I have had, I should have stayed with my not so good 920do, it did better than this. Live and learn I guess but I wont be buying "high end" chips again.
02-16-2010, 06:50 PM
flesheatinvirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by zsamz_

:yepp::yepp:

my 3849B018 runs 4.63 passes linx with 1.4v
i was thinkin of gettin a 930 for higher multi but the odds of gettin a 4.6 chip on air is verry low

I was thinking the same thing and would like to see an increase.
02-16-2010, 07:02 PM
zsamz_

Quote:

Originally Posted by OC Nub

4.0ghz@1.17vcore is above average for newer batch chips. Can you post a screen of your stability run?

There were older batch 920's mentioned that were just insane overclockers but they aren't making them like that anymore. I have a new i7-960 that is a real POS. It requires 1.456vcore load for 4400mhz. This is probably the worst chip I have had, I should have stayed with my not so good 920do, it did better than this. Live and learn I guess but I wont be buying "high end" chips again.

i dont post screenies:p:
take my word for it lol
4.63 on air is a great chip in my book
02-16-2010, 11:55 PM
ekovalsky

Quote:

Originally Posted by stepinrazor

I'm using the corsair H50 which performed a few degrees better than my original Thermalright Ultra 120Extreme. I would try to go higher but this is about the farthest I want to go with these temps.

What batch# was your 930 ? At least a few of the 3001A187 chips out there seem to decent. I'm headed to Fry's in Phoenix, AZ tomorrow and may pick one up to try out, if they are even selling them yet.
02-17-2010, 03:11 AM
c22

Quote:

Originally Posted by zsamz_

i dont post screenies:p:
take my word for it lol
4.63 on air is a great chip in my book

"I don't post screenies" sounds like you have never even had i7 in your hand.
Screen or never happen. You wish you had 4,63ghz 1,4V stable on air. Maybe you are going to tell me that's with 4C/8T?

Please, don't think you're talking to idiots.
02-17-2010, 04:52 AM
QuadDamage

welp i used to have one of them gem D0's. 4.62Ghz @ 1.4V cooled by a crappy CM V8 HSF. The only reason i couldn't squize more our of it was i hit the BCLK wall @ 220 on the Giga EX58-UDP4 with locked PCI-E... I know this screen doesn't prove anything but for what it's worth it was stable.

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/4412/spi2.jpg
02-17-2010, 05:21 AM
c22

Please m8 I can do it also, but 1M spi is NOT prove for a processor to be stable.
Try to execute linx and it will be unstable, it's obvious on AIR, maybe on water also.
The point is - 4,6GHz 1,4V 4C/8T linx stable. In my opinion it's not possible on AIR. Stabilizing it will be impossible just because of the heatload.
02-17-2010, 05:46 AM
QuadDamage

Like i said, i know it doesn't prove anything.

I was too busy trying to get passed the 220 BCLK wall but it did pass 20 mins or so Prime95/Small FFT's/Blend runs. Yeah yeah i know, i should have ran Prime for atleast two weeks in a hot room.
02-17-2010, 07:26 AM
newhit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam_oslo

If the rest av 930s are like these 3001A117, then it could actually increase the price of good old 920 :p:. These can't do anything to 920, but we can hopefully get some better 930-batches too, otherwise it would be too bad that they are replacing the 920.

It seams Intel has learned some lessons from last rounds. A good OC headroom on these late batches of "cheap" CPU could ruin Intel's fun with the money you are spending on those 980x.

Isn't the 930 just marketing hype by Intel. Knowing the amount of 920's out there Intel hopes that new customers will take the plunge and grab a "better" cpu that's available now rather than wait for a 980? The average Joe is not checking the o/c potential, just that 930 is a bigger number than 920.
02-17-2010, 07:47 AM
radaja

Quote:

Originally Posted by totalz

"I don't post screenies" sounds like you have never even had i7 in your hand.
Screen or never happen. You wish you had 4,63ghz 1,4V stable on air. Maybe you are going to tell me that's with 4C/8T?

Please, don't think you're talking to idiots.

trust me,zsamz says his i7 can do 4.6 on air it can.his i7-860 and his E8600 does nicely on air too so does all his d9 kits of ram
just look at his batch number.these are the batches that can do 4.2 with 1.168v

and as to posting linx screenies i bet you want 1000 runs:rofl:
02-17-2010, 08:23 AM
Sam_oslo

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhit

Isn't the 930 just marketing hype by Intel. Knowing the amount of 920's out there Intel hopes that new customers will take the plunge and grab a "better" cpu that's available now rather than wait for a 980? Theis not checking the o/c potential, just that 930 is a bigger number than 920.

930 is not an alternative for the potential 980x-buyers, but I believe 2 opposite scenarios may happen right now, and it depends on Intel wants to keep the 45nm-line up going, or discontinue it in favor for 32nm Quads/Hexa-Cores soon.

If Intel wants to discontinue the Bloomfield-family, then may have good reasons for a last push to get rid of the rest of 45nm chips. In this scenario I would expect to see some good batches to lead the 930-pack at release date. In case, some good old 4845-49 batches (or similar new ones) will be out soon to lead the pack, because the hype around this will convince/excite the average Joe too.
Also, a scenario where Intel dumps the rest av 45nm, but Intel may try to keep this move as secret too, because with the news about cheap 32nm-quads in near future, nobody would buy the outdated 45nm-crap right now.

This 32nm-move will more depend on Intel's assessments of AMDs ability to compete in near future, than Intel's own desire, I believe.

On the other hand, if Intel feels no danger from AMD in near future, and wants to continue with the 45nm-line up, then the 930 can be a marking-hype for getting back to $280-price points, and In case we won't see many good 930-batches. Because in this scenario, a good OCer with x22 multi will kill the 960 totally, and make serious problems for 975 too. A good 930-batch will be a bad business for the rest av 45nm line up.

EDIT:
930 wasn't on Intel's road-maps, until it came out of the blue suddenly, recently!. Something that may indicate a last push before Intel is going to shift the whole line up to 32nm soon? I don't know, Just some speculations for now.
02-17-2010, 10:35 AM
sholvaco

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam_oslo

930 wasn't on Intel's road-maps, until it came out of the blue suddenly, recently!. Something that may indicate a last push before Intel is going to shift the whole line up to 32nm soon? I don't know, Just some speculations for now.

Actually we've known about it since late november. ;)

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&highlight=930

I personally believe socket 1336 won't see any 32 nm consumer level quads released (or non extreme hexes); even the Q3 scheduled 970 being yet another Bloomfield. Then again it pretty much depends on Sandy Bridge timetables.
02-17-2010, 11:07 AM
Sam_oslo

Quote:

Originally Posted by sholvaco

Actually we've known about it since late november. ;)

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&highlight=930

I personally believe socket 1336 won't see any 32 nm consumer level quads released (or non extreme hexes); even the Q3 scheduled 970 being yet another Bloomfield. Then again it pretty much depends on Sandy Bridge timetables.

That's not so long ago, but yeah that 32-transition plan is the common understanding among the majority based on Intel's announced plans. But Intel may have good reasons to to keep the transition time secret, too. You may still be right, though.

I personally have a hard time to see how those expensive 975 and 960-45nm can survive a cheap 930 with x22 multi for another year, unless most 930-batches are really crappy OCer.

I don't know, yet.
02-17-2010, 11:15 AM
BringerOdeath

I have a really crappy oc'ing 920 CO from launch that I want to get rid of and get either a, w3520, 920 DO, or the new 930. I have been trying to decide what would be the best option. or should i wait for the non Extreme 6 core? I will probably sell my core I7 that only does 3.8@ 1.352v for like $160 and just make up the rest.......
02-17-2010, 11:28 AM
Sam_oslo

@BringerOdeath

Good question. I have a really good w3520-batch that I'm really happy with, but a 32nm Quad/Hexa-Core would make it obsolete on several fronts. Therefore I'm trying to figure when and what to get next, too.

Those " non Extreme 6 core" are too far away in the fuature (based on current announced plans), but I've been speculating/hoping that we can see them earlier.

I guess the big question is: when will we see a 32nm Quad or Hexa-Core for us deadly on earth?. Because anything else would be obsolete compared to, actually.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page