G.Skill TridentZ 5 RGB 6800 MHz CL34 DDR5 review
Be Quiet! Dark Power 13 - 1000W PSU Review
Palit GeForce RTX 4080 GamingPRO OC review
Core i9 13900K DDR5 7200 MHz (+memory scaling) review
Seasonic Prime Titanium TX-1300 (1300W PSU) review
F1 2022: PC graphics performance benchmark review
MSI Clutch GM31 Lightweight (+Wireless) mice review
AMD Ryzen 9 7900 processor review
AMD Ryzen 7 7700 processor review
AMD Ryzen 5 7600 processor 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 « < 32 33 34 35
Robbo9999
Senior Member
Posts: 1690
Senior Member
Posts: 1690
Posted on: 04/12/2018 08:48 PM
Here's a recent youtube video from Tech City comparing a Nehalem 6 xeon core xeon to the i7 8700k, and it still keeps up no problem.
So that's an 8 year old CPU from the same kind of era and similar to the i7-980x then (I think). It's doing well! It does perform less though, in pubg for instance, so it's not the best choice if you wanna to online multiplayer fps gaming on a high refresh rate monitor, but it still does surprisingly well - and if you don't have a high refresh rate monitor then it's still a perfect gaming CPU, from that video. Not a lot of folks have that CPU though, it's a server CPU, so the 2600K in this guru3d review is more relevant for making comparisons with newer CPUs because a lot of folks still have 2600K's, and the 2600K only has four cores (8 threads) rather than 6 & 12. Amazing to see that old CPU in your linked video pretty much keeping up with the 8700K for the most part.
Here's a recent youtube video from Tech City comparing a Nehalem 6 xeon core xeon to the i7 8700k, and it still keeps up no problem.
So that's an 8 year old CPU from the same kind of era and similar to the i7-980x then (I think). It's doing well! It does perform less though, in pubg for instance, so it's not the best choice if you wanna to online multiplayer fps gaming on a high refresh rate monitor, but it still does surprisingly well - and if you don't have a high refresh rate monitor then it's still a perfect gaming CPU, from that video. Not a lot of folks have that CPU though, it's a server CPU, so the 2600K in this guru3d review is more relevant for making comparisons with newer CPUs because a lot of folks still have 2600K's, and the 2600K only has four cores (8 threads) rather than 6 & 12. Amazing to see that old CPU in your linked video pretty much keeping up with the 8700K for the most part.
vbetts
Posts: 15142
Posts: 15142
Posted on: 04/12/2018 09:33 PM
More or less was just posting for arguments sake now that software is starting to use 4 cores at least now. The 920 I imagine would still run pretty strong, meaning pretty much yeah you would see a performance difference but in 1440p gaming for example that difference is very small. Problem is with the x58 platform, yeah you can get a decent CPU for under say $60 or so but a good x58 motherboard even used can cost $200+.
So that's an 8 year old CPU from the same kind of era and similar to the i7-980x then (I think). It's doing well! It does perform less though, in pubg for instance, so it's not the best choice if you wanna to online multiplayer fps gaming on a high refresh rate monitor, but it still does surprisingly well - and if you don't have a high refresh rate monitor then it's still a perfect gaming CPU, from that video. Not a lot of folks have that CPU though, it's a server CPU, so the 2600K in this guru3d review is more relevant for making comparisons with newer CPUs because a lot of folks still have 2600K's, and the 2600K only has four cores (8 threads) rather than 6 & 12. Amazing to see that old CPU in your linked video pretty much keeping up with the 8700K for the most part.
More or less was just posting for arguments sake now that software is starting to use 4 cores at least now. The 920 I imagine would still run pretty strong, meaning pretty much yeah you would see a performance difference but in 1440p gaming for example that difference is very small. Problem is with the x58 platform, yeah you can get a decent CPU for under say $60 or so but a good x58 motherboard even used can cost $200+.
Ourasi
Senior Member
Posts: 294
Senior Member
Posts: 294
Posted on: 11/24/2018 07:28 AM
i7 2600k@4.5ghz paired with a Sapphire Nitro+ Vega 64 in firestrike:
Looks a bit different compared with Hilbert's stock run with GTX1080
i7 2600k@4.5ghz paired with a Sapphire Nitro+ Vega 64 in firestrike:
Looks a bit different compared with Hilbert's stock run with GTX1080
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 11808
Senior Member
Posts: 11808
Posted on: 11/24/2018 12:20 PM
A very astute observation. My 2500K at 4.4 is speedy enough. And more than compensates for the incremental improvements in newer architectures up to Kaby Lake.
The reason to upgrade now just recently became something really tangible with the introduction of Zen and Intel's Coffee Lake response.
I have a feeling Intel has been holding back on us. We probably could have had hex core i5-i7 Haswell procs if AMD had been competitive then.
NO, you could have had 6C/12T and 8C/16T from intel even if AMD was not around. They could deliver, but people let themselves to be deceived and were upgrading every 1~2 "generations" to same number of cores/threads.
I did sit on my i5-2500K even while it sucked over last year and something till I went for Ryzen 7 2700X.
(i5-2500K is still OKish if one aims at 60fps and uses fps limiter for frame pacing. But above 80fps it stutters in many modern games even while it can pull 100fps+. So one has to gradually take fps down till frametimes get under control.)
And way intel played entire notebook market was unbelievable too. You could have gaming notebook with i7-720QM (4C/8T) + HD5870 long time ago for under $1000. Then intel took down 4C/8T and i7s became 2C/4T till recently.
A very astute observation. My 2500K at 4.4 is speedy enough. And more than compensates for the incremental improvements in newer architectures up to Kaby Lake.
The reason to upgrade now just recently became something really tangible with the introduction of Zen and Intel's Coffee Lake response.
I have a feeling Intel has been holding back on us. We probably could have had hex core i5-i7 Haswell procs if AMD had been competitive then.
NO, you could have had 6C/12T and 8C/16T from intel even if AMD was not around. They could deliver, but people let themselves to be deceived and were upgrading every 1~2 "generations" to same number of cores/threads.
I did sit on my i5-2500K even while it sucked over last year and something till I went for Ryzen 7 2700X.
(i5-2500K is still OKish if one aims at 60fps and uses fps limiter for frame pacing. But above 80fps it stutters in many modern games even while it can pull 100fps+. So one has to gradually take fps down till frametimes get under control.)
And way intel played entire notebook market was unbelievable too. You could have gaming notebook with i7-720QM (4C/8T) + HD5870 long time ago for under $1000. Then intel took down 4C/8T and i7s became 2C/4T till recently.
pages « < 32 33 34 35
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Posts: 15142
Here's a recent youtube video from Tech City comparing a Nehalem 6 xeon core xeon to the i7 8700k, and it still keeps up no problem.