Posts Tagged ‘i7-860’

SSDs: are you experienced?

Kingston SSDNow V-Series 128GB[tweetmeme source=”KeithBluestone” only_single=false]First reaction after installing an Kingston SSDNow V-Series 128GB SSD boot drive in my custom-built Core i7-860 PC running Windows 7:  awesome.

While several times the cost per GB of conventional drives, an entry-level SSD will run many times faster, and I think  it’s the perfect companion for today’s high-end processors.  The days of using conventional boot drives are surely limited.

I noticed that there are a lot of sites pirating this article verbatim.  Here is a link to the original on SoftwareKeith.com… — Keith

Fast. Smooth. Quiet.

The SSD at US$250 (on NewEgg.com) was rather pricey for a single PC component — it cost as much as the Core i7-860 CPU itself.   But I knew almost immediately that it was the right decision: with the SSD installed, everything flies !  The system feels so “smooth,” like the hard drive and the processor are in sync.  Windows 7 Ultimate installed in about 10 minutes flat;  it boots in about 20 seconds.   Apps leap onto the screen again within a second or two.

My favorite readers will remember that after my very fast RAID-10 array died (see my last post), I had to run the Core i7 box off a single 7200 RPM drive for a while, which showed clearly that the hard drive was a performance bottleneck.

Formatted, the SSD has about 120GB of space.  After installing Windows 7 Ultimate and a handful of core applications (FireFox, Picasa, Windows Live Writer, etc.), I still had over 90 GB free.   After some heavier installs – including Office Professional 2010, Microsoft Visual Studio 2010, and Microsoft Visual Studio 2008 – there’s still well over 80 GB free.  That’s more than enough for most people to play with for quite some time.

Why SSD’s smoke conventional drives

imageIn a word (or two): access time.  The access time is how long it takes the storage device to read data.

For conventional drives, this involves waiting until the data on the spinning hard drive platter (right) rotates under the read head, positioning the read head arm to the correct track (radially), and reading the data from the platter.  Conventional desktop hard drives, even the best in the world, have access times of  4 to 8 milliseconds, which turns out to be an eternity for today’s processors.

The following analogy brings home the massive disparity between the speed of a modern processors and hard drives:

The first thing that jumps out is how absurdly fast our processors are…  reading from L1 cache is like grabbing a piece of paper from your desk (3 seconds), L2 cache is picking up a book from a nearby shelf (14 seconds), and main system memory is taking a 4-minute walk down the hall to buy a Twix bar.  Waiting for a hard drive seek is like leaving the building to roam the earth for one year and three months.
— “What Your Computer Does While You Wait,” Gustavo Duarte

As it turns out, most of the work done by an operating system involves reading a ton of little files, more or less “randomly” accessing the hard drive.   Thus, impressively fast sequential read or write speeds are not nearly as important as random access read speed.   Anand Lal Shimpi explains why, even though the cost per GB is so much higher, SSDs are worth it:

Measuring random access is very important because that’s what generally happens when you go to run an application while doing other things on your computer. It’s random access that feels the slowest on your machine.  Most hard drives will take closer to 8 or 9 ms in this test.  The fastest SSDs can find the data you’re looking for in around 0.1 ms. That’s an order of magnitude faster than the fastest hard drive on the market today.  [KB: it’s actually almost two orders of magnitude faster…]
— “The SSD Anthology: Why You Should Want an SSD,” AnandTech, March 2009

This explains my own experience:  even though my formerly alive RAID-10 array benchmarked faster than the Kingston SSD overall, with a PassMark Disk Mark score of 1100 to the SSD’s 950, the system feels so much quicker with the SSD – without the headaches of RAID-10.

This is why I’m now an SSD convert.

See with your own eyes

Watch the actual launch speed of a handful of common applications on my Core i7-860 below.  This screencast was done immediately after reboot, so no applications are pre-loaded or cached in memory.  Most apps load in about a second or so;  Outlook 2010 takes the longest, but since my mail archives are on a network share, the five or so seconds it takes to load includes accessing a remote filesystem.

Windows 7 Ultimate + Core i7-860 @ 3.3 GHz + Kingston V-Series SSD

Conclusion

The lowly old spinning-platter hard drive is the primary bottleneck in the modern computer.   Though pricey, an SSD is a perfect match for a today’s fast processors.

***

For those still reading…

Benchmarks are below – you can skip this section if you’re not interested in my technological prognostications.

I’ll make a bold prediction: as a boot drive, the SSD was so effective at speeding up my computer, I believe that within two years, they will become mainstream as boot drive choices.  With the ever-increasing capabilities of our processors, and the ever-increasing demands we put on our computers, it’s a perfect choice.

The default configuration would be be an SSD- or memory-based boot drive, on which the operating system and applications are installed, supplemented where necessary by a second, higher-capcacity legacy technology drive (you know, the ones that go ‘round and ‘round).

Intelligent OS storage architectures?

If we’re lucky, Microsoft will get inspired and allow seamless stitching of fast SSD and slow legacy storage in their next version of Windows.  This not-yet-invented technology would enable two drives – a fast, smaller SSD and a slower, larger conventional drive –  to be seen as a single logical storage partition. The OS would have the intelligence, for instance, to automatically install applications on the fast part and keep things like large images – when necessary – on the slower drive.  Why not?

imageWhile you’re at it, Microsoft: use that legacy hard drive for a completely automated, idiot-proof backup system. This would have one switch at the highest level: “back up my system” – or not.   Want to improve your “street cred” against upstarts Apple and Google?  Let no Windows user henceforth ever lose their data. It’s the right thing to do.

Let’s face it: the SSD could basically be considered just a fast hard drive cache. Caching technology and cache-hit optimization strategies are fairly well-understood, as are the dynamics of logical block translation in operating systems:  why should it be difficult to have the OS manage and optimize a hybrid storage array?

It turns out there already are “hybrid hard drives” or “HHD’s”.  See the Tech Report’s “Seagate Momentus XT: a hybrid for the masses?” and  Wikipedia’s entry on hybrid drives.  These drives blend flash memory and a conventional hard drive in one package.  Unfortunately, this is not as flexible as an OS-based implementation would be.

Benchmarks

I promised benchmarks…  many of course are out there on the web, but below are some from my computer.

PassMark’s Disk Mark measured the random seek performance of the SSD at 60% higher than the RAID-10 array (in MB/s):

2010.08_PerformanceTest_Disk_Mark_-_i7-860_and_Kingston_SSD

HD Tune clocks its read performance at 250 MB/s, stellar:

2010.08_Kingston_SSD_HD_Tune_Read

HD Tune’s file benchmarks show file reads and writes many times faster than the average drive (in MB/s):

image

Windows Experience Index scores it 6.8 out of…  7.9? Could anything be less clear than Microsoft’s own explanation?

image

More Reading

As it’s mid-2010, I suppose I’m a little late to the party, but…  who’s going to be ahead of Anand?  Regardless, it’s good to be here:

“For the past several months I’ve been calling SSDs the single most noticeable upgrade you can do to your computer. … Whenever anyone mentions a more affordable SSD you always get several detractors saying that you could easily buy 2 VelociRaptors for the same price. Allow me to show you one table that should change your opinion.”
Anand Lal Shimpi, “The SSD Anthology,” March 2009

A few months later, Anand followed up this magnum opus with yet another:

“What have I gotten myself into? The SSD Anthology I wrote back in March was read over 2 million times. Microsoft linked it, Wikipedia linked it, my esteemed colleagues in the press linked it, Linus freakin Torvalds linked it. ”
Anand Lal Shimpi, “The SSD Relapse: Understanding and Choosing the Best SSD,”  August 2009

Other links:

Advertisements

New Core i7 PC: The Build

[tweetmeme source="KeithBluestone"]This article is part of a series in 2010 on custom-building a high-performance computer with the latest Intel Core i7 processors:

  1. Build or buy a new Core i7 supercomputer?
  2. Choosing a New CPU: Intel Core i7-920/930 vs. i7-860/870
  3. New Core i7 PC: Selecting the Components
  4. New Core i7 PC: The Build

Overviewimage82

Hello, folks… here’s a long overdue post on my Core i7 build.   I actually built two quad-core i7-860 computers with the hardware selection detailed in this post: one for me, and one for my father-in-law, who does video editing and production.

In general, both custom builds went without a hitch.  However, there are a few points of advice that might save you a few hours if you’re planning to build your own custom PC.

The builds took, surprisingly, much longer than I thought:  about six hours each.  This includes thoroughly cleaning out each old case, as well as taking pictures of the “build experience.”  It also includes cleanly routing and tying off all the various cables in the case, for a tidy presentation – as well as better airflow. 

I also installed an aftermarket heat sink on my father-in-law’s system, which took about an hour.  I highly recommend a heat sink — more on that below.

After double-checking the all the motherboard connectors a final time — hard drive, video, fans – I sat back and paused for a moment of reflection – then hit the power button.   On each build, the system started right up without any hitches –much to my relief.

Build notes

Note to first-time builders: it is critically important that you take measures to prevent damage to sensitive electronics components from static electricity.  Simply walking across the room can build up thousands of volts of static. 

See “Avoid Static Damage to Your PC” (PC World) for tips.

For both builds, I re-used the existing case, after gutting them of old motherboard and components.  Then I gave them them a thorough cleaning – unable to bear putting the elite processor and beautiful new components in an dusty, dirty case.    

I took it slow and enjoyed the whole process of building the new system.  Everything pretty much only fits in one way, so as long as you don’t force anything, you’re good.    

Bottom of Intel stock CPU coolerThe only real issue I had was some angst over the proper seating of the stock Intel cooling fan (right) on the i7-860 processor:  it wasn’t especially clear when the fan assembly was seated properly and securely on the motherboard.  Since direct contact on the processor is essential for cooling, it seems like this part of the process should be more foolproof.  

Lessons Learned

Get a CPU cooler up front. Through the magic of overclocking, you can leverage your investment in the entire system and make your system run like it had a much more expensive, faster processor in it.  The ASUS P7P55D-E motherboard I selected comes with automatic overclocking software takes me up to 3.6 GHz (from 2.8 GHz on a stock i7-860). That’s about a 30% performance boost. 

But with frequency and voltage comes heat.  You could really make the system smoke…  literally, if you’re not careful.  Why take chances cooking the silicon wafer at the heart of your high-tech monster?  You spent around $1,000 for your new system, all told; but for a mere $35 to $70, an aftermarket cooler will enable you to safely overclock your system to run around 30% faster.  That’s 30% return on 3.5% to 7% investment, as I see it – pretty much a no-brainer.  In addition, to future-proofing and fire-proofing your box, it’s a great value.

The strong consensus on the forums, Cooler Master Hyper 212which matched my own experience, is that the stock Intel cooler is really not up to the task of cooling an overclocked i7.   After some research, I selected the Cooler Master Hyper 212 (right) for a very affordable $35 – highly rated and available on Amazon.

Note: the Cooler Master Hyper 212 is an impressive-looking piece of finned hardware, but has horrible install instructions — NewEggers agree.  Where are the Cooler Master folks??  It’s a perfect opportunity for crowdsourcing.

Configure RAID up front. if you’re planning on using the onboard Intel Matrix raid, set up the RAID array before installing the operating system – even if you only intend to use a simple mirror (RAID-1).  

The Intel Matrix RAID bios is apparently, unbelievably incapable of simply mirroring one existing, data-containing drive onto another identical, blank drive!  (Why, Intel, why?!)   So the mirror setup – at least in the BIOS — requires the destruction of all info on both drives.   Sad smile  

I had to suck it up, create the mirror, and reinstall Windows 7.  Good thing I have a fast machine.  Winking smile

Case design. Consider investing in a good case.  I can now see why good case design is important… I always thought of a case as just a case, but in this case (no pun intended) I see what excellent design features it can add.  My father-in-law’s Antec case has a solid, heavy metal frame, with beautiful lacquered silver paint and a latching ez-swing-out side panel for access to the interior.  It has two convenient pop-out hard drive cages for a total of four 3.5” bays, as well as easy front-slide-out bays for 5.25” equipment like the DVD drives.   This makes it very easy to remove or change components.  It also has wiring for front case USB and firewire connectors.

You can go cheap on cases, for sure;  but consider a cooler, higher-end case if it’s only a few more bucks.   Go ahead, you deserve it.

IMG_2990The front slide-out 5.25 bays on the great Antec case

Build #1

This is my personal system;  I built it first so that I would be able to apply any lessons learned to my father-in-law’s build.    Its highlight is an extremely quick 1TB RAID-10 hard drive array (mirror of stripes) built on of four Seagate Barracudas.  I re-used an existing, older Antec 430W power supply.

Ingredients:

  1. Core i7-860 Processor $250
  2. ASUS P7P55D-E ATX Motherboard $150
  3. 4 x Seagate Barracuda ES.2 ST3500320NS 500GB 7200 RPM SATA New $600, street today ~$350?
  4. XFX Radeon HD 4650 Video Card $65
  5. G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR3 1600 RAM $115
  6. LITE-ON Black 24X DVD RW Player $25
  7. Antec True Power 430W power supply

Total outlay:  ~$600.   This doesn’t include the cost of the enterprise-class hard drive, power supply, or case.

Build #2

This system is for my father-in-law,who is replacing a 2004-era Pentium 4 box very similar to my Dell PowerEdge 400SC.    Following my own best practices, I built it with two hard drives in a mirror array (RAID-1) so that a single hard drive failure will not be able to take the system down: for the extra $100, well worth it.    Since this system will be used for video editing, it has a much more capable graphics card, the XFX Radeon HD 4850, which is a dual-slot monster.

Blend together and serve over crushed ice the following:

Total cost: ~$1,000, not including case

Installation Checklist

After installing Windows 7 (64-bit), these were the major post-OS software installs that I did to get the systems up to speed:

  • ASUS drivers from mobo DVD:  chipset, lan, Intel Matrix, USB, etc.  link
  • ASUS utilities from mobo DVD: Turbo EVO, etc – CHECK
  • Update Radeon drivers via Device Manager
  • FireFox v3.6 – my preferred browser
  • Internet Explorer 8 – for completeness
  • Run Windows update
  • 7-Zip
  • LastPass
  • Picasa
  • Avast AntiVirus – free

Build or Buy a New Core i7 Supercomputer?

[tweetmeme source="KeithBluestone"]This article is part of a series in 2010 on custom-building a high-performance computer with the latest Intel Core i7 processors:

  1. Build or buy a new Core i7 supercomputer?
  2. Choosing a New CPU: Intel Core i7-920/930 vs. i7-860/870
  3. New Core i7 PC: Selecting the Components
  4. New Core i7 PC: The Build

Overview

I’m usually a strong proponent of choosing to “buy” standardized computers (e.g. Dell) rather than “build” a custom server.  But in this case, the stars are aligned in favor of a building a handcrafted system that should be a real screamer – and hopefully a lot of fun in the process.

The Landscape

In a prior post, I discussed the merits of computers based around the latest, greatest CPUs, concluding that the benefits of raw computing power and energy efficiency made it pretty much an open-and-shut case for investing in the latest technology.

image I thought I would seal the deal by simply ordering a Dell PowerEdge server, as I’ve done with great success in the past: I own a PowerEdge 1600SC and a PowerEdge 400SC, both really excellent machines for their time.  But I was curious to see what the latest and greatest advances in mainstream chip technology had brought us.

I followed up with a little research on the Intel Core i7 family of processors with the new Nehalem architecture.  In particular, I looked at the two primary choices at around a $200 price point:  the Core i7-860 and the Core i7-920.   (The i7-860 edged out the i7-920…  read the post if you’re interested in the details.)  These quad-core processors are basically supercomputers on a chip.

Being a software architect, it’s one of my “core” beliefs (no pun intended) that a deep understanding of the target platform is a great way to design the best software solutions.

The Decision…

It’s been roughly ten years since I built a custom PC.   Reading about the latest motherboards and components, I realized that the industry has had ten more years to perfect the art of producing standardized pc hardware components.   Reviews of motherboards on NewEgg.com rave about “overclocker’s dream” and “works flawlessly.”

I was intrigued:  how hard could it be, now, to throw a new motherboard into an old computer chassis, plug in a CPU and some memory, and power it up?   The alternative was a pretty tasty Dell system that I could snap my fingers and have delivered.

Which to choose? Let’s back up for a minute and look at what I want out of this system.

Needs

I wanted to get the following out of this new computer system:

  • Be future-proofed enough to run well for five years: this includes expandability and performance.
  • Be able to run computationally intensive modeling and pattern detection applications in support of the new stock market analysis platform I’m creating with some folks.  So it has to be fast.
  • Be able to take advantage of new virtualization technologies (VT).  This is nothing short of a revolution for the IT crowd:  the ability to run complete “images” of computers on one physical box.  So for instance, I could have the equivalent of  complete Windows 7 and Windows XP machines running on the same box.    Amazing.

Specs

I sketched out a pretty capable system meeting these needs.  The key components looked like this:

  • A Core i7-860 processor. Has four separate physical cores, hyperthreading (which doubles the effective cores to a total of eight), awesome memory bandwidth, and great energy efficiency (95W TDP).  See my post comparing the Core i7-860 vs i7-920.   It’s one of the fastest desktop CPUs available today:  definitely meets the “future-proofed” criterion.
  • 8 GB of RAM, expandable to 12 GB or 16 GB. By simply adding more RAM, I can use virtualization to “host” multiple complete virtual computers on this one “supercomputer” – no need to buy a whole new system.   So RAM expandability is key.
  • Support for SATA RAID on the motherboard. Using redundant arrays of disks  is absolutely a best practice to avoid the headaches that come with a single hard drive failure.   I read a great quote the other day: “The difference between a good hard drive and a bad one is that the good one hasn’t failed yet.

I’m not into video games, so I don’t need anything special in the graphics category like “Crossfire” or “SLI” display technology:  a solid & capable dual-DVI graphics card should do the trick.

Picking a system: the pre-built road

Dell PowerEdge T310My prebuilt system of choice was a Dell PowerEdge T310, configured with a Xeon X3440 @ 2.53 GHz (more or less a slightly slower i7-860), 8 GB RAM, 250 GB hard drive for around $1,050.    Add a graphics card for $150 and the total system cost is $1,200.

I generally choose the PowerEdge servers (vs. consumer desktops like Dell XPS’s) because of their high quality and reliability;  I also install the OS myself so I avoid all the adware/trialware crap that bloats these new machines.

The T310 is a pretty awesome machine for a home server.   The Dell motherboards and bioses are engineered for business server use – which most of the time is fine.

Picking the system: a custom build

I have a spare case, an extra Antec True Power supply lying around, and four enterprise-class 500 GB SATA drives, and I wanted – I as mentioned above Corsair Dominator DDR3– to see what a custom build experience would be like, ten years later.    In addition, it might be fun to play with overclocking the i7-860 processor (in all my spare time!). A lot of folks having fun with this based on the comments in the NewEgg reviews and other forums on the web.

Since I have the spare case, power supply, and the hard drives, I would just need CPU, RAM, motherboard, and a graphics card.  I could put more into the specific components I wanted, specifically a great motherboard and as much high-quality RAM as possible.

A quick breakdown of a custom build looked something like this:

Component Price
Motherboard $200
i7-860 CPU $250
8 GB RAM $250
Graphics card $150
Total: $850

At $850 for a custom build vs. $1,200 for the Dell, this was starting to look like a good deal.  While I would end up with an overclockable, high-performance computer, I would miss the convenience and build quality of a new Dell server.

Conclusion

I love buying standard Dell PowerEdge servers, but in this case it’s hard to resist playing:  I’m going with the custom build this time.

For fun, I’ll hand-pick a quality set of components, including a socket LGA 1156 motherboard, RAM, and a display card.  I’ll post updates here and on Twitter as I look around.

Do you have any advice on i7-860 system components (or any LGA 1156-based), including motherboard, RAM, or video card selections?    Post a comment.

References and more reading…

Virtualization technologies:

Choosing a new CPU: Intel Core i7-920/930 vs. i7-860/870

[tweetmeme source=”KeithBluestone” only_single=false]This article is part of a series in 2010 on custom-building a high-performance computer with the latest Intel Core i7 processors:

  1. Build or buy a new Core i7 supercomputer?
  2. Choosing a New CPU: Intel Core i7-920/930 vs. i7-860/870
  3. New Core i7 PC: Selecting the Components
  4. New Core i7 PC: The Build

[Update 8/25/2010: the Core i7-870 is now available and has matched the price point of the i7-860. It’s absolutely identical to the i7-860 except that it runs at 2.93 GHz instead of 2.8 GHz. ]

[Update 3/21/2010: the Core i7-930is now available. It’s absolutely identical to the i7-920 except that it runs at 2.8 GHz instead of 2.66 GHz. Where I mention the i7-920 by name, it also applies to the i7-930.]

Overview

imageThe new Intel Core i7-920/i7-930 and i7-860/i7-870 processors are extremely close in most aspects,  but the i7-920/930 offers features that only enterprise users, professional videographers, or heavy gamers will need.   The i7-860/870 matches or betters the i7-920/930 in almost all benchmarks – and uses less power!

So unless you have an extreme need, you can save a few bucks with the i7-870 and plow it back into more memory, a faster/bigger/more reliable hard drive, or a better graphics card.

Note from the future: Don’t forget the CPU cooler!

Quad-core: the current sweet spot

Currently, my choice for a reasonably snappy system with a life expectancy of around five years is an i7-870 or an i7-930.  The higher-performing, extreme versions of these processors cause the price to shoot radically upwards.  Why pay for that performance when overclocking will accomplish the same thing?

In a related blog post,  I made the case for upgrading to the latest and greatest processors instead of taking advantage of fabulous deals on enterprise-class computing hardware on eBay.   In short, the newest Intel Core i7-family processors have much to offer over older processors, including improved power efficiency, general computing power and flexibility, and total cost of ownership (TCO).     Both processors have support for virtualization (VT), allowing you to host a virtual computer within these systems that looks like a real, separate PC.

These processors both have four physical cores, and with Intel’s HyperThreading technology, these four cores appear as eight separate processors to the operating system.  The new Nehalem processor architecture improves memory speed (latency and bandwidth), which can be a major performance bottleneck as improvements in the speed of processors over the last thirty years have far outpaced those in the speed of memory chips.

Why multi-core computing is such a good idea. Somewhere around mid-2004, Intel introduced the first dual-core processors for the desktop, initially in high-end systems and gradually working their way into most computers.  One main reason these multi-core systems (especially a quad-core) are going to be so much more responsive than your old single-core Dell is because there are simply more applications and background processes running on a modern computer.  And they all chew up available processor power.  In particular, big anti-virus suites (Norton, Symantec) are some of the worst offenders: in troubleshooting systems for friends and family, I’ve seen them consuming up to 100% of CPU cycles.  But why get mad?  Get even.  With a properly spec’d quad-core box you’ll have plenty of capacity to run everything.  Chances are, you won’t even notice it’s there.  (Make sure you have enough memory!  At the date of this writing – June 2010 -  you should have no less than 4GB RAM.)

So which processor to get:  the i7-930 or the i7-870? In a nutshell, you could probably quit obsessing over the details, buy either one and get about the business of enjoying your snappy new PC.   For me, being a detail-oriented software architect who specializes in high-performance and high-throughput architectures, I wanted to understand the finer differences between the two and make an informed decision.

Quad-core Nehalem architecture

Quad-core Nehalem architecture

Analysis

First of all, the processors’ names are more or less no help to us. You might think that the “i7-9×0” is a later, more advanced version of whatever the lesser “i7-8×0” might be.   But understanding Intel’s processor nomenclature and numbering system is a reasonably sized effort in itself, and in this case, 930 is not necessarily greater than 870.

After several days of trawling through a ton of web pages, from Intel’s site (very good!) to AnandTech to Tom’s Hardware to discussion forums, these are my conclusions.

The prime differences, with the winner in each category, would seem to be:

  • Clock speed (i7-870).  The i7-930 runs at 2.8 GHz vs.  the i7-870 at 2.93 GHz, giving the i7-860 about a 5% advantage in raw clock speed, plus a more aggressive turbo mode which pushes the i7-870 to a max of 3.6 GHz vs. the 930’s max of 3.06 GHz – almost a 20% increase.
  • Power consumption (i7-870).  The i7-930 has a TDP of 130W, which is about 50% higher than the i7-870 at 95W.   In AnandTech’s benchmark reference systems, the i7-860 system at idle uses 85W and the i7-920 system uses 115W;  see the AnandTech i7-860 review, power consumption page.   At about $1 per watt-year over a computer lifetime of 5 years, 30W could cost you up to $150 more.
  • imageMotherboards (i7-870). Motherboards  for the i7-8×0 Lynnfield processor family (socket LGA 1156) are less expensive and more prevalent than for the i7-9×0 Bloomfields (socket LGA 1366).
  • Overall system throughput (i7-930). The i7-9×0 has a faster bus speed, utilizing a QPI bus with a max bandwidth of 4.8 gigatransfers per second (GT/s).   The i7-8×0 uses a DMI bus with a bandwidth of 2.5 GT/s.  However, this is only an advantage if you’re maxing out the bus… rare unless you’re in an enterprise server setting or doing graphics or other data/compute-intensive work.  According to the Intel specs, the i7-9×0 also has 20% higher memory bandwidth (25.6 GB/s) than the i7-8×0 (21 GB/s), also important for high-performance applications.
  • Extensibility (i7-930). The i7-9×0 enables direct dual PCI-e for crossfire & SLI applications: important to gamers mostly for high-performance graphics setups.

Drawbacks

Neither of these processors supports ECC memory.  This is not a huge issue for most folks, but for the more critical and most stable systems (servers and scientific computing installs), ECC memory protects against data corruption caused by – believe it or not – cosmic rays.

Conclusions

While again you could probably go out and buy either the Core i7-870 or the i7-930 and be happy, I found little to justify the i7-930 over the i7-870 in general, with the exception of the truly hard-core crowd.


How to Buy

My first choice for PC hardware is NewEgg.com, which has an excellent online store, good prices, and fantastic customer service.

Naturally, you can also find pre-built Core i7-based systems at Dell and other vendors;  for example, the Studio XPS systems.

  • Also: Xeon X3440 on NewEgg.com ($240).  As mentioned above, the X3440 is the rough equivalent of the i7-860 (Lynnfield core), but supports ECC RAM.

References