I've noticed quite a few times when Sandy/Ivy Bridge i7s have come up for sale in the marketplace that I have gravitated towards them, despite the fact that I only play games on my rig, plus I'm overclocked. I was wondering why I (and the other folks I've seen) feel the need to do this. Is the 2700k really 200 better than the 2500k? Would the 4 virtual cores make any difference to my life? Am I likely to be able to overclock it to 5GHz? I'm just please to see that I'm not the only one, and also that my sanity seems to get in the way of an impulse buy every time. I think this 2500k will be the beating heart of my rig for some time to come.
Until a reasonably priced 6 or 8 core socket + chip is released by intel, I'm probably staying with my 5GHz 2500K.
dude, ive been having the EXACT same thoughts today re:my 2500k, Its like every time i see a 2600/2700k on here i imagine all sorts of untold performance increases, then i read reviews that say in 99% of circumstances there's no difference.... but SURELY there must be SOME reason to justify it!? or then everyone would have 2500k's wouldnt they!? argh!
Well - my only driver for 8 threads was the fact that I do a lot of music production, and figured that offloading some of the processing onto this rig would be beneficial - but otherwise, I'd have gone i5 2500k probably. (Who am I kidding? i7 is two better than an i5, and a 2600k is 100 better than a 2500k. I wish I'd gone for a 2700k as that's 200 better - 200*2 = 400 better! I'm a sucker for numbers...)
I agree, folding is one of the few things I might ever do that would show an advantage. But I can't afford to fold anyway Exactly, I hit 5 on mine and then dialled back to 4.3 because I couldn't tell the difference outside of benchmark software. I think it's model number envy for me Music production is a noble cause, but if you were just gaming there would be no difference clock for clock apart from slightly increased power consumption. I think your second paragraph highlights how the mind of the geek works though.
Your like those children who recently got a Samsung galaxy S3 screaming at their mothers and fathers for the new Galaxy S4 despite literally no difference at all versus the extra £500 or expensive contract spend. Do you know where living in the terrible economical times? Or do you have money on tap? In which case, tell me where you purchased this tap so I can go raid several of them!
Same here. I've had my 2500K for about 2 years now, and have literally no plans to replace it for another two years. Its running at 4.6Ghz, and in 99% of scenarios, more cores (or the ability to hit 5Ghz) isn't going to make any difference at all. Sure, I might upgrade my GPU when the new consoles are released (2GB vRAM at 2560x1600 is cutting it fine), but my CPU? No way. Moreover. IB, despite being only 77w (vs 95W) has proved itself to be a hot running little chip, compared to its SB sibling, and the SB-E chips are massively expensive for what little extra performance you get. It may be that with the new consoles, we will see more games take advantage of more cores (this looks to be the trend, as per Crysis 3), but its going to be a long time before any game maxes 4 cores at 4.6Ghz.
I might have made the incremental move to IB to save a tiny it of juice for slightly more power, were it not for the heat density issues people immediately started reporting. The 2500k in my rig has never exceeded 55 degrees (and rarely tops 50) overclocked with near enough silent cooling.
my i7 920 @ 3.2 is still adequate for gaming, only thing I'd upgrade for right now are more cores for 3d work/folding and maybe usb 3 support... shame intel's 6[+] core chips are still quite expensive... in an ideal world intel will cut the price of the a low-end hex-core, do for hex-core what the q6600 did for quads... [and before you say hex-cores are overkill, quad-cores were overkill when the q6600 was king, and for a lot of things are still overkill]
I avoided IB for both cost and thermal reasons - and to be honest, the performance difference seems to be minimal. However, I would like a 3930k... 12 threads? Just look at all those CPU usage graphs in Task Manager...
I keep looking at a 3770K, that's 1270 better. I've updated my MB BIOS so it supports it. Only thing is I would have to take a knife to it to replace the IHS TIM and risk wasting more money. With Bindi talking about Haswell I'm looking forward to spending money on a new motherboard and Haswell CPU instead. But why? Oh the insanity
I agree, I'd love a 3930K too, totally pointless, sure but would love one all the same. I just couldn't ever justify dropping the cash unless there was one going for about £150 - and that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
It's just such an expensive upgrade which won't bring much by way of tangible performance boosts. Still want one though.... Oh if only it was just £150.
as i said, what we really want intel to do is do a Q6600 with it and massively slash the price... ideally i want a 2p system... but my wallet weeps at the mere thought...
In my 'main' machine, I went E6600, Q6600, QX6850, Q9450, 2600k. The QX6850 was a laugh! I have, however, owned a list of CPUs almost as long as my arm, and I'm a very tall man... EDIT - it was an E6320 first... EDIT^2 - how far back are we going, actually...
Q6600 --> i5 750 --> i7 860 --> i5 2400 (as I can't be arsed to test for stability) --> hopefully soon i7 2700k. Sole reason for going from 2400 to 2700k is to speed up Lightroom. Sometimes when exporting photos, even youtube videos stutters! Hopefully with 4GHz 8 threads, I'll be able to play games while Lightroom publish/export photos.
I ran with a E6600 and 2 7900 GTO's for about 5 years. Still got the invoice on my scan account. 2GB of corsair dominator 800MHz cost me nearly £200!