# Get the 2600K or the 2700K, that is the question?



## qubit (Nov 14, 2011)

Now, that SB-E is out and has the same gaming performance as SB and costs a small fortune, I won't be getting it.

Therefore, that means that I'll be getting an SB system now. So, should I get a 2600K or a 2700K? As they're both unlocked, there should be no advantage of one over the other when overclocking, especially as they're officially rated at a mere 100MHz apart. Therefore, I could get the 2600K and save a few bucks.

I'm just wondering if the 2700K possibly has any other tweaks to it that would allow a higher overclock, or be better in some way or other to the 2600K?

EDIT: Duh! Forgot to mention that I don't do hardcore overclocking. I'll simply achieve whatever I can on a quality third party cooler and a decent mobo.


----------



## erocker (Nov 14, 2011)

qubit said:


> I'm just wondering if the 2700K possibly has any other tweaks to it that would allow a higher overclock, or be better in some way or other to the 2600K?



Simply put. No.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 14, 2011)

The only advantage the 2700K might have is under extreme overclocking conditions it might be more likely to do an extra multiplier or two, since I've seen the 2600K max out at about 49-51 on average, maybe the 2700K will do 50-52 on average.  Again, I'm just saying maybe, I don't know for sure, but either way if you are using air or water, you won't notice the difference.  So I say 2600K.


----------



## DOM (Nov 14, 2011)

2600k unless your hoping for a 6GHz cpu lol


----------



## qubit (Nov 14, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> The only advantage the 2700K might have is under extreme overclocking conditions it might be more likely to do an extra multiplier or two, since I've seen the 2600K max out at about 49-51 on average, maybe the 2700K will do 50-52 on average.  Again, I'm just saying maybe, I don't know for sure, but either way if you are using air or water, you won't notice the difference.  So I say 2600K.



Thanks NT. So, it really looks like the only difference is a tiny multiplier setting change and the model numbers.

I'd forgotten to mention what kind of overclocking I was planning, so I've edited my OP to explain this.


----------



## erocker (Nov 14, 2011)

So you want a Bulldozer CPU? PM me and we can talk.


----------



## qubit (Nov 14, 2011)

erocker said:


> So you want a Bulldozer CPU? PM me and we can talk.



lol, that was the joke vote - someone had to do it. 

Have you finished playing around with it now and want to sell it, then?


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Nov 14, 2011)

Id say just get a 2500k and push it to 4.7Ghz and call it a day. Its absolutely ludicrious how easy SB overclocks.

You dont need to be a hardcore overclocker to get decent results so long as the CPU and mobo are good. 

this also saves you a fair bit of money to put towards other things - maybe a small SSD for Intels IRST if you get a Z68 board.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 14, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Id say just get a 2500k and push it to 4.7Ghz and call it a day.



The only issue with a 2500K is that you might get a chip that is only capable of 4.3 GHz.

If you got the cash, get 2700K. If not, 2500K should be fine, but jsut realize that all the reports of 5GHz and such may be far from reach, and that the 8-thread chips tend to clock higher, for whatever reason.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Nov 14, 2011)

There shouldn't be much of a difference between 2600K and 2700K. I don't think they are binned to be separate from each other, as all the chips can do 4GHz+ no problem. I'd say get the 2600K unless you have an e-peen problem and need the highest number available. 2500K is decent on a budget but you're paying $100 less for a chip that may/may not clock well.

I have erocker's board and it's quite nice for $200 although it may have some minor snafus with the UEFI. Another problem was a JMB363 based bootable SATA/IDE card wouldn't work in the top x1 slot, although a dumber IDE only JMB368 board worked fine. Both cards worked fine in the bottom x4 slot but I'm using that for other stuff and my cables won't reach that far. The 2 x1 slots, LAN and Marvell SATA are on a PLX 1 to 4 lane multiplier I think so keep that in mind. I haven't noticed any performance issues with it though.


----------



## qubit (Nov 14, 2011)

I'm definitely not going to get the 2500K, because the 2600K/2700K have a bigger cache and HT, which I'd like to have and I seem to remember that they do benchmark a bit better, too. And heck, I wanna see 8 threads in Task Manager! 

They should also do better in Folding@Home.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 14, 2011)

qubit said:


> I'm definitely not going to get the 2500K, because the 2600K/2700K have a bigger cache and HT, which I'd like to have and I seem to remember that they do benchmark a bit better, too. And heck, I wanna see 8 threads in Task Manager!
> 
> They should also do better in Folding@Home.



Yeah, you can do Bigadv units with them, which gives a nice PPD boost.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Nov 14, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> The only issue with a 2500K is that you might get a chip that is only capable of 4.3 GHz.



I guess im pretty lucky to be at 4.9 in that case


----------



## _JP_ (Nov 14, 2011)

I voted for "Other" because I have a split opinion. 
If you want raw processing power, go Intel, because there's no beating the 2600k at its price point (especially with the appropriate RAM). On the other hand, I'm a sucker for AM3+ because I just love the motherboards. Especially the ones with the 990FX chipset. Talk about features. And some very good layouts/designs too! Best of all, those are cheaper than Intel boards.
It's up to your priorities.  (Guess I didn't help that much )


----------



## qubit (Nov 14, 2011)

_JP_ said:


> I voted for "Other" because I have a split opinion.
> If you want raw processing power, go Intel, because there's no beating the 2600k at its price point (especially with the appropriate RAM). On the other hand, I'm a sucker for AM3+ because I just love the motherboards. Especially the ones with the 990FX chipset. Talk about features. And some very good layouts/designs too! Best of all, those are cheaper than Intel boards.
> It's up to your priorities.  (Guess I didn't help that much )



Yeah, that helped just fine. 

I'm not surprised the feature set is good, to enable competition where raw processing performance isn't quite as good. For some applications, I'm sure those features are more important than a flat out CPU performance.


----------



## purecain (Nov 15, 2011)

i had to think about this for my own purchase....
my reasoning was based on the fact that most apps(i use) are not highly multi threaded...

so baring in mind that the sandy bridge-E only adds 2 cores... the speed would be the same as a 2600k but use more power in most instances...
so i decided to have a look at the cpu that could give me the highest clocks with the least amount of power...
2700k fit the bill... and i'm running 48x100(4.8ghz)@1.33v... 24/7

i havnt had chance to see how high i can go on 1.4v...
i liked intel srt tech on the z68 chipset aswell...

 x79 had quad channel memory... does anyone recall what else that chipset offers.... that could of swayed my chioce had i had more info at the time...


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Nov 15, 2011)

purecain said:


> 2700k fit the bill... and i'm running 48x100(4.8ghz)@1.33v... 24/7



a 2600k could have done those speeds tbh


----------



## purecain (Nov 15, 2011)

@Freedom Eclipse- correction... 'some' 2600k's could of done that... 

overclocking at higher volts will be interesting...


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Nov 15, 2011)

purecain said:


> @Freedom Eclipse- correction... 'some' 2600k's could of done that...
> 
> overclocking at higher volts will be interesting...



'Most' Of them ive seen on TPU and other sites hit that speed real easy. though im aware that some of the earlier batches struggled to hit 4.8 

Anyway If youre not satisfied with the purchase within 2weeks you are entitled to a refund (sale of goods act)

part of fun of being a PC enthusiast is the roulette you play when you order parts. You dont know if youre gonna pick up a duffer or something golden.

but hey man, Its not my job to tell you how you spend your money. do as you wish. All im saying is that you could have potentially saved yourself £50 if you just took a gamble.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 15, 2011)

Go for the 2700K, with an ASRock Motherboard


----------



## purecain (Nov 15, 2011)

@freedom eclipse.... sorry dude you missed my point... i want to use as little power as possible and i can hit 4.8ghz @1.3v

i have petedread here and his 2600k needs 1.4v minimum @4.8ghz.... i've also had my hands on a few when building pc's and they all struggled at low volts... 

run @ 1.5v and skys the limit...


----------



## Sinzia (Nov 15, 2011)

I'd wait a month for prices to stabilize then go from there.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 15, 2011)

2600k. 

Outside of the anecdotal evidence presented here (my ((one)) 2700k does X.xxGhz with X.xxV is better than a couple 2600k's I have seen), there is no reason in the architecture that it will clock better or use any less voltage just b/c it has a 2700k stamped on it as opposed to 2600k. Its all about where each sample was taken in the wafer.

The wattage/voltage differences between 1.4v and 1.3v even for a folder is but several dollars /YEAR (do the math).

I agree with Cad in that 2500k's seem to not clock as high as its HT'd big brother, the 2600k.

Im sure a few exist, but I havent seen any 2600k NOT be able to hit 4.8Ghz with the right cooling (water/high end air) and board that has PLL override voltage. 

All a 2700k is but a one bin up 2600k. 99% of 2600k's can reach that bin. Save $30, grab a 2600k. Or spend some coin and grab a 3930K and crunch MAD science (PPD)!!


----------



## El_Mayo (Nov 15, 2011)

hahaha... Bulldozer


----------



## purecain (Nov 16, 2011)

earthdog-you almost sound like you know for certain... but you dont know... your basing your oppinion on the knowledge you have at hand... 

have you built pc's with both chips...????     

 i have... the 2700k is better... it reminds me of people buying EO stepping core2quads... they were just better...


----------



## sneekypeet (Nov 16, 2011)

While I am always one who looks at the pros and cons to try to save a buck, history shows the later released chips are typically a little better.

In the case of when the 860s were released, the 870s that were released later typically clocked a bit higher which I see was addressed, but the IMC on them was typically better as well. 

If you have the cash on hand to get the 2700K, I would.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Nov 16, 2011)

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2434918&postcount=41

Until the 2700k sample size reaches the 2600k any perceived difference is in your imagination. I've yet to see a 2700k do anything worth noting, on voltage or multi. Utter waste of money as long as the 2600k still exists at a lower price point.


----------



## Chewers (Nov 16, 2011)

For me 2500K does the job damn well. As im up to run only 2 way SLI GTX560Ti CPU wont be bottleneck for me.. As well i can go 4.8Ghz OC any time


----------



## John Doe (Nov 16, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> Go for the 2700K, with an ASRock Motherboard



This. A lot of misleading votes and info in this thread. At first, you can find 2700k's costing $10-20 more than 2600k on some retailers. So even if it's the exact same chip (I also heavily thought that way), you should pony up that last $ for it. I thought they were just renamed, but the info is out there. If you do research, you can find out 2700k's doing 5-5.4 Ghz under a decent cooler. Reviews have done it

http://www.eteknix.com/reviews/processors/intel-core-i7-2700k-flagship-showdown-review/1/

http://www.eteknix.com/reviews/processors/intel-core-i7-2700k-flagship-showdown-review/3/

so I think they _improved_ their batch. It's not "binned". Binning requires specific handpicking; it takes much manwork to do that it's easier to just release them from a batch. Binned chips cost much more than their non-binned equivalent. For example, a Xeon E5640 is based on an improved i7 920 die, yet it costs $800 because it's binned to stay below 80W TDP.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1059102/evga-evga-gtx-580-classified/150#post_14176838

That cleared up, unless you want the absolute best, you shouldn't waste money on these. The 2500k costs $250 while offering very similar gaming performance. And I believe that's what you're after. Not how many threads to see on task manager. lol. So yeah, that's my take on this one.


----------



## Splave (Nov 16, 2011)

every 2700k ive seen has been nice and low voltage, the last 8 2600k's ive used were all trash alot of x51's and even a x49.


----------



## dhdude (Nov 16, 2011)

I'm in a similar boat. I have a brand new, replacement-from-RMA H80 sitting in a box waiting to be used and an offer of £150 for my current mobo and Core 2 Quad. Thinking I'll just pay the extra for 2700k over the 2600k, as was said above; they seem to run at a lower voltage and maybe OC a bit better. At least thats what I've observed from reading what reviewers and other OC'ers have said. Voted 2700k!


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 16, 2011)

Jesus... a 49x? I've had around 20 and none were under 50! BUT I only pegged a 55x out of all those. I've given up a need a hex. Instead of fighting for a Damn 6ghz+ 3d gulftown, 3930k at 5.2+ should do the trick.


----------



## John Doe (Nov 16, 2011)

EarthDog said:


> Jesus... a 49x? I've had around 20 and none were under 50! BUT I only pegged a 55x out of all those. I've given up a need a hex.* Instead of fighting for a Damn 6ghz+ 3d gulftown*, 3930k at 5.2+ should do the trick.



lol. Even if you get the "best" of Westmere, changes are you may just get stuck at 4.5. There's not much point in searching for those (at this rate). Should have bet on more Sandy chips instead.


----------



## Splave (Nov 16, 2011)

EarthDog said:


> Jesus... a 49x? I've had around 20 and none were under 50! BUT I only pegged a 55x out of all those. I've given up a need a hex. Instead of fighting for a Damn 6ghz+ 3d gulftown, 3930k at 5.2+ should do the trick.



I know right? I wasnt even mad though, I just laughed and popped the next one in the socket 
I have 3 2700ks on order at the moment will update with my results for sure by the end of the week


----------



## Neuromancer (Nov 16, 2011)

I voted 2700K just for the reasons posted above.  Its newer, and newer chips tend to clock better historically. Not always true of course and you could geta lucky 2600K or an unlucky 2700K. 

At 10-15 bucks difference I would just go for it.


----------



## purecain (Nov 16, 2011)

earthdog- can you post up the batch numbers your getting these 2600k's from... i need another for a build and you seem to have found an amazing batch...


----------



## BlackOmega (Nov 16, 2011)

I voted "get Bulldozer lol" 

 But in all seriousness, the 2600k is your best bet. The additional cost of the 2700k isn't worth it.


----------



## wolf (Nov 16, 2011)

Definitely discount the 2700K from your options, but I feel for the ~$100 saving you should seriously consider the 2500K if you don't need hyperthreading.

my 2500K @ stock feels as fast, maybe even snappier than my i7 920 @ ~4ghz. and the 2500K will be ample for gaming, especially if you hit 3.8-4.4ghz which should be a sinch.


----------



## BrooksyX (Nov 16, 2011)

I say go for the 2700k. I only have a 2500k but if I could afford the 2700k i would totally go for it.


----------



## BlackOmega (Nov 16, 2011)

wolf said:


> Definitely discount the 2700K from your options, but I feel for the ~$100 saving you should seriously consider the 2500K if you don't need hyperthreading.
> 
> my 2500K @ stock feels as fast,* maybe even snappier than my i7 920 @ ~4ghz*. and the 2500K will be ample for gaming, especially if you hit 3.8-4.4ghz which should be a sinch.



What's your RAM running at? Timings?


----------



## wolf (Nov 16, 2011)

BlackOmega said:


> What's your RAM running at? Timings?



I sold taht system to a mate I see almost every day but it's not mine anymore...

nonetheless the timings on the i7 920 system were DDR3 1600 8-8-8-20 2T, and my 2500K system is DDR3 1333 9-9-9-24 2T. But as we know already the SB memory controller is wild.


----------



## MilkyWay (Nov 16, 2011)

qubit said:


> Now, that SB-E is out and has the same gaming performance as SB and costs a small fortune, I won't be getting it.
> 
> Therefore, that means that I'll be getting an SB system now. So, should I get a 2600K or a 2700K? As they're both unlocked, there should be no advantage of one over the other when overclocking, especially as they're officially rated at a mere 100MHz apart. Therefore, I could get the 2600K and save a few bucks.
> 
> ...



Looks like you answered your own question.


----------



## denev2004 (Nov 16, 2011)

I believe the later the better 

Well, If you have enough money. The price of 2700K is kind of unreasonable


----------



## rodneyhchef (Nov 16, 2011)

I managed to get a 2600k for £225 at the weekend which was around £35 cheaper than the 2700k. I really wanted a 2700k but couldn't justify the extra cost. Plus the 2700k was out of stock! Must be a good seller.  Now SB-E is out I can see that I made the right call. Ivy bridge CPUs aren't too far away though...


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 16, 2011)

purecain said:


> earthdog- can you post up the batch numbers your getting these 2600k's from... i need another for a build and you seem to have found an amazing batch...


That info is looong gone.. Sorry, and I just sold my 'gem'(riiiiiiiiight) to fund the 3930k.

There is a thread at Hwbot though that lists the batch #'s and their returns. As always, YMMV.

There is a 5.8Ghz 2600k up for $1k I just saw...



John Doe said:


> lol. Even if you get the "best" of Westmere, changes are you may just get stuck at 4.5. There's not much point in searching for those (at this rate). Should have bet on more Sandy chips instead.


Yep made my purchase already (3930K) and she's already up and kicking... 4.5Ghz 1.30v... but who knows if CPUz is reading it right. It sure jumps up when I start the bench though.

Now, if I can only get past the trottling issues on this damn Asorck... Come on UD7, get to my friggin house already!


----------



## LordJummy (Nov 16, 2011)

If I weren't going to build an SB-E system I would probably grab the 2700K, even though I know a 2600K is probably the more sensible option. For me the extra bucks are worth it. I don't even OC to the maximum potential though, as I'm not a bencher. 

I just like to hit a sweet spot between performance, price, and temperatures now. I ran my bloomfield and gulftowns at 4.0+ 24/7 but recently dropped them down to slightly above stock on super low voltage. I see no tangible difference in day to day work and gaming. I'm only building SB-E for more longevity and bragging rights. I really don't need the upgrade at all, but everyone here understands that


----------



## qubit (Nov 16, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> I'm only building SB-E for more longevity and bragging rights. I really don't need the upgrade at all, but everyone here understands that



Actually no, I don't think any of us understand where you're coming from. My E8500 system is still excellent for day to day usage, runs everything really well and even runs my games very well, if not quite at the solid 120fps on the latest ones that I'd like it to. Yet despite this, I'm gonna drop around £400 on an upgrade to fix this small 'deficit' and have 8 threads show up in Task Manager which I can gaze at. And then I'll overclock the snot out of it.

So no, I don't understand at all...


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Nov 16, 2011)

I voted on other because I am semi-patiently awaiting Ivy. It's only a few of months away and it should show some gaming improvement over what is available right now.


----------



## LordJummy (Nov 16, 2011)

qubit said:


> Actually no, I don't think any of us understand where you're coming from. My E8500 system is still excellent for day to day usage, runs everything really well and even runs my games very well, if not quite at the solid 120fps on the latest ones that I'd like it to. Yet despite this, I'm gonna drop around £400 on an upgrade to fix this small 'deficit' and have 8 threads show up in Task Manager which I can gaze at. And then I'll overclock the snot out of it.
> 
> So no, I don't understand at all...



Might as well use up your money while it's still worth something XD



Damn_Smooth said:


> I voted on other because I am semi-patiently awaiting Ivy. It's only a few of months away and it should show some gaming improvement over what is available right now.





Are you sure? I don't think there is any more room for improvement with gaming vs. the current SB processors. I think they've hit about the ceiling limit on FPS that can be sucked out of current GPU's. Seems like Ivy isn't going to give you any actual performance increase in gaming or anything real world for that matter. You will get reduced power consumption though, so that's something I guess.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Nov 16, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> Are you sure? I don't think there is any more room for improvement with gaming vs. the current SB processors. *I think they've hit about the ceiling limit on FPS that can be sucked out of current GPU's.* Seems like Ivy isn't going to give you any actual performance increase in gaming or anything real world for that matter. You will get reduced power consumption though, so that's something I guess.



There is your key phrase. The 7000 series will be out by then, and the 600 series should be close if not already out. Yes, I'm planning on going with the one of the 7900s, so it makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## qubit (Nov 16, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> There is your key phrase. The 7000 series will be out by then, and the 600 series should be close if not already out. Yes, I'm planning on going with the one of the 7900s, so it makes perfect sense to me.



What, you don't use nvidia?! <aghast>

_qubit challenges DS to handbags at dawn over this important issue and offers him the choice of the pink or the blue handbag._


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Nov 16, 2011)

qubit said:


> What, you don't use nvidia?! <aghast>
> 
> _qubit challenges DS to handbags at dawn over this important issue and offers him the choice of the pink or the blue handbag._



Well, with AMD's recent track record, Nvidia might be the better option. The 7000s will be out first though, so I'll know for sure then.

_I'll take the pink. It matches my tutu._


----------



## qubit (Nov 16, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Well, with AMD's recent track record, Nvidia might be the better option. The 7000s will be out first though, so I'll know for sure then.
> 
> _I'll take the pink. It matches my tutu._



While AMD is a bit crap with their processors (yes, Bulldozer is a lemon, there's no denying it) their graphics cards are much better and do give nvidia a good run for their money, so I wouldn't discount their 7-series when they come out. Anyway, I'm being naughty now and taking my thread off topic. 

_Damn, I wanted the pink one!_


----------



## wolf (Nov 17, 2011)

qubit said:


> While AMD is a bit crap with their processors (yes, Bulldozer is a lemon, there's no denying it) their graphics cards are much better and do give nvidia a good run for their money, so I wouldn't discount their 7-series when they come out. Anyway, I'm being naughty now and taking my thread off topic.
> 
> _Damn, I wanted the pink one!_



Derailed a bit from CPU choice  a 2600K is a great choice for your GTX580, just make sure the mobo you buy has a UEFI bios, then it will be able to take Ivy Bridge.

_Qu'est ce que le fuck is handbags at dawn? _


----------



## Splave (Nov 19, 2011)

Splave said:


> I know right? I wasnt even mad though, I just laughed and popped the next one in the socket
> I have 3 2700ks on order at the moment will update with my results for sure by the end of the week



all three do x56 on air so far  srs thanks newegg  ln2 testing tomorrow


----------



## qubit (Nov 19, 2011)

Splave said:


> all three do x56 on air so far  srs thanks newegg  ln2 testing tomorrow



So what clock frequency does a x56 multiplier get you?


----------



## Splave (Nov 19, 2011)

100x56=5600mhz 
Just binning quick on air to weed out garbage chips so I dont waste any ln2 seems they're all decent. The one booted x55 at 1.48v lol


----------



## qubit (Nov 19, 2011)

5.6GHz on air? That's huge. What kind of cooler do you have on it?


----------



## Splave (Nov 19, 2011)

venemous X not mounted just resting on top


----------



## Outback Bronze (Nov 19, 2011)

I voted 2700k. Hopefully it aint gona cost u too much more.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Nov 19, 2011)

Im going for the 3930K but I've always wasted money lol, but the 2700K would be my vote it mite not overclock much more but it will run cooler at the same clocks as the 2600K.


----------



## Super XP (Nov 19, 2011)

The 2600K or for cost cutting measures Bulldozer. Both will do just fine in gaming.


----------



## qubit (Nov 19, 2011)

I just love the number of people that voted Bulldozer  (including me). That one's just for the lulz...

Anyway, I've set my heart on the 2700K. I want the bigger model number to show in Windows (sad, but true and very me) it doesn't cost much more and there's a chance that the chip is that little bit better, judging by some of the posts on here.

Oh and I'm glad that I haven't bought Battlefield 3, because the 2600K & 2700K come with a free activation code for it. Awesome. 



Live OR Die said:


> *Im going for the 3930K but I've always wasted money lol*, but the 2700K would be my vote it mite not overclock much more but it will run cooler at the same clocks as the 2600K.



Oh no, that sounds so much like me!


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 20, 2011)

LOL, theres no chance its any better overflocking wise. You *may* be able to run it at lower volts but Im afraid you have that same chance with a 2600k. Last time Im saying this, ITS THE SAME CHIP, just with a higher multi. Id rather keep the $30 difference and have a bar night, than e-peen. You are so vain...shame on you!


----------



## qubit (Nov 20, 2011)

EarthDog said:


> LOL, theres no chance its any better overflocking wise. You *may* be able to run it at lower volts but Im afraid you have that same chance with a 2600k. Last time Im saying this, ITS THE SAME CHIP, just with a higher multi. Id rather keep the $30 difference and have a bar night, than e-peen. *You are so vain...shame on you!*



Yes, it's true!  

I'll take your word for it that it's the same as the 2600K in every other way.


----------

