1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

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

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by qubit, Nov 14, 2011.

?

Get the 2600K or 2700K?

  1. 2600K

    47.9%
  2. 2700K

    28.2%
  3. Get Bulldozer, lol

    14.1%
  4. Other - explain

    9.9%
  1. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,873 (3.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,503
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2011
  2. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,897 (13.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    14,306
    Simply put. No.
     
    qubit says thanks.
  3. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,129 (6.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,191
    The only advantage the 2700K might have is under extreme overclocking conditions it might be more likely to do an extra multiplier or two, since I've seen the 2600K max out at about 49-51 on average, maybe the 2700K will do 50-52 on average. Again, I'm just saying maybe, I don't know for sure, but either way if you are using air or water, you won't notice the difference. So I say 2600K.
     
    qubit says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  4. DOM

    DOM

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    7,552 (2.43/day)
    Thanks Received:
    828
    Location:
    TX, USA
    2600k unless your hoping for a 6GHz cpu lol
     
  5. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,873 (3.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,503
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    Thanks NT. So, it really looks like the only difference is a tiny multiplier setting change and the model numbers.

    I'd forgotten to mention what kind of overclocking I was planning, so I've edited my OP to explain this.
     
  6. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,897 (13.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    14,306
    So you want a Bulldozer CPU? PM me and we can talk. :D
     
  7. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,873 (3.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,503
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    lol, that was the joke vote - someone had to do it. :laugh:

    Have you finished playing around with it now and want to sell it, then?
     
  8. FreedomEclipse

    FreedomEclipse ~Technological Technocrat~

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,941 (5.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,367
    Id say just get a 2500k and push it to 4.7Ghz and call it a day. Its absolutely ludicrious how easy SB overclocks.

    You dont need to be a hardcore overclocker to get decent results so long as the CPU and mobo are good.

    this also saves you a fair bit of money to put towards other things - maybe a small SSD for Intels IRST if you get a Z68 board.
     
  9. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    14,098 (4.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,282
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    The only issue with a 2500K is that you might get a chip that is only capable of 4.3 GHz.

    If you got the cash, get 2700K. If not, 2500K should be fine, but jsut realize that all the reports of 5GHz and such may be far from reach, and that the 8-thread chips tend to clock higher, for whatever reason.
     
  10. Jstn7477

    Jstn7477

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2009
    Messages:
    3,917 (2.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,598
    Location:
    Sarasota, Florida, USA
    There shouldn't be much of a difference between 2600K and 2700K. I don't think they are binned to be separate from each other, as all the chips can do 4GHz+ no problem. I'd say get the 2600K unless you have an e-peen problem and need the highest number available. 2500K is decent on a budget but you're paying $100 less for a chip that may/may not clock well.

    I have erocker's board and it's quite nice for $200 although it may have some minor snafus with the UEFI. Another problem was a JMB363 based bootable SATA/IDE card wouldn't work in the top x1 slot, although a dumber IDE only JMB368 board worked fine. Both cards worked fine in the bottom x4 slot but I'm using that for other stuff and my cables won't reach that far. The 2 x1 slots, LAN and Marvell SATA are on a PLX 1 to 4 lane multiplier I think so keep that in mind. I haven't noticed any performance issues with it though.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  11. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,873 (3.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,503
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    I'm definitely not going to get the 2500K, because the 2600K/2700K have a bigger cache and HT, which I'd like to have and I seem to remember that they do benchmark a bit better, too. And heck, I wanna see 8 threads in Task Manager! :D

    They should also do better in Folding@Home.
     
  12. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,129 (6.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,191
    Yeah, you can do Bigadv units with them, which gives a nice PPD boost.
     
    qubit says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  13. FreedomEclipse

    FreedomEclipse ~Technological Technocrat~

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,941 (5.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,367
    I guess im pretty lucky to be at 4.9 in that case :laugh:
     
  14. _JP_

    _JP_

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    2,684 (1.59/day)
    Thanks Received:
    740
    Location:
    Portugal
    I voted for "Other" because I have a split opinion.
    If you want raw processing power, go Intel, because there's no beating the 2600k at its price point (especially with the appropriate RAM). On the other hand, I'm a sucker for AM3+ because I just love the motherboards. Especially the ones with the 990FX chipset. Talk about features. And some very good layouts/designs too! Best of all, those are cheaper than Intel boards.
    It's up to your priorities. :ohwell: (Guess I didn't help that much :()
     
    qubit says thanks.
  15. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,873 (3.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,503
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    Yeah, that helped just fine. :toast:

    I'm not surprised the feature set is good, to enable competition where raw processing performance isn't quite as good. For some applications, I'm sure those features are more important than a flat out CPU performance.
     
  16. purecain

    purecain

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    638 (0.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    165
    i had to think about this for my own purchase....
    my reasoning was based on the fact that most apps(i use) are not highly multi threaded...

    so baring in mind that the sandy bridge-E only adds 2 cores... the speed would be the same as a 2600k but use more power in most instances...
    so i decided to have a look at the cpu that could give me the highest clocks with the least amount of power...
    2700k fit the bill... and i'm running 48x100(4.8ghz)@1.33v... 24/7

    i havnt had chance to see how high i can go on 1.4v...
    i liked intel srt tech on the z68 chipset aswell...

    x79 had quad channel memory... does anyone recall what else that chipset offers.... that could of swayed my chioce had i had more info at the time...
     
  17. FreedomEclipse

    FreedomEclipse ~Technological Technocrat~

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,941 (5.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,367
    a 2600k could have done those speeds tbh
     
  18. purecain

    purecain

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    638 (0.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    165
    @Freedom Eclipse- correction... 'some' 2600k's could of done that...

    overclocking at higher volts will be interesting...
     
  19. FreedomEclipse

    FreedomEclipse ~Technological Technocrat~

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,941 (5.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,367
    'Most' Of them ive seen on TPU and other sites hit that speed real easy. though im aware that some of the earlier batches struggled to hit 4.8

    Anyway If youre not satisfied with the purchase within 2weeks you are entitled to a refund (sale of goods act)

    part of fun of being a PC enthusiast is the roulette you play when you order parts. You dont know if youre gonna pick up a duffer or something golden.

    but hey man, Its not my job to tell you how you spend your money. do as you wish. All im saying is that you could have potentially saved yourself £50 if you just took a gamble.
     
  20. eidairaman1

    eidairaman1

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    13,473 (4.98/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,745
    Go for the 2700K, with an ASRock Motherboard
     
  21. purecain

    purecain

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    638 (0.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    165
    @freedom eclipse.... sorry dude you missed my point... i want to use as little power as possible and i can hit 4.8ghz @1.3v

    i have petedread here and his 2600k needs 1.4v minimum @4.8ghz.... i've also had my hands on a few when building pc's and they all struggled at low volts...

    run @ 1.5v and skys the limit...
     
  22. Sinzia

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    847 (0.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    209
    I'd wait a month for prices to stabilize then go from there.
     
  23. EarthDog

    EarthDog

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    3,558 (1.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    803
    2600k.

    Outside of the anecdotal evidence presented here (my ((one)) 2700k does X.xxGhz with X.xxV is better than a couple 2600k's I have seen), there is no reason in the architecture that it will clock better or use any less voltage just b/c it has a 2700k stamped on it as opposed to 2600k. Its all about where each sample was taken in the wafer.

    The wattage/voltage differences between 1.4v and 1.3v even for a folder is but several dollars /YEAR (do the math).

    I agree with Cad in that 2500k's seem to not clock as high as its HT'd big brother, the 2600k.

    Im sure a few exist, but I havent seen any 2600k NOT be able to hit 4.8Ghz with the right cooling (water/high end air) and board that has PLL override voltage.

    All a 2700k is but a one bin up 2600k. 99% of 2600k's can reach that bin. Save $30, grab a 2600k. Or spend some coin and grab a 3930K and crunch MAD science (PPD)!!
     
    qubit says thanks.
  24. El_Mayo

    El_Mayo

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,790 (1.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    214
    hahaha... Bulldozer
     
  25. purecain

    purecain

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    638 (0.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    165
    earthdog-you almost sound like you know for certain... but you dont know... your basing your oppinion on the knowledge you have at hand...

    have you built pc's with both chips...????

    i have... the 2700k is better... it reminds me of people buying EO stepping core2quads... they were just better...
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page