I7 970 vs i7 2600k

[eric4277]

970 just price dropped to $599 and the SB chips are unavailable for couple more months. Would a 970 (3.2 ghz 6 cores) perform better than the newer architecture of i7 2600k? Is it worth paying almost double the price for the 970? Obviously it would be more convenient than waiting 2-3 months for a 2600k.

I saw today the guys from OC3D gave a first look at the gigabyte g1 1366 MB. It is perfect for me if I were to get a 1366, since my fav color is green and I am going to get a HAF X nvidia edition case.

Basically asking how would newer tech of SB hold up to 6 cores.

 

[g00fysmiley]

depends on your uses.. if its for gaming SB woudl win ... if more heavily threaded work loads then 970... so kinda depends on your uses... i'd take a 2600k personally as more perf/dollar

 

[eric4277]

Yeah, I'll probably wait for a SB. I really just am a gamer and everyone says get a 2500(k) if that is all you are using for. Just can't help but get the best though.

wish gigabyte would make some of the g1 MBs for the 1155 chipset.

 

[g00fysmiley]

give em tim, nobody is doing SB mobo's atm due to not being bael to get chipsets due to tthe cougar point issue, give it a month and they'll probably have all kinds of options

 

[megamanx00]

The triple channel configuration of the 970 gives it a memory bandwidth advantage plus the extra cores give it an edge in rendering apps and the like. Also, the 970 with an X58 board has the advantage of being able to have two 16x PCI-E slots rather than the two 8x slots you would get with a P67 lacking an NF200 or Hydra chip. Of course if you only plan on having a single card that point is moot ^_^

 

[pacioli]

I've got my 2500K running stable at 4.5Ghz 24/7. It is very nice. It will beat up the 970 in gaming and it only cost $225. $600 for less performance... I think not.

 

[pacioli]

The triple channel configuration of the 970 gives it a memory bandwidth advantage plus the extra cores give it an edge in rendering apps and the like. Also, the 970 with an X58 board has the advantage of being able to have two 16x PCI-E slots rather than the two 8x slots you would get with a P67 lacking an NF200 or Hydra chip. Of course if you only plan on having a single card that point is moot ^_^

All the tests I have seen show triple channel memory giving little to no advantage over dual channel because the memory bandwidth is not being saturated in either case.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-scaling-i7,2325.html

'However, Core i7 (and equivalent Xeons) will remain the only triple-channel products in Intel’s portfolio. Upcoming platforms and processors will stick with two channels, and they do so for a reason. While dual-channel memory made quite a difference a few years ago, increasing cache capacities helps soften the impact of insufficient memory bandwidth. This means that the difference among triple-, dual-, or even single-channel memory isn’t as big as it was several years ago.'

Tom's HW showed that there is very little advantage in having 2 16x PCIe lanes over 2 8x PCIe lanes for the same reason that the bandwidth is not being saturated.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pcie-geforce-gtx-480-x16-x8-x4,2696-16.html
This comparison shows 2 8x lanes as being faster than 2 16x lanes in about half the cases tested.

 

[blackhawk1928]

I've got my 2500K running stable at 4.5Ghz 24/7. It is very nice. It will beat up the 970 in gaming and it only cost $225. $600 for less performance... I think not.

Maybe it will, but honestly...a 3.2ghz i7 970 I doubt will be your bottleneck, using either CPU's, ur GPU config will most probably be your bottleneck so the only range the 2500k would beat the 970 is simply price. In gaming, Im almost sure you wouldn't notice a difference. But you are correct, at a low price and really easily overclockable, the 2500k is much better bang for you buck then a 970.

 

[PudgyChicken]

I just want to point out that though at the moment bandwidth in triple channel memory and x16 PCI-e lanes may not be completely saturated, as technology progresses and we have faster and better GPUs and RAM, I believe they will both be fully saturated. Just a speculation.

 

[asantesoul]

I seen that G1 killer motherboard and it looks pretty bawse..im an aesthetics fiend and usually get a board that looks visually appealing...but, dont get it for just that alone of course... Honestly get what makes you happy! When you stop listening to what people are saying, and paying so much attention to benchmarks, you'll enjoy what you have no matter what..

SB is the better choice to go with not just because of performance (although that's what makes it so damn good) but for the great price as well. But, if you fancy that board get it with an 17 960 and enjoy it...sometimes you gotta ignore some benchmarks unless price is involved..past 30-35 fps your eyes can't tell the difference except when heavy action occurs and whatnot..and if you have a 60hz monitor you dont get any benefit in having 144fps...

 

[cbrunnem]

Maybe it will, but honestly...a 3.2ghz i7 970 I doubt will be your bottleneck, using either CPU's, ur GPU config will most probably be your bottleneck so the only range the 2500k would beat the 970 is simply price. In gaming, Im almost sure you wouldn't notice a difference. But you are correct, at a low price and really easily overclockable, the 2500k is much better bang for you buck then a 970.

i might be in games like COD: MW2 and games like that

 

[Kewlx25]

actually, the quad core SB chip about ties with the 6 core i7 chip because the SB is about 20-30% faster.

Not only that, because the SB is faster per thread, this means it will run games/etc faster because most games can't properly use threading, and eve if they did, the SB would still be faster.

oh, and the SB uses about 1/2 the power, runs on 32nm, supports AVX which will make it much faster once games/etc start using it, and it OC's better.