Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Poll: i7 2600k vs i7 980x

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 10, 2011 1:48:16 PM

Please ignore the current Sandy Bridge issues; they will be fixed, AND they only affect SATA 3-Gbps ports which are not going to be used any more as they are old and are being replaced by Sata 6-Gbps which most high-end builds would probably use along with a SSD. Also, even if you were to use Sata 3-Gbps, what the Glitch actually does is slowly degrade the SATA 3-Gbps ports and reduce their performance very slowly, in fact, if Intel never revealed the bug, called Cougar Point, no one would ever notice (Intel estimates a speed degradation of 6 percent over a three-year lifespan)- for more info, check this out on PCMAG.
AND THEY WILL BE FIXED, so please don't talk about them.

Anyways:

The i7 2600k or the 980x,

Which is better?
What is the performance difference?
Is the performance difference worth the $700 price difference?
What are the advantages of both over each other?
Pretty much everything that comes up to your mind about the two.
What do you people think?


More about : poll 2600k 980x

a c 133 à CPUs
February 10, 2011 2:22:27 PM

The 980x is not worth the money at all it wasn't when it came out and it still is not worth its price tag. The Sandy Bridge architecture is much faster, but just wait there are 6 and 8 core variants due out in Q3 of this year which I am sure will be very very impressive.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/287?vs=142

(Edit)Forgot link to benchmark(Edit)
February 10, 2011 2:40:06 PM

It's not a hard question.

2600k.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 10, 2011 3:00:19 PM

What is the performance difference in percent?
February 10, 2011 3:03:36 PM

If you could wait for IVY BRIDGE CPUs, I'm sure those will perform better at a higher percentage than the 2600k or 980x
a b à CPUs
February 10, 2011 5:34:58 PM

About the same, though in some benchmarks, the 2600k is faster...it depends a bit, but I'd say <5% on average, at worst.
a b à CPUs
February 10, 2011 6:26:51 PM

The 2600K is better for most tasks. However, on very heavily threaded applications, the 980X will perform 30-40% better at same clock speed
a c 218 à CPUs
February 10, 2011 6:46:47 PM

Never actually used a 980X but the 2600K is very very fast.
a b à CPUs
February 10, 2011 10:47:39 PM

Yeah the 980X is just not worth it.Only a deluded fool (or a fool with a lot of spare cash to waste) would buy one now.
The i7-2600K is definitely very much worthwhile when those defective chip set motherboards will be replaced.
a b à CPUs
February 10, 2011 11:08:40 PM

Quote:
Please ignore the current Sandy Bridge issues; they will be fixed, AND they only affect SATA 3-Gbps ports which are not going to be used any more as they are old and are being replaced by Sata 6-Gbps which most high-end builds would probably use along with a SSD. Also, even if you were to use Sata 3-Gbps, what the Glitch actually does is slowly degrade the SATA 3-Gbps ports and reduce their performance very slowly, in fact, if Intel never revealed the bug, called Cougar Point, no one would ever notice (Intel estimates a speed degradation of 6 percent over a three-year lifespan)- for more info, check this out on PCMAG.
AND THEY WILL BE FIXED, so please don't talk about them.

Anyways:

The i7 2600k or the 980x,

Which is better?
What is the performance difference?
Is the performance difference worth the $700 price difference?
What are the advantages of both over each other?
Pretty much everything that comes up to your mind about the two.
What do you people think?


Really depends on what your using it for.

If your like most people, that dont tax all 4 cores on a quad core cpu, then the the 2600k is going to be much faster.


Although if you can tax the full power of the 980x, then it will be faster.


For me, if the price was a lot lower, i would gladly pickup a 980x for folding@home. Although for much of anything else, 2600K.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2011 2:55:44 AM

Will the AM3+ processors get anywhere near high-end?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2011 7:50:03 AM

Quote:
Highly doubtful. Bulldozer is looking to be around as fast as bloomfield.


How much would the AM3+ processors cost?

Their current flagship, the 1100t is $260, that is only $60 away from the 2600k.

The new AM3+ processor would have to be more expensive than their current flagship meaning that it would cost nearly the same price as the 2600k, so thats a fail for AMD.

They are dropping the price of the 1090t and 1100t every month, I've noticed that on Newegg.

They are probably thinking of a backup plan because their most powerful processor is only a little bit away from the cost of Intel's high-end processor nearly twice as fast so what's gonna happen?
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2011 8:40:46 AM

How can you know all that about the 6x chipsets but not know the performance difference?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2011 9:29:10 AM

4745454b said:
How can you know all that about the 6x chipsets but not know the performance difference?


Haha, it just seemed so weird that Intel releases a near equivalent to it's $1000 processor for $300.
I was thinking that there's something they're hiding, in addition, on Newegg, so many people bought 980xs although the 2600k had come out.

Also, I never learned anything about computers in an orderly manner, I just got everything I know from completely random places, there are somethings that I know so much about and others that I don't.

I don't know how to set up a home Wi-Fi network with a router,
though I know how to build a computer.

I don't know how to use Microsoft Office,
though I know how to write a basic console program in Java and C++.

I'm 14 years old.
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2011 9:41:32 AM

Its basically progress. Why sell a $300ish CPU when it performs as well as your $900 CPU? Do to shrinking sizes it makes sense for one. Second, you have a new $900ish CPU coming. Remember that these are the midrange CPUs, the high end ones come later.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2011 9:57:55 AM

Any info on ivy bridge and future sockets?
a c 104 à CPUs
February 11, 2011 10:54:42 AM

At the risk of sounding like an old fogey...

At age 14, I'm assuming your biggest interest is in playing games. That being the case, and considering that most games are more dependent on the GPU for good performance, you could build an awesome gaming system for $500 using an inexpensive Athlon II X3 450 and a HD5770 or GTX460. Do that, and wait for the P67 chipset to be fixed, Bulldozer to come out and face the benchmarks, and possibly even LGA2011 or whatever Intel's new high-end socket will be. Then, if your system isn't hacking it, you can consider an upgrade, but only if necessary.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2011 1:14:40 PM

Onus said:
At the risk of sounding like an old fogey...

At age 14, I'm assuming your biggest interest is in playing games. That being the case, and considering that most games are more dependent on the GPU for good performance, you could build an awesome gaming system for $500 using an inexpensive Athlon II X3 450 and a HD5770 or GTX460. Do that, and wait for the P67 chipset to be fixed, Bulldozer to come out and face the benchmarks, and possibly even LGA2011 or whatever Intel's new high-end socket will be. Then, if your system isn't hacking it, you can consider an upgrade, but only if necessary.



Surprisingly, I rarely ever play games, I do video editing, photo editing, learning 3d animation,
I'm learning programming Java and C++, I do computer hacking, still a beginner (ethical or legal hacking with permission, for fun, to show off to your friends, hacking my own computers remotely).

I also experiment with video and audio codecs, I make tutorials for using software like photoshop, sony vegas.

OR in other words, I'm a geek, though I don't wear braces, though I got glasses when I was 7.

a b à CPUs
February 11, 2011 1:42:07 PM

Quote:
Sandy bridge E will be released for socket 2011 in Q4 of this year. Intel pushed it back after getting a peek at bulldozers performance numbers.


Hmm, this I did not know. Been a while since I looked at Intel's roadmap, which mentioned Q2-Q3 for "performance" Sandys. Kinda disappointing since I was thinking of a 6-core build.

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2011 1:42:44 PM

Quote:
Ivy bridge is on schedule for january of next year for socket 1155. Sandy bridge E will be released for socket 2011 in Q4 of this year. Intel pushed it back after getting a peek at bulldozers performance numbers.

Sandy Bridge E will offer 20 megs of L3 cache on its 4 and 6 core processors and 30 on its 8 cores. Quad channel memory and prices around 400 for quads, 700 for 6 cores and a thousand dollars for 8 cores.

Ivy Bridge will offer 4 and 6 core mainstream processors for 1155 and the rumor is Intel will switch to Tri Channel memory as well.

Bulldozer 8 and 16 core processors are looking to be pricey to its current lineup. Expect 4 core modules to start around 200 dollars, 8 core modules around 600 and the 16 core bad boys over a thousand dollars under the FX name



Intel would switch to tri-channel channel memory on the same socket 1155?
How? don't 1155 mobos use dual-channel?


And how would the FX Bulldozers perform, what is their Intel equivalent, any estimate?
Is AMD ever going to beat Intel performance wise?

And why would they go for a 16 core, when there are hardly any applications that even utilize 6 cores, wouldn't that be a waste?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2011 1:51:46 PM

I really am not planning on a build at this time, I'm thinking of a build in the next couple of months, actually maybe till during the summer cuz I have school and hardly any time to do this stuff, nor do I have money, of course, my dad would pay, I am running a 4-year-old pre-built HP ATM, with a Pentium D, it came with a 64MB graphics card WTF?, I upgraded most of the stuff in it , when I bought it cost $1000.

So I have to get a new computer soon, and this is the last time I get a pre-built piece of ***. I'm not a serious buyer now.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2011 2:22:55 PM

I think that now Intel is going to have a better value, probably AMD's 2600k equivalent will be more expensive.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2011 2:37:30 PM

What's their backup plan?
Now AMD loses in both performance and value.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2011 2:48:57 PM

Quote:
AMd know what kept them in the market all these years. Look at their gpus. They wont be that stupid


What's their backup plan?
Now AMD loses in both performance and value.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2011 3:08:46 PM

Quote:
Backup plan? Go out of business. If Bulldozer is a flop its all over for them.


they were planning on processors to compete with the older i3/i5/i7, I'm guessing that the processor that they planned to sell for the price of a 2600k was a bit faster than their 1100t.

SB hit them by surprise with both lower cost and higer performance.
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2011 8:25:55 PM

Quote:
Backup plan? Go out of business. If Bulldozer is a flop its all over for them.


I would tend to agree.However it could be a smashing success though and even compare very favorably with the i7-2600 K or even i7-980X.Could as in a reasonable possibility. Whether AMD lives and thrives or dies in the desktop market we will just have to wait and see.Go out of business completely I doubt it.There would be a breakup of the company or it would be acquired by another corporation on the cheap (perhaps even Apple).

Another possibility is that Bulldozer could even possibly stomp Sandy bridge and make it look like a P4.
It's happened before.

a b à CPUs
February 11, 2011 8:33:24 PM

Quote:
Don't see it happening here.. Well maybe the 16 core version.


As of yet we don't really know however if I were to guess the 8 core 4 module version will perform just under the i7-2600K by a little bit but much above the i5 -2500k.This is my opinionated guesstimate.In other words the i7-2600K would be a slightly better CPU but the 8 core Bulldozer would be a good competing performer say at $285 USD.
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2011 8:53:30 PM

Quote:
I HOPE so but i don't see Amd bringing up the IPC of BD to compete directly with the 2600K. I'm thinking the 8 core 4 module processor being 10-15% slower across the board then the 2600K. IMO thats a huge flop as 8 cores can't even beat 4?


Well I think the difference will be slightly under 10% however those are not 8 true cores.It's really 4 CPU core modules vs 4 cores with hyperthreading.Granted the i7-2600K probably will still be on top I think but AMD will come very close.
That would not be a huge flop at all.It would be a lot closer to Sandy bridge than Phenom II was to Nehalem by far.
It would be a worthwhile viable competing CPU line.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2011 6:35:14 AM

Just a further update on the Sandy Bridge issues:

Intel partners might be giving SATA cards to the SB mobo owners to save money instead of replacing the whole motherboard, the problem is only with the on board Sata 3-Gbps ports, most people now don't use them any more, even those with Sata 3-Gbps hard drives can plug it into the 6Gbps port because it's backwards compatible, the SB issue is not such a big deal.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2011 6:38:37 AM

jj463rd said:
Well I think the difference will be slightly under 10% however those are not 8 true cores.It's really 4 CPU core modules vs 4 cores with hyperthreading.Granted the i7-2600K probably will still be on top I think but AMD will come very close.
That would not be a huge flop at all.It would be a lot closer to Sandy bridge than Phenom II was to Nehalem by far.
It would be a worthwhile viable competing CPU line.


What about their prices, the 2600k sells at the ex-price of a 1090t, they would have to go very low prices, they were probably planning on selling their flagship for at least $300, but now Intel's flagship costs that much, they were planning on prices according to the 980x.
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2011 7:02:35 AM

Dude Psycho. How many times have I said this, its not an 8 core CPU. Its closer to a 4 core CPU but with a crazy arrangement.

Also, you don't know anything about BD's performance and your only going off of supposition. Stop spreading opinions and guesses like they are facts, when they aren't even based on rumor.
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2011 7:22:56 AM

Quote:
What about their prices, the 2600k sells at the ex-price of a 1090t, they would have to go very low prices, they were probably planning on selling their flagship for at least $300, but now Intel's flagship costs that much, they were planning on prices according to the 980x.


Well if the 4 module Bulldozer CPU comes to within 90% of the performance of i7-2600k it will probably sell at 80 to 90% of the price of the i7-2600K.Something like that.Doubtful that they would base it on the outrageous price of the i7-980X.
If they (AMD) did very few people would even bother with bulldozer as it would not be economically viable in terms of price vs performance.
Only a fool with lots of money would waste their cash now on the i7-980X unless it strictly is used for a money making application in which it is worthwhile.Now the 6 and 8 module Bulldozers (later on) on the other hand could perhaps command a very high price.
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2011 8:14:22 AM

I like how people are saying the 2600 is the best of the SBs. Its not even the top end.
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2011 10:43:32 AM

True Intel's socket LGA 2011 high end (costly) CPU's will be coming out later this year
6 and 8 core.
February 12, 2011 11:39:24 AM

Quote:
Ivy bridge is on schedule for january of next year for socket 1155. Sandy bridge E will be released for socket 2011 in Q4 of this year. Intel pushed it back after getting a peek at bulldozers performance numbers.

Sandy Bridge E will offer 20 megs of L3 cache on its 4 and 6 core processors and 30 on its 8 cores. Quad channel memory and prices around 400 for quads, 700 for 6 cores and a thousand dollars for 8 cores.

Ivy Bridge will offer 4 and 6 core mainstream processors for 1155 and the rumor is Intel will switch to Tri Channel memory as well.

Bulldozer 8 and 16 core processors are looking to be pricey to its current lineup. Expect 4 core modules to start around 200 dollars, 8 core modules around 600 and the 16 core bad boys over a thousand dollars under the FX name


jj463rd said:
True Intel's socket LGA 2011 high end (costly) CPU's will be coming out later this year
6 and 8 core.



Im sorry to say this but, that is not all true if you go to intel. they have announced that the new i9 will fit into the LGA 1155. which is the same socket as Sandy brigde.

They did this as an apology of the Sata bug as we all know.

and it will come out right before or after 2012.
February 12, 2011 11:54:57 AM

4745454b said:
I like how people are saying the 2600 is the best of the SBs. Its not even the top end.



the reason why its at the top is because of the Overclocking.. its so easy + and for its cooling. my friend got a water cooling (not even the best) and his CPU is about 10 C (while overclocked) thing it was about 4.5 GHZ


http://img7.imageshack.us/i/16816418443970701881248.jpg...
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2011 12:08:49 PM

Not what I meant. I meant there will be better/faster SBs coming.
February 12, 2011 1:27:55 PM

4745454b said:
Not what I meant. I meant there will be better/faster SBs coming.


Hehe okay :) 
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2011 2:22:08 PM

AMW1011 said:
Dude Psycho. How many times have I said this, its not an 8 core CPU. Its closer to a 4 core CPU but with a crazy arrangement.


But that is exactly how AMD will be marketing it - an 8 core CPU. At least, that is what JF-AMD has said on a couple occasions...

Quote:
Also, you don't know anything about BD's performance and your only going off of supposition. Stop spreading opinions and guesses like they are facts, when they aren't even based on rumor.


Last time I checked, Psycho and everybody else here is entitled to express their opinions as long as it's within the TOS. I think most posters here realize it is just his opinion..
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2011 2:25:26 PM

FYI, a front-page news article here on THG says Intel will be shipping replacement cougar point chipsets starting this Monday - two days from now. One poster in that article quoted a mobo vendor as stating he'll get a replacement mobo as early as Wednesday. Now that's pretty fast, and much better than the original guesstimate of April..
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2011 3:04:05 PM

Quote:
Now that's pretty fast, and much better than the original guesstimate of April..


I'm sure Intel moved H&H to get the replacement chipset out. I'd also point out that just because they started shipping doesn't mean full availability. It is impressive how fast they made the fix.
a c 133 à CPUs
February 12, 2011 3:10:52 PM

4745454b said:
Quote:
Now that's pretty fast, and much better than the original guesstimate of April..


I'm sure Intel moved H&H to get the replacement chipset out. I'd also point out that just because they started shipping doesn't mean full availability. It is impressive how fast they made the fix.

My guess is that they already had the fixed chipsets ready to go before they even announced the bug that is why it seems to be going faster then expected. Intel is doing a very commendable job at making this right. Sandy Bridge here I come :sol: 
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2011 9:43:49 PM

Quote:
The poiint is 99% of people don't need anything more then a 2500K. Sandy Bridge E is going to be EXPENSIVE with a slue of thousand dollar extreme unlocked processors.


No what 4745454b was referring to was that Intel was planning on releasing faster mainstream Sandy Bridge processors than the 2600k later this year.I now understand his post and it looks like he is correct.
See here under the second paragraph

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Sandy-Bridge-E-Series-...
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2011 10:48:07 PM

I seriously doubt "most people/99%" need anything even close to a 2500. They can use a P4 for email and IMing their relatives.
a c 105 à CPUs
February 13, 2011 12:41:53 AM

well the 980x is 6 cores, and if overclocked will trump anything out there, assuming ur using a program that uses all 6 cores, for the money u spend on a 980x its not even worth it, buy a few ssds and a 6 core amd, or buy some sandy bridge cpus and overclock them, when the issues are fixed, again why spend a 1000$ when u can get great performance out of a 200 or 300$ cpu,
February 13, 2011 2:02:47 AM

Wait a minute... http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=52214,52210

Do I pay 100$ more for +2mb cache and Hyper-Threading Technology? Or is there a trick which makes these 2 cpus really 100$ apart. According to this, http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=287 it's not a big difference.
I was thinking to buy a low end cpu and save some money on i7-2600k, but I am not sure how it is 100$ better.

Neither with i7-980x. 700$ difference it is at least very-very good cooling system and overclocking while 980x stay the same for the price. I guess a few people can spend big money. But for us, mortals, it is... um... how bad? I don't know.
a c 105 à CPUs
February 13, 2011 2:16:40 AM

honestly just get 2500k and overclock it, i dont find the use of spending more for the 2600k , u still have to invest in a good heatsink for both if u wanna oc on air,
February 13, 2011 2:20:22 AM

if you are strictly gaming, the 2500k is all you need.

For people who use software that takes advantage of HT, then the 2600k is the way to go, at this point, it's hard to recommend anyone going with the 980x since they are so close in performance with the 2600k.

not worth the $700 extra IMO.
a c 105 à CPUs
February 13, 2011 2:24:11 AM

meh, honestly ud be fine with a 6 core amd cpu, and overclock it, everybody seems to be an intel fanboy but for multitasking on a decent budget , u can pair up with 6 gigs of ddr3, a good amd x6 and a good mobo, i find it pointless to always jump on the next thing wow factor, it seems u get something new than u must already upgrade, the upgrade infection doesnt make logic to me honestly,
!