Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SquallStrife

Core i7 860 still useful?

Recommended Posts

I barely keep up with PC gaming hardware (preferring to choose between Athlons and Pentium 3's, but I digress...)

 

A friend of mine wants to build a gaming PC on the cheap.

 

I had a rummage and found some stuff, two P55A-UD3 mobos, and two Core i7 860 CPUs.

 

Is this gen of Core i7 any good? If we went out and got like a GTX 1060, some more RAM, an SSD, and a case and PSU, will they be able to do most recent stuff at 1080p with med-high detail?

Edited by SquallStrife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

1st Gen i3's manage medium settings.

And 1st Gen i5's will still keep up with a GTX1080 without becoming a CPU bottleneck.

 

Absolute worst case scenario, you might need to disable CPU intensive graphics improvements (some games have "advanced physics" engines, like PhysX used to be) but they're few and far between. Some use CPU for 'Specular Bloom'.

May even just drop back a DirectX version if stuff got bad, there's usually an option to do that, but I think this is just all talk. I can't honestly think of a title that CPU wouldn't be fine with.

an i7 860 should beast through everything, no drama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a thought... What core are those?

 

There is one specific core, and I dont recall which, that can only use 256kb memory IC's.... and they're impossible to find above 2GB; so you might get stuck with a 4 or 6GB machine, and buying second hand ram (even new 2GB stick are 512KB)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...256KB?

 

Is this like the old single sided vs double sided thing from SDR days?

 

Sort of. And WHOOPS, I meant MB.

Yes, some of the architecture of i series chips can't handle 512MB chips on the RAM modules.

 

as a fun note, there was almost never a 'single vs double sided' issue on modern things.

That was a laymans way of 'guessing' if it had lots of small 256MB IC's or only a few 512MB IC's.

Edited by Master_Scythe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in short anyway, find out what architecture those CPUs are, and report back.

We'll try and dig up if they can use 512MB IC's, if they can, I have someone who might want to buy one off you (and the matching board).

If you were interested, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are Lynnfield, the first Socket 1156 Core i7's.

 

FWIW the manual for the mobos says it supports 16GB in a 4x4GB configuration.

Edited by SquallStrife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are Lynnfield, the first Socket 1156 Core i7's.

 

FWIW the manual for the mobos says it supports 16GB in a 4x4GB configuration.

 

It's so hard to find information on max supported IC size for the darn memory controller..... I've been looking between clients while at work here, and it's not an easy search term.

 

Reason I know its relevant though, is because on my housemates IvyBridge CPU we couldn't buy ram for her, at all. 256MB per IC addressing limit.

Edited by Master_Scythe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't you say that the issue pertains to 2GB sticks?

 

The manual says this board supports 4GB sticks (i.e. 4x4GB for 16GB).

 

Should be alright, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't you say that the issue pertains to 2GB sticks?

 

The manual says this board supports 4GB sticks (i.e. 4x4GB for 16GB).

 

Should be alright, no?

 

Nope, there were 4GB sticks using 16X256MB IC's by the end, just very few and far between. IvyBridge (which I THINK was what also had that limit) listed 8GB sticks as being OK, all it really meant was it had enough (whats the correct word.... lanes?) to support that many ranks on a single stick; but that didnt say much about the IC's on the sticks.

 

It was a nightmarish time, and something Intel and RAM manufactures shouldn't have ever let happen.....

 

 

What I meant earlier was, you'll only really find 2GB sticks with 256MB IC's on them, and they'll have to be OLD. Current 2GB sticks are 4X512, not 8X256.

Bigger are out there, but people who know what they are ask big money.

 

EDIT: That said, 4~6GB of ram will play most games fine, especially if he uses SteamOS to play them.

 

Also, a quote from the famous "Ram Guy" from the Corsair forums; while not very technical, may suggest you'll be OK....

 

"Actually only Core I7 Quad channel series CPU's will support 64 Gig Core I5 D/C CPU's are limited to 32 Gig because of the number of slots and Core I3 only support 16 Gig of memory and the modules have to made with IC's no larger than 256 X8 Memory IC's so that would 4.0 Gig double rank modules or 16 Gig total. If the MB you have only has two slots then you would be limited to 8.0 Gig of Ram for Core I3 CPU's"

Edited by Master_Scythe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 2c

 

It's still a decent chip, but it will be noticeably slower than newer CPU's in a lot of modern titles if you want to crank the CPU intensive details up. Take GTA V as an example (link is a graph showing benchmark results with a GTX 970) of a popular modern AAA game; a 4th gen budget i3 nets better performance. Overclocking it (something that would be worth doing) to 4GHz does help a fair bit, with the performance now in spitting distance with a Core i5 2500k at stock settings, so that is something to take into account too. Plus there are a lot of games that will be GPU bottlenecked even with a "slow" CPU. Just look at the many people still using Core 2 Quad's, 1st Gen quad core i5's and i7's and Phenom II's in their systems even with modern GPU's quite happily. So I'd say the chip would make a nice base for a budget gaming PC, just don't be surprised if a modern graphics card doesn't perform as well as it has in reviews with newer CPU's

 

TLDR: Yes it's still a decent chip than will make a nice budget gaming system, especially if it's overclocked, but don't expect to max out everything with a modern mainstream GPU in ALL titles

Edited by nobody813

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got an i7-870 sitting on the floor next to me, it's pretty quick and I tried some OC'ing for an easy 4 GHz some time ago.

Really, it would be interesting to know just how much better at equivalent clock speeds the current gen i7 are than the first gen. Sure, the modern ones might have more cache, nice stuff like USB 3 and PCIe 2.0 or better but for pure number-crunching I doubt there'd be more than 10% difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when i upgraded from 3770k to 6700k i ran a few tests

its safe to say that the i7 860 is further behind 3770k than the 3770k is behind the 6700k

fallout4%20cpu%20vs%20ram.png

Arma%20III%20cpu%20vs%20ram.png

 

gpu limited game

Rainbow%20Six%20Siege%20cpu%20vs%20ram.p

 

this review has the i5 760 which wouldnt be much slower than the i7 860 in this game

they also show the i5 760 overclocked at which point it would definitely be faster than a stock i7 860

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=7&hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=pl&tl=en&u=http://pclab.pl/art66856-16.html&usg=ALkJrhikO77lXEtjdBdKdxV3Ipyk5qJekQ

f4_cpu_nv.png

 

in short yes its still a perfectly capable cpu in a lot of modern games that are gpu heavy

there is definitely better options for cpu hungry games but overclocking it will help

Edited by Dasa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers dude.

 

Yeah, I realise that it's not a magical progress-defying unicorn CPU, but by re-using this CPU and mobo, we can save the person a decent $300ish, which will help them a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

most games are a bit like the r6 test where it will run 60fps + with a oc provided the gpu can keep up

there is just a few cpu heavy games where it will dip to around 30fps at times

spare parts are a great option i was just trying to give an idea of where its limits lie

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×