Forgot to mention that Sleep is still broken at the moment. Sleeps okay but struggles to wake up. Probably the beta bios.

Interesting thread....I have an Intel i5 750 socket 1156 running at 4Ghz with a Nvidia 570GTX also running Matrox Triple Head at 3840 x 1024. I would be interested to see if there would be an improvement if I moved to SB maybe running at 4.75Ghz on water cooling. I would love to know what the clock for clock improvement is with SB lets say at 4ghz could it be 10% with FSX if so if you add the higher OC ability you might be able to squeeze another 20-25 % improvement..... altohouh I am not sure if the higher resolution changes anything....Hamish

Just my two cents, but I think in FSX under significant add-ons with sliders maxed you will most likely just get the higher oc headroom improvements (more fps) on sandy bridge if they do in turn provide users with a 4.6-4.8 oc; that is the most you will get. The clock to clock differences in FSX from a current i7 system , I am guessing here, would have little impact on FPS. However, the oc headroom and the benefits of coming from 3.5-3.8 territory from either an 1156 or x58 going to 4.6-4.8 would provide a noticeable benefit. If you have 4.4 or so an a current i7 be it a x58 or 1156 I would say wait for the ethusisast platfrom which is said to have more noticeable clock to clock improvments and I am assuming oc headroom too, but that has yet to be confirmed, but I would guess and hope so. FSX still relies on the highest clocks above all else on a quad core.

I suspect Nick's comments relate to the first generation i7 and not Sandy Bridge. I read somewhere else that the Stress test program does not matter so much on Sandy Bridge. At the end of the day the objective is to run FSX and not blow the chip up. FSX does not generate anywhere near as much heat and is stable.

No, it should still relate. P95 stresses the CPU alone doesn't stress the cpu/memory link which OCCT (and FSX) do. OCCT is more relative to the actual FSX usage. This also is according to NickN.Vic

No, it should still relate. P95 stresses the CPU alone doesn't stress the cpu/memory link which OCCT (and FSX) do. OCCT is more relative to the actual FSX usage. This also is according to NickN.Vic

Actually, P95 can be a decent RAM tester depending on the settings you use. It's no replacement for memtest, but if you use the blend setting it will stress RAM as well as the CPU.

No, it should still relate. P95 stresses the CPU alone doesn't stress the cpu/memory link which OCCT (and FSX) do. OCCT is more relative to the actual FSX usage. This also is according to NickN.Vic

Vic - Thanks for clarifying the difference

SO, where are you now with your tests?Is the i7 2600k a good alternative to i7 950 ?

Does sleep work correctly when overclocked, it never did on my evga x58 ?

Forgot to mention that Sleep is still broken at the moment. Sleeps okay but struggles to wake up. Probably the beta bios.

Guys,If I'm not mistaken, this sleep issue is not a hardware problem, but rather a problem with Windows 7. To fix it, go to "Network and Sharing Center", click "Change adapter settings" on the left side, right click "Local Area Connection" and then "properties", "configure", "power management". Then uncheck "allow this device to wake my computer". I will be very surprised if that doesn't fix your problem.

Guys,If I'm not mistaken, this sleep issue is not a hardware problem, but rather a problem with Windows 7. To fix it, go to "Network and Sharing Center", click "Change adapter settings" on the left side, right click "Local Area Connection" and then "properties", "configure", "power management". Then uncheck "allow this device to wake my computer". I will be very surprised if that doesn't fix your problem.

I think this was a possible cause for failing to sleep on some first generation i7's although it did not fix it for me. It magically start to sleep properly in the end.The problem with the Sandy Bridge is that it is reluctant to wake. Pretty sure it is bios so watch this space.

SO, where are you now with your tests?Is the i7 2600k a good alternative to i7 950 ?

My impression is as follows:1) If you have an i7 920 that wont overclock reliably in the summer beyond say 3.8 Ghz then Sandy Bridge is the way to go. You can easily clock 4.6Ghz it seems, and the architecture is superior. That 800 Mhz makes quite a difference on my machine (although I also changed the graphics card so the CPU benefit alone is hard to judge).2) If you can run your 920 at say 4.3 or greater or have a 980 at 4.4Ghz then the benefits are more limited unless you are brave enough to run a 2600k at 5Ghz. I guess if you brave enough to run a 920 at 4.3, you are brave enough to run a 2600K at 5Ghz. Let me know how long it lasts.

My impression is as follows:1) If you have an i7 920 that wont overclock reliably in the summer beyond say 3.8 Ghz then Sandy Bridge is the way to go. You can easily clock 4.6Ghz it seems, and the architecture is superior. That 800 Mhz makes quite a difference on my machine (although I also changed the graphics card so the CPU benefit alone is hard to judge).2) If you can run your 920 at say 4.3 or greater or have a 980 at 4.4Ghz then the benefits are more limited unless you are brave enough to run a 2600k at 5Ghz. I guess if you brave enough to run a 920 at 4.3, you are brave enough to run a 2600K at 5Ghz. Let me know how long it lasts.

Nice analyse.I actually run on a Q9400 oc @3.7 So I thinkg I will buy a sandy bridge.....instead of a i7 950

My impression is as follows:1) If you have an i7 920 that wont overclock reliably in the summer beyond say 3.8 Ghz then Sandy Bridge is the way to go. You can easily clock 4.6Ghz it seems, and the architecture is superior. That 800 Mhz makes quite a difference on my machine (although I also changed the graphics card so the CPU benefit alone is hard to judge).2) If you can run your 920 at say 4.3 or greater or have a 980 at 4.4Ghz then the benefits are more limited unless you are brave enough to run a 2600k at 5Ghz. I guess if you brave enough to run a 920 at 4.3, you are brave enough to run a 2600K at 5Ghz. Let me know how long it lasts.

But apparently, 920 won't burn as easily as SB will do. I have mine at pretty high voltages, 1.45 set in BIOS, 4.2 without any power saving I think, running all the time. Watercooled though and in summer I get temps up to 80c, but the CPU can take up to 95, so I guess I'm OK. Never seen someone burn 920 through such "normal" overclocking.Now already some burned SB CPUs... Kind of party-pooper, wouldn't you agree?

But apparently, 920 won't burn as easily as SB will do. I have mine at pretty high voltages, 1.45 set in BIOS, 4.2 without any power saving I think, running all the time. Watercooled though and in summer I get temps up to 80c, but the CPU can take up to 95, so I guess I'm OK. Never seen someone burn 920 through such "normal" overclocking.Now already some burned SB CPUs... Kind of party-pooper, wouldn't you agree?

Who cares about voltage limits? You should focus what CPU speed you may reach within the specs. Fact is that you may OC the 2600K to much higher speeds than the i7 920. EDITED: Remember when the first Core i7 CPUs was benchmarked. Some reviewers didn't know how to OC the new Intel CPUs. Very embarrassing. But a couple of weeks and some BIOS versions later all had got it right.

Edited January 13, 201115 yr by UlfB

Who cares about voltage limits? You should focus what CPU speed you may reach within the specs. Fact is that you may OC the 2600K to much higher speeds than the i7 920. EDITED: Remember when the first Core i7 CPUs was benchmarked. Some reviewers didn't know how to OC the new Intel CPUs. Very embarrassing. But a couple of weeks and some BIOS versions later all had got it right.

Yeah, you can OC it "safely" to about 4.6. What are 400mhz difference gonna do for FSX? I tried mine for a short period at 4.4, and saw nothing really relevant in FSX. What you call much higher would for me be 5ghz, a really relevant speed increase, but apparently not possible with 1.35V, which is inside the spec. Even 5ghz, the question would be, relevant increase? We need numbers I didn't read any such reviews, sorry.

Yeah, you can OC it "safely" to about 4.6. What are 400mhz difference gonna do for FSX? I tried mine for a short period at 4.4, and saw nothing really relevant in FSX. What you call much higher would for me be 5ghz, a really relevant speed increase, but apparently not possible with 1.35V, which is inside the spec. Even 5ghz, the question would be, relevant increase? We need numbers I didn't read any such reviews, sorry.

We have to wait until the dust settles. Maybe the Extreme SB CPUs based on socket LGA2011 will be the answer. So far the the performance of the SB 2600K has impressed me - based on the reviewers benchmarks. But we still lack a solid FSX benchmark of the SB 2600K CPU.