Get the 2600K or the 2700K, that is the question?

[sneekypeet]

While I am always one who looks at the pros and cons to try to save a buck, history shows the later released chips are typically a little better.

In the case of when the 860s were released, the 870s that were released later typically clocked a bit higher which I see was addressed, but the IMC on them was typically better as well.

If you have the cash on hand to get the 2700K, I would.

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2434918&postcount=41

Until the 2700k sample size reaches the 2600k any perceived difference is in your imagination. I've yet to see a 2700k do anything worth noting, on voltage or multi. Utter waste of money as long as the 2600k still exists at a lower price point.

 

[Chewers]

For me 2500K does the job damn well. As im up to run only 2 way SLI GTX560Ti CPU wont be bottleneck for me.. As well i can go 4.8Ghz OC any time

 

[John Doe]

Go for the 2700K, with an ASRock Motherboard

This. A lot of misleading votes and info in this thread. At first, you can find 2700k's costing $10-20 more than 2600k on some retailers. So even if it's the exact same chip (I also heavily thought that way), you should pony up that last $ for it. I thought they were just renamed, but the info is out there. If you do research, you can find out 2700k's doing 5-5.4 Ghz under a decent cooler. Reviews have done it

http://www.eteknix.com/reviews/processors/intel-core-i7-2700k-flagship-showdown-review/1/

http://www.eteknix.com/reviews/processors/intel-core-i7-2700k-flagship-showdown-review/3/

so I think they improved their batch. It's not "binned". Binning requires specific handpicking; it takes much manwork to do that it's easier to just release them from a batch. Binned chips cost much more than their non-binned equivalent. For example, a Xeon E5640 is based on an improved i7 920 die, yet it costs $800 because it's binned to stay below 80W TDP.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1059102/evga-evga-gtx-580-classified/150#post_14176838

That cleared up, unless you want the absolute best, you shouldn't waste money on these. The 2500k costs $250 while offering very similar gaming performance. And I believe that's what you're after. Not how many threads to see on task manager. lol. So yeah, that's my take on this one.

 

[Splave]

every 2700k ive seen has been nice and low voltage, the last 8 2600k's ive used were all trash alot of x51's and even a x49.

 

[dhdude]

I'm in a similar boat. I have a brand new, replacement-from-RMA H80 sitting in a box waiting to be used and an offer of £150 for my current mobo and Core 2 Quad. Thinking I'll just pay the extra for 2700k over the 2600k, as was said above; they seem to run at a lower voltage and maybe OC a bit better. At least thats what I've observed from reading what reviewers and other OC'ers have said. Voted 2700k!

 

[EarthDog]

Jesus... a 49x? I've had around 20 and none were under 50! BUT I only pegged a 55x out of all those. I've given up a need a hex. Instead of fighting for a Damn 6ghz+ 3d gulftown, 3930k at 5.2+ should do the trick.

 

[John Doe]

Jesus... a 49x? I've had around 20 and none were under 50! BUT I only pegged a 55x out of all those. I've given up a need a hex. Instead of fighting for a Damn 6ghz+ 3d gulftown, 3930k at 5.2+ should do the trick.

lol. Even if you get the "best" of Westmere, changes are you may just get stuck at 4.5. There's not much point in searching for those (at this rate). Should have bet on more Sandy chips instead.

 

[Splave]

Jesus... a 49x? I've had around 20 and none were under 50! BUT I only pegged a 55x out of all those. I've given up a need a hex. Instead of fighting for a Damn 6ghz+ 3d gulftown, 3930k at 5.2+ should do the trick.

I know right? I wasnt even mad though, I just laughed and popped the next one in the socket
I have 3 2700ks on order at the moment will update with my results for sure by the end of the week

 

[Neuromancer]

I voted 2700K just for the reasons posted above. Its newer, and newer chips tend to clock better historically. Not always true of course and you could geta lucky 2600K or an unlucky 2700K.

At 10-15 bucks difference I would just go for it.

 

[purecain]

earthdog- can you post up the batch numbers your getting these 2600k's from... i need another for a build and you seem to have found an amazing batch...

 

[BlackOmega]

I voted "get Bulldozer lol"

But in all seriousness, the 2600k is your best bet. The additional cost of the 2700k isn't worth it.

 

[wolf]

Definitely discount the 2700K from your options, but I feel for the ~$100 saving you should seriously consider the 2500K if you don't need hyperthreading.

my 2500K @ stock feels as fast, maybe even snappier than my i7 920 @ ~4ghz. and the 2500K will be ample for gaming, especially if you hit 3.8-4.4ghz which should be a sinch.

 

[BrooksyX]

I say go for the 2700k. I only have a 2500k but if I could afford the 2700k i would totally go for it.

 

[BlackOmega]

Definitely discount the 2700K from your options, but I feel for the ~$100 saving you should seriously consider the 2500K if you don't need hyperthreading.

my 2500K @ stock feels as fast, maybe even snappier than my i7 920 @ ~4ghz. and the 2500K will be ample for gaming, especially if you hit 3.8-4.4ghz which should be a sinch.

What's your RAM running at? Timings?

 

[wolf]

What's your RAM running at? Timings?

I sold taht system to a mate I see almost every day but it's not mine anymore...

nonetheless the timings on the i7 920 system were DDR3 1600 8-8-8-20 2T, and my 2500K system is DDR3 1333 9-9-9-24 2T. But as we know already the SB memory controller is wild.

 

[MilkyWay]

Now, that SB-E is out and has the same gaming performance as SB and costs a small fortune, I won't be getting it.

Therefore, that means that I'll be getting an SB system now. So, should I get a 2600K or a 2700K? As they're both unlocked, there should be no advantage of one over the other when overclocking, especially as they're officially rated at a mere 100MHz apart. Therefore, I could get the 2600K and save a few bucks.

I'm just wondering if the 2700K possibly has any other tweaks to it that would allow a higher overclock, or be better in some way or other to the 2600K?

EDIT: Duh! Forgot to mention that I don't do hardcore overclocking. I'll simply achieve whatever I can on a quality third party cooler and a decent mobo.

Looks like you answered your own question.

 

[denev2004]

I believe the later the better

Well, If you have enough money. The price of 2700K is kind of unreasonable

 

[rodneyhchef]

I managed to get a 2600k for £225 at the weekend which was around £35 cheaper than the 2700k. I really wanted a 2700k but couldn't justify the extra cost. Plus the 2700k was out of stock! Must be a good seller. Now SB-E is out I can see that I made the right call. Ivy bridge CPUs aren't too far away though...

 

[EarthDog]

earthdog- can you post up the batch numbers your getting these 2600k's from... i need another for a build and you seem to have found an amazing batch...

That info is looong gone.. Sorry, and I just sold my 'gem'(riiiiiiiiight) to fund the 3930k.

There is a thread at Hwbot though that lists the batch #'s and their returns. As always, YMMV.

There is a 5.8Ghz 2600k up for $1k I just saw...

lol. Even if you get the "best" of Westmere, changes are you may just get stuck at 4.5. There's not much point in searching for those (at this rate). Should have bet on more Sandy chips instead.

Yep made my purchase already (3930K) and she's already up and kicking... 4.5Ghz 1.30v... but who knows if CPUz is reading it right. It sure jumps up when I start the bench though.

Now, if I can only get past the trottling issues on this damn Asorck... Come on UD7, get to my friggin house already!

 

[LordJummy]

If I weren't going to build an SB-E system I would probably grab the 2700K, even though I know a 2600K is probably the more sensible option. For me the extra bucks are worth it. I don't even OC to the maximum potential though, as I'm not a bencher.

I just like to hit a sweet spot between performance, price, and temperatures now. I ran my bloomfield and gulftowns at 4.0+ 24/7 but recently dropped them down to slightly above stock on super low voltage. I see no tangible difference in day to day work and gaming. I'm only building SB-E for more longevity and bragging rights. I really don't need the upgrade at all, but everyone here understands that

 

[qubit]

I'm only building SB-E for more longevity and bragging rights. I really don't need the upgrade at all, but everyone here understands that

Actually no, I don't think any of us understand where you're coming from. My E8500 system is still excellent for day to day usage, runs everything really well and even runs my games very well, if not quite at the solid 120fps on the latest ones that I'd like it to. Yet despite this, I'm gonna drop around £400 on an upgrade to fix this small 'deficit' and have 8 threads show up in Task Manager which I can gaze at. And then I'll overclock the snot out of it.

So no, I don't understand at all...

 

[Damn_Smooth]

I voted on other because I am semi-patiently awaiting Ivy. It's only a few of months away and it should show some gaming improvement over what is available right now.

 

[LordJummy]

Actually no, I don't think any of us understand where you're coming from. My E8500 system is still excellent for day to day usage, runs everything really well and even runs my games very well, if not quite at the solid 120fps on the latest ones that I'd like it to. Yet despite this, I'm gonna drop around £400 on an upgrade to fix this small 'deficit' and have 8 threads show up in Task Manager which I can gaze at. And then I'll overclock the snot out of it.

So no, I don't understand at all...

Might as well use up your money while it's still worth something XD

I voted on other because I am semi-patiently awaiting Ivy. It's only a few of months away and it should show some gaming improvement over what is available right now.

Are you sure? I don't think there is any more room for improvement with gaming vs. the current SB processors. I think they've hit about the ceiling limit on FPS that can be sucked out of current GPU's. Seems like Ivy isn't going to give you any actual performance increase in gaming or anything real world for that matter. You will get reduced power consumption though, so that's something I guess.

 

[Damn_Smooth]

Are you sure? I don't think there is any more room for improvement with gaming vs. the current SB processors. I think they've hit about the ceiling limit on FPS that can be sucked out of current GPU's. Seems like Ivy isn't going to give you any actual performance increase in gaming or anything real world for that matter. You will get reduced power consumption though, so that's something I guess.

There is your key phrase. The 7000 series will be out by then, and the 600 series should be close if not already out. Yes, I'm planning on going with the one of the 7900s, so it makes perfect sense to me.