Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Intel Core i7 2600 vs 950

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 16, 2011 2:00:54 PM

Hello Guys! I am planning to build a new computer intended for both gaming and video editing, and I plan on getting an i7 2600. However, I just want to know whether I should go with the older tech and instead use a i7 950 with triple channel memory.
My planned Specs are:
i7 2600, ASUS P8P67 Deluxe, G.Skill 8GB PC3-12800 XH (4gbX2)
Is there any advantage by using a 950 over a 2600?

More about : intel core 2600 950

a b à CPUs
March 16, 2011 2:29:43 PM

wsjung98 said:
Is there any advantage by using a 950 over a 2600?


Yes, it's $20 cheaper than the i7-2600.
Score
0
a c 118 à CPUs
March 16, 2011 2:44:55 PM

triple channel adds extra bandwidth to the memory but the 2600k more than makes up for it in sheer grunt... yes th 950 is cheaper but for the extra you get the equivalent performance of a 980x... i wouldn't even class the 950 in the same league as the 2600k the difference in performance is that marked.
Score
0
Related resources
March 16, 2011 3:45:28 PM

It might make sense to at least consider upgrading to a Core i7 970-based system if you can take advantage of 6 cores and the X58 platform (e.g. triple channel memory, the possibility of using up to 24 GB of memory, more PCIe lanes). Otherwise, go with Sandy Bridge. The Core i7 950 doesn't make much sense in any case.
Score
0
March 17, 2011 9:40:23 AM

I am only going to use one video card, which is the HD6970.
Also in Korea here, the Core i7 970 is not available...
So going with Sandy Bridge is a good choice.
But does triple channel vs dual channel make a difference in applications I will use like Adobe CS5 (Photoshop, Premiere Pro...)?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 18, 2011 3:38:46 AM

i go for i7 950, yes i7 2600 is faster than i7 950 clock to clock and in benchmarks before, not now with the new x58 chipsets for the i79xx series, when is h57, p57 chipsets better than x58? theres no way h57 p57 are better than new x58 boards. with the i7 950 pairing it with the new x58 boards that supports 6dimm slots of memory true triple channel now(supports 48gb ram) its the better one. it may be a bit slower than i7 2600 but not the speed alone is the processors's best asset, but the performance wise, i7 950 its better overall, more memory means better performance, and much better in sli as x58 is built for gaming than those sandy bridge recalled boards. plus you can upgrade from 950 to 970/980x if you wanted sooner or later without any problem on the other components as they are all compatible and running the same hardwares. i7 sandybridge is just an upgrade of the older i7 1156 series, but the i7 exterme ones performs better overall.
Score
0
a c 118 à CPUs
March 18, 2011 4:21:50 AM

oby20 said:
i go for i7 950, yes i7 2600 is faster than i7 950 clock to clock and in benchmarks before, not now with the new x58 chipsets for the i79xx series, when is h57, p57 chipsets better than x58? theres no way h57 p57 are better than new x58 boards. with the i7 950 pairing it with the new x58 boards that supports 6dimm slots of memory true triple channel now(supports 48gb ram) its the better one. it may be a bit slower than i7 2600 but not the speed alone is the processors's best asset, but the performance wise, i7 950 its better overall, more memory means better performance, and much better in sli as x58 is built for gaming than those sandy bridge recalled boards. plus you can upgrade from 950 to 970/980x if you wanted sooner or later without any problem on the other components as they are all compatible and running the same hardwares. i7 sandybridge is just an upgrade of the older i7 1156 series, but the i7 exterme ones performs better overall.

are you serious m8. the 2600k is a 230 pound part and it competes out the box with 700+ pound part, the performance difference for the 2600k isnt even funny if you compare it to a 950. add to that the oc ability of the part and you'll soon realize your gonna need to spend some serious cash on the 9 series to compete on a level playing field...

the motherboard issue has been sorted and is in production as we speak not that it was any big deal if you only had 1 hdd and a dvd/bluray player...

no m8 price to power the 9 series just cant compete with the sandybridge i really wish it could as the i7 9 series is only 2 years and i was hoping to get a similar life span out of it as we got with the 775 socket, but its not to be.

i would considder saying i7 9 series if intel were bringing out 8 and 12 core variants but they seem to have been a pipe dream which is a real disappointment to any 1 who has a 1366 socket.

the reality is the x980 isnt gonna come down in price till intel bring out ivybridge at the earliest and by then the 9 series may be a 4 year old part and in any 1s tech manual thats take it to the knackers yard or out the back and shoot it, time.

feel free to post any links to benches that prove me wrong and as an owner of a 920 i hope you can.


Score
0
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 18, 2011 11:22:11 AM

No need to argue on this one people, the 2600k=980x and the 950 for $20 cheaper is MUUUUUUUCH slower than the 2600k
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 18, 2011 2:00:20 PM

HEXiT said:
are you serious m8. the 2600k is a 230 pound part and it competes out the box with 700+ pound part, the performance difference for the 2600k isnt even funny if you compare it to a 950. add to that the oc ability of the part and you'll soon realize your gonna need to spend some serious cash on the 9 series to compete on a level playing field...

the motherboard issue has been sorted and is in production as we speak not that it was any big deal if you only had 1 hdd and a dvd/bluray player...

no m8 price to power the 9 series just cant compete with the sandybridge i really wish it could as the i7 9 series is only 2 years and i was hoping to get a similar life span out of it as we got with the 775 socket, but its not to be.

i would considder saying i7 9 series if intel were bringing out 8 and 12 core variants but they seem to have been a pipe dream which is a real disappointment to any 1 who has a 1366 socket.

the reality is the x980 isnt gonna come down in price till intel bring out ivybridge at the earliest and by then the 9 series may be a 4 year old part and in any 1s tech manual thats take it to the knackers yard or out the back and shoot it, time.

feel free to post any links to benches that prove me wrong and as an owner of a 920 i hope you can.



thats sad your speaking for an i7 2600 and your are an owner of 920? thats a big joke!
i say 950 is better because i am an owner of a 950, who do you think speaks with fact?LOL
cpu benchmarks are a guide, not a bible.
Score
0
March 18, 2011 2:25:42 PM

Honestly I believe that X58 is a sleeper, the fact that the X58 mobos are just better overall supports my theory. Wait and see, once Sandy bridge is dried up you will see X58's reign supreme once again, it's inevitable. So, If you want future proof I'd go with X58
Score
0
March 18, 2011 2:26:50 PM

It's funny that there are so many benefits of x58 that everyone seems to ignore because of a few more FPS out of sandy bridge on a Crysis benchmark.
Score
0

Best solution

March 18, 2011 3:03:17 PM

Some of you seem to be bitten by OC'itis! Furthermore, some of you are using words that show a complete lack of understanding for the many issues involved. Some of you have also been very rude and that shows character faults.

WSJUNG98 asked a legitimate question, one that has been asked many times before. He asked about the modern i7-950 CPU yet some of you make it sound like an old Pentium4!!!! Sure the i7-2600k is a speed demon but speed isn't always the ultimate issue. As has been pointed out, tests show that 2600k is a solid performer in most areas, but it is not mounted on the best platform. Remember, the Sandy Bridge platform was brought out to replace the 1156 socket which has had troubles from day one. It was tanked after just 18 months because it's issues could not be fixed. On the other hand, Intel has kept the i7-9XX chips with the x58 platform because it is a proven, high performance setup. It is designed for serious users, not just kids with limited income playing games at burn out speeds. Before you attack the 1366 platform and the half dozen CPUs that go with it, remember it has more PCI x16 for graphics, a VERY wide bandwidth, triple channel memory, etc. No doubt there will be an even better system down the road, but I sure would not write off a 1366 setup right now. It is a mature system and the bugs have been squashed....you can't say that about the Sandy Bridge 1155 setup. From my short experience with Sandy Bridge, I found it fast but has had issues...over and above the Intel Cougar Point fiasco. Don't agree? Well, then you have not done your research very well. Just go the ASUS forums and see the hundreds of posts that folks are writing about them. On the other hand, I put my i7-950/Sabertooth package together as a replacement for my Sandy Bridge problem machine and it worked perfectly right from the get go and hasn't stopped working superbly since. It is a great computer and plenty fast enough for even the worse case of OC'itis.

Now, to answer the original question from WSJUNG98, you would not be wrong to choose a 950 over a 2600k. Another choice would be to wait until the fall when the 2011 socket comes out. It will be head and shoulders better than Sandy Bridge and then SB will be properly labelled as a budget gaming platform.
Share
March 18, 2011 3:14:40 PM

Definitely best answer :D 
Eagle eye's i mean
Score
0
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 18, 2011 3:56:49 PM

Eagle Eye_54 said:
Some of you seem to be bitten by OC'itis! Furthermore, some of you are using words that show a complete lack of understanding for the many issues involved. Some of you have also been very rude and that shows character faults.

WSJUNG98 asked a legitimate question, one that has been asked many times before. He asked about the modern i7-950 CPU yet some of you make it sound like an old Pentium4!!!! Sure the i7-2600k is a speed demon but speed isn't always the ultimate issue. As has been pointed out, tests show that 2600k is a solid performer in most areas, but it is not mounted on the best platform. Remember, the Sandy Bridge platform was brought out to replace the 1156 socket which has had troubles from day one. It was tanked after just 18 months because it's issues could not be fixed. On the other hand, Intel has kept the i7-9XX chips with the x58 platform because it is a proven, high performance setup. It is designed for serious users, not just kids with limited income playing games at burn out speeds. Before you attack the 1366 platform and the half dozen CPUs that go with it, remember it has more PCI x16 for graphics, a VERY wide bandwidth, triple channel memory, etc. No doubt there will be an even better system down the road, but I sure would not write off a 1366 setup right now. It is a mature system and the bugs have been squashed....you can't say that about the Sandy Bridge 1155 setup. From my short experience with Sandy Bridge, I found it fast but has had issues...over and above the Intel Cougar Point fiasco. Don't agree? Well, then you have not done your research very well. Just go the ASUS forums and see the hundreds of posts that folks are writing about them. On the other hand, I put my i7-950/Sabertooth package together as a replacement for my Sandy Bridge problem machine and it worked perfectly right from the get go and hasn't stopped working superbly since. It is a great computer and plenty fast enough for even the worse case of OC'itis.

Now, to answer the original question from WSJUNG98, you would not be wrong to choose a 950 over a 2600k. Another choice would be to wait until the fall when the 2011 socket comes out. It will be head and shoulders better than Sandy Bridge and then SB will be properly labelled as a budget gaming platform.



Respectfully, I totally DISAGREE with you,
1) PCI-E x16 bandwidth does NOT make a big difference, running a card in 8x will only give you a 2-5% performance loss and running a card in 4x will only give you a 5-12% performance loss, considering the fact that it would be in a lower bandwidth slot because it's Crossfired or SLIed with another, that shouldn't be much of a problem.

2) Triple channel memory, if triple channel memory was so important, why did Intel make Sandy Bridge run on dual channel.

3) Stability, the Cougar point thing was fixed and there are no other known problems, Intel is always testing their products continuously because the earlier they find a problem the less billions of dollars it would cost to repair it, that's how they discovered the chipset issue, during extreme stress testing, and this testing will go on until they are sure it's perfect.

4) Of course the 950 looks like a Pentium 4, why are we comparing the 950 to a 2600k,
The i5 2500k is FASTER than the i7 950

5) Soon Intel is releasing the rest of the 2nd generation i5/i7s, the extreme edition will cost $999 and will be faster than the current 990x priced $999, all 1366 prices are about to DROP.

6) Next year the 950 will BE a Pentium 4 when Ivy Bridge comes out.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 18, 2011 4:04:22 PM

Quote:
Respectfully, I totally DISAGREE with you,
1) PCI-E x16 bandwidth does NOT make a big difference, running a card in 8x will only give you a 2-5% performance loss and running a card in 4x will only give you a 5-12% performance loss, considering the fact that it would be in a lower bandwidth slot because it's Crossfired or SLIed with another, that shouldn't be much of a problem.

2) Triple channel memory, if triple channel memory was so important, why did Intel make Sandy Bridge run on dual channel.

3) Stability, the Cougar point thing was fixed and there are no other known problems, Intel is always testing their products continuously because the earlier they find a problem the less billions of dollars it would cost to repair it, that's how they discovered the chipset issue, during extreme stress testing, and this testing will go on until they are sure it's perfect.

4) Of course the 950 looks like a Pentium 4, why are we comparing the 950 to a 2600k,
The i5 2500k is FASTER than the i7 950

5) Soon Intel is releasing the rest of the 2nd generation i5/i7s, the extreme edition will cost $999 and will be faster than the current 990x priced $999, all 1366 prices are about to DROP.

6) Next year the 950 will BE a Pentium 4 when Ivy Bridge comes out.


950 better! maybe technically in papers 2600 has better numbers but once you nailed them in the boards its a different story. 950 on an x58 boards has better overall performance, a kid usually always look at the speed test as their winner not knowing anything beyond that, but a matured one who knows better will look at the overall performance. 1155 has many controversies, got recalled delayed for months, now that its ready, intel will kill it by the end of the year with a new one. historically speaking how could you say a month old cpu is better than the ruler for already 2yrs, and besides that a month old 1155 will be dead before it gets a year older!LOL. 2600 on 1155 no hexacore options, Less PCIe capabilities than the x58, dual channel memory is the one you calling best cpu? you got to be kidding us.LOL
Score
0
March 18, 2011 6:22:29 PM

Quote:
Respectfully, I totally DISAGREE with you


Well MN96, you are certainly free to disagree and at least you did it in a nice way, unlike some of the moronic posts I have read in this thread.

You seem to equate everything with speed. Like I said speed is not the only issue. This is not a car race with only one product getting the checkered flag. I really don't care if the 2600k gets the fastest this or the "best at that" in tests. Yes the 2600k is a speed demon...I said that in previous posts. But some, like me, also want things like stability, a lack of issues and so on. Furthermore, my 950 OC's at 4Ghz without putting up a sweat and greater speed is not hard to attain. But I don't care about that, I want a solid performing computer without memory issues, without thermal issues and that can handle all the gear I wish to put into it. My Sabertooth/950 combo does that for me with gusto. Frankly, I feel it is far more important to fix the biggest bottleneck out there in computers....hard drives and their slow access times. That is far more important and noticeable to me than a few extra FPS in a game. If folks would just spend a few hundred on an SSD, the speed comes without having a turbo charged CPU.
Score
0
March 18, 2011 8:31:25 PM

Hey Psycho, nobody is debating that the 2600k is faster. Read again and try to understand past your "mine is bigger" issue. Now get this: even when a Formula One car gets there quicker, doesn't mean it is the best choice for the freeway commute. Or to put it another way: Sometimes a slower Ford might be a better choice than a fast Honda for some people. I don't doubt that someone who goes by the name of Psycho has trouble getting around the idea that speed isn't the answer for everyone, I know that there are some folks out there that couldn't care less. Like me. Get over it. move on.

Oh and one more thing.....the fool is probably the one that buys a Sandy Bridge rather than waits for a higher end unit, like the upcoming Ivy Bridge.
Score
0
March 18, 2011 11:29:57 PM

Best answer selected by wsjung98.
Score
0
a c 161 à CPUs
March 19, 2011 2:35:03 AM

This topic has been closed by Saint19
Score
0
!