Liclac Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 I know this is a very simple question, but I have read some reviews in many forums and benchmark websites... Some of them said, the i7 2600K beats i7 980X... Is that true? I have never thought that a hexa-core gulftown would be beaten by a quad-core i7 2600k... the speed is quite the same, 3.33 and 3.4Ghz.. I still don't understand this... Please forgive me for being such a fool and dummy, But I just want to know, please someone make this thing clear for me... >.< this is the example one of the benchmark sites I found... http://cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html thanks..... regards Liclac Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IVIYTH0S Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 seeing as they only used one benchmark, I'd say this particular one puts less favor on the amount of cores and more favor on the benefits of the new architecture Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cery25 Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 you can watch the review of the 2600k on occ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liclac Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 well...I have seen the review on OCC too... the different just quite a little.... If I were true, I read a sentence said that the 2600k is almost the same as 980X in overall.... does the architecture of a processor affect the speed very much? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyt Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Most of the time , all 6 cores are hardly used. Thats is why the 2600k comes close. If you have a 980x then just oc it to 4.5ghz and it will be a beast. If you have to upgrade , then wait for the Socket 2011 12 core cpu's . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
slick2500 Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 If I had to build a new pc right now I would pick the 2600K over the 980x hands down. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
medbor Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 if we discuss performace per price 2600k is far better, but if we instead look at pure performance the 980x is marginally better over all, but the 2600k has better overclocking wich makes them on par if that is considered. overall per clock and core the 2600k is at least 40% better than 980x... (performace per dollar is although much better on the 2500k since it is practically a 2600k without hyperthreading) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liclac Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Thank you so much to you all for replying and explaining me... Most of the time , all 6 cores are hardly used. Thats is why the 2600k comes close. If you have a 980x then just oc it to 4.5ghz and it will be a beast. If you have to upgrade , then wait for the Socket 2011 12 core cpu's . no I don't have 980x, I just want to compare it... so the 2600k is the fastest regular i7 processor now if we toss away the i7 X? (980x, 975x) all 6 cores are hardly used until now? I think all softwares right now have prepared themselves for 6-core processor... hmm....That's explaining why 2600k comes close.... thanks Nyt Ryda!! ^^ If I had to build a new pc right now I would pick the 2600K over the 980x hands down. 980X's price is overkill... of course I would take 2600k if I had to build a PC too... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatedmeeting Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 I would put it ahead of the 975, but definitely behind the 970 and 980x - these both are 6c/12t 32nm processors. Most of the time , all 6 cores are hardly used. Thats is why the 2600k comes close. If you have a 980x then just oc it to 4.5ghz and it will be a beast. If you have to upgrade , then wait for the Socket 2011 12 core cpu's . Think you mean 12threads/virtual cores. I know there's the Xeons with 10c/20t, but.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyt Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Think you mean 12threads/virtual cores. I know there's the Xeons with 10c/20t, but.. I thought I heard something about 12 cores on Socket 2011 but 6 and 8 cores are confirmed so we'll have to wait and see Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatedmeeting Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) If there are, I think those would be Westmere-ex//Sandy Bridge-ex, like the 10c/20t with 4-qpi, series 7k Xeons. Edited January 18, 2011 by Fatedmeeting Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GabrielT Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) If there are, I think those would be Westmere-ex, like the 10c/20t with 4-qpi, series 7k Xeons. O.O... I feel if I wanted one of these I would have to rob a bank. <.< >.> *Grabs Shotgun, ski mask, and steals get away car.* I can't wait to see a Dual Xeon board with these chips if they do ever come into existence. Not like I could ever get one unless the plan above goes as well as I am hoping it will. Edited January 13, 2011 by gabrieltessin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now