Praz Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 I am really hoping one of the companies such as Asus are going to offer a P67 mATX board. Asus will have a couple different boards. The P8P67-M Pro and Evo are Micro-ATX and the P8H67-I Deluxe is mini-ITX. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
road-runner Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 (edited) Frank clock for clock how does cpu score compare from the 2600k to say a i7 920? I see stock cpu scores in vantage but hell 3.4ghz is going to beat the 2.66ghz. I see overclocked scores but are all processors overclocked to the same speed? Nice review BTW... Edited January 4, 2011 by road-runner Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El_Capitan Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Frank clock for clock how does cpu score compare from the 2600k to say a i7 920? I see stock cpu scores in vantage but hell 3.4ghz is going to beat the 2.66ghz. I see overclocked scores but are all processors overclocked to the same speed? Nice review BTW... The Bit-Tech review compares the highest obtained overclock of the 2600k at 4.85GHz to the i7 950 at 4.3GHz. Of course, it beats it out in every category except for Crysis, but the 2600k also has 150w less power consumption at load, which is crazy efficient. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
road-runner Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 (edited) The Bit-Tech review compares the highest obtained overclock of the 2600k at 4.85GHz to the i7 950 at 4.3GHz. Of course, it beats it out in every category except for Crysis, but the 2600k also has 150w less power consumption at load, which is crazy efficient. Well thats great, I am still wondering clock for clock the difference. I know it clocks a little higher and uses a little less power, but for those of us running 24/7 rigs crunching I am trying to see if its worth an upgrade. When I can about double my production over the i7 920 I may upgrade... That 150w less power is "we saw a power draw of 234W during overclocking while the 4.4GHz i7-980X system drew 368W" you comparing apples to oranges, one is 6 core 12 thread cpu the other a 4 core 8 thread, why hell yea the other is going to use more power and its going to do more work also... Edited January 4, 2011 by road-runner Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El_Capitan Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Well thats great, I am still wondering clock for clock the difference. I know it clocks a little higher and uses a little less power, but for those of us running 24/7 rigs crunching I am trying to see if its worth an upgrade. When I can about double my production over the i7 920 I may upgrade... That 150w less power is "we saw a power draw of 234W during overclocking while the 4.4GHz i7-980X system drew 368W" you comparing apples to oranges, one is 6 core 12 thread cpu the other a 4 core 8 thread, why hell yea the other is going to use more power and its going to do more work also... I was actually referring to the i7 950 @ 4.3GHz drawing 383w compared to the i7 2600k @ 4.85GHz drawing 234w. Both 4 cores 8 threads. I look at the data more than the commentary. I know I use my i7 950 @ 4.37GHz 24/7 with a 120.4 rad with push/pull config watercooling, but I still wouldn't at 4.5GHz or 4.6GHz. Though with the i7 2600k, it seems like there's no issues at all with running at 4.85GHz 24/7 using a Corsair H50. I don't think it'd be a fair comparison to limit the 2600k's overclock to match that of an i7 950 (or in your case, an i7 920). I agree, it'd be great data, and I'm all in favor of more data, but because of the higher overclock of the 2600k, I think that's where the benefit lies, alongside the lower heat and power consumption. I think it's at the crusp of an upgrade, but I think waiting for the LGA 2011 CPU's would be more worthwhile (depending on the price). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
road-runner Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Well I know the new cpus are lower in power usage and thats great, just trying to see clock for clock how much better they are or is just because they raised the clocked speed that makes a difference. I wish there was a cheap 6/12 processor to just drop in the 920s place, that would be the easiest but no Intel had to go and change the sockets where people have to buy all new to upgrade. Wish they would leave the sockets alone for a little while, that is BS man... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El_Capitan Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Well I know the new cpus are lower in power usage and thats great, just trying to see clock for clock how much better they are or is just because they raised the clocked speed that makes a difference. I wish there was a cheap 6/12 processor to just drop in the 920s place, that would be the easiest but no Intel had to go and change the sockets where people have to buy all new to upgrade. Wish they would leave the sockets alone for a little while, that is BS man... Lol, I know what you mean. A few months ago, the i7 970 had me excited (6 cores 12 threads), I thought it'd be around the $450 area, but ended up being closer to $900. If you read Guru3D's review, they have the 2600k at 4.3GHz. Compare it to the Bit-Tech review's i7 950 at 4.3GHz, you get a closer picture of the differences for just one similar test: Cinebench 11.5 i7 2600k 4.3GHz = 8.44 i7 950 4.3GHz = 7.31 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeedCrazy Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 I wish there was a cheap 6/12 processor to just drop in the 920s place, that would be the easiest but no Intel had to go and change the sockets where people have to buy all new to upgrade. Wish they would leave the sockets alone for a little while, +1 :mad: That is one of AMDs finer points in my opinion, they tend to leave the socket alone! Unfortunately i still prefer Intel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El_Capitan Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 EDIT... figured it out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GabrielT Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Well I know the new cpus are lower in power usage and thats great, just trying to see clock for clock how much better they are or is just because they raised the clocked speed that makes a difference. I wish there was a cheap 6/12 processor to just drop in the 920s place, that would be the easiest but no Intel had to go and change the sockets where people have to buy all new to upgrade. Wish they would leave the sockets alone for a little while, that is BS man... They are the the clock for clock equivalent of an i7 that is on the 1156 socket but more energy efficient and can hit higher clocks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
road-runner Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 They are the the clock for clock equivalent of an i7 that is on the 1156 socket but more energy efficient and can hit higher clocks. If thats the case then there the same as 1366 i7 also, guys at XS checked them clock for clock 1156 and 1366 with same setting done the same result in crunching. Thanks that is what I wanted to know, not worth upgrading all my rigs right now. May buy a new rig when the 8/16 core cpus are out.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FalconFX4 Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 These are looking impressive, may have tempted me to finally upgrade from my Q6600, anyone know when they'll hit stores? and roughly how much in Canadian currency ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts