Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Is 2600K Sandy Bridge any good for CPU intensive applications vs 980?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 19, 2011 4:16:33 PM

Hi guys, i am planning to build a Desktop but this is not for gaming. I will be using it heavily for CPU intensive applications.
Multi-tasking.. downloading, Using VMWare and installing Linux plus some databases on it, planning to attach a RACK on SAN for storing backup and mediafiles, setting up home automation server on it.. etc So there will be a lot going on this computer. I do games on Xbox hence i dont intend to use it for games. But i do plan to add a decent GPU. However...

Kindly guide me.. is SandyBridge i7 2600K better or i7 980 better for my requirements for heavy application and software use.
I heard SB is better for games.. but is it for multi-tasking and applications. I know 980 is expensive and 600 dollars more, but i do understand you have to spend if you have specific requirements... hence i can pull out 1000 dollars from my w2 returns.. :) 
But if SB does better job, this will be my bonus :bounce: 
Please guide.
January 19, 2011 5:17:50 PM

sandy bridge along with a descent P67 motherboard is neck to neck with the 980 and in some benchmarks even greater but the thing is that sandy bridge saves you like 700 $ as compared to 980 my vote is for SB.....also SB is better for gaming because it vibrates at a frequency of 3.4GHz stock and can turbo upto 3.8GHz and can also be over-clocked to 4.4 GHz on air cooling and on water cooling as much as 5 GHz as games dont require QUANTITY of the CORES but instead QUALITY of CORES so SB is BETTER for gaming PS(it also has an intergerated Dx 10.1 GPU which 980 doesn't)
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2011 5:24:03 PM

The 2600 is a faster chip then the 980. The 980 isn't worth nearly the price its selling for now.
m
0
l
Related resources
January 19, 2011 5:25:43 PM

Thanks for your reply. I have read that SB is good for Gaming. BUT i dont intend to use this desktop for gaming.. I prefer Xbox.
Guys.. a desktop does more than games!!

I reiterate this desktop is ONLY for heavy application and software use + multi-tasking. Please read my post again.
Cos 980 has 6 cores, it handles multi-threaded applications and multi-tasking more effectively.
THere is a huge SB fever going around.. but hardcore enthusiast swear by the power of 980
m
0
l
a c 81 à CPUs
January 19, 2011 5:33:18 PM

Keep in mind tht this are the mid range SB processors.. There might be more to come with more cores possibly.. As for your requirements, as stated above, the i7 2600k gets my vote too over the 980X..
m
0
l
January 20, 2011 5:29:00 AM

look man as i said its not about the QUANTITY of CORES it ALL about the QUALITY of CORES when you see an amd 1090t BE phenom ii x6 why is it slower than the i7 why??why?? because their cores are not as MATURE as the intels CORES i recommend that get the i7 2600k also it has a dx 10.1 GPU And most aplicattions such as photoshop,3d studio max require a GPU so get the i7 2600k
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 20, 2011 5:43:07 AM

Simply put, the i7 2600K will be better for anything 4 cores or under. If the applications you are using can utilize all 12 threads of the 980X, then you'll get a 25-30% advantage with the 980x

Not worth an extra $700 IMO, but up to the buyer
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 20, 2011 5:45:24 AM

If virtualization is important, you might want to go with the non-K 2600. Intel nerfs the VT a bit on the K's not giving them VT-d. Anyways, did you check out Anand's to see if their benchmarks are applicable?

Crappy time to be in the high-end market, but for the price difference between the i7-980x and the i5-2500, you could buy another nice box. Setting up a separated low power file server in addition to a general purposed machine would be the way to go. Soon enough the Sandy Bridge dual cores will be coming out after all.
m
0
l
January 20, 2011 3:15:49 PM

look man if you really want to buy a 980x get the SECOND GENERATION 980 X or as i would like to call it 990 X :bounce: 
m
0
l

Best solution

January 20, 2011 3:35:52 PM

Your question is difficult to answer. The 2600K is faster in instructions per second for a single thread. However, the 980 is faster for applications that need the additional cores. Take a look at this page. The 980 excels with the POV test. Note that the POV test does a lot of CPU work without any I/O (ie: nothing interrupts the process; it is in a tight program loop).

It gets more complicated when you have a computer running a lot of apps at the same time. When many processes run for relatively short time spans, other factors come into play that limit performance. When they do any I/O to a hard drive or wait for input from the user, the process gets put on hold, which allows the OS to run other queued processes. So, lots of I/O will bottle neck multiple processes running at the same time, expecially if they are contending for the same hard drive(s) or output to the monitor.

Any database intensive application is going to be bottle necked by I/O. Using SSDs in a RAID configuration here would significantly improve performance over a faster CPU. This is the issue that internet servers run into. Ultimately, the slowest component in the computer (which is usually the hard drives) determines the overall performance.

You could spend $700 more for the 980 and end up getting no better performance than the 2600K offers. It's up to you.
Share
January 29, 2011 1:02:58 AM

Best answer selected by holyindian.
m
0
l
!