Core 920 is as good as or better...

Submitted by Pball1224 on Fri, 05/08/2009 - 6:43am

I'm not sure if Intel did this on purpose of simply shot itself in the foot, but the Core 920 can easily be overclocked to perform better than the 965 does at stock settings.

I bought a 920 a couple months ago. Granted it took some trial and error since I'm new to overclocking, (including several thermal shutdowns) but I now have my CPU at 3.6ghz and memory a little over 1400 ghz.

I've been running World Community Grid on my computers over the past 3 years, and this i7 machine is just a crunching monster! It produces about 22 times as much work as my old 2.8 ghz Pentium 4.

There's simply no reason to drop nearly $600, nevermind $1k on the other processors! Those CPU's were marketed for enthusiasts, and any good enthusiast knows that 920 can do just as much, and will most likely put that extra money into a video card or two, or back in their pocket.

Login or register to post comments

Did I miss something?

Submitted by mesiah on Fri, 05/08/2009 - 3:12am

Did I miss something? Didn't intel announce over a month ago that it was going to replace the 940 with the 950 and the 965 with the 975? Was this missinformation or did max pc just drop the ball on this article?

Login or register to post comments

I think this is because no

Submitted by schmitty6633 on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 2:16pm

I think this is because no one has the money to spend 700 extra dollars to get a faster corei7 that you can overclock the cheap one to. on newegg 90% of the reviews are for the 920 for a good reson: overclock!

Simply put: Why pay more for not that much more or gain the performance for free!

Login or register to post comments

I have a 920 and just

Submitted by unitymind on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 12:01pm

I have a 920 and just slightly raised it to 3.0 gigs without even breaking a sweat. The 920 offers little in improvement over the a 2 core or 4 core when it comes to games. I had to turn off HT for World of Warcraft since it would only run on one core causing horrible frame rates.

Login or register to post comments

aww poor Intel

Submitted by pcwizmtl on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 10:35am

 

sales just went down for every i7 proc except the 920 after MPC's Core i7 overclock guide...

 ...and if you believe that, you need a sense of humour

 :D

 

Login or register to post comments

Question

Submitted by Cache on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 8:21am

Is it possible Intel issimply preparing to rid itself of the I7's in preparation for the next generation of chips?  (Especially if it's something that may cut off nVidia from producing their own chipsets.)  Does Intel intend to actually continue with the 1366 socket, or will it jettison it in favor of the 1156?

 

 

Login or register to post comments

Just Too Expensive

Submitted by ggruner on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 7:39am

Okay, I'm sure there are some people out there that can figure out a reason to spend $1000 on a CPU, but not very many. The 965 was only going to sell to those few with more money than brains. Similarly, the 940 at almost $550 was just priced too high. To spend essentially double the 920's cost to get another 12 or 13% better performance? For those wanting a blazing hot machine, the 920 got you there for a steep, but not ridiculous cost.

Then again, I tend to take the conservative route in my recommendations. With virtually every class of chip, the low end of that class is clearly the best buy when measured cost versus performance. I still build a few single-core PC's, but usually recommend a low-end dual core. If they need or want more power, we move up to a low end quad-core. Being partial to AMD chips (except the Core i7 changed the whole game) the Athlon 64 X2 5000 or 5200 are great values. Yes, you can get faster dual-cores, but the added performance comes at a steep price. For a quad-core, the Phenom 9600 is a great value. Yes, I've built more powerful machines, including one Core i7, but like I said, I tend to be conservative/realistic about recommendations.

Login or register to post comments

does this mean the 920 will

Submitted by bingojubes on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 7:10am

does this mean the 920 will be more expensive? in a way i'm glad i have mine, if the price goes up and all. otherwise, it will have left an empty hole in my soul should the 920 be phased out as well. if they just slashed the 965's prices drastically, then we all could cash in before they decide to axe it completely.

they also could have just made them cheaper, and not have made them super duper expensive in the first place. to compete with AMD a bit more closely, they should have made the 965 the 599$ and the 940 the 288$, and the 920 @ like 150$ (or something like that). then maybe more ppl would have jumped on the Intel Express...if that made any sense at all.

Login or register to post comments

Why?

Submitted by MeTo on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 7:10am

 Motherboards cost to much for i7 so people drop back to C2 duo or C2 Q to lower cost = Lower i7 volume. IMHO

Linux Mint,AMD Athlon+ x2 5600,3 Gig ram,500 Gig HDD,ATI 1300 Video.

Login or register to post comments

Sweet

Submitted by maniacm0nk3y on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 6:43am

It always comes down to what is the best budget performer, the one that can stretch it's legs without breaking your own legs in the process.

The Extreme Editions are for a very small market and most people won't really buy it.

 

Just my opinion. I got the E6600, which was tops at Newegg, and now the Core i7 920 has the same award.

Login or register to post comments