[xvi]

X6 Pros: Cheap, price/performance, should sell well when I'm done with it
X6 Cons: Lack of newer instruction sets, lack of raw performance, mediocre overclock

FX Pros: Price/performance overclocked, overclock potential, new instruction sets, 8-core, 7-zip performance
FX Cons: Price/performance stock, power draw overclocked, terrible 8-core implementation

2500k Pros: Price/performance, overclockability, instruction sets
2500k Cons: Lack of HT, smaller cache

2600k Pros: HyperThreading, Instruction sets, increased overclockability
2600k Cons: Price

2700k Pros: HyperThreading, Instruction sets, further increased overclockability
2700k Cons: PRICE, price/performance

I am currently considering the i7-2600k and the Asus P8Z68-V/GEN3 (unless the non-"GEN3" one is Gen4?)

Why doesn't Intel have anything between the $370 i7-2700k and the $600 i7-3930k? Are they not worried since AMD has nothing in that segment for them to compete against?

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Nope, no difference. Go for the 2600K and bump the multiplier up one notch yourself.

In gaming HyperThreading doesn't really help all that much. However, you mentioned you fold/crunch. The hyperthreading on the 2600K allows you to accept bigadv units when folding, which gives a very substantial points boost. However, they also require that you pretty much fold 24/7 with your CPU. If you don't plan to do that, I wouldn't worry about it.

Threads "feel" important to me. I know the extra threads are just due to HyperThreading, but it seems like it would help in most aspects. Somehow. Magically.
Some people are saying 5GHz on good air with the higher binned 2700k, but I don't know if that's worth $50-75. I guess it might be considering $200 in water cooling would probably net me a similar marginal increase.

One thing I don't understand is how the FX has problem with the thread scheduler, but HyperThreading doesn't. Back in the P4 days, HyperThreading would net you about a 30% gain (for 100% more threads). How does Windows know not to schedule two threads on one core for HyperThreading, but not for the FX?

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Well, I would suggest you do what I did. Go with a 990X board, which is cheaper than a 990FX board, and really all you loose is the x16/x16 slots, but you still get x8/x6 for crossfire/SLi, which is plenty.

I haven't found a think yet that the Phenom x6 doesn't do extremely well. Honestly, I don't really think the FX processors are with it right now, the Phenom X6 performs almost exactly the same as the FX 6 core, so go with the cheaper Phenoms.

I've seen the 1090T and 1100T keep up with the FX 8150 in a lot of tests. If I go the X6 route, I'd expect about three times the performance as what I have now. I don't know why, but the X6 just doesn't get me excited for some reason. It did when I first started looking at processors, but it doesn't now. I think it's the new instruction sets. I'm quite interested in AVX, for example.
About the only favorable long-term thing about the X6 is that it would be one of the best AM3 processors made (as AM3 is about to be end-of-life). In the future, it should sell easily.

Originally Posted by qubit

I say get a 2700K with a Z68 mobo - just make sure it's a UEFI model. This is what I will be buying shortly.

UEFI is one of the reasons why I'd like to upgrade. It's obvious that we're moving in that direction and I'm happy to switch. I'm leaning towards the 2600k just because the 2600k is already stretching over how much I want to spend, but it seems to come out better in value after overclocking.

The 2700K is supposed to be identical in every way apart from the 2600K apart from the multiplier value that's programmed into it. However, it looks like there might be very small improvements since it's later silicon. I asked just this question in Get the 2600K or the 2700K, that is the question? Have a look at the poll and the responses and see what you think.

The main differences between a 2500K and the 2600K/2700K are HyperThreading and extra cache. Look up comparative benchmarks and you'll see that the 2600K/2700K are noticeably faster in games. Plus, you can gaze at 8 threads in Task Manager...

SB with an unlocked multiplier is extremely easy to overclock, as you can just change one multiplier value to achieve it. If you want to gain extra memory bandwidth or find the exact highest frequency it will manage, then of course, more complexity and skill comes into it, but that's the sort of thing us enthusiasts can handle.

I'm no expert, but I'm fairly comfortable with most settings I've run across in the BIOS. While things won't directly translate from AMD to Intel, I'm sure I could pick it up without too much trouble.

Ivy Bridge is gonna be out around March/April, so it's quite a long way away. Also, by the looks of it, it's more optimised for power efficiency and a great IGP, than out and out single thread performance, so unless you really want these things, I'd say don't bother waiting. Also, it will fit into your current S1155 mobo (needs UEFI I believe) so you can always upgrade to it if you want to.

The ability to update to Ivy might be nice. It's certainly helping me justify buying the i7.

If you want to get an FX-8150 because it overclocks like a banshee (but doesn't perform...) then feel free to do that too; there's no right or wrong here. erocker started a thread for people that wanted to post about their Bulldozer overclocking exploits. Just remember that whatever you do with a Bulldozer chip, Sandy Bridge is just plain all-round better.

That's the conclusion that I'm starting to come to. As estimated, the 8150 has to fight to stay with the 2600k when overclocked. Even 7-zip performance, where the 8150 does well at stock speeds, only (theoretically) ties the 2600k when overclocked to average levels.

Originally Posted by kyussgr

First of all, a word of warning about PCI Express 3.0. The Z68 mobos have PCIe 3.0 slots but they don't have a PCIe 3.0 Controller !!!! (they are PCIe 3.0 capable)
The PCIe 3.0 controller will be embedded on the new Intel Ivy Bridge processors which will come out around April 2012. This means that if you buy a Z68 PCIe 3.0 mobo and an i5-2500k or an i7-2600K you will not have support for PCIe 3.0.

It sounds like it will be available if you drop in an Ivy Bridge processor later though. Regardless, PCIe 3.0 isn't something I'm too terribly concerned about at the moment. It seems like it would be nice to have (future-proofing), but not a huge requirement to me.

About the loyalty argument.... I respect it, but at this point in time it makes no sense in choosing AMD over INTEL. Intel better and cheaper. Hi-end Intel mobos are much cheaper than the AMD ones and Intel processors are way better than AMD ones.

AMD motherboards seem to top out around $200-250 where as Intel boards can reach up in to the $500 range (X78).

If you want (or can) wait till around March or April 2012. Christmas is traditionally the worst time to buy future-proof products. All new techs come out at around March - April.

The reason why I'd like to buy some time about now is that my current computer will be changing owners. I have the option of keeping my motherboard at the expense of buying a new one for the old processor.

Originally Posted by TRWOV

2700Ks are still D2; they might be cherry picked but aren't a new revision. But yeah, they have the potential to overclock better than the 2600K.

Originally Posted by Neuromancer

Currently 2700Ks seemed to be a slightly better revision, allowing farther clocks on less volts.

While I overclock nearly everything and having a higher-binned processor sounds quite nice, I'm having a little trouble fitting the 2600k in to my budget as it is. Tough decision.

Originally Posted by johnspack

Yep, go for an i7, you won't regret it. I was as devout to amd as you, since my amd286-20mhz (oced 4mhz!) system all the way up to my athlon64 x2 5600. I now only run intel, and don't feel bad about it one bit!

I don't want to give up on them though. Even after the Core 2 hit, AMD at least offered an attractive, well rounded processor for the entry-level and mid-range segments. That made sense. The FX just.. doesn't.

Originally Posted by NdMk2o1o

I understand your loyalty towards AMD and to be honest your previous builds have all been based on mid range CPU's so I can see why only now you are contemplating switching as you are going for a higher end build.

Higher end, yeah. I don't want to go too crazy here.

Originally Posted by NdMk2o1o

If you really want to stick with AMD why not grab a 990fx board and the 1100t as you will still be able to BD should they manage to improve the IPC/per core performance with a newer revision and the Thubans clock well and perform quite well.

I.. I.. I just don't know. I like the new instruction sets, I like the performance per clock.. The X6 is just... old. For $160, it does have terribly good value though.

Originally Posted by NdMk2o1o

If you go Intel then unless you are going to be a lot of heavily multithreaded work/encoding etc the 2500k is the best bang for the buck by a country mile, the HT and extra 100mhz/cache on the 2600k is not worth the extra $100 or so otherwise.

Though I haven't said anything more than what you already know yourself so really it is just down to your preference and or budget.

Folding, 7-zip, media editing, gaming while recording with FRAPS (the X2 struggles to record anything at 2048x1152).. I'd say I do more multi-threaded work than your average user.

Originally Posted by (FIH) The Don

simple answer, 2600K , no doubt for what you need it for

As I said above, yeah. The extra threads would be nice, even if they're "fake" cores, it's still a performance gain. The performance loss from AMD's FX two-modules-per-core malarkey basically seems to.. just.. I don't know. It makes it feel more like a quad-core with HyperThreading more than a true 8-core. It seems that the i7 benefits from HyperThreading about as much as the FX benefits from the extra modules.

Originally Posted by Jstn7477

If you want pretty much guaranteed overclockablility, go with a 2600K. 2500K chips are a mixed bag, some only do 4.3, others can do more. The difference between the 2 is HyperThreading, 2MB L3 cache, and possibly getting a terrible chip, so it's up to you.

I'm a sucker for technical specs. The 2600k sounds better and better the more I look in to it.

Originally Posted by Senupe

I think the best sweet spot for gaming, video editing, file compression/decompression, nice instructions and value it's the deal Z68 Board with PCIe-3 and a 2500k since you can overclock this guys at ~4.4GHz on air and ~5.0GHz on water cooling (tewaking BaseCLk and Multiplier).
That will give you a really shining computer for everthing you need, and even with the posibility to upgrade to Ivy Bridge you'll be able to buy the new i7 set in the future so there's no worry about that, plus the 1155 platform allows you to use QuickSync wich is incredibly fast for video work.
Hope it helps.

It does. The ability to upgrade to Ivy is comforting. I hear QuickSync is buggy if used with dedicated graphics (how could it be that hard to switch between the two?), but the multimedia feature I'm excited about is AVX. I would very much like to move to water cooling in the future and I feel that the i7 would have the most "potential" to unlock. The FX would too, I suppose, but the wattage it would demand is just way too insane.

Originally Posted by digibucc

imo be loyal to price/performance. i appreciate the underdog status amd has held, but that alone is not enough. don't be loyal to a name when they don't even know you

To quote Metalica, sad but true. Price/performance, AMD still does well (especially the X6), but I need to find the balance between value and raw performance.

Originally Posted by TRWOV

The MSRP for FX8150 is $225. If you want to be in AMD's camp you could wait until the retail channel gets stuffed. Or you could go for an FX8120 and overclock to FX8150 speeds and beyond.

I'd say the 2500K is enough for now unless you have a workload that takes advantage of the extra threads given by the 2600K/2700K.

I noticed that. MSRP on the FX is lower than what's out there. I'm hoping Intel prices will drop when the 8150 does. The buy-in for Intel is a bit steep, imo. It looks like the 8150 dropped $10 on Dec 11. We're getting there.

Originally Posted by Outback Bronze

13 years ey. I havent gone 1 day! Only amd cards i suppose. Anyway id go the i7 2600k mate. Just the best cpu youll get for all your gaming, encoding or crunching needs at a fair price(2700k debatable). Overclocking them is a simple multiplyer and v/core adjustment. If u mainly game then id suggest the 2500k.

It's hard to see the "fair price" part when you're coming from $120-160 AMD processors, but when you lay it out on the spreadsheet, the performance is there. It's still a relatively big pill to swallow.

Originally Posted by Neuromancer

Z68 is a great bit of architecture, I found the SRT performing very poorly. However, the AVX encoding for video work is great if you do a lot of reducing HD video to ipod type. If you are transcoding or reducing 1080P input to 720P for archiving, then I would just use the 2600K and handbrake conversion software. More control and just as fast as AVX at that point (1080P to 320P via AVX is 50% faster though!!)

I was looking forward to experimenting with SRT. Some reviews give it favor, some give it scorn. If it doesn't work, I could always try Seagate's Barracuda XT. I mainly transcode (basically) uncompressed FRAPS recordings to equal size (2048x1152) H264 and then edit them, scale to 720p/1080p for YouTube/Photobucket/etc. Additionally, FRAPS does NOT like sharing on a dual-core.

I very much like to keep my options open, so I'd desire AVX (and other features) even if I don't plan on using it immediately. Intel satisfies this desire well.