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

[qubit]

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.

 

[erocker]

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?

Simply put. No.

 

[newtekie1]

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.

 

[DOM]

2600k unless your hoping for a 6GHz cpu lol

 

[qubit]

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.

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.

 

[erocker]

So you want a Bulldozer CPU? PM me and we can talk.

 

[qubit]

So you want a Bulldozer CPU? PM me and we can talk.

lol, that was the joke vote - someone had to do it.

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

 

[FreedomEclipse]

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.

 

[cadaveca]

Id say just get a 2500k and push it to 4.7Ghz and call it a day.

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.

 

[Jstn7477]

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.

 

[qubit]

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!

They should also do better in Folding@Home.

 

[newtekie1]

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!

They should also do better in Folding@Home.

Yeah, you can do Bigadv units with them, which gives a nice PPD boost.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

The only issue with a 2500K is that you might get a chip that is only capable of 4.3 GHz.

I guess im pretty lucky to be at 4.9 in that case

 

[_JP_]

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. (Guess I didn't help that much )

 

[qubit]

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. (Guess I didn't help that much )

Yeah, that helped just fine.

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.

 

[purecain]

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...

 

[FreedomEclipse]

2700k fit the bill... and i'm running 48x100(4.8ghz)@1.33v... 24/7

a 2600k could have done those speeds tbh

 

[purecain]

@Freedom Eclipse- correction... 'some' 2600k's could of done that...

overclocking at higher volts will be interesting...

 

[FreedomEclipse]

@Freedom Eclipse- correction... 'some' 2600k's could of done that...

overclocking at higher volts will be interesting...

'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.

 

[eidairaman1]

Go for the 2700K, with an ASRock Motherboard

 

[purecain]

@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...

 

[Sinzia]

I'd wait a month for prices to stabilize then go from there.

 

[EarthDog]

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)!!

 

[El_Mayo]

hahaha... Bulldozer

 

[purecain]

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...