Where is the next CPU?

[ddrueding]

I've had this i7 940 for a while now. Where is the next speed bump/price drop? I'm in a position to sell my current rig and upgrade, but there is nothing to upgrade to? It's been 6 months...

 

[Pradeep]

Desktop market is very slow right now, multi socket is where the action is.

 

[ddrueding]

Alright. Where is the multi-socket i7

Kidding, of course. Too many of my tasks are still single-threaded.

 

[timwhit]

Maybe it's time to lengthen your upgrade cycle. I upgrade every 2-3 years. Spend you money on something else. May I suggest wine?

 

[Pradeep]

Word has it Intel will be announcing its eight-core Nehalem-EX Xeon processor next week, on May 26th.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1137401/intel-core-nehalem-ex

 

[Stereodude]

Spend you money on something else. May I suggest wine?

May I suggest me? :rofl:

 

[mubs]

Get in line, SD!

 

[udaman]

940 @3.8Ghz? OC'd...

notice dd is o/l since he started this thread?

There will be my usual 1/2hr consulting fee attached to this post

 

[udaman]

Word has it Intel will be announcing its eight-core Nehalem-EX Xeon processor next week, on May 26th.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1137401/intel-core-nehalem-ex

Xeon Server chip, won't be shipping in systems until 2010...Get a Mac XServe if you want a Nehalem pkg.

link

Alright. Where is the multi-socket i7

Kidding, of course. Too many of my tasks are still single-threaded.

>means UR best bet is OC an Extreme (if you can afford it), minor speed bump in the line.

 

[ddrueding]

The trick with my upgrade cycle is that if I keep it short, I don't lose any money. Quite a few people come to me for system builds, and when someone is looking for something really high-end, I can offer them a deal on mine. I'm completely honest with them, explaining the loss of some of the warranty and the benefit of having a thoroughly tested system, built to a higher standard then the ones I typically sell (better cable routing, upgraded fans, etc). They jump at the opportunity. That opportunity has arisen again, and I'm frustrated that I can't take advantage of it. I may just have to take the profit instead.

 

[udaman]

Man, U fell 4 classic dd post? >”thx guys, went > Fry’s during lunch, bought…”

link #1

link #2

link #3

<twitterific SD style &135 char! >

 

[ddrueding]

On order...ETA Monday.

Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition 965 Nehalem 3.2GHz LGA 1366 130W Quad-Core Processor Model BX80601965 - Retail

CORSAIR XMS3 12GB (6 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model HX3X12G1600C9 G - Retail

GIGABYTE GA-EX58-EXTREME LGA 1366 Intel X58 ATX Intel Motherboard - Retail

Noctua NH-U12P SE1366 120mm SSO CPU Cooler - Retail

Antec P183 Black Aluminum / Steel / Plastic ATX Mid Tower Computer Case - Retail

Antec CP-850 850W Continuous Power CPX SLI Certified CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS Certified Modular Active PFC Power Supply - Retail


Apparently, the Extreme Edition CPUs have the ability to "Turbo" a single core. Great for single-threaded apps.

One wrinkle to the multiplier is the new Turbo Mode. This mode essentially automatically overclocks a single core of the CPU under certain loads. If you have overclocked a Core i7-920 to 3.66GHz and then you switch on Turbo Mode, the CPU will actually run at 4.03GHz in single-threaded apps. Is it worth it? Frankly, we’re not sure. We are getting to the point where it’s pretty rare to be running performance-intensive single-threaded applications, so the performance boost will be minimal. You do get a 1x multiplier boost in dual-threaded apps so you most games would run at 3.83GHz. Sounds good right?

...

Unfortunately you can’t set your individual Turbo Mode settings on the cheap chips. Intel limits fine-grain Turbo Mode control to the Core i7-965 Extreme Edition. The pedestrian Core i7-920 and Core i7-940 are limited to a single multiplier increase for single-threaded apps, which is of marginal usefulness. It’s also clear that not all motherboard vendors think Turbo Mode is worthwhile. We’ve tested two different Asus boards that don’t implement Turbo Mode the same way Intel does. Instead of letting the user set the individual Turbo Mode settings on an Extreme Edition chip, your only option is to overclock all cores simultaneously.

Turbo Mode is something that should be evaluated based on your needs and the specifics of your overclock. For example, our case study actually found that a moderate overclock with Turbo Mode gave us better benchmark results than a higher-speed overclock without Turbo Mode.

 

[Mercutio]

Sounds like a great deal of money for something between very little and absolutely no subjective performance gain.

 

[Stereodude]

That's how ddrueding rolls though...

 

[timwhit]

Dear god that's an expensive chip.

 

[ddrueding]

I doubt I'll have it more than 6 months, and will be able to sell the system with these bits, an optical, and a 120GB SSD for about $3500. The only reason I don't do it more often is my time.

 

[CougTek]

Why didn't you build something on top of that motherboard? Add two X5500 series Xeon and you would have had eight i7 cores at your service for not much more money than what you've spent already. This board accepts unbufferred memory up to 24GB, so RAM wouldn't have been a problem.

 

[Mercutio]

Despite the crappy manufacturer, 14 SATA ports is enough to make my pants feel funny.

 

[ddrueding]

That is a sexy board, but a pair of these would have bumped the price considerably. I also couldn't find them in stock anywhere. It also only has 6 slots, so getting 24GB in it would be very costly. Maybe next time around.

 

[ddrueding]

Oh, and I need 3x PCI-E.

 

[Santilli]

This seems to be the sweet value spot:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117185

This looks good as well:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117147

 

[ddrueding]

The 5420 looks like a great deal. I didn't read if that ASUS board supports single-chip operation, but that would be one hell of an upgrade path (plenty of faster chips, supports tons of RAM, tons of SATA).

 

[Handruin]

Why didn't you build something on top of that motherboard? Add two X5500 series Xeon and you would have had eight i7 cores at your service for not much more money than what you've spent already. This board accepts unbufferred memory up to 24GB, so RAM wouldn't have been a problem.

Newegg has that board and it's not nearly as expensive as I would have thought for what it is at $360.

 

[ddrueding]

Bah, why didn't that come up in a search? I'll need to find someone I can interest in one of those...

 

[sdbardwick]

This combo deal is pretty tempting...

 

[CougTek]

The 5420 looks like a great deal.

This chip is based on the old Core 2 Quad architecture, not the new i7 one. It will yield significantly to a similarly-priced Xeon X55xx chip.

I knew about the great price of the Z8NA-D6 and that's why I brought it here. Instead of using two X5580, I would have chosen two X5540. Their price is better, their frequency still high enough and they keep the larger amount of cache and a good turbo boost bump when possible.

But the Z8NA-D6 cannot accomodate three high-end PCI-E graphic cards. You cannot have everything in life. It's a terrific deal no matter what.

 

[Mercutio]

But the Z8NA-D6 cannot accomodate three high-end PCI-E graphic cards.

I think he's doing two graphics cards and a major league SATA controller.

 

[ddrueding]

Two graphics cards and a sound card in this machine, if I can get that many ports onboard. So it is technically possible.

 

[Santilli]

"Here's a list of how much RAM the various Windows versions and editions support (as of Nov 2004):

Windows NT 4.0: 4 GB
Windows 2000 Professional: 4 GB
Windows 2000 Standard Server: 4 GB
Windows 2000 Advanced Server: 8GB
Windows 2000 Datacenter Server: 32GB
Windows XP Professional: 4 GB
Windows Server 2003 Web Edition: 2 GB
Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition: 4 GB
Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition: 32 GB
Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition: 64 GB
"

Is the above still true, and, if so, what OS are you running, DD?

 

[Handruin]

Looks like it can support up to 2TB under 64-bit.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx

 

[Santilli]

Looks like there is a VERY good reason to move to 64 bit...

 

[Handruin]

If you want support for larger than 2GB per process, 64-bit is your friend.

 

[Mercutio]

I'm still waiting to find something a desktop user does that actually needs 2GB of RAM for everything put together.

 

[LunarMist]

I'm waiting for the 32nm CPUs.

 

[CougTek]

Microsoft Flight Simulator X uses more than 2GB of RAM under Vista. I've never seen it use more than 1.6GB under XP though. Many other games must blow 2GB of used RAM under Vista.

 

[Santilli]

After reading the more recent reviews of 64 bit XP Pro, it would be worth about 10 bucks to try it, and, I suspect most of my programs and hardware might not have decent drivers. Don't know.

Should probably just save the money, wait and hope Windows 7 is somewhere as good as the beta was...

 

[Handruin]

My new laptop came with vista business 64-bit and I've had surprisingly no compatibility problems so far with any softeware 932 and 64 bit). Vista is bloated, but I've disabled most of what I could and I'm waiting to see what windows 7 64-bit offers. i'm running with 4GB RAM in this system at the moment.

 

[Mercutio]

64 bit Windows is something that does not make me very happy. Until just a couple months ago, the picture viewer I preferred to use wouldn't run on 64-bit. It still doesn't, but the new version of Picasa is nice enough I don't mind.

 

[Handruin]

I've been using ifranview 32 as my picture viewer in windows for many years and it works fine on 64-bit windows.

 

[Mercutio]

I like ACDSee version 2, which was released in 1995. Newer versions are too slow and heavyweight. Irfanview doesn't do some of the things ACDSee does.