TerraMaster F5-422 NAS Review
Radeon RX 6600 (Sapphire Pulse) review
Radeon RX 6600 (Gigabyte Eagle 8G) review
PowerColor Radeon RX 6900 XT Red Devil review
Corsair Sabre RGB Pro Wireless mouse review
Far Cry 6: PC graphics performance benchmark review
Colorful GeForce RTX 3060 Bilibili 12G review
ACER Predator GM7000 2TB NVMe PCIe 4.0 SSD review
be quiet! Shadow Rock SLIM 2 review
Asrock B550 PG Riptide review
Retro review: Intel Sandy Bridge Core i7 2600K - 2018 review
Posted by: on: 03/22/2018 10:07 AM [
171 comment(s) ]
It was 2011 when Intel released Sandy Bridge, so we grab Core i7 2600K and revisit it in the year 2018, apply Windows 10 and compare that Core i7 2600K towards Ryzen 1800X and Core i7 8700K through our processor and gaming benchmark paces.
Read article
Advertisement
pages 1 2 3 4 > »
Clawedge
Senior Member
Posts: 2599
Senior Member
Posts: 2599
Posted on: 03/22/2018 11:01 AM
one of the simple reasons thises chips oc so well is cos of the solder, therefore better cooling.
Good ol days
now we have to deal with the piegon poop turd BA&#$^$*! F&*# NEECH!!!
one of the simple reasons thises chips oc so well is cos of the solder, therefore better cooling.
Good ol days
now we have to deal with the piegon poop turd BA&#$^$*! F&*# NEECH!!!
darrensimmons
Senior Member
Posts: 1636
Senior Member
Posts: 1636
Posted on: 03/22/2018 11:07 AM
Great article. I still use a 3770k @4.7 and a 1080ti. This allows me to game at high res using dsr so my gpu is usually the bottleneck. The only title I play when I feel the need for a better cpu is ac origins. Certain places in that game struggles to hold 60fps but then again, this is at ultra settings. I think for me, the fact remains that a £1000 upgrade is still just not worth it. Perhaps if I had a weaker gpu and played at 1080 then it may be worth it. The amount of times I have nearly bit the bullet and upgraded is crazy but at my gaming resolutions, the extra 3-8 fps surely isn't worth it is it especially when we are talking like 110 fps when it could be 116fps with 8700k?
Great article. I still use a 3770k @4.7 and a 1080ti. This allows me to game at high res using dsr so my gpu is usually the bottleneck. The only title I play when I feel the need for a better cpu is ac origins. Certain places in that game struggles to hold 60fps but then again, this is at ultra settings. I think for me, the fact remains that a £1000 upgrade is still just not worth it. Perhaps if I had a weaker gpu and played at 1080 then it may be worth it. The amount of times I have nearly bit the bullet and upgraded is crazy but at my gaming resolutions, the extra 3-8 fps surely isn't worth it is it especially when we are talking like 110 fps when it could be 116fps with 8700k?
Solfaur
Senior Member
Posts: 7579
Senior Member
Posts: 7579
Posted on: 03/22/2018 11:31 AM
For 1440p and above it's still more than enough for most games (with exception the ones that use more CPU power/cores like BF1 for example). Legendary CPU really.
For 1440p and above it's still more than enough for most games (with exception the ones that use more CPU power/cores like BF1 for example). Legendary CPU really.
RealNC
Senior Member
Posts: 3590
Senior Member
Posts: 3590
Posted on: 03/22/2018 11:35 AM
To me, and you're not mentioning this at all it seems, it looks like there's no difference at all in QHD (1440p). So if you're on Sandy Bridge and are split between getting a new GPU + a completely new system, vs getting a new GPU + a 1440p g-sync monitor, you're probably well advised to get a GPU and 1440p monitor.
If, on the other hand, you're all about 1080p or lower + highest FPS you can get ("300FPS competitive stuff",) you should opt for new platform instead.
(Of course if you have loads of money to throw, you'll upgrade everything... :p)
Gaming, however, was an interesting topic. Here the reality is simple the 2600K runs out of juice in CPU bound situations like low resolutions. The fact remains though, at 1080P is still has enough oomph to deliver decent enough numbers on anything below a GTX 1080, I mean not hugely great but certainly decent enough. When we take the GPU out of the equation and look solely at 720P performance, here you can see and measure a rather dramatic effect where Sandy Bridge limps behind. But let's always remember, a GPU bottleneck is far more apparent than a CPU bottleneck.
To me, and you're not mentioning this at all it seems, it looks like there's no difference at all in QHD (1440p). So if you're on Sandy Bridge and are split between getting a new GPU + a completely new system, vs getting a new GPU + a 1440p g-sync monitor, you're probably well advised to get a GPU and 1440p monitor.
If, on the other hand, you're all about 1080p or lower + highest FPS you can get ("300FPS competitive stuff",) you should opt for new platform instead.
(Of course if you have loads of money to throw, you'll upgrade everything... :p)
pages 1 2 3 4 > »
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 166
running 3930k @4.5. not even thinking to upgrade. this is strong beast for gaming and other tasks. and I still can't believe the price in 2011 vs 2018.