Devin Johnston Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 I hope Boxx has something good in the works, I've been waiting for over 2 years and I need a new workstation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
own1221 Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Hey just wondering, I have an intel quad Q8200. How much faster would a i7 920 be than the Q8200 in max - e.g. 1hr render in Q8200 = ? in i7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
own1221 Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Hey just wondering, I have an intel quad Q8200. How much faster would a i7 920 be than the Q8200 in max - e.g. 1hr render in Q8200 = ? in i7 - just a rough estimate maybe? - twice as fast? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Just look at the Cinebench numbers for the CPU that's most similar to yours, vs. i7's, in a CPU chart on a site like tomshardware.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manta Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I'm not sure I'm seeing the benefits from i7's yet...maybe someone could shed some light on it...a comparable cpu to the i7 920 would be a q9550...they are both around the same price and according to the cpu chart on Toms hardware would render 3ds max about the same with the i7 slightly faster...but to build the i7 computer would be much more expensive with the motherboards and ram are much pricier...I just went to newegg and pretty much built a computer with a 9550, 8 gigs of ram, 2x 1Tb drives, a 1GB video card and a bluray player dvd burner combo...and didn't even hit $1,000... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Huh? I'm looking at the Tomshardware CPU chart right now and in both Max and C4D they show the 920 edging out the highest ranked Core2, the QX9770 which they are quoting at $1463. In both tests the 920 beat the Q9550 by a reasonable margin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manta Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 (edited) do you mean this one...doesn't look like a big difference to me... and the q9550 is only $280... Edited March 4, 2009 by manta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 31 vs 38 is a large difference. The chips cost the same and once MB and RAM production ramps up they will too. Meanwhile the i7 does it using less power. It beats the Core2 chip that costs 5x as much. This is significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manta Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 that's only because the QX9775 is totally overpriced and doesn't even perform great compared to the qx9550...the QX9775 should only cost something like $400... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Yeah, funny how that works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beestee Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I'm not sure I'm seeing the benefits from i7's yet...maybe someone could shed some light on it...a comparable cpu to the i7 920 would be a q9550...they are both around the same price and according to the cpu chart on Toms hardware would render 3ds max about the same with the i7 slightly faster...but to build the i7 computer would be much more expensive with the motherboards and ram are much pricier...I just went to newegg and pretty much built a computer with a 9550, 8 gigs of ram, 2x 1Tb drives, a 1GB video card and a bluray player dvd burner combo...and didn't even hit $1,000... There are only 3 components that matter in this type of cost comparison, the processor, motherboard and RAM. It is going to cost you more to buy into the new technology, probably $300 or more...but I don't really believe it could be considered a waste of money: http://www.benchwell.com/ Non overclocked: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 2.83 Ghz = 16m 42s Intel Core i7 920 @ 2.66 Ghz = 12m 4s Overclocked: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 4.00 Ghz = 12m 29s Intel Core i7 920 @ 4.01 Ghz = 7m 29s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Forreal Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Overclocked: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 4.00 Ghz = 12m 29s Intel Core i7 920 @ 4.01 Ghz = 7m 29s wow, that's some pretty serious overclocking - what's stability like and how much extra cooling is required? also, how noisy are these OC'ed pcs? i hate the sound of noisy fans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 That was most likely done using a liquid cooling rig. It's a pretty advanced technique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kippu Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 i have heard the i7 can do 4 ghz on air cooling alone , not for all the time , just probably benching for a while Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 I would not try that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 One of our IT guy's over clocked an i7 920 to 3Ghz and the render time was slower than it was when it was set to its normal speed, any ideas about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Either he screwed up or he overheated the chip and the motherboard throttled it. (This is also a form of screwing up.) It's important to stress test after overclocking while monitoring speeds and temperatures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danb4026 Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 How do you stress test? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 I'm not going to describe the entire procedure here but the way I've done it is to run as many copies of Prime95 as I have threads for a day while monitoring heat and CPU usage (it should be close to 100%) and seeing if Prime95 throws any errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beestee Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 One of our IT guy's over clocked an i7 920 to 3Ghz and the render time was slower than it was when it was set to its normal speed, any ideas about that? With the i7 there is a very delicate balance between the RAM and processor. I am actually running my 1600 Mhz RAM at somewhere around 1500 Mhz. I had perfect numbers for my 3.2 Ghz OC with the RAM at 1600, but I had stability issues with the RAM. Also, depending on when your system was built, there may a significant BIOS update. It is a new chipset, so there are bound to be improvements in the understanding of the new technology. I personally had one major issue with my i7 build and it was ironed out with a BIOS update. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tecton3d Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I'm not going to describe the entire procedure here but the way I've done it is to run as many copies of Prime95 as I have threads for a day while monitoring heat and CPU usage (it should be close to 100%) and seeing if Prime95 throws any errors. quoted for agreement. also adjust the variables of Prime95 as some stress memory/cpu more than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniohayon Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 My next toy: http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12405&Itemid=37 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOXXLABS Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 My next toy: http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12405&Itemid=37 meh... not OC'able terrible memory slot configuration not great PCI-E slot layout Other than that, I guess it's an ok mainboard... There are many other choices that have come out since that board was announced last month... Adam BOXXlabs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted March 30, 2009 Author Share Posted March 30, 2009 I just ordered a new system from Boxx, here are the specks: Dual Xeon W5580 3.2Ghz, 1333Mhz (quad core) 12 GB DDR3-1333 REG ECC Nvidia Quadro FX 3700 74GB 10,000 rpm SATA 500GB Serial ATA RAID 0 Array XP64 Hopefully I'll get it before the week is out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniohayon Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 meh... not OC'able terrible memory slot configuration not great PCI-E slot layout Other than that, I guess it's an ok mainboard... There are many other choices that have come out since that board was announced last month... Adam BOXXlabs My enthusiasm was about the dual 1366...I guess I've been out of the loop... What 's other choices? Dani Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now