2600k or i7 970 for long term gamer?

[skipsneeky2]

So which would you go with if you wanna pull 3 years out of a rig?

Is the i7 970 the next q6600 of hexacores?

Alot of people used to prefer fast dual cores over the q6600,now people prefer quads no matter the clockspeed.

Looking to replace a crappy msi mobo and a i7 950.

2600k is marginal but cooler and more efficient and will be clocked to 4.4ghzs

but the i7 970 is 6 cores and hell who knows if games will take off and make quads obsolete?
Looking at this from a long term build prospective

Pc has a gtx580 in it which i'll keep for these next 3 years:biggrin:

 

[Skott]

Assuming we are talking Intel only I'd go with the 2600k. The reason why is because if you pair it with a Z68 mobo you will have some future proofing and expandability later on. When Ivy Bridge comes out they are compatible with the Z68 mobo. You will need to do a BIOS update but they have gotten much easier to do these days. Do the update and then you can just swap a new CPU onto the mobo when and if you want. Then you are into the next gen Intel CPU.

The P67 mobos are supposed to be upgradeable as well in the same fashion but there seems to be some confusion over which of them are and which are not. So I suggest Z68 just to be on the safe side and avoid the confusion. You'll want to look into this a bit more I'm thinking.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Assuming we are talking Intel only I'd go with the 2600k. The reason why is because if you pair it with a Z68 mobo you will have some future proofing and expandability later on. When Ivy Bridge comes out they are compatible with the Z68 mobo. You will need to do a BIOS update but they have gotten much easier to do these days. Do the update and then you can just swap a new CPU onto the mobo when and if you want. Then you are into the next gen Intel CPU.

The P67 mobos are supposed to be upgradeable as well in the same fashion but there seems to be some confusion over which of them are and which are not. So I suggest Z68 just to be on the safe side and avoid the confusion. You'll want to look into this a bit more I'm thinking.

Z68 sounds good but my gf gave me the green thumb to spend $1,000 on upgrades, but i had to promise i wont spend a dime for the next year.

I plan 3 years as most gamers who went q6600 back in 2007 have a decent rig still.
After this i see zero reason to spend any more money maybe besides saving up from time to time for the stuff out in 2014 being?

I7 970 build will have room for 12gb ram but being stuck with a 7,200 rpm seagate 1tb drive
2600k will have 8gb ram and a ssd

 

[richierich1212]

2600K all the way + SSD. Hardly any real world difference between 4GB and 12GB RAM for gaming.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Would you be willing to get a 2500k instead? Cheaper and should also last 3 years if need be.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Would you be willing to get a 2500k instead? Cheaper and should also last 3 years if need be.

Interesting cpu but my budget permits a 2600k with ease.

Like the idea of saving money, why im not suggesting a 4ghzs daily 990x:biggrin:

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Interesting cpu but my budget permits a 2600k with ease.

Like the idea of saving money, why im not suggesting a 4ghzs daily 990x:biggrin:

Look at the bigger picture, you can say honey, I spent less building my new computer than we agreed on. Think of the bonus points. The 2500k will do 4.4-4.6 all day long and is more than enough CPU power.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Look at the bigger picture, you can say honey, I spent less building my new computer than we agreed on. Think of the bonus points. The 2500k will do 4.4-4.6 all day long and is more than enough CPU power.

Your right about that but i do believe the 2600k is the more suitable replacement for my needs.

Would be a good choice if i came from i7 860 or something.

Most might call this build a waste but its that last splurge before i penny pitch for the next 3 years:biggrin:

Don't get me wrong i value your input but in my heart i do find going with a cpu without hyperthreading and 2mb less l2 cache somewhat of a downgrade.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Your right about that but i do believe the 2600k is the more suitable replacement for my needs.

Would be a good choice if i came from i7 860 or something.

Most might call this build a waste but its that last splurge before i penny pitch for the next 3 years:biggrin:

Don't get me wrong i value your input but in my heart i do find going with a cpu without hyperthreading somewhat of a downgrade.

Well I know what I would do, now I would go with less memory and the SSD for sure. No reason to get everything else and then have the HD be the lowest performing piece in the system.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Well I know what I would do, now I would go with less memory and the SSD for sure. No reason to get everything else and then have the HD be the lowest performing piece in the system.

True but history repeats itself the only reason why i toyed with the i7 970 is cause..

its following the same price points as the q6600

Most people in 2007 told me i wasted my money on the q6600 well 4 years later and what game would benefit more from a q6600 then a highly clocked e8400?

Trust me i wouln't buy old technology that being the 6 core 970 but then again the e8400 despite being a dual core was the 45nm king of dualies,like the 2600k is the king of quads.

Food for thought yeah but of course i wouldn't buy a 970 but it gets people thinking if it could possibly really be the q6600 of hexacores in the years to come or a cpu disregarded as a whole?

 

[nattass]

True but history repeats itself the only reason why i toyed with the i7 970 is cause..

its following the same price points as the q6600

Most people in 2007 told me i wasted my money on the q6600 well 4 years later and what game would benefit more from a q6600 then a highly clocked e8400?

Trust me i wouln't buy old technology that being the 6 core 970 but then again the e8400 despite being a dual core was the 45nm king of dualies,like the 2600k is the king of quads.

Food for thought yeah but of course i wouldn't buy a 970 but it gets people thinking if it could possibly really be the q6600 of hexacores in the years to come or a cpu disregarded as a whole?

I believe the way to go is the 2600k or the 2500k. We are barely getting enough games that are optimized for quad cores and how long has it been since they have been out. In the 3 years u want to keep the machine we might be in the same situation with hexa or octa core cpus and the software that can really take use of it. I am waiting to upgrade too and I have a dual core cpu and it has served me well. I am waiting for BD to see if it is competitive enough to puch prices down and get a better deal since I am in no hurry to upgrade since my dual core still does everything I need. I did however, upgraded the video card from a GTX 260 to an ATI 5850 and got an SSD and they made a lot of difference (specially the SSD). I am reusing the video and the SSD so I just need the CPU mobo and I already got the memory ddr3 since it was on sale at the egg.

So to make it short I believe u will be better off with the 2600K and the SSD as oposed to getting the 970 and wating on the games that will be optimized for it to make a difference

 

[Zap]

my gf gave me the green thumb to spend $1,000 on upgrades, but i had to promise i wont spend a dime for the next year.

Is it your money?

This is how it all starts. Sounds innocent enough. She dangles the carrot of a nice upgrade now for "only" no upgrading next year.

In a few years you will be scrapbooking with her and all her female friends when suddenly you wonder where it all went wrong.

Don't let it all go wrong. Get that Z68 setup.

 

[Tuna-Fish]

The thing is, even when there are 12 threads running, 2600k is very close in performance to 970.

In e8400 vs q6600, there was considerable difference in theoretical throughput, and later on the applications adapted to use it. 2600k vs 970 is much more even.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Is it your money?

This is how it all starts. Sounds innocent enough. She dangles the carrot of a nice upgrade now for "only" no upgrading next year.

In a few years you will be scrapbooking with her and all her female friends when suddenly you wonder where it all went wrong.

Don't let it all go wrong. Get that Z68 setup.

My money yup.

Don't mind the carrots i'm not interested in bulldozer and the choice not to upgrade after this for 3 years is my own choice.

Heck i doubt we will have scrapbooking she bought me my gtx580 for our anniversary lol :biggrin: .

Does the Z68 overclock just as well as P67?I don't do encoding strictly into gaming and folding.

 

[RaistlinZ]

I'd go with the 2600k + SSD over the i7-970 without a moment of hesistation.

 

[GammaLaser]

I'd go with the 2600k + SSD over the i7-970 without a moment of hesistation.

+1

 

[richierich1212]

The Z68 clocks just nicely. In 3 years you can do a favor and give that setup to your future wife .

 

[skipsneeky2]

Decided to go with the 2600k
Got the motherboard picked out also with the ram kit

Anyone got any idea what the best 100-128gb ssd would be speed wise for under $300?
Prefer sata 6gbps

Thanks for all the help

Notice alot of people like the Asus p67 pro but my choice was the evo.

Gonna skip z68 its video functions and ssd caching doesn't appeal to me p67 is more proven anyways.

 

[Bill Brasky]

For an SSD, I would go with intel 510 120gb. Yes, you can get better capacity and speeds from a sandforce drive, but intel reliability is too good for me to turn down.

edit: Gah. I'm torn. The sandforce drives are cheaper and faster... definitely a tough choice.

 

[skipsneeky2]

For an SSD, I would go with intel 510 120gb. Yes, you can get better capacity and speeds from a sandforce drive, but intel reliability is too good for me to turn down. My 2 cents.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167042

Like the specs of it

Poked around a bit even as being a older series and non sata 6gbps i found this

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-160-_-Product

Price is a bit more comfy writes are better then the 510

Anyone got any good experience with corsair force series?

 

[RussianSensation]

I'd go with the 2600k + SSD over the i7-970 without a moment of hesistation.

Oh ya! Not only is it cheaper, but it will be faster once overclocked and consume less power. Ivy Bridge upgrade path is icing on the cake if the intention is to keep the system for a long time.

I'd get the OCZ Vertex 3 for the SSD. Intel is good too if you want higher reliability with slower performance. Both will smash a 7200 rpm 1TB hard drive

 

[Dadofamunky]

You still have the 950? If so, I'm going against the grain here. Get a better mobo, like the Asus Sabertooth and OC that chip. I think getting a 2600K and an SSD is the best possible upgrade but if you already have an i7... get a better mobo and an SSD as a boot drive. An i7 is plenty good enough for pretty much anything still. Either way, you'll win. I think Sandy Bridge is the Bomb if you build all-new.

 

[skipsneeky2]

You still have the 950? If so, I'm going against the grain here. Get a better mobo, like the Asus Sabertooth and OC that chip. I think getting a 2600K and an SSD is the best possible upgrade but if you already have an i7... get a better mobo and an SSD as a boot drive. An i7 is plenty good enough for pretty much anything still. Either way, you'll win. I think Sandy Bridge is the Bomb if you build all-new.

Sold the 950, ram and heatsink yesterday on craigslist.

Motherboard was junk i tossed it.

Using a incredibly fast emachines w3366 with the blazing fast celeron 420!
Just a loaner hold me over didn't expect the old stuff to sell so fast

Sorry team anandtech folding rig is down for 2 weeks unless anyone thinks i could still get the same ppd out of a gtx580 backed by the celeron 420 at 1.6ghzs as i did with the 950 permitting i can fix it in this case lol.

I know the 950 was fast but since i wanted something to last me for 3 years figured this last splurge wasn't a bad idea.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Thanks for the suggestions for ssd drives.

Against my own suggestion decided the bigger bang for buck would be the older sandforce sata 2 ssds

I picked the corsair force 115gb .

Biggest files i ever install are video games from discs have a hard time believing a sata 3 ssd will improve install times cause of how painfully slow a dvd rom is still and the occasional video game updates mainly ea ones lol .

Besides price is a bit more friendly but maybe i will go sata 3 if prices drop in the $150-$180 128gb range.

As i posted above curious to see if a gtx580 backed by a celeron 420 emachines with 512mb ram and xp would get the same ppd folding as it did with a 4gb 950 rig?

After i get some input on that i will get out of all you guys hair

Thanks again for all the help and suggestions you have been great

 

[TemjinGold]

You know, if you had gone 2500k, you would've just gotten over the hump for a better SSD in keeping with your budget.