$1600 i7 920 budget: Currently Spent = Too Much! (Updated with pics!) - Page 4 - Overclock.net

StormX2 · 01-02-09

why did you get 6 x 1 gb ram?

wouldnt 3 x 2gb be smarter?

SiXiam · 01-02-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormX2

why did you get 6 x 1 gb ram?

wouldnt 3 x 2gb be smarter?

I bought 3 x 1GB first and then decided to just buy another set. From the beginning though I figured 6GB is good enough for the system's life of 5yrs.

There's even a thread around somewhere were I was arguing with someone about whether 6GB of RAM is good enough for 5yrs.

Of course after 5yrs I expect to only run the low-end of new games...

Quote:

Originally Posted by atomicmonkey

Any games would be cool and 3DMark Vantage?

I'm downloading 3DMark now, so I'll get some benchies up pretty soon, depending how long they take of course...

SiXiam · 01-03-09

Ok, I'm confused there are lots of settings in 3DMark Vantage.

It defaults with a lower resolution, then what my machine is capable of, but it can do higher resolutions with different settings.

How can anyone compare numbers given that the settings are so varied?

I see everyone post numbers like I got a 2547 score in 3DMark, but no one ever says what settings they were using. Is this just a stupid game?

*VulcanDragon* · 01-03-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by SiXiam

I bought 3 x 1GB first and then decided to just buy another set. From the beginning though I figured 6GB is good enough for the system's life of 5yrs.

There's even a thread around somewhere were I was arguing with someone about whether 6GB of RAM is good enough for 5yrs.

Of course after 5yrs I expect to only run the low-end of new games...

I might have been in that thread...I seem to recall (and still think) that 6GB will be pushing it five years from now. But if you're going into it expecting to run only low-end games in your rig's late stages of life, then you're totally fine. That's pretty much how I was with my last PC...and I really didn't play any games on it at all for it's last (fourth) year of life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SiXiam

Ok, I'm confused there are lots of settings in 3DMark Vantage.

It defaults with a lower resolution, then what my machine is capable of, but it can do higher resolutions with different settings.

How can anyone compare numbers given that the settings are so varied?

I see everyone post numbers like I got a 2547 score in 3DMark, but no one ever says what settings they were using. Is this just a stupid game?

Your overall score in Vantage is prefixed with a letter that indicates what performance level setting you used. E.g. I got a P11399 last night, showing that I ran it on "Performance" level setting (the mid-level setting). I never mess with any of the fancier levers and dials myself, just the overall performance level.

As an aside, I ran the test to see what impact oc'ing from stock to 3.8GHz had. My CPU score jacked up 28.6%, from 36624 to 47091. But overall, which I think would be a more relevant indicator of how this will impact gaming, I saw a measely 2% increase, from P11175 to P11399. Not unexpected, graphics cards are the real bottleneck with this level of processor (and I have not oc'ed the card yet, nor am I running SLI).

SiXiam · 01-04-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by VulcanDragon

Your overall score in Vantage is prefixed with a letter that indicates what performance level setting you used. E.g. I got a P11399 last night, showing that I ran it on "Performance" level setting (the mid-level setting). I never mess with any of the fancier levers and dials myself, just the overall performance level.

As an aside, I ran the test to see what impact oc'ing from stock to 3.8GHz had. My CPU score jacked up 28.6%, from 36624 to 47091. But overall, which I think would be a more relevant indicator of how this will impact gaming, I saw a measely 2% increase, from P11175 to P11399. Not unexpected, graphics cards are the real bottleneck with this level of processor (and I have not oc'ed the card yet, nor am I running SLI).

Thanks for explaining!

Here are the first results I got at stock i7 920 speeds, DDR3 1333mhz, and with my stock Asus 4870 512mb:

P9702
GPU: 8518
CPU : 16647

I have a few tray icons running that I can shutdown and what not, but I'm not sure if that would effect the score at all. The score seems to be limited by my graphics card more then anything as you said...

SiXiam · 01-04-09

I did a second test turning off all my tray programs.

I think Norton Ghost (my backup program) was slowing things down slightly:

P9729
GPU: 8552
CPU: 16574

edit: Extreme one's also...

X3865
GPU: 3715
CPU: 16641

brandon6199 · 01-04-09

Very nice! I wish to join the Nehalem bandwagon sometime in the near future

+

*VulcanDragon* · 01-04-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by SiXiam

Here are the first results I got at stock i7 920 speeds, DDR3 1333mhz, and with my stock Asus 4870 512mb:

P9702
GPU: 8518
CPU : 16647

Wow...really? Okay, what's different about our two setups, apart from the graphics cards (which should be relatively comparable). Because my stock numbers killed those numbers:

P11175
GPU - 9073
CPU - 36624

Our GPU numbers are in the same ballpark, as I would expect. But why did I get more than double your CPU score with the exact same CPU at stock speeds?!? You don't have HT disabled or anything, do you?

Edit: Here are my numbers after OCing to 3.8GHz:

P11399 (2% increase)
GPU - 9100 (0.3% increase)
CPU - 47091 (28.6% increase)

SiXiam · 01-05-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by VulcanDragon

Wow...really? Okay, what's different about our two setups, apart from the graphics cards (which should be relatively comparable). Because my stock numbers killed those numbers:

P11175
GPU - 9073
CPU - 36624

Our GPU numbers are in the same ballpark, as I would expect. But why did I get more than double your CPU score with the exact same CPU at stock speeds?!? You don't have HT disabled or anything, do you?

Edit: Here are my numbers after OCing to 3.8GHz:

P11399 (2% increase)
GPU - 9100 (0.3% increase)
CPU - 47091 (28.6% increase)

I double checked, the only thing disabled is Intel TM, but HT is enabled.
I have the multiplier set to 20, maybe I should leave it at auto.

It's a mystery...???

Could be buggy software, but I'll have to investigate further...
I'll see what a minuscule overclock does also...

SiXiam · 01-05-09

I set the multiplier to auto and enabled both speedstep and turbo mode.

Doing just the performance CPU text 1 & 2 I got:
CPU: 17348 (16644 w/out speed step or turbo mode)

Still no where close to 30,000

edit:
A slight overclock to 2.7ghz (134 bclk & DDR3 1043mhz) I get:
17467, perfectly inline with the overclock.

I have no idea what can be holding me back if your getting 30k on the cpu.
It has to be that TRU

		Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > Intel > Intel - General > Intel Build Logs
$1600 i7 920 budget: Currently Spent = Too Much! (Updated with pics!)

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)