Should I Upgrade from a i7 920 to the new 2nd gen 2600k?
September 26th, 2013
I know I would need a new motherboard etc. but is the new 2nd gen version that much better?
Unless you absolutely need that much power, why bother? My 920 is running at 4.2ghz stable on all 8 cores and that is more than enough power for anything I need.
Don’t buy technology just because it’s better when in reality it would serve no purpose.. a new mobo and CPU aren’t cheap.
Oh alright, thanks!
Well I guess I mean would it be good on the gaming side for GTA IV, crysis, and battlefield 3? For the processor? On the graphics and RAM side im covered
Yes, it’s great for those games.
This site is great for a guideline but remember it’s not the be all and end all, it’s just a guideline.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/
I can run Crysis, BF3, GTA 4 all maxed with the 920.. Like I said, if you want to spend a couple of hundred on a small % of performance.. go for it.
Yes it doesn’t make any sense, I see another socket change.
The LGA 2011 (Socket R), however its rumored to be a good socket supporting Ivy B.
I don’t trust that CpuBenchmark site:
It shows a good 4000 points between the i2600 and the i2600k (both @ same speeds), but the only difference between those two was the unlocking in the ‘k’ line.. so why the speed difference?
Dragon Core replied: Yes it doesn't make any sense, I see another socket change.
The LGA 2011 (Socket R), however its rumored to be a good socket supporting Ivy B.
Ivy Bridge is going to be LGA1155 with new chipsets.
The LGA2011 socket and thusly X79 chipset are only for the Sandy Bridge E series.
OP: Save your money–buy a nice HSF and just overclock the hell out of your 920. Upgrade your video card(s) and you should be fine.
@ tomcool21, no idea what mobo you have, but might be worth getting a better mobo eg. for SLI/Crossfire if you haven’t got already, and get a matching GPU to what you have if your psu can handle it, and o/c the cpu as someone already said.
At the moment, it’s not really worth you upgrading what you have, to what you suggested.
I’m in the same boat with a i7 920.
There is nothing out there really worth upgrading for right now.
I think when 8 core chips with well improved single threaded performance become available then it might be a worthwhile change.
But for now and especially in terms of games, it’s certainly not worth changing to a 2600k.
If you want to spend some money to make your PC faster then maybe looking into SSD’s would be more worthwhile.
If you are still booting windows from a mechanical hard drive then it will make a world of difference.
If you want to spend some money to make your PC faster then maybe looking into SSD's would be more worthwhile.
If you are still booting windows from a mechanical hard drive then it will make a world of difference.
Do note that most modern SSDS absolutely suck on a SATA 3Gbps controller and Marvel 6Gbps controllers. They work correctly at their rated speeds on native SATA 6Gbps.
I know I would need a new motherboard etc. but is the new 2nd gen version that much better?
Yes it is. Btw I would say wait for the Ivy Bridge, anyways 2700k + Z68 will totally rock.
Unless you absolutely need that much power, why bother? My 920 is running at 4.2ghz stable on all 8 cores and that is more than enough power for anything I need.
8 threads you mean, right? Currently only the BD chips has real physical 8 cores.
The LGA 2011 (Socket R), however its rumored to be a good socket supporting Ivy B.
I thought 2011 was reserved for the X79 and the SB-E processors. Ivy is all 1155.
jock_juffalo replied: I'm in the same boat with a i7 920.
There is nothing out there really worth upgrading for right now.
But for now and especially in terms of games, it's certainly not worth changing to a 2600k.
2600k and 2700k are far better than the 920.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/47?vs=287
It shows a good 4000 points between the i2600 and the i2600k (both @ same speeds), but the only difference between those two was the unlocking in the 'k' line.. so why the speed difference?
Link?
Got this off Wiki page:
LGA 2011 will also be backwards compatible with upcoming Ivy Bridge-E processors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGA_2011
1155 will be mainstream where’s 2011 will be high-end desktop and server.
So technically 1155 is the poor mans Intel solution from what Intel is meant to say.
This is like Linksys grading their routers, “This one is no good for gaming”.
Dood, go with the SBE and x79 (if your upgrading from an i7).
http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=13052049
You can stick a normal 1600 2x4gb cas9 kit in there for 40 bucks,
but that’s the 2400mhz quad channel memory.
I see its been mentioned a few times, but if you can’t upgrade to SBE, just wait for Ivy Bridge next year some time.
The Ivy Bridge is same architecture as Sandy, just a 22nm die shrink. Will also be consumer priced, unlike the SBE.
EDIT: But in order to upgrade, you will have to get a new mobo/cpu/ram for sure. The only platform’s out there to upgrade to are z68 and x79.
For $1000, you can get the i5-2500K, but might not be worth the upgrade.
http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=21991027
For $1500 you can get an i7-2700K
http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=22342067
For $2000 you can get the 6 core version i7-3930K
http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=22341967
Parts you can use from your old computer include HDD and Optical if sata.
Parts you might be able to use is the case, HSF or possibly some case fans.
Parts you probably can’t use is the PSU cuz of 2x 560 Ti’s.
Parts you can’t use are processor, motherboard, and ram.
Exception would be if you had a good GPU and PSU, you could use those two.
It shows a good 4000 points between the i2600 and the i2600k (both @ same speeds), but the only difference between those two was the unlocking in the 'k' line.. so why the speed difference?
Link? [/quote]
http://www.cpubenchmark.net
from comah’s post. click on the high-end graphic, the 2600k is up near the top, the 2600 about 4000 points lower.. a few points difference is OK.
I dispute 4000 points though.. an obvious mis direction.
~lionden~
Currently only the BD chips has real physical 8 cores
BD doesn’t have 8 physical cores. It has 4 “modules” with 2 threads on each. Pretty much same as a quad core i7.
rajnusker replied:
jock_juffalo replied: I'm in the same boat with a i7 920.
There is nothing out there really worth upgrading for right now.
But for now and especially in terms of games, it's certainly not worth changing to a 2600k.
2600k and 2700k are far better than the 920.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/47?vs=287
It’s moderately better. That represents a relatively small percentage of performance increase.
Certainly not worth the cash for a gain like that.
Chances are OP wont really see any immediate noticeable improvement outside of benchmark numbers.
There are probably other areas that he could spend his cash on and get a better noticeable result right now.
The tests were done at stock speeds anyway. It’s a pointless comparison.
-paroxysM^ replied: Currently only the BD chips has real physical 8 cores
BD doesn't have 8 physical cores. It has 4 "modules" with 2 threads on each. Pretty much same as a quad core i7.
Yeah I know that, but it is little different than the HT. And Windows does recognize it as a 8 physical core proccy.
Yeah I know that, but it is a little different than the HT. And Windows does recognize it as a 8 physical core proccy.Windows recognizes quad core i7s as eight processors as well. Windows can’t count cores or threads. It will display the total number of logical CPUs each as one single processor.
Bulldozer does have 8 physical cores does it not? 4 modules with 2 physical cores in each.
Just they work in clusters of 2 and not 8 independent physical cores.
EDIT: Here we are.
8 physical cores. though not working independently there are 8 physical cores.
Bulldozer does have 8 physical cores does it not? 4 modules with 2 physical cores in each.The ALUs are separate for each logical core but pretty much everything else is shared among the module. It’s not a true octo-core. They should have labelled it as a quad core with advanced threading or something. It might have made their embarrassment a bit more forgiving.
Just they work in clusters of 2 being the only difference being it's not 8 independent physical cores.
8 physical cores. though not working independently there are 8 physical cores.Those are just ALUs. Not cores. An example of a true octo core is the design of the i7 3960. It has two cores disabled. but you can check the die shots.
We’re getting off-topic here. We should stop hijacking the thread with faildozer.
My understanding was the ALU’s were physical cores, though i am likely wrong.
I’m no expert, despite working in the semiconductor industry for some years.
Only deal with metal stages and ion implanting, not design/engineering.
ALUs are physical. They are just not ‘cores’.