Crash course in Intel processors?
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
Crash course in Intel processors?
I looked around at them, I'm thinking of converting to Intel, and boy there are a lot of options. What's the difference?
I see i5's and i7's are quad core, so same number of cores, just lower cache memory. Is that their main difference? Big price increase for a little bit more cache on the i7's.
I've always used AMD, so I'm not familiar with Intel's per say. Are there some things to know about them for thermal reasons? I want a cool running processor. I see they have different "bridges" which I don't know what those differences are.
What Intel is a good value in performance and heat levels, without being the most expensive they sell?
I see i5's and i7's are quad core, so same number of cores, just lower cache memory. Is that their main difference? Big price increase for a little bit more cache on the i7's.
I've always used AMD, so I'm not familiar with Intel's per say. Are there some things to know about them for thermal reasons? I want a cool running processor. I see they have different "bridges" which I don't know what those differences are.
What Intel is a good value in performance and heat levels, without being the most expensive they sell?
Re: Crash course in Intel processors?
The main difference between the i5's and i7's are Hyperthreading and L3 cache. Some programs really can show the difference in performance, but others show no difference at all. I get i7's just because, but it is a little bit hard to justify the ~$100 price difference. Examples:
i7-4770K: ~$350
i4-4670K: ~$243
Here are a couple of benchies: http://anandtech.com/bench/product/836?vs=837
And really, most everyday things and gaming will show no difference in performance. Your call.
Regarding the bridges, Sandy Bridge < Ivy Bridge < Haswell. Each is a new year's iteration, and each successive iteration has about 5-10% more performance than the year before on the CPU front. The GPU side has been growing at a stronger rate, but if you're doing any real gaming, you should look at a dedicated card.
Regarding heat, Intel chips nowadays put out a lot less heat than AMDs of the same performance level. They are pretty easy to cool. That being said, Ivy Bridge and Haswell don't overclock that well. It seems that the 22nm process is geared towards better power consumption instead of overclocking.
If I were building for somebody, I would probably get the i5-4670 (non-K). I think I'm over overclocking, and they don't overclock that well anyways.
i7-4770K: ~$350
i4-4670K: ~$243
Here are a couple of benchies: http://anandtech.com/bench/product/836?vs=837
And really, most everyday things and gaming will show no difference in performance. Your call.
Regarding the bridges, Sandy Bridge < Ivy Bridge < Haswell. Each is a new year's iteration, and each successive iteration has about 5-10% more performance than the year before on the CPU front. The GPU side has been growing at a stronger rate, but if you're doing any real gaming, you should look at a dedicated card.
Regarding heat, Intel chips nowadays put out a lot less heat than AMDs of the same performance level. They are pretty easy to cool. That being said, Ivy Bridge and Haswell don't overclock that well. It seems that the 22nm process is geared towards better power consumption instead of overclocking.
If I were building for somebody, I would probably get the i5-4670 (non-K). I think I'm over overclocking, and they don't overclock that well anyways.
Re: Crash course in Intel processors?
What is the difference with the K version? I see it's more expensive... what does it do? The K has a lot more reviews on Newegg.
My graphics card is a Radeon 7970.
My graphics card is a Radeon 7970.
Re: Crash course in Intel processors?
Basically the K versions allow full overclocking.
Re: Crash course in Intel processors?
Any drawbacks to it, aside from the the price? They only have the K versions in stock at the local store, I just checked.
Re: Crash course in Intel processors?
There are a few features that the K processors lack. TXT, TSX, VPro and VT-D (not VT-X, they have that). If you were going to run a dedicated virtualization box, or needed the security features of TXT or needed remote management you might care. For 99.9% of home users these missing features are a non-issue.
If you are not going to overclock then you might want to shop around for a non-K processor. That is only for the cost savings, not for the above features. A few of the K processors have a slightly faster clock even at stock speeds, so there is a slight performance advantage to them even when not overclocking.
If you are not going to overclock then you might want to shop around for a non-K processor. That is only for the cost savings, not for the above features. A few of the K processors have a slightly faster clock even at stock speeds, so there is a slight performance advantage to them even when not overclocking.
Re: Crash course in Intel processors?
Interesting, good to know. I think I'd be ok with a K processor then.
Re: Crash course in Intel processors?
Generally:NetTechie wrote:What Intel is a good value in performance and heat levels, without being the most expensive they sell?
-the cheapest regular quads (non-T, non-S)
-the Celerons
But there are lots of details which sometimes warrant buying something else (see above). Intel milks their customers by segment the market.
Re: Crash course in Intel processors?
Ok, did some homework on motherboards, looks like I'd have to get the LGA2011 to get what I need. How are these i7 4820K Ivy Bridge on heat?
Edit: crap, looks like this thing wont fit the FT02 case. It's XL-ATX.
http://us.msi.com/product/mb/Big-Bang-X ... div=Detail
Edit: crap, looks like this thing wont fit the FT02 case. It's XL-ATX.
http://us.msi.com/product/mb/Big-Bang-X ... div=Detail
Last edited by NetTechie on Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Crash course in Intel processors?
Why do you need so many 16x?NetTechie wrote:Ok, did some homework on motherboards, looks like I'd have to get the LGA2011 to get what I need. How are these Ivy Bridge on heat?
Edit: crap, looks like this thing wont fit the FT02 case. It's XL-ATX.
http://us.msi.com/product/mb/Big-Bang-X ... div=Detail
Re: Crash course in Intel processors?
I have a lot of cards.Abula wrote:Why do you need so many 16x?
Re: Crash course in Intel processors?
Could you list what cards you have, there are many boards that will have a lot of PCI slots, jsut not all 16x, even the X79 dont have all full 16X its just the plastic holder, but if you see the soldering in the back you see how many trully 16X you will see, and even then i dont know anyone that needs that many 16X, current high end GPU cant even saturate a PCIe 8x 3.0, thats why Z87 and SLI/Xfire scales so well now a days.NetTechie wrote:I have a lot of cards.Abula wrote:Why do you need so many 16x?
Re: Crash course in Intel processors?
Hmm, I have one true x16 card and the rest would be other cards. So it should work ok.
Re: Crash course in Intel processors?
Ok, here is a list of how I would do it:
Slot 1: HD 7970
Slot 2: blocked by above card
Slot 3: FirePro graphics card
Slot 4: FirePro graphics card
Slot 5: empty, so as to maintain x16 on Slot 1 (assuming it requires this?)
Slot 6: FirePro graphics card
Slot 7: Sound card
All slots used. I'd put one more card in there if I could, but that might stop the 7970 from running at 16x.
Edit: The FirePro's I'm using are the Multi-View series, which are passively cooled and have no fans. They run at about 13W each, or so I read.
Slot 1: HD 7970
Slot 2: blocked by above card
Slot 3: FirePro graphics card
Slot 4: FirePro graphics card
Slot 5: empty, so as to maintain x16 on Slot 1 (assuming it requires this?)
Slot 6: FirePro graphics card
Slot 7: Sound card
All slots used. I'd put one more card in there if I could, but that might stop the 7970 from running at 16x.
Edit: The FirePro's I'm using are the Multi-View series, which are passively cooled and have no fans. They run at about 13W each, or so I read.
Re: Crash course in Intel processors?
May I ask what you need three FirePros for?
The Socket 2011-platform is a bit outdated. It supposed to be Intel's high-end line, but they haven't updated the chipset in quite a while and the CPUs are one generation behind. (Ivy Bridge-E instead of the newer Haswell).
In my opinion, the platform is just about useless. It has more memory bandwidth, but only .5% of real world use cases will benefit from that. And it has more PCI-E-bandwidth. But PCI-E-bandwidth can be augmented by adding a PLX switch.
So there are a couple mainboards on the 1150 (Haswell) platform that offer just as much PCI-E-bandwidth, rendering Socket 2011 useless.
My recommendation: ASUS Z87-WS for mainboard and 4670k for your CPU.
The Socket 2011-platform is a bit outdated. It supposed to be Intel's high-end line, but they haven't updated the chipset in quite a while and the CPUs are one generation behind. (Ivy Bridge-E instead of the newer Haswell).
In my opinion, the platform is just about useless. It has more memory bandwidth, but only .5% of real world use cases will benefit from that. And it has more PCI-E-bandwidth. But PCI-E-bandwidth can be augmented by adding a PLX switch.
So there are a couple mainboards on the 1150 (Haswell) platform that offer just as much PCI-E-bandwidth, rendering Socket 2011 useless.
My recommendation: ASUS Z87-WS for mainboard and 4670k for your CPU.
Re: Crash course in Intel processors?
Well, I did a bit more research, and it appears that the LGA 2011 wouldn't be needed as I could use the x1 slots with a x1 slot converter to x16 low profile from StarTech.
Looks like the LGA 2011 uses an outdated chipset, which wouldn't be ideal.
I use the FirePro's to power monitors, this system is used for trading.
Looks like the LGA 2011 uses an outdated chipset, which wouldn't be ideal.
I use the FirePro's to power monitors, this system is used for trading.
Re: Crash course in Intel processors?
Looks like this board has just as many slots, but fits the FT02 case. Nice.Abula wrote: Could you list what cards you have, there are many boards that will have a lot of PCI slots, jsut not all 16x, even the X79 dont have all full 16X its just the plastic holder, but if you see the soldering in the back you see how many trully 16X you will see, and even then i dont know anyone that needs that many 16X, current high end GPU cant even saturate a PCIe 8x 3.0, thats why Z87 and SLI/Xfire scales so well now a days.
http://us.msi.com/product/mb/Z87-GD65-GAMING.html
And as it's MSI, it should have at least two PWM fan headers I think.
Edit: Looks like there is another MSI board with the same slots, but includes bluetooth and wifi as well. Not sure what other differences it has.
http://us.msi.com/product/mb/Z87-MPOWER-MAX.html
Also reviews of both boards say all the fans are independently controllable. Two cpu fans, and three system fans I think.
Re: Crash course in Intel processors?
For my specific uses, looks like going to Intel has an additional advantage. The onboard graphics supports 3 monitors at the same time as the other graphics cards are running. This is new on the Z87 chipset I believe. So I can run fewer firepro cards, as the motherboard can make up for one of them.
I'm looking at the MSI GD45 Gaming, as they have one cheap open-box at Micro Center, for $112 it seems like a good deal.
I'm looking at the MSI GD45 Gaming, as they have one cheap open-box at Micro Center, for $112 it seems like a good deal.
Re: Crash course in Intel processors?
Looks like System fan controls can do a minimum of 50% on MSI motherboards, or at least on the MPower board. That's 6v I'm guessing. Can't lower it more than that. The 180mm fans spin at 700rpm at that setting. Guess I'm gonna have to do it manually.
Re: Crash course in Intel processors?
Did you get the sunbeam? voltage 3pin are restricted to 50%, but the CPU_FAN1 and CPU_FAN2 should allow you 12.5%, 25% and 37.5%, thats if the fan can work that low, but this two slots are only PWM headers so they wont reduce 3pins. Either way you are not that far off from the limitation of the AP181s, which is above 400rpms. Asus motherboards would have drop it around 460rpms or so on CHA_FAN headers, but now that you are with MSI, then go manual with fan controller.NetTechie wrote:Looks like System fan controls can do a minimum of 50% on MSI motherboards, or at least on the MPower board. That's 6v I'm guessing. Can't lower it more than that. The 180mm fans spin at 700rpm at that setting. Guess I'm gonna have to do it manually.
-
- Posts: 5275
- Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: ITALY
Re: Crash course in Intel processors?
NetTechie wrote:Guess I'm gonna have to do it manually.
What about SpeedFan?
Re: Crash course in Intel processors?
I read some reviews on the sunbeam that warned that if you use the PWM function of it, it can eventually die and cause lockups or even non-boot of the motherboard. So I just went the knob way, turned them down quite a bit and they seem pretty quiet (not silent) I'm going to redo my builds though, move my Asus into the FT02 case which has the full fan control on the system fan headers, so this won't be setup this way for very long.Abula wrote:Did you get the sunbeam? voltage 3pin are restricted to 50%, but the CPU_FAN1 and CPU_FAN2 should allow you 12.5%, 25% and 37.5%, thats if the fan can work that low, but this two slots are only PWM headers so they wont reduce 3pins. Either way you are not that far off from the limitation of the AP181s, which is above 400rpms. Asus motherboards would have drop it around 460rpms or so on CHA_FAN headers, but now that you are with MSI, then go manual with fan controller.NetTechie wrote:Looks like System fan controls can do a minimum of 50% on MSI motherboards, or at least on the MPower board. That's 6v I'm guessing. Can't lower it more than that. The 180mm fans spin at 700rpm at that setting. Guess I'm gonna have to do it manually.
Thanks for the input everyone on the intel processor, I went with the i7 haswell, and I really like it. I'm going to move it into my Fractal Design Define R4 case and then I'll have the option to overclock or whatever if I want to (I probably wont for silencing reasons).
Re: Crash course in Intel processors?
Since you own both setups, test it before you move, its very simple, just use a 3pin from the asus motherboard to the Silverstone AP181 of the FT02 (no need to remove all stuff you got 3 fans just use one), connect the AP181 to a CHA_FAN (1,2,3) fan header, run FanXpert2 tunning and check how low its able to drop it. I would do this, as im not sure you will get much quieter, Asus and FanXpert2 has a one thing on their side, and its that the fan start on full rpms on bios, then when windows loads it undervolts it, so fans that wont start at certain voltage benefits from this, but if the fan can start at its minimum voltage then the results will be the same as the fan controller, no gain on moving your setup, at least from the fan side, but test it, this is the fun parts of doing pcs, tweaking and getting it to your personal liking.NetTechie wrote:I'm going to redo my builds though, move my Asus into the FT02 case which has the full fan control on the system fan headers, so this won't be setup this way for very long.
Re: Crash course in Intel processors?
Yeah if I turn the fans down any further they wont start with the computer, so I have to keep them a little higher than they are capable of running just so they do initially spin. I guess this is how it is with a manual fan controller.
I'll do as you said when I'm ready to do the move. I'm reconsidering, I got some new information that suggests I might be best off keeping this system for work purposes. I'd thought I could get by with less, but maybe not.
I'll do as you said when I'm ready to do the move. I'm reconsidering, I got some new information that suggests I might be best off keeping this system for work purposes. I'd thought I could get by with less, but maybe not.
Re: Crash course in Intel processors?
Woot, I found a way to silence the fans with the MSI motherboard. Little trick with using the bios to set the fan speeds.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=67079&p=582069#p582069
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=67079&p=582069#p582069