2600K vs 970

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
OK I bought a 970 which is due in tomorrow, but I just saw a really nice deal on a 2600K processor for 280 USD, vs the 500 that I paid for my 970..

Should I take back the 970 (I want to OC it to 4.6ghz at the least and shouldn't have any problems doing so), and buy the 2600K with the appropriate motherboard and clock it to 5ghz?

Need opinions quickly please! :p
 

Kenmitch

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,505
2,249
136
For a new build the 2600K is more bang for the buck :)

Here is a comparison between the 2 from anandtech bench

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/157?vs=287

It's your choice to make based on price vs performance vs the hassle of a rebuild

A 2600K @ 5ghz is doable depending on the luck of the draw....Dependant on voltage required to stabalize it which may be above the comfort factor.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
Most of those benches don't scale past 4 threads though, and the 2600K has the advantage in clockspeed; especially in turbo mode..

I won't be running either chip at stock however.. The biggest advantage that Sandy Bridge has is that it has AVX, but as far as I know, no application or program as of yet uses AVX, and probably won't for another year or two.

With the 970, I can get the benefits of 6 cores running at high speed, which should help in games like Battlefield 3 that will use all of the cores.
 

mvbighead

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2009
3,793
1
81
280 vs 500 for a minimal performance increase? I don't see it.

I'm all about cores as much as the next man, but when gaming, 4 cores is plenty. And when you can get 4 faster, better performing, newer cores for just over half the price of the extra 2 cores, it's a no brainer IMO.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
280 vs 500 for a minimal performance increase? I don't see it.

I'm all about cores as much as the next man, but when gaming, 4 cores is plenty. And when you can get 4 faster, better performing, newer cores for just over half the price of the extra 2 cores, it's a no brainer IMO.

Well, I would have to get a new motherboard as well, plus some new memory most likely, since Sandy bridge requires 1.5v for memory I believe.

So the sandy bridge option would cost more money after everything is said and done..
 

notty22

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2010
3,375
0
0
I know you could find valid points for and against.
The new platform also gives you native sata 6gb ports, which imo is another cool upgrade. With the higher performing new batch of SSD's coming forth.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
I know you could find valid points for and against.
The new platform also gives you native sata 6gb ports, which imo is another cool upgrade. With the higher performing new batch of SSD's coming forth.

LOL I'm still on HDDs.. I probably won't be upgrading to SSDs until they reach a cost/capacity ratio that I find more palatable..

The more I think about, the more I find myself leaning towards the 970. Overall it will cost less, and offer MORE performance than the 2600K in both the short and long term since games and apps that utilize more than 4 cores are starting to become more common.

I'm confident that I can squeeze at least 4.6ghz out of it with my DH-14 for everyday use, possibly more, and thats blazing fast!
 

richierich1212

Platinum Member
Jul 5, 2002
2,741
360
126
Sounds like you already made up your mind. But that cheap 2600K + $200 mobo still comes out to less than the $500 970 itself. And you don't necessarily need 1.5v DDR3 for SB. There are plenty of people using 1.65v with DDR3 with SB setups.
 

TemjinGold

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2006
3,050
65
91
Honestly though, what are you planning on doing with it that your 920 can't handle perfectly? If I were you and money were that tight, I would return the 970 and put the money towards an SSD instead.
 

notty22

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2010
3,375
0
0
LOL I'm still on HDDs.. I probably won't be upgrading to SSDs until they reach a cost/capacity ratio that I find more palatable..

The more I think about, the more I find myself leaning towards the 970. Overall it will cost less, and offer MORE performance than the 2600K in both the short and long term since games and apps that utilize more than 4 cores are starting to become more common.

I'm confident that I can squeeze at least 4.6ghz out of it with my DH-14 for everyday use, possibly more, and thats blazing fast!

LOL, honestly, you would notice a ssd upgrade more than your cpu change. But its your money.
edit: Also I understand the irrational 'need' of wanting a 6 core and or 4.5ghz , hence the cpu upgrade.
 
Last edited:

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
2600K beats 970 in most areas, all while generating less heat/noise:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/287?vs=157

At stock yes, but I won't be running my processor at stock. The 2600K's biggest advantage over the 970 is clockspeed and a generous turbo mode, but both are mitigated by overclocking, since the 970 can overclock almost as well as the 2600K.....plus it has two more execution units.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
I wouldn't count on 4.6GHz being a sure bet with the 970.

Well, the 2600K @ 5ghz isn't a sure bet either ;) One can only try and hope for the best. From what I've seen though, 4.6ghz shouldn't be too hard.

LOL, honestly, you would notice a ssd upgrade more than your cpu change. But its your money.
edit: Also I understand the irrational 'need' of wanting a 6 core and or 4.5ghz , hence the cpu upgrade.

Honestly, with 12GB of memory and pagefile disabled, the OS is already very snappy. An SSD would help to remove the I/O bottleneck to be sure undoubtedly, but two Raptors in RAID 0 aren't that slow either...especially if you use a good defrag program like Perfect Disk 11.

Here's some benchmarks of my HDDs:

diskspeed.png


About as fast as a slow SSD in terms of linear read and writes. Of course, it gets slaughtered in access times and randoms.....but thats what memory is for :biggrin:

Sounds like you already made up your mind. But that cheap 2600K + $200 mobo still comes out to less than the $500 970 itself. And you don't necessarily need 1.5v DDR3 for SB. There are plenty of people using 1.65v with DDR3 with SB setups.

Well, if I got the 2600K, I would buy an enthusiast grade motherboard, which typically run close to 300 USD and more..
 
Last edited:

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
I won't be running either chip at stock however.. The biggest advantage that Sandy Bridge has is that it has AVX,

The biggest advantages of SB are IPC, higher overclocking potential and much lower power consumption. Assuming you are not GPU limited, An overclocked 2600k will easily beat an overclocked 990X. So the choice is clear.


Well, if I got the 2600K, I would buy an enthusiast grade motherboard, which typically run close to 300 USD and more..

? An enthusiast isn't defined by how much $ he spends on a motherboard. In fact a $190 motherboard will overclock just as well as a $350 one unless you are benchmarking for a living. Also, you aren't even running an SSD yet, so it is strange why you would "need" to spend $300 on a motherboard but you are using slow mechanical drives for your OS. Honestly a $130 Gigabyte P67 motherboard with a Vertex 3 will mop the floor with your $300 motherboard and those Raptors. :)
 
Last edited:

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
The biggest advantages of SB are IPC, higher overclocking potential and much lower power consumption. Assuming you are not GPU limited, An overclocked 2600k will easily beat an overclocked 990X. So the choice is clear.

OK, this is a much more compelling arguement. Now you're really making me think :$

An enthusiast isn't defined by how much $ he spends on a motherboard. In fact a $190 motherboard will overclock just as well as a $350 one unless you are benchmarking for a living. Also, you aren't even running an SSD yet, so it is strange why you would "need" to spend $300 on a motherboard but you are using slow mechanical drives for your OS. Honestly a $130 Gigabyte P67 motherboard with a Vertex 3 will mop the floor with your $300 motherboard and those Raptors. :)

OK if I were to get the 2600K, which would be the best motherboard? I was looking at the Z68 chipsets, as thats better than the P67 right? I also typically buy the higher end motherboards because I have three video cards in my system.

And will these chipsets support the 22nm versions?

And leave my raptors alone :p
 
Last edited:

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
OK after thinking about everything that was said, I decided to go the Sandy Bridge route. You guys were right, and I was wrong..

I ordered a 2600K from MicroCenter for 279 plus tax (came out to roughly 300), a Gigabyte Z68x UD7 and 8GB of DDR3 2133 Mushkin enhanced redline from Newegg.

All in all, this purchase will actually come out to slightly more than the 970 and the 12GB memory kit I bought (they're both going back), but I will have greater performance, and more importantly, an UPGRADE path.

Thats what convinced me in the end. The Z68 chipset should support the 22nm shrinks with a bios update, so I will have an opportunity for a much better upgrade further down the road.....something which I wouldn't have had if I had invested more money in the X58 platform.

I'll also be looking into getting a small SSD that I can use as a cache..
 
Last edited:
Nov 26, 2005
15,099
312
126
With the 970 you will have a higher chance of running into overclocking problems as you have to ramp up the bus speed, thus your RAM. With SB all you have to do is drop some cheap DDR 3 1333MHz low volt ram and change the multi (K chip only)

Micro Center has the 2500K for 179$ JFYI
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
Congrats on the upgrade. The NH-D14 should allow you to easily max out the 2600k within reasonable voltages.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
*Sigh* I just canceled my order....everything, including the 970.


I thought about it some more, and it just seems that upgrading at this time is foolish, unless you're coming from a Core 2 or something. Both Ivy bridge and Bulldozer will be out in a few months after all, and it's not like my system is old or out of date, so I can wait a few more months.


Plus I recently bought a NH-D14, which has allowed me to gain an extra 100mhz on my CPU over the Megahalems I was on previously, to put me at 4.3ghz..


With enough tinkering, I may be able to get 4.4ghz, but I doubt it, as my processor is pretty much maxed out.


Not that I need any more CPU power.. I'm just itching for a change! :hmm:


Should easily tide me over until Ivy bridge and bulldozer arrive though, then I can do a real upgrade..
 
Nov 26, 2005
15,099
312
126
O'

you were coming from a 4.3Ghz i7 920 @ 4.2Ghz? The only reason that would make sense to me to 'Upgrade' to a SB is if you were thermal and energy-efficient freak, lol
 

AdamK47

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,216
2,841
126
With the 970 you will have a higher chance of running into overclocking problems as you have to ramp up the bus speed, thus your RAM. With SB all you have to do is drop some cheap DDR 3 1333MHz low volt ram and change the multi (K chip only)

Micro Center has the 2500K for 179$ JFYI

Gulftown's uncore multipliers allow for a wide range of memory configurations. It's not the same as the older 45nm quad core CPUs.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
O'

you were coming from a 4.3Ghz i7 920 @ 4.2Ghz? The only reason that would make sense to me to 'Upgrade' to a SB is if you were thermal and energy-efficient freak, lol

Yeah I know lol. I just had the itch to upgrade I suppose, since I've had this D0 920 since they first became available.. It and my UD5 have served me well though.

Yes, it makes much more sense to do a true upgrade to either ivy bridge or bulldozer, as that will be more of a leap.