Jump to content

i7-950 vs i7-2600k


bvuong

Recommended Posts

I've been thinking about a upgrade from an i3-540 3.06 ghz to a i7-950 but then i heard about sandy bridge i7-2600k i was just wondering whats your guy's opinion on which i should get?

 

i know sandy bridge is dual channel and the i7-950 is triple channel

 

the i7-2600k is seems cheap they dont have premium motherboards like the 1366 sockets they would have 1155.

 

which one do you think i should go for for future proofing? they are about the same price

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about a upgrade from an i3-540 3.06 ghz to a i7-950 but then i heard about sandy bridge i7-2600k i was just wondering whats your guy's opinion on which i should get?

 

i know sandy bridge is dual channel and the i7-950 is triple channel

 

the i7-2600k is seems cheap they dont have premium motherboards like the 1366 sockets they would have 1155.

 

which one do you think i should go for for future proofing? they are about the same price

The socket 2011, it is basically the same as LGA 1366 but if the 1155 socket is any way to tell they will out overclock any i7 currently made. I would just wait a little while longer.

 

I hate telling people to wait too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@OP

 

Quite frankly you cannot really future proof yourself when buying a new computer unless you already know what you're going to do beforehand. If you plan to only do spreadsheet with your computer, well either solution would future proof you forever. On the other hands in terms of gaming and intensive application you cannot be so certain unless you plan to use the exact same applications and tittles forever.

 

OT: There's no real usage for triple channel memory when it comes down to every day usage. LGA 1155 do have premium motherboard, the MSI Big Bang Marshall (P67 with XL-ATX if I'm not mistaken, 8pci-e 16x slots, etc.) is one great example (basically a LGA 1155 version of the X-Power which is one the best X58 boards on the market).

 

The i7-2600k is certainly not cheap, it's faster, overclocks better, runs cooler, uses less power than an i7-950. If you're already running a 1366 platform I don't see any point to spend all the money to "upgrade", Ivy bridge would be interesting if you like to have top of the line components.

 

I would have to say go for an i7-2600k, it's much better than an i7-950.

 

 

@gabrieltessin

 

Socket R (LGA 2011) is not similar to LGA 1366. There's only 645 extra pins, 2 QPI connector, Quad channel memory support, and that's what you call "basically the same"? I think you missunderstood the part where intel announced it will only be backward compatible with LGA 1366 cooling solution and nothing else.

 

An i7-2600k will beat any 1366 i7 (quad cores) hands down, the 6 cores solution might be faster in multi threaded application however it is much faster when it comes down to what a single core can achieve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@OP

 

Quite frankly you cannot really future proof yourself when buying a new computer unless you already know what you're going to do beforehand. If you plan to only do spreadsheet with your computer, well either solution would future proof you forever. On the other hands in terms of gaming and intensive application you cannot be so certain unless you plan to use the exact same applications and tittles forever.

 

OT: There's no real usage for triple channel memory when it comes down to every day usage. LGA 1155 do have premium motherboard, the MSI Big Bang Marshall (P67 with XL-ATX if I'm not mistaken, 8pci-e 16x slots, etc.) is one great example (basically a LGA 1155 version of the X-Power which is one the best X58 boards on the market).

 

The i7-2600k is certainly not cheap, it's faster, overclocks better, runs cooler, uses less power than an i7-950. If you're already running a 1366 platform I don't see any point to spend all the money to "upgrade", Ivy bridge would be interesting if you like to have top of the line components.

 

I would have to say go for an i7-2600k, it's much better than an i7-950.

 

 

@gabrieltessin

 

Socket R (LGA 2011) is not similar to LGA 1366. There's only 645 extra pins, 2 QPI connector, Quad channel memory support, and that's what you call "basically the same"? I think you missunderstood the part where intel announced it will only be backward compatible with LGA 1366 cooling solution and nothing else.

 

An i7-2600k will beat any 1366 i7 (quad cores) hands down, the 6 cores solution might be faster in multi threaded application however it is much faster when it comes down to what a single core can achieve.

 

 

thank you so much for your opinion and feedback. I am a heavy multitasker and big of gamer. I would like to play alot of the recent big titles in gaming. I will have 10+ tabs of mozilla open another 5+ tabs on chrome, itunes, AIM, speccy, l4d2, steam, download a movie, and run a few business programs all at once. I will be trying my hand with video and photo editing as well using photoshop.

 

i admit my i3-540 is decently fast but not fast enough for what i do. I would like to be able to run most of the programs for the next two or three years.

 

I planned on getting i7-2600k just havent picked a motherboard yet. I will be recycling 8gb ddr3 (4x2gb) RAM , creative x-fi xtremegamer sound card, gts 250, x-540 speakers, 500watt thermaltake psu. was hoping to use my hdd but i hear i have to reformat my hdd if i do that and i wont have a windows 7 cd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you so much for your opinion and feedback. I am a heavy multitasker and big of gamer. I would like to play alot of the recent big titles in gaming. I will have 10+ tabs of mozilla open another 5+ tabs on chrome, itunes, AIM, speccy, l4d2, steam, download a movie, and run a few business programs all at once. I will be trying my hand with video and photo editing as well using photoshop.

 

i admit my i3-540 is decently fast but not fast enough for what i do. I would like to be able to run most of the programs for the next two or three years.

 

I planned on getting i7-2600k just havent picked a motherboard yet. I will be recycling 8gb ddr3 (4x2gb) RAM , creative x-fi xtremegamer sound card, gts 250, x-540 speakers, 500watt thermaltake psu. was hoping to use my hdd but i hear i have to reformat my hdd if i do that and i wont have a windows 7 cd.

 

The ram is fine that sound card is very good however you could maybe look into a stronger video card. You don't have to reformat the drive however you will not be able to run windows 7 with a different CPU. If you still have your original CD key but lost your CD you can always download Windows 7 off the Microsoft website.

 

The motherboard will largely depend on your GPU set up or what you plan to upgrade to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@OP

 

@gabrieltessin

 

Socket R (LGA 2011) is not similar to LGA 1366. There's only 645 extra pins, 2 QPI connector, Quad channel memory support, and that's what you call "basically the same"? I think you missunderstood the part where intel announced it will only be backward compatible with LGA 1366 cooling solution and nothing else.

 

An i7-2600k will beat any 1366 i7 (quad cores) hands down, the 6 cores solution might be faster in multi threaded application however it is much faster when it comes down to what a single core can achieve.

Thanks for informing me I guess... I kinda figured it would have extra pins being a different socket and all.

 

When I said basically the same I meant performance wise. Sorry but to me unless the architecture gets updated these are the same chips just rebadged and updated until I see some 8+ core chips.

 

Quad channel memory isn't going to make these new chips much faster than the current i7 chips. As the 1155 chips have shown the new i7's aren't going to be using a new architecture over the previous generation. Quad channel memory might give them a very slight edge but I seriously don't think it will be worth it to upgrade if you have an older i7 system.

 

Just a side not, quad channel memory sounds like a crappy idea. Boards with 8 memory slots just don't seem fun to buy ram for. The whole reason I went with an LGA 1156 system is because they are cheaper to build with and offer very similar performance.

 

1156 and 1155, same architecture, smaller manufacturing process, same die size. Same clock for clock perforance.

 

1366 and 2011, same architecture, smaller manufacturing process (compared to the old quads). Very similar clock for clock performance, will benchmark better.

 

On a different subject but somewhat related.

Both of these chips will overclock higher but I think the reviews I have been reading are using way to much vCore for 32nm chips. When Intel shrunk dies with the C2Q lots of people burned theirs up by using the old voltages. Sure they run cooler but because of this it might actually make it easier to give them to much voltage without realizing it. Normally people back off voltage when heat gets too high.

The new 1155 chips just don't seem to get hot compared to the 1156 chips running the same voltage. My fear is that in any sort of long term 1.45v vCore is just going to be too much for the new chips and they are going to fail at their amazing new clocks. If I am right these chips don't OC as good as people are claiming for long term tests atleast and will make them slightly less apealing to those with the last gen i5's and i7's.

Edited by gabrieltessin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I said basically the same I meant performance wise. Sorry but to me unless the architecture gets updated these are the same chips just rebadged and updated until I see some 8+ core chips.

 

Quad channel memory isn't going to make these new chips much faster than the current i7 chips. As the 1155 chips have shown the new i7's aren't going to be using a new architecture over the previous generation. Quad channel memory might give them a very slight edge but I seriously don't think it will be worth it to upgrade if you have an older i7 system.

 

Just a side not, quad channel memory sounds like a crappy idea. Boards with 8 memory slots just don't seem fun to buy ram for. The whole reason I went with an LGA 1156 system is because they are cheaper to build with and offer very similar performance.

 

1156 and 1155, same architecture, smaller manufacturing process, same die size. Same clock for clock perforance.

 

1366 and 2011, same architecture, smaller manufacturing process (compared to the old quads). Very similar clock for clock performance, will benchmark better.

 

As i mentioned in an earlier post the average user has no usage for the benefits of triple and quad channel memory. With that said there are some companies or consumer that can actually make good usage of it and increase their productivity, etc. And some of us do like to have top of line components regardless. So it is not a "crappy idea" as you called it.

 

1156 and 1155 do not have the same architecture, not even close dude. Sandy Bridge just massacre any LGA 1156 processor without even breaking a sweat. LGA 1155 is meant to completely replace LGA 1156, not remain somewhat similar.

 

Do you even understand the benefits of a smaller manufacturing process? Let me sum it up for you, the smaller you can create transistor the more you can jam into a single core. Therefor each core will be faster while producing less heat and consuming less power.

 

With the informations currently available:

 

LGA 1366 should be replaced by LGA 1365 or something equivalent and not LGA 2011, indication could point at a variant of LGA 2011 but as of know that particular socket seems to be Server grade only. The upcoming Sandy Bridge-EN will feature six cores and eight core processor with support for quad channel RAM and PCI-E 3.0 along with a single QPI. This should be the next mainstream extreme processor.

 

LGA 2011 will feature dual QPI with twice the RAM capacity, therefor allowing for dual CPU, etc. Sandy Bridge-EP/EX will range from four to eight cores.

 

At this point, it's clear you're seriously misinformed about the new Sand bridge's and upcoming processor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bvuong, I am sorry for not helping out much.

 

At this point, it's clear you're seriously misinformed about the new Sand bridge's and upcoming processor.

I must be. Warning, lots of poorly ordered text below.

 

I understand the benefits of a new manufacturing process... :glare:

What I was trying to say about the new chips is just as when we went down from the 65mn process to the newer 45nm one people learned that if they used the voltage limits that they applied to the 65nm process they would kill their 45nm chips. The reason is the new process requires much less power and using the old voltage limits is actually far too much voltage. Yes these chip can clock higher but in the reviews I have seen people are using the voltages they used for the 45nm chips and it is making these chips seem like they overclock higher which I am sure they can. However these are not long term tests and I would gess that long term overclocks on 1.4v to 1.45v would lead to very premature death to these procs. Somewhat troubling is the fact that most users wont feel bad about using this voltages because their temps are still in the acceptable range though damage may still be occurring because of the voltage being too high.

 

1156 and 1155 do not have the same architecture, not even close dude. Sandy Bridge just massacre any LGA 1156 processor without even breaking a sweat. LGA 1155 is meant to completely replace LGA 1156, not remain somewhat similar.

Still, the i7 870 outperforms the 2500K, I did notice that the 2600K did beat out the 870 but it has a higher clock so I am not sure if it beats it . This leads me to believe the the processing architecture is the same or very similar and the change is limited to a die shrink. The 2600K does seem to be slightly optimized for video encoding/decoding but Intel has made mention of this before.

 

Edit: I just found a review that tested the 2500K and the i5 750 at the same clocks and the 2500K only beats out the 750 by small margins and when on an H57 motherboard the i5 750 often beats the 2500k. unfortunately the i5 750 was on an H55 board so it just couldn't perform as well as it would have on a P55 board. The H55 board is very limiting. All this is proof to me that there is nothing "new" about the new intel procs.

 

The reason for the new socket is mostly because intel and its partners like money. It is not about earth shattering new performance but simply earth shattering clocks, Intel has done this before with the Pentium Series but this time they are doing a much better job. The 1156 already has a few 32nm chips on it and some with intergrade GPU on the die. The current H series motherboard is can play video and overclock. The new i5's do have a slightly less worthless GPU but apparently you can only overclock on them if you are using an P67 board. The H chipset indicates that it is set up to use the onboard video and cannot overclock. As I said before the performance is nearly identical, clock for clock I don't see a difference in the fresh reviews I have read. The core architecture remains the same as in the part circuit that does the processing, as in how many cycles it takes to get the work done not what the core actually looks like or what the new diagrams say. I know the 2000 series i5's and i7's are different that the old ones in that respect.

 

 

LGA 1366 should be replaced by LGA 1365 or something equivalent and not LGA 2011, indication could point at a variant of LGA 2011 but as of know that particular socket seems to be Server grade only. The upcoming Sandy Bridge-EN will feature six cores and eight core processor with support for quad channel RAM and PCI-E 3.0 along with a single QPI. This should be the next mainstream extreme processor.

LGA 2011 will feature dual QPI with twice the RAM capacity, therefor allowing for dual CPU, etc. Sandy Bridge-EP/EX will range from four to eight cores.

I didn't think Intel was going to make three new and separate sockets, but I guess I was wrong and that what lead me to the most confusion for me. I would be willing to bet the the 1355 is nearly identical in performance clock for clock as the 1366 socket.

Sorry about the socket 2011 confusion I guess, thought that it was the re badged 1366 not the 1365 or whatever. I guess the 2011 socket is the only one worth bothering with but I don't think I could afford one by the looks of things. My bad on this part. I really thought that the 2011 socket was the new 1366 but with more pins.

 

I have just heard so much different speculation in the last few months that I ended up a bit uninformed/confused. Next time be a little more diplomatic when you crush someones best try at helping someone.

Edited by gabrieltessin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense :P 1.5v and proud on my 45nm

I read an article awhile back about a C2 extreme that got cooked on 1.6v, 1.5 is what I would call safe-ish. I recall an older article of a Core 2 Extreme killed in testing at somewhere like 1.65 volts and they were dumb founded and felt necessary to put out a warning about it. I have been looking for it and no dice. Moral of story, smaller manufacturing processes = less safe voltage.

 

This may not be the case with the new chips as they do use a similar stock voltage to the low power 45nm chips. Maybe I am just too cautious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still, the i7 870 outperforms the 2500K, I did notice that the 2600K did beat out the 870 but it has a higher clock so I am not sure if it beats it . This leads me to believe the the processing architecture is the same or very similar and the change is limited to a die shrink. The 2600K does seem to be slightly optimized for video encoding/decoding but Intel has made mention of this before.

 

Edit: I just found a review that tested the 2500K and the i5 750 at the same clocks and the 2500K only beats out the 750 by small margins and when on an H57 motherboard the i5 750 often beats the 2500k. unfortunately the i5 750 was on an H55 board so it just couldn't perform as well as it would have on a P55 board. The H55 board is very limiting. All this is proof to me that there is nothing "new" about the new intel procs.

 

The reason for the new socket is mostly because intel and its partners like money. It is not about earth shattering new performance but simply earth shattering clocks, Intel has done this before with the Pentium Series but this time they are doing a much better job. The 1156 already has a few 32nm chips on it and some with intergrade GPU on the die. The current H series motherboard is can play video and overclock. The new i5's do have a slightly less worthless GPU but apparently you can only overclock on them if you are using an P67 board. The H chipset indicates that it is set up to use the onboard video and cannot overclock. As I said before the performance is nearly identical, clock for clock I don't see a difference in the fresh reviews I have read. The core architecture remains the same as in the part circuit that does the processing, as in how many cycles it takes to get the work done not what the core actually looks like or what the new diagrams say. I know the 2000 series i5's and i7's are different that the old ones in that respect.

 

You're comparing oranges to apples, obviously the results are not going to be clear and lead to a lot of confusion.

 

Just to clarify:

 

Core i3-(2100 / 2120 / 2100T) are meant to replace the current i3-5xx line up.

 

Core i5-(2100T / ... / 2500K) are meant to replace the current i5-7xx line up. If you compare an i5-2500K vs. i5-760, clock for clock the new generation should be roughly 17% faster according to reviews I've read.

 

Core i7-(2600 / 2600S / 2600T) are meant to replace the current i7-920-975 line up (quad cores only). If you compare an i7-2600k vs. i7-920, clock for clock the new generation should be 10-15% faster. I can't find this cinebench single threaded run where an i7-2600k smashed the . out of an i7-980x..

 

Regardless, compare the new processor with their replacements and you'll see the difference.

 

Comparing the Lynnfield (45nm) vs. Sandy bridge (32nm) architecture core i5 and i7.

 

Clock for clock you can expect gains ranging from 5.6% to 20.4% without HT and with HT performance increase ranging from 5.6% to 19.3%.

 

Now those results are from a variety of test using popular multi threaded application and games.

 

Conclusion, are the new sandy bridge processor faster than their predecessor? Yes.

 

And as well, point me which CPU had integrated GPU??? Sandy bridge is the first generation to incorporate those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as well, point me which CPU had integrated GPU??? Sandy bridge is the first generation to incorporate those.

That is a moot point. Anyone who cares about all these details will not be using on board video, let alone integrated video.

Btw, where are you getting all this info about 2011/1335? LGA 1335 returns nothing in google or intels website. 2011 is everywhere(except intels website)

So where do you get these "facts"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...