Aw Nuts, Intel Core i7 2700K Won't Drive Down Price of 2600K Processor

17

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

jagstangsrule

Lolz. I like some of the bellow comments made as far as price vs. value. Do any of you AMD fans not remember the benchmarks MaxPC released several months back when AMD debuted their 6 core series of proccessors? It was in a spread sheet format of many benchmarks comparing i7 quad, i7 six core, i5, and AMD chips with 4 & 6 cores. It was a new chip, but was already beaten out by the i5 760; which at the time would had costed you about $20 more than the 6 core AMD but you would had gotten 15% more performance if I rememeber correctly. But that was months ago. Today, there's nothing that can compete with intel's $220+ category. Nothing. Yeah, they make models of chips that are just ridiculous like the new i7 2700k that is just a OCed 2600k. But that's why you pick from the lineup and use features like cache amount vs clock speed to differentiate between the obviously overpriced chips vs the solid price point chips that intel distributes. In my opinion the only AMD chip worth grabbing at the moment if you're strapped for cash is the A - series chips. Great value. But other than that, the big boys with jobs that can afford quality gotta tip their hat to intel at this very moment in time.

Also, like one of you said, the future is mobile. And most mobile devices atm use Tegra + Atom technology. Why do you think apple scrapped all AMD processors from their Macbook Pro lineup? They're inexpensive, but they're not efficient at a mobile level as far as heat, wattage and features go.

It will be interesting to see what bulldozer and Ivy bridge bring to the race, but at this very instance in time, other than the APU series, there's really no reason to go AMD....

avatar

JCGPZ9

Except you're not taking into account that AMD processors are generally backward compatible with older boards. They're also very cost competitive when shopping for a new board and putting together an AMD system will cost much less than using an Intel solution. If you opt for one with integrated graphics then the PC is pretty much complete and performs very well. 

This makes sense for the majority of users who don't need computing power houses but can still take advantage of hardware enhanced software. Also, many will not notice the boost in performance that an Intel processor will give them and is pretty much for bragging rights. 

I have a job and make good bank but when it comes down to it my PC is still just a PC and don't feel like maxing it out. I do game on it and it performs extremely well for an $80 AMD Athlon II X4 paired with a GTX 260. 

Of course, AMD's top of the line is pretty much a joke in cost:performance ratio. There's no denying that.

avatar

medavid16

Well, as a seasoned enthusiast since 386sx days to water cooling a 2600k, I can say the war between AMD vs Intel has ups and downs. Athlon days sure, AMD dominated. Intel learned their lesson, now they've been dominating the market.

But dominance of sales doesn't necessary mean better performance. The only way you can qualify which cpu is faster/efficient then the other is to look at the numbers.

Check the post above a user has already posted numbers, look at Tomshardware/Anandtech for numbers, they even have nice looking charts.

Numbers speak for themselves, Intel is the superior choice in this day and age. Cores are dandy, but if you are a Maximumpc fan, you should already know # of cores does not necessarily mean better performance. It even applies to GPUs, but I won't even go there.

 

avatar

AnglicDemon00

Intel has done similar things in the past, as we only have to look back at the Core 2 duo line. Though If you are for pure performance, the price difference is not that much. Though hopefully when we get Ivy bridge things should heat up. Though I am wondering what will be the perfomance difference between the 980x, 2600k and the new AMD bulldozer chips. 

avatar

Holly Golightly

Intel has always been a rip-off price solution for those who want a computer. This is why I am for AMD, because we can get more with our money with them instead of Intel. Intel is overpriced, and outdated. Hate to say this, but the future is mobile, and Intel is just not that good on the mobile devision.

avatar

Raswan

Way to generalize to the point where your comment is useless. Pretty sure I bought an i5-760 for $180 last xmas, and it far surpassed anything AMD offered at that price point for gaming performance. How about we qualify our comments (I know, it's hard, but try), since some of the less knowledgeable users might actually be duped into believing you know what you're talking about?

avatar

Holly Golightly

Looks like Intel users leave the thinking for their CPUs. Here is a little math... 4 cores are less than 6 cores. For the same price you spent on that CPU, I can overclocked mine to perform better than yours. And don't use the old "hyper-threading" B.S., because we all know your i5 is incapable of hyper-threading. Maybe if you upgrade to that $300 one... Perhaps your processor can be complete for once. Some people prefer quad-cores, others prefer hexacores. Nice try though.

avatar

Raswan

Thanks for pointing out the obvious, but neglecting any attempt at nuance. The number of cores a processor has represents only the most superificial understanding of its performance. Nice try though. Of course, judging from your past comments, you're going to favor the underdog no matter what, and hate on any business that dominates the market. So I'm not going to bother to take you to school.  

Viva la revolucion!

avatar

Holly Golightly

Hey man, I am just pointing out the facts here. 6 cores is more than 4 cores. I think you are a little mad that you were ripped off by Intel. They do charge a lot for their processors. But hey, there is always $1,000 6 core intel processors... Right? Right???

avatar

echO_W

I'll agree with you that Intel's dominance in the market is bad as they will continue to price gouge the consumer for a 6-core processor since they hold all the cards in the performance market. 

That being said, you are delusional if you think the current X6 AMD CPUs can compete with Sandy Bridge or even the old 9xx i7s. 

What's the point of 6-Core CPUs if most software today isn't optimized to run properly with 6-cores. In fact, most software isn't even optimized to utilize HT. Furthermore, you can't compare cores like that, much like how you can compare Ghz across different generations and companies of CPUs

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

http://cpubenchmark.net/overclocked_cpus.html

You have to scroll a long way down to find the 1100 X6.

You can overclock your X6, I'll overclock my Sandy Bridge to 4.6/4.8 on AIR, and probably hit 5ghz with a cheap H50/H60.

Heres a comparison between the 2600k ($280 at a MicroCenter $315 everywhere else) and the 1100T

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/203?vs=287

The 2600k smashes the 1100T, and the 2500k is slower in only 3. With the CRAZY overhead that a 2500k can do (4.6/4.8ghz) That I haven't seen an 1100T been able to hit. I doubt you could make an 1100T compete with a stock 2500k or 2600k let alone an overclocked one.

Here's a comparison between the 2500k ($180 at a MicroCenter, $215 everywhere else) and the 1100T.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/203?vs=288

I look forward to what AMD can do with Bulldozer, but frankly speaken given AMD's targeting of the low price segment of the market, and with Sandy Bridge-E coming out as well as the 22nn Ivy, I can't see how in the future that AMD can recapture the performance crown. However, I would of course like to be pleasantly surprised, because as a consumer, if AMD can, prices on 6-core and 8-core chips from both companies will have to be competitive because at this point in time, if you want the best performance, you're looking at Intel.

avatar

warptek2010

Here's a comparison to absolutely nothing... my 1100T will absolutely run anything I can throw at it overclocked or not overclocked without a hiccup in performance. Couple that with a Sandforce SSD for booting and a Radeon HD 6950, the system will play any game I throw at it at highest or moderately high setting with no frame drops. Bottom line is benchmarks are to give you an idea what a given chip can do but these modern mainstream and enthusiast processors all sit in an area of a performance curve which makes benchmarks almost meaningless and price points the more meaningful by far. 10 years ago when we were all struggling along with our Athlons and Pentiums I would say sure... benchmarks are important because back then no one wanted to stare at an hourglass in Windows 98 for so long... With most desktop apps nowadays that's just a thing of the past no matter which processor you're using so most of it is all marketing bs.

avatar

Holly Golightly

Definitely Intel over-prices their products. To tell you the truth, most programs do not take advantage of those hyper-threads. Most developers do not even consider them. Heck, most programs don't even fully take advantage of quad-cores yet. So why should I spend the extra money on an Intel processor when I can save my money on something that can perform just as good, or even better when overclocked? Remember, AMD is about efficiency, and Intel is about power.

I see it like this: "Are you really going to need a big powerful truck in a city?" Probably not. Most people are not going to need 6Ghz... Yet, AMD can give you 8Ghz with bull dozer... If you need that much power.

avatar

tekknyne

I tell all my friends to go with the 2500k from Microcenter. It's a bit pricey, but it has one of the highest overall values out there. http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html The 2500k is not listed, but following their calc: 7374 marks / $179 = 41.2 value ranking which puts it up there with the A8. Obviously most of the chips listed on the top "value" are older and signficantly less powerful, so if you can justify $200 on a chip, it's the best value at that price point no question. Tom's Hardware will tell you the same. If you want to spend less than $150 and your goal is gaming, Tom's even says that the i3-2100 is the way to go (strictly gaming mind you).

I'm all for going with the under-dog, but I"m not about to sacrifice performance just to put a green sticker on my case.

That said, hyper-threading is useful in some situations, but I would never pay $100 for it. Also, hype-threading is as much a gimmick as the whole cores-vs-modules debate with Bulldozer.

avatar

warptek2010

I am sure that 2500k is a great value but how far will that take you when it's time to upgrade? Not very far I am willing to bet. Cause that 2500K won't fit into a newer board with SOCKET AK47 or whatever is next for Intel. Nor the reverse will be true... that motherboard with socket xxxx won't accomodate a future cpu from Intel which is so convenient.... FOR THEM. Again, AMD in this case is the better value.

avatar

echO_W

While you may not have to upgrade your motherboard, it doesn't change the fact that AMD CPUs are behind Intel in performance in such a way that by the time it's time for me to upgrade, 

Going from the Tom's Hardware CPU Hierarchy http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-llano-processor,2989-5.html

The Q9400 that that I bought in 2008 when it came out, that now resides as the family computer, matches the X6 1100T that AMD released in December of 2010. 

What good does it do you, if your motherboard can support future CPUs when three years ago, Intel already released a CPU that performs with one that AMD released last year. Sure your motherboard can upgrade to the lastest AMD CPU, that at best is as fast as the Intel chip released two years ago.

And as for the 2500k, most if not all current Sandy Bridge motherboards, will easily be compatible with Ivy Bridge CPUs (22nm) in 2012 with a simple BIOS update. So as far as I'm concerned, with the current Sandy Bridge motherboards, I'll be able to enjoy Ivy without a motherboard upgrade.

I'm all for AMD, but sadly I was for them in 2003, 2004, and 2005 when Athlon, Athlon 64, Athlon X2 were King and Intel was pathetic with its Pentium D, but when Intel released C2D and C2Q that was it. And since then, AMD has been consistently behind. I'm excited to see how Bulldozer will do and wish them all the best so I don't have to pay $500+ for a high performing 6-Core CPU, but from what's been said, it doesn't look good.

 

avatar

Holly Golightly

Yes, Microcenter is the go to place for computer parts. I freaking love them. Most people rather pay $1,000 for hyper threading which is just plain silly. There aren't that many programs that utilize that feature. All that power invested onto nothing. It is impossible to always get the best because, Intel will release another $1,000 cpu and shock the world into getting their chips. Watch, people who desire insane power will need to look no futher. With 8GHz overclocking on 8 cores, they will soon be whistling to another tune.

avatar

Antherz

I'm gonna have to agree with Holly, and AMD octa cores are gonna be sweeetttttt :O

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.