Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I7 980X or i7 2600K I really need some good advice here please

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Intel i7
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 25, 2012 5:23:41 AM

Im going to be upgrading my computer this week. I currently have an i7 920 in an EVGA X58 SLI board that only has SATA II connections.

My primary usage is:

Video conversions, ripping, editing
Photoshop and Illustrator
Web Design and development
Gaming - Lowest priority but when I play I do enjoy video settings at highest quality settings. I have a GTX480 which I'm keeping.

I'm looking at the i7 980 Extreme for $589 and the i7 2600K at about $300. And I'll be installing one Intel 520 240GB SSD.

Does it make any sense to leave my current mobo and just swap out the processor?
Or if I choose the i7 980 Extreme should I definitely get a new X58 that has SATA III?
Or considering the price does it make more sense to go with the i7 2600K and a new mobo?

If I buy new motherboards for either processor the price difference is negligible depending on my choice of motherboards.

What do you think? Does any of this make sense?

Thanks in advance!!

More about : 980x 2600k good advice

a c 159 à CPUs
March 25, 2012 1:45:24 PM

You don't need a new board with sata III support. I found the difference minimal. Sata II is plenty fast; there are alot of other roadblocks to performance with systems. Fast boot up is the principal advantage to ssd's, and I found only a five second advantage when I changed from a sata II board to sata III. So if you're happy with your present system, don't upgrade just for sata III. Try your old board first. And check craigslist for cpus; new or used. Here's a deal: http://austin.craigslist.org/sys/2909271778.html
m
0
l
March 25, 2012 2:27:31 PM

Interesting, I would have thought that a motherboard with SATA II @ 3Gbps speeds versus SATA III @ 6 Gbps speeds would be much slower in regards to today's SSDs. After all it is twice the speed not just a small bump.

Can someone else chime in on this please?
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
March 25, 2012 2:58:37 PM

Keep your mobo and CPU, it's really not yet worth upgrading.
m
0
l
a c 159 à CPUs
March 25, 2012 3:18:38 PM

As I said, there's alot of other factors that limit sata III performance in all systems. I would keep your present system and wait for Ivy bridge if you are going to spend big $$. They will be out in just a few more weeks.
m
0
l
March 25, 2012 3:35:37 PM

I agree. I'd keep the x58 board. You'd notice more speed up with the SSD in general and 6 core processor for video work. There is no doubt Sandy Bridge is more efficient and cheeper but you've already made the high performance investment. Might as well take advantage of that.

Ginghy
m
0
l
a c 239 à CPUs
March 25, 2012 3:37:25 PM

The real question it seems to me is do you need the extra CPU power an upgrade would provide?

i7 920 vs i7 2600K. Dont forget to factor in the potential ~4.5Ghz overclock the 2600K provides.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/47?vs=287

i7 2600K vs i7 980X. The 2600K wins this comparison in most benchmarks.

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

Now if you have a $500 CPU budget and need a 6 core CPU the i7 980X is not your best bet. The i7 3930K is a much better choice.

i7 2600K vs i7 3930K. Here the 2600K actually loses to the 6 core chip with the same architecture.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/287?vs=552

I agree with the above posters in that it's not worth upgrading just to get a SATA 3 motherboard. But the newer chips will speed up your work thus boosting productivity. So you just need to do a cost benefit analysis and figure out if it's worth the money to upgrade.

Here is an interesting article that explores your SATA 2 vs SATA 3 SSD performance question.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sata-6gbps-performa...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 24, 2012 1:20:43 AM

Bottom line the newer Sandy Bridge architecture is better. The 2600K and it's platform even uses ram in dual channel with more efficiency than the 980x/990x and it's platform can do with triple channel.

Core for core the 2600k is just slightly less than 10% faster per core and the cost/performance ratio of the 2600k is nothing less than astounding when compared to the 980x/990x although in all fairness that can pretty much be said about any Intel CPU with an X at the end.

Benchmarks are often skewed. Not only are they dependent on the number of threads utilized, they can also be skewed by the test set up. From what I've seen, the test set ups are never equal largely due to the ram. Either the ram amount is the same and one system isn't running in it's best configuration (Dual or Triple channel) or the amounts are uneven and that's just one example. Then there's the sub-conscious (or conscious) desire of the author(s) for a particular outcome.

I have heard that the 980x/990x performance can be improved in some applications by disabling "Intel HT Technology" in bios. That seems like to much trouble to me, I'd rather just give the multiplier a bump without going into bios.

So with money as no object is the 2600K/platform a better choice than a 980X/platform? For me absolutely not. I use some applications for income that can utilize all 6 cores and the 2600k just can't compete and more applications are being written to take better advantage of 6 physical cores all the time. As time goes on and more CPU's have 6, 8 and even more cores this will only become more true.

If I were to build a new system today I definitely would not use the 980X/platform. I would go with a 6 core/2011. The 2600k never was and never would be a consideration although I can certainly see where it could be for a large segment of PC users for a lot of very good reasons.

Since you can get a 980x for only $280 more, you run programs optimized for 6 cores and you already have a complete LGA 1366 platform IMHO I think it's a no brainer. Get the 980X! you'll love it! If you also earn income from programs optimized for 6 cores you shouldn't even need to consider it (any more)!

By the same token if all you did was ck your mail, surf the web and play games even a 2600K would be overkill. As far as the Sata III goes, it's not all it's cracked up to be. I have it and I don't use it because it's to flaky. A regular hard drive can't even saturate Sata II. No (spinning) hard drive can spin fast enough to saturate a SATA II port. I raided 2 Sata II SSD's on my Sata II ports instead of getting a Sata III SSD because it's so flaky. It's flaky on 1366, it's flaky on 1155 and somewhat less flaky on 2011 but, it's still somewhat flaky. Maybe the next generation will be better, it's still fairly new. :pt1cable: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 24, 2012 11:15:45 AM

Your i7 920 is still a good CPU. Your work demands faster processor and RAM (more the better). I assume you have thrown-in DDR3 into this system. Your EVGA X58 SLI board can overclock, can it not?

http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=20028&mpage=1

You may want to consider overclocking your i7 920, add more DDR3 RAM (16 GB at least, preferably 32GB/more) and use it for a year until Haswell next year. Same time next year, you may build a new one and use the existing parts (like SOME of the DDR3 RAM)....

If your mobo is not good/stable enough for OC, just replace the mobo...You have some super good mobos (AS Rock and Asus to name a few). The following tread gives a link of mobo reviews in the case of x79 and 1155 boards. If you are replacing the mobo with some of these, you may be able to use the same mobo and upgrade the processor!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 24, 2012 11:44:10 AM

note the reviews are x79 and 1155 boards....while yours is on x58 chipset / LGA 1366.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 24, 2012 2:10:56 PM

And this is the last thing I have to say on the subject (I think).

:D 
m
0
l
a c 239 à CPUs
April 24, 2012 9:24:13 PM

Did either of you even notice this thread is a month old? No need to respond to a thread that not only has been answered but I am pretty sure the OP has made a choice and already purchased whatever he decided on.

This is why people should pick a best answer. So the mods can close old, dead threads.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 24, 2012 11:00:02 PM

anort3 said:
Did either of you even notice this thread is a month old? No need to respond to a thread that not only has been answered but I am pretty sure the OP has made a choice and already purchased whatever he decided on.

This is why people should pick a best answer. So the mods can close old, dead threads.

Well if someone has an opinion (old thread, or new) that they think might be helpful, then they should post it. In this case the OP may still be considering his options. One month really isn't that long when planning an expensive purchase.

But, even if the thread is 3yrs old, if you have relevant information that could help someone who stumbles across it after a google search you should post.

I have also seen people choose the wrong answer (by wrong I mean dead wrong, not difference of opinion wrong) as the best answer only to find the right one later because the thread wasn't closed.


I really don't care if he chooses a best answer, this isn't a competition for me and I'm perfectly happy to let the OP and moderators decide what course of action to take and quite frankly if you really feel that strongly about it maybe you shouldn't have posted.
m
0
l
April 24, 2012 11:17:49 PM

Rocknblogger said:
Im going to be upgrading my computer this week. I currently have an i7 920 in an EVGA X58 SLI board that only has SATA II connections.

My primary usage is:

Video conversions, ripping, editing
Photoshop and Illustrator
Web Design and development
Gaming - Lowest priority but when I play I do enjoy video settings at highest quality settings. I have a GTX480 which I'm keeping.

I'm looking at the i7 980 Extreme for $589 and the i7 2600K at about $300. And I'll be installing one Intel 520 240GB SSD.

Does it make any sense to leave my current mobo and just swap out the processor?
Or if I choose the i7 980 Extreme should I definitely get a new X58 that has SATA III?
Or considering the price does it make more sense to go with the i7 2600K and a new mobo?

If I buy new motherboards for either processor the price difference is negligible depending on my choice of motherboards.

What do you think? Does any of this make sense?

Thanks in advance!!





i know what i would do. get a socket 2011 Motherboard and Processor. 2011 is beast. i wouldnt upgrade anything on 1366 way to old. 2011 is sick it will handle it all. 1155 is good of course and if ur not going to get socket 2011 then i would go with the 2600k over the 980 xtreme
m
0
l
!