Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Point of i7-2700K?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 17, 2011 5:21:57 AM

We were all getting along fine with the 2600K, 990X, and soon-to-be-released 3900 series i7 processors, and intel has to throw another sandy bridge into the mix: the core i7-2700K. All 2600K owners thought they had the best sandy bridge processor until one a notch higher up is released. What are they trying to achieve with the i7-2700K, which is a hair better than the 2600K but at 15% more expensive?

Does anyone even get it, after we can agree that the 2600K is obviously the better value? Was it intended for people who want the strongest processor they can afford but aren't willing to shell out the big bucks over $400ish?

I don't even know if the 2700K chip is actually better or if it's a 2600K overclocked 100 mhz (or vice versa).

More about : point 2700k

a b à CPUs
December 17, 2011 6:06:25 AM

Identical architecture, so no performance difference at a given clock speed. It is possible that Intel has introduced a new stepping. This would involve minor improvements to the manufacturing and design. This would have zero performance implications, but might reduce current leakage and hence reduce the voltage required to run stable at any given clockspeed. The real implication though, is that it would allow higher overclocks.

If Intel has introduced a new stepping, then I would guess all new i7s would be based on the new stepping, 2700k and 2600k alike.

What I do not know is whether 2600k and 2700k are speed binned. Honestly, I doubt it. Mileage varies enough already anyway, so it is unlikely Intel would have taken the trouble to speed bin 2700k and 2600k parts.

So in reality, 2700k is probably just the top model of intel's newest stepping. I can think of no good reason to get 2700k instead of 2600k.
a c 186 à CPUs
December 17, 2011 6:29:18 AM

2700k can reach higher overclocks than the 2600k, so if you are going for records. The 2700k would be better than the 2600k!
Related resources
a c 145 à CPUs
December 17, 2011 6:46:43 PM

where do you get that idea from?
a c 79 à CPUs
December 17, 2011 8:38:49 PM

richboyliang said:
the core i7-2700K. All 2600K owners thought they had the best sandy bridge processor until one a notch higher up is released.


And that will always be the way of things.
a c 146 à CPUs
December 17, 2011 8:58:03 PM

richboyliang said:
All 2600K owners thought they had the best sandy bridge processor until one a notch higher up is released. What are they trying to achieve with the i7-2700K, which is a hair better than the 2600K but at 15% more expensive.


Yea that is how it always is. Every time you buy new hardware you have to know that within a year or slightly less your latest and greatest will be beat by new hardware.
a b à CPUs
December 17, 2011 9:34:16 PM

But is there any evidence that 2700k reaches higher overclocks than 2600k if they are both based on the same stepping? Otherwise there's no point. Ok slightly faster at stock, but anyone who owns either of these processors and runs them at stock, is a fool.
December 17, 2011 9:37:20 PM

bwrlane said:
But is there any evidence that 2700k reaches higher overclocks than 2600k if they are both based on the same stepping? Otherwise there's no point. Ok slightly faster at stock, but anyone who owns either of these processors and runs them at stock, is a fool.


You're a fool for saying were a fool for owning a 2600k
a b à CPUs
December 17, 2011 9:52:40 PM

no no no, much the opposite. Anyone owning an i7 2600k or 2700k is very wise. But it's foolish to own one and not overclock it. That's what this chip is for.
December 17, 2011 10:16:34 PM

I might be hijacking my own thread but my i7-2600K idles at 30-40° C with stock cooler and I don't know if I should overclock it (it's running at stock speeds).
a b à CPUs
December 17, 2011 10:24:01 PM

AMD does the exact same thing - look at the 955 -> 960 -> 965 -> 970 -> 975 -> 980 P2's...
a b à CPUs
December 17, 2011 10:30:21 PM

richboyliang said:
I might be hijacking my own thread but my i7-2600K idles at 30-40° C with stock cooler and I don't know if I should overclock it (it's running at stock speeds).


That's completely normal. There's plenty of headroom to overclock the 2600k with the stock cooler. Suggest you just try a few hundred megahertz and see how you go. Easy and very low risk.

My second computer has a stock cooled i5 2400 (which you will hear people telling you incorrectly, is not overclockable). I run it overclocked by 400MHz. It's easy, "set and forget", you get a significant free speed boost and it runs cool as a cucumber. Awesome chip. Yours is even better.
a c 186 à CPUs
December 18, 2011 1:14:33 AM

richboyliang said:
I might be hijacking my own thread but my i7-2600K idles at 30-40° C with stock cooler and I don't know if I should overclock it (it's running at stock speeds).

Spend 30 bucks and get a hyper 212 evo/+ and you can reach 4.5ghz with good temps ;)  Please do not overclock on the stock cooler......
December 18, 2011 1:53:46 AM

well currently my most important goals are 1) starting computer up quicker (for example getting firefox to open instantly upon double clicking right after logging in) and 2) running RuneScape better, with integrated graphics. Don't know how much CPU speed influences those things.

Like the school computers, which are crappy core 2 duo 2.3 gHz, can open any program, lag-free, immediately after logging in. I realized that waiting at the login screen lets the computer load; so if I wait 3 hours at my computer's login screen before logging in, I can double click firefox and it opens almost instantly. But if I turn on the computer and log in quickly, everything takes a long time to load and I have to wait a while before it stops lagging. Now back to the school computers, it may be that they are never turned off, hence the lightning-fast log-ins, but possibly their startup speed is due to other factors...maybe they have almost no programs installed...they're connected to a server and maybe it does all the startup work for them...no idea.

But I can't for my life figure out why my i7-2600K computer with 16 GB RAM isn't starting up as fast as school computers are. It had been almost as fast when I just built it, but a few months later (after gradually installing plenty of programs) it's quite slow IMO, maybe 15-30 seconds to start FF if I log in as soon as possible.
a b à CPUs
December 18, 2011 3:07:31 AM

As for your first problem, this is not a CPU issue at all. For booting up and starting programs, your bottleneck is the Hdd. I agree its a real pain and affects how you use your computer.

It is absolutely normal that your computer will slow down over time. That's because as you install software and device drivers, they take longer to load. While most computer components have come along leaps and bounds over the years, hdds have seen much less of a speed increase. This is why a machine that you think ought to be top notch, can still take forever to start up.

The best solution is a simple one but a little expensive. Get an ssd. There is no single device in the world that will transform your experience like an ssd. The difference is so huge that nowadays I will not use a computer that does not have one. It will be the first box I tick when I next buy a computer or the first upgrade I do if it doesn't ship with one.

Other than that, you can increase your start up speed by removing start up items and by defragging your hdd. But this will be a minor improvement vs getting an ssd.

On your second issue, are you sure you want to run games with integrated graphics? A mid range graphics card will give you far superior performance. I know nothing about runescape but with most games are far happier running on a separate gpu.

If you do run it without a separate gpu, your CPU will never be the bottleneck.
a c 186 à CPUs
December 18, 2011 3:45:14 AM

richboyliang said:
well currently my most important goals are 1) starting computer up quicker (for example getting firefox to open instantly upon double clicking right after logging in) and 2) running RuneScape better, with integrated graphics. Don't know how much CPU speed influences those things.

Like the school computers, which are crappy core 2 duo 2.3 gHz, can open any program, lag-free, immediately after logging in. I realized that waiting at the login screen lets the computer load; so if I wait 3 hours at my computer's login screen before logging in, I can double click firefox and it opens almost instantly. But if I turn on the computer and log in quickly, everything takes a long time to load and I have to wait a while before it stops lagging. Now back to the school computers, it may be that they are never turned off, hence the lightning-fast log-ins, but possibly their startup speed is due to other factors...maybe they have almost no programs installed...they're connected to a server and maybe it does all the startup work for them...no idea.

But I can't for my life figure out why my i7-2600K computer with 16 GB RAM isn't starting up as fast as school computers are. It had been almost as fast when I just built it, but a few months later (after gradually installing plenty of programs) it's quite slow IMO, maybe 15-30 seconds to start FF if I log in as soon as possible.

ssd? Also might be slow hdd......
a b à CPUs
December 18, 2011 4:00:42 AM

bwrlane said:
As for your first problem, this is not a CPU issue at all. For booting up and starting programs, your bottleneck is the Hdd. I agree its a real pain and affects how you use your computer.

It is absolutely normal that your computer will slow down over time. That's because as you install software and device drivers, they take longer to load. While most computer components have come along leaps and bounds over the years, hdds have seen much less of a speed increase. This is why a machine that you think ought to be top notch, can still take forever to start up.

The best solution is a simple one but a little expensive. Get an ssd. There is no single device in the world that will transform your experience like an ssd. The difference is so huge that nowadays I will not use a computer that does not have one. It will be the first box I tick when I next buy a computer or the first upgrade I do if it doesn't ship with one.

Other than that, you can increase your start up speed by removing start up items and by defragging your hdd. But this will be a minor improvement vs getting an ssd.

On your second issue, are you sure you want to run games with integrated graphics? A mid range graphics card will give you far superior performance. I know nothing about runescape but with most games are far happier running on a separate gpu.

If you do run it without a separate gpu, your CPU will never be the bottleneck.


Well you did forgot 1 thing if an ssd isn't in the taste. HDD's in raid 0.

can get 2 cheap drives (or was cheap before the flooding....), faster than 1 HDD. Although not as fast as a good ssd and takes more time to setup.


___________________________________________________________________________________

As for runescape, used to play it a lot before i got board with it about 6-8 months ago. I will say this, unless they've changed something, still only use a single thread with Java. Even though the engine they use to run the game can run with multiple cores, they done see the need to turn it on yet as there not really pushing the cpu at all. (aka im meaning runescape only using 1 core/thread of your cpu)


Graphics and internet bandwidth is what the limiting factors are for this game.I remember when runescape HD was coming out back in 08, Jagex was saying to if you got any of the mid to upper range Geforce 8/9 you would get the best experience from it.

Of course jagex has done a lot since then.
a b à CPUs
December 18, 2011 7:34:03 PM

Just another example of end of life rebranding by Intel. They've been doing it for years. There's absolutely no evidence that the 2700k is anything other than the 2600k with single bump in its multiplier. Intel has notoriously done this for years. Most recently being the 860>870. There's absolutely zero reason to buy it if you're going to overclock at all.
December 23, 2011 11:02:32 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
AMD does the exact same thing - look at the 955 -> 960 -> 965 -> 970 -> 975 -> 980 P2's...


:(  My ol' 965 got beat 3 times...
!