Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I7-2600K or wait for AMD Bulldozer

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Bulldozer
  • Intel i7
  • AMD
Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 11, 2011 3:09:18 AM

Hey guys,

Probably a hard question to address...but I am planning to build my rig in 1 month from now. I've started getting parts here and there that go on sale, but I am holding off on the CPU.

The original idea was to buy the i7-2600K chip in a month (want to stay around 300$). Although, with the AMD Bulldozer around the corner, and boasting a price of about $300...I'm not sure if I should wait or not.

Any recommendations/opinions/research that might help me in making my decision?

Thanks!

More about : 2600k wait amd bulldozer

July 11, 2011 3:22:47 AM

sahilio said:
Hey guys,

Probably a hard question to address...but I am planning to build my rig in 1 month from now. I've started getting parts here and there that go on sale, but I am holding off on the CPU.

The original idea was to buy the i7-2600K chip in a month (want to stay around 300$). Although, with the AMD Bulldozer around the corner, and boasting a price of about $300...I'm not sure if I should wait or not.

Any recommendations/opinions/research that might help me in making my decision?

Thanks!


Have you already got a Mother board? if not I would just wait.
m
0
l
July 11, 2011 3:39:10 AM

I'am a AMD fan boy but even taking a step back I would say that you unless you REALLY need a upgrade you should wait if you wait and BD doesn't turn out to be all that and a bag of silicon chips then you didn't lose much although if you end up buying a SB and bull dozer is a better value you will probably be kicking your self. *Disclaimer I'm not trying to start a argument about performance of a chip that isn't out yet just seems better to be safe then sorry since we don't have benchmarks yet.
m
0
l
Related resources
July 11, 2011 3:46:50 AM

i'm an AMD fan and went with SB in march (b3 stepping) because i was tired of waiting for AMD to put out a chip that was fast and not 125 watts.
m
0
l
July 11, 2011 3:48:17 AM

If he is all ready planing to wait 1 month Fyasko it cant really hurt though it also depends on how badly he needs a upgrade which he doesn't seem to that bad also being impatient isnt really the best reason to not see if a better valued product is right around the corner IMO.
m
0
l
July 11, 2011 3:59:02 AM

No mobo yet. Definitely fine waiting a month. With that being said...no one even knows if BD will be out in a month or not...right?

I've heard the 2600K is still going to beat the $320 BD... but that has to just be speculation.

Don't need an upgrade really considering nothing that I want to play is out on the PC yet (bf3, guild wars 2, rage, etc).

So, the answer is, just wait since BD should come out realllly soon and no one has any idea if it will be better or not, correct?

thanks guys
m
0
l
July 11, 2011 4:04:19 AM

The last rumors i heard was early September , taking that with a grain of salt I would say that some time before that we will have benchmarks so you can make your decision then and with out any hard facts i would say its hard to be-leave the octa core will lose to the 2600k if you give AMD even a little credit and say the new architecture is 10-15% faster then the old series which is possible considering its age * btw im talking about efficiency per clock cycle* and you consider that you will being another 4 cores along with all the cache that includes it would be hard to be leave that. I would think your talking some thing nearly 2x faster + then a x4 phenom which would at least give it a run for its money again this is just my guess and I'm simply posting a opinion.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 11, 2011 4:13:36 AM

Unless your heart is just completely set on 2600k, the 2500k usually offers 98% of the performance without the 45%/$100 additional price premium (over the 2500k)for 100 MHz more (certified), when either usually overclocks to 4.4-4.6 Ghz anyway with a quality heat sink.

If this were currently late August or early Sept, I'd wait for BD to evaluate it's performance; however, it is up to you if you can wait that long.
m
0
l
a c 150 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 11, 2011 4:22:19 AM

Well, it won't take the absolute best CPU you can buy to play any of those games. I have no doubt any triple or quad will handle them. We don't know what the economy will be like in as little as a month. Even if Bulldozer blows it away, an i7-2600K (or cheaper i5-2500K) will likely be able to run anything you'd like to, and well, for years. The same is probably true of even the slower (but even cheaper) Phenom II X4 955BE. For example, if you buy an AM3+ board, Bulldozer might be a big disappointment or come in at a high price due to the continued fall of the U.S. Dollar, but you'd still be happily running your games. After I considered platform differences, that's what I did myself just a few weeks ago. Regardless of Bulldozer's price or performance, the 970BE I chose is up to any task I'm likely to give it for the foreseeable future, and the mobo I bought (990FX chipset Asus Sabertooth) doesn't sacrifice some ports or slots if I use others, and has more of both than any Z68 or P67 board I've seen. Yes, it is slower than an i5; BUT, it is more than capable of playing any of my games, or running office-type applications, or whatever else, AND, it cost less.
m
0
l
July 11, 2011 4:39:29 AM

Onus said:
Well, it won't take the absolute best CPU you can buy to play any of those games. I have no doubt any triple or quad will handle them. We don't know what the economy will be like in as little as a month. Even if Bulldozer blows it away, an i7-2600K (or cheaper i5-2500K) will likely be able to run anything you'd like to, and well, for years. The same is probably true of even the slower (but even cheaper) Phenom II X4 955BE. For example, if you buy an AM3+ board, Bulldozer might be a big disappointment or come in at a high price due to the continued fall of the U.S. Dollar, but you'd still be happily running your games. After I considered platform differences, that's what I did myself just a few weeks ago. Regardless of Bulldozer's price or performance, the 970BE I chose is up to any task I'm likely to give it for the foreseeable future, and the mobo I bought (990FX chipset Asus Sabertooth) doesn't sacrifice some ports or slots if I use others, and has more of both than any Z68 or P67 board I've seen. Yes, it is slower than an i5; BUT, it is more than capable of playing any of my games, or running office-type applications, or whatever else, AND, it cost less.


Here is the board I have

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Tpk=asus%20890gx



Here is the board I am loocking at

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

is there a performance gap between the 2 boards

besides SLI and AM3 + socket

I am running 5770 cross fire on the 1st board
m
0
l
July 13, 2011 4:19:43 PM

Well according to the newest benchmark leaks from DonanimHaber of a B1 stepping engineering sample clocked at 3.2GHz (3.6GHz using 8-core turbo / 4.2GHz 4-core turbo) it falls somewhere between the 2600K and the 6-core 990X in heavily multi-threaded applications and actually beats the 990X in less multi-threaded apps. The final production chips may even come clocked higher and I've seen other reviews where an ES was overclocked over 5GHz on air. Seems like AMD's original slide saying 50% faster than Phenom II may have even been on the modest side.

Obviously this all needs to be taken with a "moderate helping of sodium-chloride" but looks like it's at least worth waiting to see what the final product looks like, since you're already waiting at least another month anyway.

http://vr-zone.com/articles/purported-amd-bulldozer-ben...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 13, 2011 4:42:49 PM

bardacuda said:
Well according to the newest benchmark leaks from DonanimHaber of a B1 stepping engineering sample clocked at 3.2GHz (3.6GHz using 8-core turbo / 4.2GHz 4-core turbo) it falls somewhere between the 2600K and the 6-core 990X in heavily multi-threaded applications and actually beats the 990X in less multi-threaded apps. The final production chips may even come clocked higher and I've seen other reviews where an ES was overclocked over 5GHz on air. Seems like AMD's original slide saying 50% faster than Phenom II may have even been on the modest side.

Obviously this all needs to be taken with a "moderate helping of sodium-chloride" but looks like it's at least worth waiting to see what the final product looks like, since you're already waiting at least another month anyway.

http://vr-zone.com/articles/purported-amd-bulldozer-ben...

Most of those are synthetic benchmarks.The real world benchmarks is what we are looking for.
m
0
l
July 14, 2011 4:52:16 AM

ghnader hsmithot said:
Most of those are synthetic benchmarks.The real world benchmarks is what we are looking for.


Very true. That's where the salt comes in and why I am suggesting waiting to see how the final chip turns out before making a decision. But although it doesn't give a reason to make a decision on a chip yet, it does give a reason to wait until they come out at least.

EDIT: @OP what kind of system are you running now and what parts have you already got? It might even be worth waiting for Ivy at this point if you still have something like a C2Q and just get a GPU for now maybe since the CPU doesn't mean as much game-wise.

Hell you may even want to wait for Southern Islands and Kepler. All of these are due out some time in early 2012 and are all die shrinks AND new arch's (except maybe the HD7000s but i think they may be new arch's too...details are a little foggy still) so they could be very significant improvements over the hardware available in September. Ivy is going to be on 22nm with their new 3d transistor tech which could lower leakage and therefore increase base clocks/overclocking potential quite a bit.

Then again though BF3 would have been out for 3 or 4 months and who knows if any of the new hardware will have bugs/problems/delays. At least the requirements for GW2 aren't too high. It should be maxable on a GTX460 or 6870 and still very playable on a wide range of cards. Ohhh the lovely decisions of building a new system..... :D 

EDIT2: Found a couple more news stories again both taken from DonanimHaber....too bad I can't read turkish or I'd just look at the original. Anyway they suggest that there will be more versions of the chips released and instead of an FX-8130P @ 3.2GHz there will be an FX-8150 @ 3.6GHz and a 95W and 125W version of an FX-8120 which is base 3.1GHz and it might possibly be delayed until October now. Waiting is looking less appealing...

http://wccftech.com/amd-details-bulldozerfx-b2-revision...

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/20177/amd_s_initial_bulld...
m
0
l
July 31, 2011 9:46:32 PM

With the new sept release...still wondering if I should continue waiting or get the 2600k in 2 weeks.

Hard decision.

m
0
l
July 31, 2011 10:31:03 PM

Unless you actually need HT....the i5 2500K is a much better buy. HT doesn't benefit gaming....so, unless you do graphics/video/audio editing, HT is pretty useless aside from synthetic benchmarks. I would go for more than just a "moderate helping of sodium-chloride" when looking at leaked benchmarks as thus far nearly every leaked benchmark has been proven false. I've seen leaks showing anywhere from 1/4 the performance of first Gen Core i7 processors (which would make it slower than first gen Phenoms) to as much as 200% performance gain over Core i7 2600K.... Contrary to what some people seem to believe, core count and performance don't scale equally. Just because the FX series Bulldozer processors will have up to 8 "cores", does not mean the performance will scale even remotely equally. Having 8 "cores" does not mean that it will perform as well or better than a quad core.

I would though, recommend waiting for reviews to be released on Bulldozer based processors. When the reviews are released though, I'd recommend ignoring synthetic benchmarks and biased benchmark software like sysmark as it's known to unfairly favor Intel processors. Focus more on real-world application performance.
m
0
l
July 31, 2011 10:34:06 PM

Do real benchmarks generally come out a week or two before commercial release or will I need to wait for mid-late September, for the commercial release to see the benchmarks?
m
0
l
July 31, 2011 10:44:01 PM

It depends on the NDA. In some cases, the reviews come out 1-2 weeks prior to the product. In other cases, the reviews come out the day the product does.
m
0
l
July 31, 2011 10:46:36 PM

Hmmmm well, guess I have to try and wait
m
0
l
!