Core i7 950 vs. Core i7 2600K vs. Core i7 2600


Recommended Posts

1nteresting

I just bought a computer not too long ago with the Core i7 950 "Bloomfield" on it. What am I missing with it being updated to the Core i7 2600 "Sandy Bridge", and what's the K mean? (it looks to me like they have two different versions, one with K and one without)

Did I lose out on a lot? To me the specs look the same, but I get confused by processors in general. Thanks for your help.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1nteresting

Thanks XIII.

primexx, What do you mean by new DRM?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Another Canuck

new DRM

*facepalm*

People really need to shut up about that. They see the letters "DRM", immediately skip all further information about it and then spread panic wherever possible. As hard as it may be for some to believe, not all DRM is bad.

In the case of Sandy Bridge, the new CPUs include a form of DRM (dubbed "Intel Insider") that will allow for a new form of 1080p content delivery from providers. It will in no way, shape or form affect your ability to view any of your own content, pirated or not.

More info: http://blogs.intel.com/technology/2011/01/intel_insider_-_what_is_it_no.php

But please, continue with your sensationalist fear mongering.

-----------------------

Anyways, on the topic, I'd say it's an upgrade worth considering but not necessarily worth rushing out the door for.

In Anandtech's benchmarks, the 2600K scored about 10 to 20 FPS more over the 950 in games.

I have a 2600K and couldn't be happier with it :) It was a huge upgrade from my Q6600.

If anything, it would be worth waiting a bit for the P67 boards to mature a bit. Calling the EFI or BIOS of some of the current boards "buggy" would be a bit of an understatement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1nteresting

Wowza. Looks like a TON of people are getting that wrong. Thanks for linking me to that article. Hah, wow, just wow. It's not even DRM...

Yeah, I upgraded from an old Pentium 4, so... it's obviously a step up! I don't do gaming, only studio recording, video editing, and photography... so I'm not going to be benefitting from the extra 10-20fps. The 10% increase in performance isn't too much, so I don't feel like I'm too bad off. Thanks for your help guys!

Link to post
Share on other sites
myxomatosis

The Sandy Bridge is a replacement for the old 1156 platform. If you have an i7 9XX 1366, stick with it. 1366 i7 still remains the high-end according to Intel.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ci7

their would be another platform to replace 1366 late this year

going from 900 series ==> 2600 is like sidegrading

little to be gained

just wait for something like 28xx or 29xx which would be real replacement if you really went an 'upgrade'

anyhow you can easily overclock your chip to 4ghz stable

Link to post
Share on other sites
treemonster

your 950 is more than enough for pretty much everything you can do on a windows pc right now outside of very high end professional video editing including special effects creation and medical imaging in 3d. if you absolutely need to replace your relatively new high end cpu as soon as popssible wait for the socket 2011(or is it 1356?) i7s rumoured to be out later this year.

socket 1155 is a sidegrade with some minor feature additions some of which will likely not be utilized before the high end replacement for 1366 is released at the earliest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
XIII

Also, depending on what you use your computer for, it might not be worth it. If you use your comp to play game, there is even more reasons not to upgrade since most games are GPU-bound, unless you play strategy games.

I personally use my computer for simulation but even so, nothing even comes close to pushing my i7-920 to its limit yet. Your core i7-950 will last you for a while. I would suggest to wait until the next architecture change before upgrading so that the upgrade would be worth it.

But yeah, the choice is yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Another Canuck

Also, depending on what you use your computer for, it might not be worth it. If you use your comp to play game, there is even more reasons not to upgrade since most games are GPU-bound, unless you play strategy games.

I personally use my computer for simulation but even so, nothing even comes close to pushing my i7-920 to its limit yet. Your core i7-950 will last you for a while. I would suggest to wait until the next architecture change before upgrading so that the upgrade would be worth it.

But yeah, the choice is yours.

You haven't played any FPS' lately, have you? :p While it's not intended, due to poor optimization, a lot of recent FPS games rely heavily on the CPU.

With everything maxed out in Black Ops, using my Q6600 (overclocked to 3.4Ghz) I could only get about 70FPS average. With my 2600K (overclocked to 4.8Ghz) I get about 100FPS average.

And don't get me started on Bad Company 2...

Link to post
Share on other sites
treemonster

You haven't played any FPS' lately, have you? :p While it's not intended, due to poor optimization, a lot of recent FPS games rely heavily on the CPU.

With everything maxed out in Black Ops, using my Q6600 (overclocked to 3.4Ghz) I could only get about 70FPS average. With my 2600K (overclocked to 4.8Ghz) I get about 100FPS average.

And don't get me started on Bad Company 2...

with what video card?

depending on your video card the increased fps might be attributed to the previous bottle neck from the cpu on the gpu being loosened. i'd say anything including and above a 460 1gb OCed would see that kind of increase from a cpu upgraded or from amd 5850/6850 and above.

Link to post
Share on other sites
XIII

You haven't played any FPS' lately, have you? :p While it's not intended, due to poor optimization, a lot of recent FPS games rely heavily on the CPU.

With everything maxed out in Black Ops, using my Q6600 (overclocked to 3.4Ghz) I could only get about 70FPS average. With my 2600K (overclocked to 4.8Ghz) I get about 100FPS average.

And don't get me started on Bad Company 2...

Well, you are right about the unoptimized part but also remember that between architecture change, how the CPU communicates with the graphic card also changes. In your case, you are moving from a previous architecture to an (almost) new platform. Of course, you will benefit the most not only from the CPU but also from under-the-hood architecture change such as Southbridge, bus width, etc... In case of the OP, his architecture is pretty much current. Sandy Bridge is more like a more optimized release of the original core i architecture, the improvement will be less.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.