Intel 2600K or i7 970?

[beestee]

Do you think they will raise the price?

No, I don't see the prices going up for any of the current tech. I am referring to the processors coming out at the end of this year based on the same Sandy Bridge micro-architecture that will be for 'high-end desktop' or 'server' applications.

[Morne]

This one is also for high end. There will ALWAYS be a better cheaper coming out "at the end of this year". If you keep waiting, you'll never upgrade.

I do find it strange however that the 2600K peforms almost the same as the 970/980, but is about 1/4 of the price. Don't understand it. Just seems like some catch somewhere.


Kinda like waaaay back when celeron came out, the IT stores here were saying: "Hey this celeron 1.6 is equivalent to a Pentium 4 3.0" Ya right, my P4 ran circles around my celeron.

[AJ Jefferies]

We just bought a couple of new workstations & plumped for the i7 990x - if I'd done more research we probably have gone for the 2600k, but I didn't want to risk them being slower than our current machines (980x). However I would definitely invest in them for render slaves.

[PIXELBOX_SRO]

in my opinion 2600K are good enough for workstation use....+ if you plan to overclock a little, its a definite buy

[stevesideas]

I too can't understand why the 2600k's are so cheap in comparison to the 980's etc. Why would anyone buy the 970's or 980's ?

[lukx]

it's like this with everything. i bought plasma tv 2 years ago paid 2k euro, today better technology same plasma costs almost half the price.

[AJ Jefferies]

I too can't understand why the 2600k's are so cheap in comparison to the 980's etc. Why would anyone buy the 970's or 980's ?

In our case, we're upgrading our main workstations & despite the massive cost saving, the 2600k would still be slower than the 1 year old 980x's we're currently using. Annoying!

[PIXELBOX_SRO]

Cmon guys...youre comparing HEX cores with QUAD cores here...of course 2600K is slower than 980x..its meant to be...it has less cores

[Morne]

Cmon guys...youre comparing HEX cores with QUAD cores here...of course 2600K is slower than 980x..its meant to be...it has less cores

You make it sound like it is from the dark ages, when in fact it is only a fraction slower, like maybe 5% if that much.

[PIXELBOX_SRO]

i know the benchmarks...actually i am building one 2600K workstation as i write this...and i was commenting AJs post

[AJ Jefferies]

Oh I know it's stupid to complain it's just annoying that you can buy so much power for so little cash but we can't justify the performance loss

[lukx]

You make it sound like it is from the dark ages, when in fact it is only a fraction slower, like maybe 5% if that much.

hmmm... still it's interesting 2 cores less and only 5% slower... is it only me or you can also smell something fishy form INTEL

simple mathematics: 6 cores = 100% power, so each core is 16.6666666 % so if we cut out 2 cores we should have unit slower by 33.333333 %

[super gnu]

yes but as far as i know, they are updated cores.. not the same ones as in the current 6 core chips.. hence the improved performance per core

[PIXELBOX_SRO]

lukx:
indeed strange...my older quad 970 at 3.4 GHz is 15% slower than 2600K and that itself is 5% slower that HEX
hexes should be a lot faster than that
wonder when the SandyBridge Hex comes out ))

[beestee]

Q4 2011 according to the first chart here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge