i7 920 @ 3.8ghz + 980 SLI , would there be to much bottleknecking ?

If that's the case, if I should be fine with a Core i7 4790, what should I make of this benchmak results in 3DMark11 physics?
Intel Core i7-4790 - 3DMark11 Score: 9540

Source: Intel Core i7-4790K compared to...

And the ones I was getting with a Core i7 920?
Intel Core i7-920 @ 4.0Ghz - 3DMark11 Score: 8746
Intel Core i7-920 @ 4.2Ghz* - 3DMark11 Score: 9192





I really can't read this performances as so different that one will bottleneck and the other won't. Not if the system main goal is to play games.

I would wait until DX12 comes out first. That will most likely extend the 920 usability even further.
Then, if the games start to really take advantage of multi-threading, which I think they will, upgrade when Intel 6-cores CPU arrive to the mainstream platforms.
Or am I missing something? Your thoughts, please.

* I had two i7-920, a C0 and a D0. With the C0 I just couldn't get 4.2Ghz stable. And to get the 4Ghz, it would take 1.4v.
The D0 scaled up to 4.515GHz with 1.48v

 

As you shown link to 3DM scores here you go:
http://www.futuremark.com/hardware/cpu/Intel+Core+i7-920+Processor/review

You know, you should compare stock clock vs stock clock.
But what you show is, that max OC i7-920 does as well as stock i7-4790.

I do not really like benchmarks which are not reliable in reading GPU/CPU/memory clocks and this is the case.

 

Well, the 3dmark 11 test is somewhat dated - firestrike should provide a more accurate Picture in regards to performance differences.

But as others mentioned, you shouldnt compare OC 920, against stock 4790... cause obviously the 4790 will perform ALOT better at 4,7 ghz for instance.

 

The 4790 is locked. I doubt it does 4.7Ghz. The "K" part is what you are referring to.

Anyways, I only did the comparisons because to me, this is what overclocking is all about.

I'm not looking for high scores when OC'ing; what I'm looking for is a way to stretch in time my CPU's utility or to get around the same performance as better parts but, with less money. And same thing for GPUs.

Maybe I'm just an outdated "old school" kind of guy but, that's why I do overclocking.

//start edit

And the truth is that for gaming - and is gaming what we are talking about here -, the 920 above 4GHz is still a pretty good CPU that will bottleneck any GPU (or GPUs) no more than a brand new Intel Quad-Core part out-of-the-box. Even in Firestirke:





//end edit

 

You could also take another path... choose the 5820k... that 6 core processor will be ALOT better in games with proper multi core support (which most have these days), and wont cost alot more than a 4790k

 

That's absolutely wrong. For every game that supports more than 4 cores I can name 10 games that don't even fully utilize 4 cores.

The advantage of the architecture around the 5820 lies in completely other areas. There's no way that "most games" will properly utilize more than 4 cores.

 

I can tell you right now with SLI 780 Ti's and a 920 @ 4.2GHz (which I have) you WILL be limited with your CPU. There are games that will greatly benefit from the increased IPC of Haswell. I am currently moving to a 5820K myself, figure since its been 6 years since I upgraded my system with the exception of the video cards it was time to go big. Cost difference between a 4790k vs 5820k is not too bad as long as you shop around. I picked up 16GB of DDR4 2400 for $190, that's only about $50 more then DDR3.

 

Precisly... the 5820k is our times 920

 

And completely worth upgrading to if you've got the money. The feature sets on these motherboards are staggeringly useful, apart from the fact you'll see a more stable framerate through higher minimum FPS. Those are the primary reasons I upgraded, anyway, and I think it was money well spent.

If you've got better things to spend money on or no money to spend (we all have been there) then hey, it's great that older hardware still performs admirably.

 

I am going to do a cpu, mb ram upgrade first. SLI 780ti still kick some serious ass . Then get a couple gm200 gpu`s non titan version.

 

Yeah, I need the horsepower when I upgraded my monitor to the LG 34UM95 because of such a high resolution. The GTX 580 I had just would not cut it and I wanted to be able to maintain 60FPS maxed out in most all games, that is why I got a second 780 Ti. My previous monitor I had for almost 8 years, so I think it was money well spent on the new one.

 

Oh, I have no doubt "some" games will be greatly benefit from the new CPUs but, I have a feeling we are talking about RTS and (Car) Racing games, which I couldn't care less...

My first thoughts about the 5820K were that it will turn out to be the "new 920", indeed. So, when I upgrade, it will be to Intel's eXtreme platform - an higher short-term investment that in the long run, will return.

I just don't feel like upgrading with DX12 around the corner. I want to see how it goes first, and it can take a while for DX12 games to come out.

 

On my system running Crysis will literally use 99% of all of my cores. BF4 hovers around 90% usage. Both these games were maxed out and still using that much processing power. So I would say it is not only RTS's and car racing games. And in the future games will be more optimized for multiple threads.

 

Thread revival

I have 2 970 sli and a i7 920. Just bought a 5820 will be able to tell you if the cpu is a bottleneck or not. Fwiw I have a 4k monitor. I can posts some game benchmarks if you think that will be helpful.

 

That would make for some good reading.

 

Some benches.

I'll try to keep this short. I have a 920 @ stock clocks (think i did a bad paste job as my temps at stock are pretty high). Two 970 EVGA super Clocks with the 2.0 fans. 920 MB is an ASUS RAMPAGE. Just a few tid bits. The motherboard has both cards on top of each other so one of them runs around 20 degrees C hotter than the other. I believe the cards do not start pulling power until 90 degrees C which I have never seen the first card reach however it has been in the high 80's before. My new ASUS X99-a MB actually leaves room in between SLI slots so I'm hoping that will help somewhat. I have a 4k G-Sync monitor that will not show higher than 60 FPS in some games (G-Sync works in some not in others its weird). I'm trying to run games that have in game bench marks as to make it even. I'm running three just to get a good average.

I was going to try and keep all of this in one thread but I dont have enough posts for links. So I will just keep replying in this thread.

 

Mb spacing is exactly the reason why I did not go with a couple 780ti classys. Was all set to buy them but I only got an inch between cards. Top card is only 5c higher than the bottom.

 

Batman Ark City Benchmark.

All settings at max. FXAA 4K resolution.

Min 38
Max 60
AVg 54

That was the same on all three runs. Everyonce in awhile I get low teens on like evry 10th benchmark I just threw them out as been inconsistant.

GTA IV with the ENB series mod

Statistics
Average FPS: 26.52
Duration: 38.24 sec
CPU Usage: 52%
System memory usage: 37%
Video memory usage: 41%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 3840 x 2160 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Shadow Quality: Very High
Reflection Resolution: High
Water Quality: Very High
Texture Filter Quality: Tri-Linear
Night Shadows: Very High
View Distance: 100
Detail Distance: 100

 

I am in your same position. Upgrading to Z97 makes no sense, you want X99 ideally and most of the cost will be for that pesky DDR4.

I don't think the bottleneck will affect you unless you're aiming for high framerates or 3DVision, as long as you're cranking graphics settings up you should be fine.

I'm going to try to wait it out, hoping intel pushes Skylake soon.

 

Well I finally installed new motherboard and I7 5820. MB is an ASUS X99-a with 16 GB of G.Skill memory and stock clocked i7 5820. Old setup was i7 920 @ stock clocks on an ASUS Rampage II with 12 GB of Corsair DDR3 @ stock clock. Cards are GTX 970 SC in SLI.

ALL BENCHMARKS ARE @ 2160 res using a G-Sync monitor that is capping everything at 60 FPS (more or less).

Batman AC EVERYTHING MAXED OUT using FXAA

with old 920
Min 38
Max 60
Avg 54

with 5820
Min 41
Max 61
Avg 57

With the old i7 920 it would randomly dip into the teens every 4th or 5th time I ran the benchmark in the game. This never happens with the new CPU.

Tomb Raider ALL MAXED Hair tess ON no aa

old 920
First run would be
Min 35.8
Max 60.3
Avg 47.1

Second run
Min 33
Max 50.9
Avg 42.9

I didn't write down the third run but every run after each other run got progressively worse. Not sure if it was because the old motherboard had both card literally on top of one another and the new one has about and inch and half of space between the two. That is my theory but not sure.

New 5820
Min 40
Max 60
Avg 52

This was the same for run 1 run 2 and run 3. Never changed.

Heaven benchmark all maxed out
i7 920
Min 7
Max 63
Avg 33.8
Score 851

i7 5820
min 7
Max 61
Avg 35.8
Score 902



Valley Benchmark
i7 920
Min 16.2
Max 62.1
Avg 39.3
Score 1642

i7 5820
Min 20
Max 64.5
Avg 50.8
Score 2126