Enthusiast CPUs 2011 - Most likely to purchase

[amenx]

Theres been hype over every AMD chip released over the last 4-5 years. Probably none more so than the infamous Barcelona, the so called "stone cold killer" (first "native" quad core) which C2Q wiped the floor with. If Bulldozer pulls something off, it will likely be in the bang for buck dept rather than usurping any performance crown.

 

[Arkaign]

Yeah my hopes for BD are with price pressure on Intel. If it's 90% as fast but 50% the cost, guess what I'm gonna buy

 

[Rifter]

I dont intend to upgrade till i find that my current i7@4.2Ghz will bottle neck my GPU's. I think im going to get one more GPU upgrade out my my current rig till i have to upgrade. So probably going to be LGA 2011 or whatever is next high end intel socket after that.

 

[RussianSensation]

Looks like my 15% performance advantage figure is a bit too optimistic.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sandy-bridge-microarchitecture_2.html

Outside of SC2 and Cinebench/rendering, SB appears to be closer to 5-10% faster per clock.

 

[magomago]

I voted bulldozer, but I would take a SB depending on what the Intel situation looks like @ BD launch.

 

[Dark Shroud]

It's very doubtful Intel will release a i7 990x to market. I'm thinking the same for LGA 1356.

I want an LGA 2011 octo-core but I can't wait. If I can get a decent LGA 1155 CPU (2600) & Mobo for around $500 they get my money for now. Worst case in a year I take the LGA 1155 guts and put them in a new case for my mother or little bother.

 

[=Wendy=]

I'm going with a 2600K, and Asus P8P67 DELUXE.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Bulldozer has me the most excited.
I havn't tried AMD since the athlonxp, would be nice to see them surge again.

I would very much like BD to be faster than SB 1155 but slower than 2011. the pricing game would be amusing at worst.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Looks like my 15% performance advantage figure is a bit too optimistic.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sandy-bridge-microarchitecture_2.html

Outside of SC2 and Cinebench/rendering, SB appears to be closer to 5-10% faster per clock.

actually if you read x-bit says 25% increase i was going 20% but until sb has been out a few months and programms are compiled for sb its probably 20%. the one review ya can through it out its way off.


You guys can spout all the numbers you want in the end i will be correct again @ 20% +.

 

[RaistlinZ]

I don't see myself upgrading my CPU to a new platform until probably 2013. I might slap in a cheap i7-970 or something down the road, but that's about it. I like to run my rigs into the ground until they become virtually obsolete.

My last system was an Athlon 64 3800+ before I upgraded to the rig in my sig.

 

[bamacre]

2400 doesn't have a K version, which is why most of the people in this board are ignoring it.

Yup. Like I said, I'm not an "enthusiast," I don't even OC. The 2400 looks like a good value, IMO, a 3.1Ghz quad for <$200. I'll be upgrading from a stock Q6600. Considering these will be ~20% faster clock-for-clock compared to current i series, it should be a nice upgrade.

 

[RussianSensation]

actually if you read x-bit says 25&#37; increase i was going 20% but until sb has been out a few months and programms are compiled for sb its probably 20%. the one review ya can through it out its way off.

You guys can spout all the numbers you want in the end i will be correct again @ 20% +.

Umm...no, that's 25% after considering clock frequency increases from current offerings. Obviously a 2500 @ 3.3ghz is going to be 25% faster than a stock Core i5 760 @ 2.8ghz at the same price. You are not comparing apples-to-apples. There will be certain applications where SB will be faster by 20%, especially those which will take advantage of new instruction sets. But overall, I doubt SB will be as much of a performance boost as Nehalem was over Conroe/Penryn.

Another review here also shows 5-10% gains, outside of cinebench, SC2 and video encoding.

 

[CosmicMight]

I don't see myself upgrading my CPU to a new platform until probably 2013. I might slap in a cheap i7-970 or something down the road, but that's about it. I like to run my rigs into the ground until they become virtually obsolete.

My last system was an Athlon 64 3800+ before I upgraded to the rig in my sig.

Yup, my system is 5 years old and I could probably run it for another year if I had to with a few fixes. I would do the same were I you.

Yup. Like I said, I'm not an "enthusiast," I don't even OC. The 2400 looks like a good value, IMO, a 3.1Ghz quad for <$200. I'll be upgrading from a stock Q6600. Considering these will be ~20% faster clock-for-clock compared to current i series, it should be a nice upgrade.

Hats off to you as well, this is probably why I'll go with the 2500k as opposed to the 2600k. If all you do is web surf and play older games I would probably run that for another year or two. Buy what you need.

 

[Sp12]

Still on an OC'd Q6600, hoping to make it until socket 2011/bulldzoer for an octacore. Holding out for Ivy Bridge would be ideal but I'm afraid I'll be notably CPU limited before then.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Umm...no, that's 25&#37; after considering clock frequency increases from current offerings. Obviously a 2500 @ 3.3ghz is going to be 25% faster than a stock Core i5 760 @ 2.8ghz at the same price. You are not comparing apples-to-apples. There will be certain applications where SB will be faster by 20%, especially those which will take advantage of new instruction sets. But overall, I doubt SB will be as much of a performance boost as Nehalem was over Conroe/Penryn.

Another review here also shows 5-10% gains, outside of cinebench, SC2 and video encoding.

Well for crying out loud . You guys can't have it both ways . AT talks up AMD because of price performance . If you buy a SB at the same price as present intel stock . It will be 20%+ faster . Thats without AVX and encoding future gains . AVX will change alot of things.
So dollar for dollar SB is an easy 20% faster ,How it does it is nit picking. Its like fitting the chip into your own reality . I have gone along with AMD value thing . For those who pinch pennies . But I won't go along with the Clock for clock thing if AMD is value packed . SB is going to be 60% faster than a 4 core AMD . So were should AMD price things. Everthing $100 or less?? . Amd can't sell at that price. InPAI reviews are way off the mark . If you buy a 2600K . Its highly unlikely you willl run memory below 1600. Fact is if you buy 2600K your doing so to O/C it rather than pick up 8 threads. If so buy the 2500K but you would still likely run memory at 1600+. Go back look at all the INPAI reviews there all slow compaired to release reviews

 

[nyker96]

Still on an OC'd Q6600, hoping to make it until socket 2011/bulldzoer for an octacore. Holding out for Ivy Bridge would be ideal but I'm afraid I'll be notably CPU limited before then.

I don't think any of us needs lots cpu for daily usage patterns, in fact my x4 620/3,25 is bit much for my web browsing and occasional C#/Ruby coding projects. But it's a different story for games, definitely could use a bit more cpu there.

considering how well sandy is running and the fact that Ivy will be delivered H2 2011, this isn't looking too good for Bulldozer. The power saving of Sandy is already quite impressive, with Ivy, the clock potential and power saving means you can oc to crazy level. I hope I can hold off the upgrade impulse until Ivy/BD shows up, 2011 is going to be a great CPU year!

 

[scrubman]

I'm bumping up from the Q6600 to the 2600k. Does anyone know if the 2600k SB will be compatible with the 2011 mobo's? If so I would go cheap now and then get a hi end 2011for built in 2x x16 PCIe and more USB3 and SATA3.

 

[Markfw]

I am not doing socket 1155 with a GPU. I am not paying for something I am not using.

 

[Sp12]

I am not doing socket 1155 with a GPU. I am not paying for something I am not using.

A: There's no additional cost to the end user compared to current i7s. The 2600K is the same price as the i7-950, faster, and has an integrated GPU to boot.

B: By that logic you shouldn't be purchasing any CPU because there's tons of legacy x86 instructions/extensions taking up diespace/efficiency on current chips.

 

[Dark Shroud]

I'm bumping up from the Q6600 to the 2600k. Does anyone know if the 2600k SB will be compatible with the 2011 mobo's? If so I would go cheap now and then get a hi end 2011for built in 2x x16 PCIe and more USB3 and SATA3.

LGA 1155 & LGA 2011 will not be compatible. It's the same as the current LGA 1156 & LGA 1366.

I am not doing socket 1155 with a GPU. I am not paying for something I am not using.

Of all the things you could complain about that's just silly. It's not costing you more and the GPU cores are actually usful compared to old IGPs. Like old IGPs if you don't want it you can probably disable it in the bios.

 

[RussianSensation]

I'm bumping up from the Q6600 to the 2600k. Does anyone know if the 2600k SB will be compatible with the 2011 mobo's? If so I would go cheap now and then get a hi end 2011for built in 2x x16 PCIe and more USB3 and SATA3.

Sockets 1155 and 2011 are not be pin compatible. So, you won't be able to buy a 2600k and use it in the 2011 mobo just like you cannot use a socket 1156 cpu in a 1366 mobo.

 

[sxr7171]

That's true, though a gamer on a limited budget would get better results with an overclocked cheap chip and more $ spent on video/ram vs. more expensive mobo/cpu and weaker video/ram. Even just $100 saved is the difference between cards of distinct performance differences, and it goes on up of course (2 well chosen ~$200 cards in CF are typically better than one ~$300 gpu, so that extra $100 can make a big difference at every step).

I know if I had to choose between an i7-980x w/GTX460 vs. i5-760 w/GTX580, there'd be no contest which would game better. Crazily enough the i7-980x system would probably still be more expensive, even with a massively weaker GPU.

True but it all depends on what one defines as an "enthusiast". For a gamer the sensible option is exactly as you have detailed.

 

[Rifter]

A: There's no additional cost to the end user compared to current i7s. The 2600K is the same price as the i7-950, faster, and has an integrated GPU to boot.

B: By that logic you shouldn't be purchasing any CPU because there's tons of legacy x86 instructions/extensions taking up diespace/efficiency on current chips.

I actually agree with mark, sure you can disable it but its still taking up die space.

And more die space than legacy x86 instructions. I would much rather have the die space of the IGP go towards either more cache or more cores if i have no intention of ever using the IGP.

Although 1155 does have its purpose, will make a great workstation CPU, and will be great for users who do not game as they will save money over having to purchase a discreet GPU.

 

[Markfw]

I actually agree with mark, sure you can disable it but its still taking up die space.

And more die space than legacy x86 instructions. I would much rather have the die space of the IGP go towards either more cache or more cores if i have no intention of ever using the IGP.

Although 1155 does have its purpose, will make a great workstation CPU, and will be great for users who do not game as they will save money over having to purchase a discreet GPU.

WE have a winner ! I will do socket 2011, supposedly same arch, but no IGP.

 

[IntelUser2000]

And more die space than legacy x86 instructions. I would much rather have the die space of the IGP go towards either more cache or more cores if i have no intention of ever using the IGP.

It's not a waste for you though. Because you are buying a part that which will be shipped in massive volumes, the extra insignificant cost is paid off by those who will use the function. Which is why the dedicated performance parts like S1356/S1366/S2011 are much more expensive.

There is no doubt space taken up by the graphics but due to the irregularity of the die, making a seperate die without the graphics will likely make it more expensive, not the other way around.

BTW these two are likely the same thing for enthusiast point of view, unless you are buying Xeon chips:

S1356/S2011