Hi guys, im going sandybridge again but what do i go for the 2600k or the 2700k, ive heard some motherboards wont accept the 2700k (im sure ive read it somewhere)...i do mostly gaming and video editing etc thanks guys take care
All boards that support 2600K should also support the 2700K, but they might neeed a BIOS update first. If you buy the board and a 2700K from the same seller, ask them to make sure they work together, and to update the BIOS if need be. You might have to pay an extra £10 or so for theme to flash the BIOS but at least you will know it works
cheers guys, but is it worth paying the extra for the 2700k over the 2600k thanks, yes i think it was the bios that needed doing thanks guys
Some people seem to think that the 2700K is a higher binned version of the 2600K, but this is just rumour and if anything has been disproven - IMO there's no point getting the 2700K if you are going to be overclocking.
Intel first introduced the 2700K to it's documentation on September 9th, but the processors are dated as much as 6 months earlier, implying the cores were produced then. Although that doesn't actually show that they are the same core as the 2600K, it does imply a reasonable possibility that they may be. I dont think there is a way to prove either way - I just know the 2700K I have here clocks better than the 2600K I had, even allowing for the extra 100 MHz base clock, so must have more stable silicon than a 2600K produced out of later silicon
The same can be said for any processor - I'm sure somebody has a 2600K better than your 2700K, which means that 2600k came from a better wafer. Some CPUs clock well; some don't. If anything, that shows simply that there is no extra binning going on and that the 2700K is just as hit-and-miss as the 2600K... and you got a hit. Intel don't tend to bin processors without letting us know - just look at all the fuss made about different "steppings" in the past. If it will overclock better, we'll know about it.
They're only a waste of time to people who can't afford them. For those of us who buy them and get bettter performance with lower voltages they are not a waste of time (at least, not when you can use the extra performance). For a typical gamer, I agree the 2500K is the better, and for someone who doesn't want to try pushing the clock speed as high as possible but can use the threads, 2600K is good enough, but if you want to get the highest performance (for whatever reason) and are going to overclock to get it, the 2700K is a great processor, according to everyone I have seen post about the performance of theirs. Ultimately, whether or not it is good value is down to the person using it. If you have not bought one you don't have first hand knowledge or experience to say whether or not they are good value.
You could actually say that about almost all upgrades, it depends what you want out of your PC and what you want to do with it. I mean take the one I built for the GF ages ago (this one), it doesn't need upgrading as it's on stock happily doing what it needs to do. That's an AM2 x2 5000. I'm sure people who splashed out for a 1366 990x or a 2011 3960X had their reasons and are most happy with them.
Theres strong evidence that the 2700K OC better/with less Vcore, http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18335424 Also its possible to get a 2700K with a copy of BF3 for not more than the game is worth compared to a 2600K.
Not massively better performance though, maybe 0.3 more pts in cinebench 11.5 on average I'd say (with the headroom better voltage would provide)
