MrK6
Diamond Member
- Aug 9, 2004
- 4,458
- 4
- 81
Oh, I didn't know you were staying with the 2600K over the 3770K, makes me feel even more sound in my decision.
Truth be told, I actually keep the 2500K at 4.8GHz most of the time because it only needs a smidgen of voltage to get there, but most of the benchmarking I do I keep at 5.0GHz because it's a nice round number. Really, I haven't found any application that taxes the CPU at 4.8GHz, nevermind 5.0GHz. I caught an i5-750 in between, but I agree that I probably could have kept my Q6600 @ 3.6GHz circa 2007 until now and still have had a pleasant gaming experience today.
Performance/watt interests me, but my entire system already idles at 75W from the wall, I'm not sure how much more benefit I'll get. On the flip side, it doesn't seem like I'll be able to squeeze much more performance out of the high end due to the silicon limitations we're already seeing with Ivy Bridge (hopefully that changes). While higher efficiency under load is desirable, most of my load comes from running my GPU @ 100% mining while my CPU idles.
I think the most tangible benefit for me will come from the new mobile processors. However, Intel has a tough situation to compete with since my Acer 3820TG 13.3" notebook at just under 4lbs. still gets 8 hrs.+ useable battery life, and the 400 shader 6550m plays BF3 and other modern games easily while the Sandy Bridge chip can overclock to 3.4 GHz+. I'd only upgrade if I can get something with similar battery life and performance, but is lighter and comes with an IPS screen in the same price range (<$800). I'm not sure if my notebook was way ahead of its time, or that tech has stagnated so much that it's a tough act to follow. Either way, Intel will have to work for my dollar.
Thanks for the info. :thumbsup:
Truth be told, I actually keep the 2500K at 4.8GHz most of the time because it only needs a smidgen of voltage to get there, but most of the benchmarking I do I keep at 5.0GHz because it's a nice round number. Really, I haven't found any application that taxes the CPU at 4.8GHz, nevermind 5.0GHz. I caught an i5-750 in between, but I agree that I probably could have kept my Q6600 @ 3.6GHz circa 2007 until now and still have had a pleasant gaming experience today.
Performance/watt interests me, but my entire system already idles at 75W from the wall, I'm not sure how much more benefit I'll get. On the flip side, it doesn't seem like I'll be able to squeeze much more performance out of the high end due to the silicon limitations we're already seeing with Ivy Bridge (hopefully that changes). While higher efficiency under load is desirable, most of my load comes from running my GPU @ 100% mining while my CPU idles.
I think the most tangible benefit for me will come from the new mobile processors. However, Intel has a tough situation to compete with since my Acer 3820TG 13.3" notebook at just under 4lbs. still gets 8 hrs.+ useable battery life, and the 400 shader 6550m plays BF3 and other modern games easily while the Sandy Bridge chip can overclock to 3.4 GHz+. I'd only upgrade if I can get something with similar battery life and performance, but is lighter and comes with an IPS screen in the same price range (<$800). I'm not sure if my notebook was way ahead of its time, or that tech has stagnated so much that it's a tough act to follow. Either way, Intel will have to work for my dollar.
Thanks for the info. :thumbsup: