970 or 2600K

[asarvo09]

I've been pretty keen on getting an Intel Core i7 2600K for my new pc but I've since started to consider the Intel Core i7 970.

There is a bit of a difference in price in Australia. 2600K is $370 while the 970 is $610.

But I'm not really stressed out by the extra $240.

I'm gonna be using the pc mainly for gaming, uni work and movie watching.

The 970 has 6 cores and 12MB of cache.

The 2600K has 4 cores and 8MB of cache.

There are overclocking capabilities on both CPU's.

My question is:

Is it worth paying the extra money for a 970 over the 2600K?

And:

What advantages/disadvantages would I get from switching from P67 to X58?

 

[kilobravo]

I would get i5-2500k,for the tasks you have specified,and use the saved money on mobo

 

[jonowee]

I'm gonna be using the pc mainly for gaming, uni work and movie watching.

kilobravo, I concur.

Also put some of the $$ savings towards a better graphics card.

 

[ciksas]

Gaming=good GPU>CPU

 

[Ya93sin]

It makes so much more sense to go with:

• Intel i5-2500K (c. $215)
• P8P67 (Deluxe or whichever) or Asus Sabertooth (c.$220)

For about $450 or so you get the best gaming CPU for the money (if not the best when you overclock it, which gives another massive advantage).

For gaming, movie watching and work, the answer to your question is a resounding no imo.

Maybe the cost doesn't stress you but personally I would be over the moon if I could save on an expensive CPU and get a great CPU/Mobo instead, with $150 still in hand, that $150 would get you an SSD or some RAM, something very nice to make your rig even faster.

 

[Karlos_the_n00b]

I'm gonna be using the pc mainly for gaming, uni work and movie watching.

Unless your uni work involves some major rendering than anything more than a 2500K is a waste of money in all honesty.

You'd be better off putting the money you save into your system elsewhere. Eg, SLI/CF, SSD, better monitor, better soundcard/speaker setup

 

[Madbaron]

I also had the same problem when trying to choose a CPU, i was going to go for the 970 however doing more research into this and watching ALOT of tom's videos i found out quickly how powerful the 2600k is. In pretty much every test particually for gaming the 2600k overclocked to roughly 4.5mhz (can be set higher, obviously) completely destroys the 970 and even the new 990x overclocked when it came to games. Also on the plus side it runs cooler and uses less power compared with other 900 series variants.

However the main reason why i choose the 2600k over the 2500k is that the 2600k has hyperthreading where as the 2500k does not and for me its a little more "Future Proof" if you suddenly change your hobbies and want to do video/audio or graphic work the 2600k can do it with ease and the threads that it comes with reinforces that. Price really wasn't the main factor in my decision but being half the price of the 970 and 1/5 of the price of the 990x its a clear Bang/Buck CPU.

This is just my opinion in the switch between X58 and the P67 was really only the memory panels and PCIe lanes available to run multiple GPU's, however pretty much everything else has been upgraded to the P67 boards but it really depends on your choice of board and the usage you will do.

I love the 2600k

 

[Ya93sin]

In pretty much every test particually for gaming the 2600k overclocked to roughly 4.5mhz (can be set higher, obviously) completely destroys the 970 and even the new 990x overclocked when it came to games. Also on the plus side it runs cooler and uses less power compared with other 900 series variants.

4.5MHz?

Faster than the 990x at that speed, Intel are on to a winner

 

[Excalabur50]

After all the forums you gotta go the 2600K and think about the Gigabyte UD7 Mobo as it runs 2 cards at 16x where the Asus runs at 8x, and stick a Noctua D-14 on top!!=Win

 

[Karlos_the_n00b]

After all the forums you gotta go the 2600K and think about the Gigabyte UD7 Mobo as it runs 2 cards at 16x where the Asus runs at 8x, and stick a Noctua D-14 on top!!=Win

You only need x16/x16 if your running a multi monitor setup. If your only running one monitor than there is next to no difference between x16/x16 and x8/x8. You should bare this in mind when choosing a mobo.

 

[Madbaron]

This pretty much tells the tale

Processors:

AMD Phenom II X6 1100T (Thuban, 6 cores, 3.3 GHz, 6 MB L3);

Intel Core i7-2600K (Sandy Bridge, 4 cores, 3.4 GHz, 8 MB L3);

Intel Core i5-2500K (Sandy Bridge, 4 cores, 3.3 GHz, 6 MB L3);

Intel Core i7-990X Extreme Edition (Gulftown, 6 cores, 3.46 GHz, 12 MB L3).

Intel Core i7-970 (Gulftown, 6 cores, 3.2 GHz, 12 MB L3);

Intel Core i7-960 (Bloomfiled, 4 cores, 3.2 GHz, 8 MB L3);

Intel Core i7-875K (Lynnfiled, 4 cores, 2.93 GHz, 8 MB L3).

CPU cooler: Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme with Enermax Everest fan;

Mainboards:

ASUS Crosshair IV Formula (Socket AM3, AMD 890FX + SB850, DDR3 SDRAM);

Gigabyte P55A-UD6 (LGA1156, Intel P55 Express);

ASUS P8P67 Deluxe (LGA1155, Intel P67 Express);

Gigabyte X58A-UD5 (LGA1366, Intel X58 Express).

Memory:

2 x 2 GB, DDR3-1600 SDRAM, 9-9-9-27 (Kingston KHX1600C8D3K2/4GX);

x 2 GB, DDR3-1600 SDRAM, 9-9-9-27 (Crucial BL3KIT25664TG1608).

Graphics card: ATI Radeon HD 6970.

Hard drive: Kingston SNVP325-S2/128GB.

Power supply unit: Tagan TG880-U33II (880 W).

Operating system: Microsoft Windows 7 SP1 Ultimate x64.

Drivers:

Intel Chipset Driver 9.2.0.1025;

Intel Rapid Storage Technology 10.​​1.​​0.​​1008;

ATI Catalyst 11.2 Display Driver.

]

As its shown both the 2600k and the 990x can be overclocked significally higher then it stock state, however even when both a overclocked high, the 2600k is still the clear winner.

 

[Karlos_the_n00b]

So if your a gamer and you go for the 2600K over the 2500K then your basically shelling out that extra 100 quid for 1.6 extra frames in metro and less than 1 frame in far cry

Other gaming results I've seen for these chips pretty much mirror this.

 

[Madbaron]

The only real difference i can see between the 2500k and the 2600k is the hyper-threading ability, which helps if you do other things other then playing games like i do.

 

[Karlos_the_n00b]

The only real difference i can see between the 2500k and the 2600k is the hyper-threading ability, which helps if you do other things other then playing games like i do.

I appreciate that. That's why I started the sentence by saying "if your a gamer".

For those who do any sort of rendering or tasks to that nature then I would always recommend the 2600K as it's got twice the threads of the 2500K so you would defiantly notice the difference there. For anyone doing extensive amounts of rendering I'd even recommend one of the x58 hex core.

But if you just use your PC for gaming 90% of the time then you'd really just be better off with the 2500K and stick that extra 100 quid in your system elsewhere in the form of an SSD, better graphics card setup, memory maybe, soundcard/speakers or even in a savings account ready for your next rig.