Intel i7-970 Vs. Intel i7-2600K (Big Confusion)

[CHRiTTeR]

Its a close battle... in some cases the 970 wins in others the 2600k.


But the 2600k has lower powerconsumption.

The 2600k has faster single core speed (which is good for all the non-threaded software out there, which is still allot).

Also, the 2600k has a more recent launch date which makes me believe (so im not sure) that it has more up to date features.

dont know which one is cheaper though, which also is an important factor imho

[sentry66]

2600k is a beast of an overclocker

but the socket 1366 platform has 6 ram slots instead of 4 and features triple channel memory support. The 1366 platform feels snappier and more responsive to me even though the 2600k has faster single threaded performance.

That said, the 1366 platform is pretty much dead now. The 2011 socket comes out in a few months with quad channel memory support, but it looks like boards will only have 4 ram slots which feels like a step backwards to me - can't they fit 8 slots?

There's not many 8 gig ram sticks on the market yet, so I much prefer having more than 4 ram slots at least right now.

[rebolt]

2600k is a beast of an overclocker

but the socket 1366 platform has 6 ram slots instead of 4 and features triple channel memory support. The 1366 platform feels snappier and more responsive to me even though the 2600k has faster single threaded performance.

That said, the 1366 platform is pretty much dead now. The 2011 socket comes out in a few months with quad channel memory support, but it looks like boards will only have 4 ram slots which feels like a step backwards to me - can't they fit 8 slots?

There's not many 8 gig ram sticks on the market yet, so I much prefer having more than 4 ram slots at least right now.

So what do you suggest ? Some people are saying that as the i7-2600K is build on SandyBridge which is the latest generation processor and faster in performance than old Nehalem processors like i7-970

[rebolt]

dont know which one is cheaper though, which also is an important factor imho

i7-970 is double the price of i7-2600k

[olson]

One is older technology but has more cores. The other is newer technology but with fewer cores. What else do you want to know? If price is a factor then get the cheaper one.

[sentry66]

IMO it depends on what your needs are. If I had to pick a system that I was stuck using for the next couple years with no chance of upgrading, I'd go with the i7 6 core. It's a more professional platform, has more ultimate processing power, and is snappier than the 1155 platform.

If I knew I was going to be able to throw some more money at the system a year from now, I'd go with the sandy bridge.

The sandy bridge is a much better choice as far as price and upgrading. Down the road you could get a 6 or 8 core ivy bridge cpu running at faster speeds. Having only 4 ram slots likely means 16 gigs of ram for right now unless you pay the premium for the much more expensive and slightly slower 8 gig sticks, but I'm sure they'll drop in price and increase in speed 6-12 months from now.

IMO if you have lots of apps open, rendering in the background, and wanting things to be snappy as you do different things, the 6 core i7 is better. If you mainly use just one or two open programs at a time and don't slam the machine down hard on a regular basis, the sandy bridge is probably better.

Or wait 4 months for the socket 2011 boards to come out which is pretty much the best of both worlds

[CHRiTTeR]

If the 970 is double the price, then go for the 2600k, no doubt!

[sentry66]

just the cpu is double the price

in the end, the computer would be $300 more, but would offer around 30% more total processing power than the sandy bridge.

After using both systems, the 1366 platform is obvious to me why intel considers it to be a higher end platform despite the sandy bridge being newer and more potent per core. The sandy bridge systems do make awesome cheap rendernodes though

[CHRiTTeR]

just the cpu is double the price

i know
in the end, the computer would be $300 more, but would offer around 30% more total processing power than the sandy bridge.

no it wouldnt... they are pretty close in terms of performance

[rebolt]

IMO it depends on what your needs are. If I had to pick a system that I was stuck using for the next couple years with no chance of upgrading, I'd go with the i7 6 core. It's a more professional platform, has more ultimate processing power, and is snappier than the 1155 platform.

If I knew I was going to be able to throw some more money at the system a year from now, I'd go with the sandy bridge.

The sandy bridge is a much better choice as far as price and upgrading. Down the road you could get a 6 or 8 core ivy bridge cpu running at faster speeds. Having only 4 ram slots likely means 16 gigs of ram for right now unless you pay the premium for the much more expensive and slightly slower 8 gig sticks, but I'm sure they'll drop in price and increase in speed 6-12 months from now.

IMO if you have lots of apps open, rendering in the background, and wanting things to be snappy as you do different things, the 6 core i7 is better. If you mainly use just one or two open programs at a time and don't slam the machine down hard on a regular basis, the sandy bridge is probably better.

Or wait 4 months for the socket 2011 boards to come out which is pretty much the best of both worlds


I am not looking forward to upgrade after one more year, i want my new machine to run for atleast 2-3 years comfortably. Plus i work heavily on Fumefx, RealFlow and particle stuff which i think run on all the cores and sucks all the ram they get. Also i do run my system 24/7 for rendering and simulation. So i think i should go for i7-970 (6 core).

[earwax69]

You know your need. But I would not want to use your machine in 3 years! better settle for cheaper that give 90% of the benefits and upgrade again in 1 year and half.

Better spend 800$ each years than 1600$ each 2 years in this consumer friendly era. My 600$ i7 workstation outperform 5000$ 8-cores dual xeon from 2010.

But of course the i7 970 is not exactly super expensive. Go for it dude!

[sentry66]

no it wouldnt... they are pretty close in terms of performance


you're right, out of the box they are.

I overclock my systems, so maximum stable performance is all I ever tend to care about.

A 6-core 980 at 4.4ghz would be about 30% faster than a 4.6ghz 2600k at multithreaded tasks. This claim is based on countless benchmark sites as well as my own personal experience with the two platforms and the testing I've done.

[rebolt]

One is older technology but has more cores. The other is newer technology but with fewer cores. What else do you want to know? If price is a factor then get the cheaper one.

I can spend a little extra price if the extra cores will give advantage to me, but if the i7-2600K would do justice then i will go with that.

[rebolt]

So here's my final configuration, i have been thinking about some choices on grafix card so if you guys can help me out to select the right one.

Intel 2nd Generation Core i7 2600K 3.40G Processor
Asus P8H67-V MotherboardNvidia QuadroFX 580 512MB / 480 / GTS 450 (Choices between these 3)
WD 2 TB Hard Disk Caviar Black 64MB Cache 7200 RPM
Corsair 16 GB DDR3 1600Mhz HeatSink
Sony SATA DVD-RW
Cooler Master Chasis CM 690 II Advance
Corsair TX650
Cooler Master CPU Fan - V6 GT

Is the Caviar Black edition is really a fast and good performance drive in comparison to the normal drives ?

[lollygag]

My 600$ i7 workstation outperform 5000$ 8-cores dual xeon from 2010.



No it wont..

[earwax69]

Well, the first thing I did after my first overclock (3.8ghz) was to benchmark my system against the 2010 mac pro and my i7 was faster. It was before the mac pro upgrade. 8cores Xeon 2.8ghz I think it was... Of course the 2011 sandybridge mac pro is going to be faster now.

But thats the point... you pay 25% of the price and get 80% of the benefits. It's almost criminal to ignore such a deal.

[JohnnyRandom]

I am not looking forward to upgrade after one more year, i want my new machine to run for atleast 2-3 years comfortably. Plus i work heavily on Fumefx, RealFlow and particle stuff which i think run on all the cores and sucks all the ram they get. Also i do run my system 24/7 for rendering and simulation. So i think i should go for i7-970 (6 core).

Firstly I do everything you just listed in terms of work. I have a 6-core 1366 based system. IMO It is stupid to buy a sandy bridge, it is a mainstream chip. While I agree, unless your building a farm, you want the biggest bang for your buck in your workstation. Even if it is only 10% faster and cost 15% more, that is that much less time Every Day that you are Not wasting waiting and that you Are working and making money. Simple economics, you'll make up that difference quite quickly. If you work a 10 hour day that is a bonus hour! If it is 30% faster even better.

Just wait until December when the 1366 replacement will be out then start spending the time to do some research. Your not buying for another year anyway.

About the systems. Two more cores at the same speed are far better especially in terms of simulation and rendering, 12 buckets are better than 8. Even if they are slower, which they wont be, not all buckets render at the same speed)

You also get triple channel memory will the bridge is a little bit slower you can stick a 1/3 more ram in the machine. You can cheaply get 24 gbs instead 16gb, this is huge for FumeFX and Realflow and will certainly help at rendertime with poly heavy fluid meshes.

Come upgrade time, when you get a new machine, your old machine is still viable for simulation and rendering.

Oh and don't spend a bunch of money on quality components and then buy a garbage power supply. ;)

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.