Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Intel Core i7 2600k slower than Intel Core i7 875k

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Intel i7
  • Intel
  • Overclocking
Last response: in Overclocking
January 20, 2011 9:48:25 AM

Hello. I had the Intel Core i7 875k overclocked @ 4.1Ghz, and with my benchmark Adobe Premiere CS5 project, Adobe encoded the video in

1) 6m 36s

Now, with the Intel Core i7 2600k overclocked @ 4.5Ghz, I open the exact same project, and the result is

2) 7m 10s

I know that the Intel Core i7 2nd Generation sucks because of the fact that the speed is 100Mhz, so the CPU will communicate with your motherboard at 100Mhz

So, FSB reduced to 50%

My question is, why are the benchmarks all over the net saying that the Intel Core i7 2600k is the fastest thing on the planet? I mean, they rank the CPU REALLY high, but in real life I'm seeing something really different

Maybe I forgot to crank up the CPU settings in the Bios somewhere?

I have MSI P67A-GD55

Thanks in advance

More about : intel core 2600k slower intel core 875k

January 20, 2011 10:46:10 AM

First off the 2600k is not the fastest thing on the planet, the six core I7 gen 1 are much faster. But the 2600k is quite fast at stock compared to the lower end first gen I7. You are not compeating at the same level by overclocking and you are assuming that the 2600k is suppose to be faster then all gen 1 I7s.
m
0
l
January 20, 2011 11:05:42 PM

deweycd said:
First off the 2600k is not the fastest thing on the planet, the six core I7 gen 1 are much faster. But the 2600k is quite fast at stock compared to the lower end first gen I7. You are not compeating at the same level by overclocking and you are assuming that the 2600k is suppose to be faster then all gen 1 I7s.



so why all the benchmarks say the Intel Core i7 2600k is faster than both the Intel Core i7 875k and 950?



so do you think the Intel Core i7 875k can be actually faster than the 2600k?
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 139 à CPUs
a c 243 K Overclocking
January 20, 2011 11:43:24 PM

rafarataneneces said:
so why all the benchmarks say the Intel Core i7 2600k is faster than both the Intel Core i7 875k and 950?



so do you think the Intel Core i7 875k can be actually faster than the 2600k?


hmmm ... becnhmark ! yes in internet many good review .. this strategy marketing
defferent system ..I think. can cause that. :D 


m
0
l
a c 451 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a c 281 K Overclocking
January 20, 2011 11:53:38 PM

Gaming is not everything .... the 2600 may be a great gamer but peeps are starting to find that quite often "work" still gets done faster on 1366 / 1156 boxes.
m
0
l
January 21, 2011 6:22:20 AM

I often wonder are those CPUs provided to the online review sites really mass production CPU or some kind of twicked CPU OR best pick from the lot. If Intel supplies the review sites twicked CPU, then these bench mark test results aren't realistic at all.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
January 21, 2011 1:22:02 PM

deweycd said:
First off the 2600k is not the fastest thing on the planet, the six core I7 gen 1 are much faster. But the 2600k is quite fast at stock compared to the lower end first gen I7. You are not compeating at the same level by overclocking and you are assuming that the 2600k is suppose to be faster then all gen 1 I7s.

2600K is much faster than first gen i7 at the same frequency as well.

Anandtech: The Sandy Bridge Preview

Furthermore, 2600K can be OCed to much higher frequency than first gen i7.
m
0
l
a c 139 à CPUs
a c 243 K Overclocking
January 22, 2011 12:35:47 AM

andy5174 said:
2600K is much faster than first gen i7 at the same frequency as well.

Anandtech: The Sandy Bridge Preview

Furthermore, 2600K can be OCed to much higher frequency than first gen i7.




I do not believe completely with the results becnmark, however, But I would believe from sharing it, as many users use the same cpu but other hardware differences

diferrent system diferrent score, temperature, voltage..! :D 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
January 22, 2011 4:27:54 AM

I have used both the 2600K and the i7 870 (same as the stock 875K) and the 2600K is generally faster. Sometimes not by much, and sometimes by a great deal

I have never run something that I would consider the i7 870 faster in though
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
January 22, 2011 4:40:08 AM

bearclaw99 said:
I have used both the 2600K and the i7 870 (same as the stock 875K) and the 2600K is generally faster. Sometimes not by much, and sometimes by a great deal

I have never run something that I would consider the i7 870 faster in though

That's because both CPUs are overkill in most cases.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b K Overclocking
January 22, 2011 5:25:28 AM

I am not surprised by your personal video encoding benchmarks.

When Intel first introduced the Core i7 860 LGA 1156 cpu it had a very slight edge over the Core i7 920 LGA 1366 cpu when running mainstream professional applications. That is exactly why I built a Core i7 860 for my own personal system. Although I am retired I still do semi-professional photo and video work.

There have been reviews, articles, and comparisons that suggest there is not much of a reason to upgrade to a new Intel Core i7 2XXX LGA 1155 system if you have a perfectly good Core i7 8XX or 9XX system used for mainstream professional work. Personally I do not plan to upgrade.

You have learned a valuable lesson the hard way. The vast majority of the benchmarks in technical reviews are either synthetic or they do not accurately reflect real work. Your own personal results clearly demonstrate that. That is one of the great things about building your own computer. You can experiment and see what works best for you.

Hardcore gamers into extreme overclocking who are about to go on a suicide mission to save our planet from total destruction by alien invaders from another galaxy should completely ignore this post. PC enthusiasts who want to see just how far they can push a system should also ignore this post.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
January 22, 2011 12:15:15 PM

rafarataneneces said:
Hello. I had the Intel Core i7 875k overclocked @ 4.1Ghz, and with my benchmark Adobe Premiere CS5 project, Adobe encoded the video in

1) 6m 36s

Now, with the Intel Core i7 2600k overclocked @ 4.5Ghz, I open the exact same project, and the result is

2) 7m 10s

I know that the Intel Core i7 2nd Generation sucks because of the fact that the speed is 100Mhz, so the CPU will communicate with your motherboard at 100Mhz

So, FSB reduced to 50%

My question is, why are the benchmarks all over the net saying that the Intel Core i7 2600k is the fastest thing on the planet? I mean, they rank the CPU REALLY high, but in real life I'm seeing something really different

Maybe I forgot to crank up the CPU settings in the Bios somewhere?

I have MSI P67A-GD55

Thanks in advance


Dude, not sure where you get your information but you should have done some research. Your "upgrade" was actually a downgrade in terms of "work".
The 875K has 4 cores plus hyperthreading. The 2600K does NOT have hyperthreading, so of course it's going to be slower in video encoding, lol.

All the gamer kids (psychosaysdie) are going to tell you the 2600K is the fastest thing on the planet, it's not.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
January 22, 2011 12:25:53 PM

geekapproved said:
Dude, not sure where you get your information but you should have done some research. Your "upgrade" was actually a downgrade in terms of "work".
The 875K has 4 cores plus hyperthreading. The 2600K does NOT have hyperthreading, so of course it's going to be slower in video encoding, lol.

All the gamer kids (psychosaysdie) are going to tell you the 2600K is the fastest thing on the planet, it's not.

Noob, stop spreading misinformation!

Check the link below before you speak.
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=52214&processor=i7...
m
0
l
January 22, 2011 4:49:33 PM

rafarataneneces said:
Hello. I had the Intel Core i7 875k overclocked @ 4.1Ghz, and with my benchmark Adobe Premiere CS5 project, Adobe encoded the video in

1) 6m 36s

Now, with the Intel Core i7 2600k overclocked @ 4.5Ghz, I open the exact same project, and the result is

2) 7m 10s


Are these systems equal otherwise? Do both use the same amount of memory? If GPU/CUDA acceleration was enabled, was it enabled on both computers and did both computers use the same GPU clocked at the same speed?

According to http://www.ppbm5.com 2600k should perform faster on almost everything in premiere. What kind of premiere project do you have?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
January 23, 2011 3:18:46 PM

zefelder said:
Are these systems equal otherwise? Do both use the same amount of memory? If GPU/CUDA acceleration was enabled, was it enabled on both computers and did both computers use the same GPU clocked at the same speed?

According to http://www.ppbm5.com 2600k should perform faster on almost everything in premiere. What kind of premiere project do you have?


^+1. I've got the same feeling that this has to do with the i7-875K system having a better video card that can use CDUA while the i7-2600K system either has a much weaker card of one that cannot run CUDA. Sandy Bridge performs about 15% better clock for clock against a previous gen i7-i5 with the same number of cores, and with the extra clock speed the i7-2600K has it should be beating the i7 handily. If want want a true CPU vs. CPU benchmark using premiere you'll need to either have the same cards in both systems with the exact same clocks or disable hardware acceleration.
m
0
l
January 25, 2011 11:01:04 AM

If you are overclocking, memory speed has to be increased to take advantage of the increased CPU speed, to keep it fed with data. A 2600K running at 5GHz will waste a lot of cycles waiting on the system memory if it is not fast, that will impact performance a great deal.

EDIT:

This applies to the 2600K, and most of them can be overclocked higher on air, some much higher, than older i7 CPUs, such as the i7-875.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2011 5:37:07 AM

Probably RAM speed. Did you set it on the new system?
m
0
l
January 30, 2011 1:40:45 AM

I REMOVED GAUSSIAN BLUR in Adobe Premiere CS5

and this video exported in 3 minutes, the speed was impressive

so right now I have no idea exactly how fast will Intel Core i7 875k encode this exact same video

With Gaussian Blur 3, it takes around 6 minutes, so I think that Gaussian Blur is a CPU killer, no matter what CPU speed you have

So it was a bad idea to test with that setting on
m
0
l
a c 139 à CPUs
a c 243 K Overclocking
January 30, 2011 5:40:15 PM

Yeach adobe ae , premiere need real strong cpu , big ram and good vga addon , adobe very fast with nvidia because cuda . So.. sense you must find bencmark sandy compare i7 875k in adobe and rendering video . who is faster ...find in google search !
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 13, 2011 3:24:49 PM

Just to make mention, I thought the guy said 2500k, not 2600k. I'm actually now wondering if he changed it.

We all knew the 2600k had hyperthreading weeks if not months before it was even released.
m
0
l
February 13, 2011 4:21:08 PM

Danra said:
If you are overclocking, memory speed has to be increased to take advantage of the increased CPU speed, to keep it fed with data.


This was more of a concern when the FSB was cranked as well as the multiplier, as the RAM "rides on the bus" :) 

The Sandy Bridge overclocking is multiplier only, so you don't get any real benefit from the much faster RAM.

I've overclocked 2500Ks to 5.0 GHz with nothing more than 1600 MHz RAM, and plopping in 2000 MHz RAM on the same system gave no difference in benchmark performances, at all.

For my 5.27 GHz Gulftown, which is not a Sandy Bridge (of course), I needed 2000 MHz RAM. Going to 2200 made no difference.
m
0
l
February 13, 2011 11:52:30 PM

Quote:
What benchmarks are you running with the different speeds of ram? Also DDR3 1600? Kinda slow for a 2600K system. I can definitely tell a difference between DDR3 1600 and 2000 but i have an SSD


An SSD should matter unless you are running something that is accessing a file from the disk.

A battery of the CPU benchmarks can be found here: (substitute Liquid Nitrogen Overclocking . com for the stars)

i7-980X @ 5.27 GHz
http://www.****/trinity_lightning.shtml

i5-2500K @ 5.08 GHz
http://www.****/trinity_plutonium_i.shtml

i7-2600K @ 5.00 GHz
http://www.****/trinity_plutonium_ii.shtml
m
0
l
April 21, 2011 12:28:54 AM

I am hoping to get some input from you all. The situation I've experienced is very similar to the original post.

I've been waiting and waiting to play around with a 2nd Gen Intel CPU machine and finally got to do so today. It was a Lenovo m91p with i7 Core 2600. This machine has 4GB of RAM, runs Win7x64 and has a 10K WD Velociraptor HDD.

I use Photoshop Lightroom 3 and Photoshop Extended CS5 mostly and I have play with numerous machines in the past and I actually came up with my own way of timing a certain task to give me an idea how fast this "same task" runs on various machines.

To my utter disappointment, this i7 Core 2600 machine runs slower than a i7 870!!! By a lot! Have any of you out there experienced this? I am very puzzled. All the hype about how fast Sandy Bridge is.... and now I am not even sure if I want it.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b K Overclocking
April 21, 2011 12:52:39 AM

timsu - This thread is an old one from last January. You would have been better off starting a new thread.

Adobe Photoshop Products have not kept up with advances in pc technology. However, there are adjustments you can make that might help. Here is a link to the official Adobe suggestions for tweaking a pc and operating system for optimal performance:

http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/404/kb404439.html

The article contains links to additional useful information.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
April 22, 2011 10:02:34 AM

Why did you even upgrade to a sandybridge when you already had a i7 system?..Even if it was faster it's not worth the extra $500 upgrade...Plus you will only see the difference in benchmarks..I upgraded from a AMD Athlon duel core to a i5 2500k and i notice a huge difference in gaming but for you coming from a i7 already you won't notice a difference..

m
0
l
April 24, 2011 2:02:00 AM

Adobe products are RAM hungry. Get more ram!
m
0
l