Any gaming benefit i7 930-->2600k?

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Have a GTX 580 @ 902mhz. I use a 1080p 120hz screen so all the fps I can get the better. I have my i7 @ 3.7ghz. High as I'd like to go since my ram is really not wanting to go any higher without going to 2T. I've read that can make a difference but I'm not sure how much?
Am I CPU limited at all?


Moved to CPU forum.

Super Moderator BFG10K.

 

[notty22]

Almost entirely 'NO'.
You can check articles like done here at Techspot for cpu scaling.
http://www.techspot.com/reviews-videocards.shtml#gaming

http://www.techspot.com/review/368-bulletstorm-performance/page7.html

 

[tviceman]

At that resolution, and with that overclock on your gpu, games that scale with cpu cores and/or core speed will give you some benefit. You should be able to hit 4.5ghz or more on a 2600k, which woulf be needed to see tangible benefits in the games that do scale well with faster cpu's, but they're few and far between.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Looks like I'll wait then.

 

[Jules]

Great thread, i was wondering the same on the rig below. You gonna end up keeping what you got OILFIELDTRASH?

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Great thread, i was wondering the same on the rig below. You gonna end up keeping what you got OILFIELDTRASH?

I'd definitely sell the X-58 combo for the right price.

 

[Seero]

Have a GTX 580 @ 902mhz. I use a 1080p 120hz screen so all the fps I can get the better. I have my i7 @ 3.7ghz. High as I'd like to go since my ram is really not wanting to go any higher without going to 2T. I've read that can make a difference but I'm not sure how much?
Am I CPU limited at all?

First, this thread belongs to the CPU forum. Second, SB = I7 + on die GPU, so if you want more CPU power, then you need to wait for IB, LGA 1366. Third, i7 930 stock is not a bottleneck on anything unless you are using virtual machine, db/app server. Right now games and home use software have difficulty utilizing 3 cores, you have 4+4. SB 2600k also has 4+4, no gain. SB does have higher clock speed, but again you probably won't experience the difference.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

First, this thread belongs to the CPU forum. Second, SB = I7 + on die GPU, so if you want more CPU power, then you need to wait for IB, LGA 1366. Third, i7 930 stock is not a bottleneck on anything unless you are using virtual machine, db/app server. Right now games and home use software have difficulty utilizing 3 cores, you have 4+4. SB 2600k also has 4+4, no gain. SB does have higher clock speed, but again you probably won't experience the difference.

First I was asking as far as it relates to gaming that's why it's in the vc+g forums.
Second Sandy Bridge is much more than i7 and on die gpu. It is a new architecture and smokes i7 while using much less power.
Third Ivy Bridge is going to be called 2011 not 1366. I'm on 1366 right now.
Fourth thanks for adding nothing to the discussion and trolling my thread.

 

[betasub]

^ Easy, tiger. Comparing i7-930 to i7-2600k is definitely a topic for CPU & Overclocking forum. VC+G = Video Cards & Graphics, not necessarily gaming.

If your game of choice is CPU-limited, & there are a few games that are, then the answer is maybe. The main advantage of the i7-2600k is from higher clockspeed, through higher overclocking headroom (again, one for the CPU forum). Some games like the Total War series really benefit from high clockspeeds (being mainly singlethreaded).

But is far more likely you are not CPU-limited, so perhaps there is a follow-up question to get on-topic for VC+G.

 

[bryanW1995]

I disagree with seero, SB is a pretty significant improvement upon nehalem, if nothing else b/c it clocks so much higher. so figure 3.7 on nehalem is ~ 4.4 on a 2600k, +10% clock/clock, so you get ~ 30% total overall improvment. not earth-shattering but definitely a boost, especially in cpu-intensive games like civ5.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I recently jumped from an i7 930 @ 4GHz to an i7 2600K which is churning along @ 4.8GHz (and I'm also in the same boat where I have a 1080p @ 120Hz monitor). Most of my games are little to no change but some of them the change is definitely noticeable but not enough to truly appreciate and others still it was very significant

For instance I'm a huge BC2 fan and the change helped with my minimum frame rates but not enough to truly care as worst case scenarios for my SLI GTX470s on the 4GHz 930 was something on the order of 80fps but only due to strange graphical anomalies (for whatever reason the frame rates dive when going through the caves in Vientam)

However when playing StarCraft 2 my frame rates rose almost linearly with increase in CPU speed, now my minimum frame rate hardly ever goes below 60

Almost entirely 'NO'.
You can check articles like done here at Techspot for cpu scaling.
http://www.techspot.com/reviews-videocards.shtml#gaming

http://www.techspot.com/review/368-bulletstorm-performance/page7.html

those are FPS games you chose to show off, CPU can affect other games far more such as StarCraft 2 where change in clock rate alone can have just about a linear effect in performance increase, so a ~4.6+GHz 2600K would smoke a 3.7GHz 930

again, it really depends on the game

 

[nwo]

The difference is about 10 to 15% more raw performance at the same clock speed, in favor of the Sandy bridge.

Of course, this boost won't be noticeable in all games since a lot of them are not very CPU intensive. Therefore, the performance difference between i7 930 and i7 2600k will be minimal. However, in games that are CPU bound (for example: MMOs) you can definitely expect to see this difference.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

yeah, basically any game where you're bound to see far more dynamic units/objects on the screen at the same time such as RTS or MMO type games or FPS games with large player counts.

 

[Seero]

First I was asking as far as it relates to gaming that's why it's in the vc+g forums.
Second Sandy Bridge is much more than i7 and on die gpu. It is a new architecture and smokes i7 while using much less power.
Third Ivy Bridge is going to be called 2011 not 1366. I'm on 1366 right now.
Fourth thanks for adding nothing to the discussion and trolling my thread.

I don't see how I am trolling your thread. I said this thread should really be on another forum because you will get more expert feedback towards your CPU selection. If you do find it offensive, you can report me and let mods decide, but IMO CPU upgrade from a I7 930 doesn't exists, nor it will do you any good because your CPU isn't a bottleneck.

SB is does have better stock clock and better capability to OC, but those are really CPU related topics and doesn't have anything to do with video cards. 4 cores + HT @ 3.7Ghz, it won't be a bottleneck for a single card.

If OC is your cup of tea, the CPU forum is filled with experts and people alike who will share better knowledge and ideas, but OC CPU has nothing to do with video cards. A stock i7 930 isn't a bottleneck on any games

Note that SB is also called i7 because it is actually a shrinked I7 + gpu. The only other difference is the on-die clock generator in SB, which it means nothing if you ain't going to OC. Also, SB is actually LGA1156 - 1 (clock gen). LGA1155 only has x16 PCIe for your video card. LGA1366 is capable of supporting x16/x16 configuration. If you seek for upgrade, than, like you said, LGA2011.

If ppl with i7 LGA1366 who seek for an upgrade, i will say go for SSD, followed by fast RAM, followed by a discrete sound card, followed by a Nic.

 

[Athadeus]

Does anybody happen to have a benchmark with Nehalem vs SB (and both OCed)? I got a Bloomfield CPU for SC2 over Lynnfield for just a minor improvement due to tri channel, and no way was I waiting for SB. I wonder how much tri or quad channel on SB-E will affect performance for it? I don't really care about other games, and I do tax my current system plenty that I feel like the cost of Bloomfield.

 

[tynopik]

Does anybody happen to have a benchmark with Nehalem vs SB (and both OCed)?

not exactly what you asked for, but enough to tell you that Sandy Bridge is what you want for SC2

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/129

 

[kingtaro]

If we forget the benchmark. Anyone feels the real world improvement by switching to 2600K from 920?? I'm still thinking if I should get one sandybridge machine, but I'm really not a benchmark guy

 

[betasub]

Anyone feels the real world improvement by switching to 2600K from 920??

Improvement in what kind of tasks? Productivity, games, encoding: all put different loads on the CPU.

 

[taltamir]

My reply above quotes because they are so big:
Your reply is sound, but you didn't answer the op, only counter argue with that poster by giving your own select examples.

OP: here is anandtech benchmark comparison of the i7 920 and i7 2600
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/47?vs=287

As you can see there is quite a difference. As for games, it depends on the game. However, it only seems to matter if you are using a 120Hz monitor or trying to get a min FPS of 60, as the i7 920 always gets above 60 average FPS on everything.

I recently jumped from an i7 930 @ 4GHz to an i7 2600K which is churning along @ 4.8GHz (and I'm also in the same boat where I have a 1080p @ 120Hz monitor). Most of my games are little to no change but some of them the change is definitely noticeable but not enough to truly appreciate and others still it was very significant

For instance I'm a huge BC2 fan and the change helped with my minimum frame rates but not enough to truly care as worst case scenarios for my SLI GTX470s on the 4GHz 930 was something on the order of 80fps but only due to strange graphical anomalies (for whatever reason the frame rates dive when going through the caves in Vientam)

However when playing StarCraft 2 my frame rates rose almost linearly with increase in CPU speed, now my minimum frame rate hardly ever goes below 60



those are FPS games you chose to show off, CPU can affect other games far more such as StarCraft 2 where change in clock rate alone can have just about a linear effect in performance increase, so a ~4.6+GHz 2600K would smoke a 3.7GHz 930

again, it really depends on the game

 

[Aznboy1993]

Simply put...no.

 

[Makaveli]

Have a GTX 580 @ 902mhz. I use a 1080p 120hz screen so all the fps I can get the better. I have my i7 @ 3.7ghz. High as I'd like to go since my ram is really not wanting to go any higher without going to 2T. I've read that can make a difference but I'm not sure how much?
Am I CPU limited at all?


Moved to CPU forum.

Super Moderator BFG10K.

I wouldn't bother.

Your next logical upgrade will be SB-E or Ivy bridge you are looking at a sidegrade.

 

[Makaveli]

First I was asking as far as it relates to gaming that's why it's in the vc+g forums.
Second Sandy Bridge is much more than i7 and on die gpu. It is a new architecture and smokes i7 while using much less power.
Third Ivy Bridge is going to be called 2011 not 1366. I'm on 1366 right now.
Fourth thanks for adding nothing to the discussion and trolling my thread.

Lower power yes a 10-15% IPC advantage equals smoking?

I'm sorry but if I built both machines running at the same clock speed and didn't tell you which is which you wouldn't be able to tell the difference playing games.

This thread is pointless.

If you want it so bad then just buy it why even ask in the forum.

 

[Borealis7]

Wow, i never imagined a 480/580 could be a bottleneck in games. dayum!

 

[aigomorla]

Wow, i never imagined a 480/580 could be a bottleneck in games. dayum!

meh... if i tie up all 3 of my monitors in stereo display, not even dual 580's is enough..

 

[GFORCE100]

No point in upgrading your CPU just yet but it may be logically justified to sell it, along with your X58 motherboard. The X58 platform is a dead-end and the longer you wait the harder it will be to sell it on eBay for good money.

Basically, if you plan to keep the X58 system as a 2nd PC then do nothing for now. Meanwhile if you plan on selling then consider when to sell.