Raijintek Orcus 240 AIO cooler review
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X review
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX review
ASUS ROG SWIFT PG27UQ Monitor review
MSI B450i Gaming PLUS AC review
MSI Radeon RX 570 and 580 MECH 2 8G OC review
Preview: Unboxing Threadripper 2950X & 2990WX
Corsair SPEC Omega RGB review
Gigabyte B450 Aorus Pro review
MSI B450 Tomahawk review
Retro review: Intel Sandy Bridge Core i7 2600K - 2018 review
Posted by: on: 03/22/2018 10:07 AM [
168 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 > »
eddieveenstra
Member
Posts: 75
Member
Posts: 75
Posted on: 03/22/2018 10:29 AM
Nice Review Hilbert.
I'm still running the 2500K and at 4.7GHz not having issues at all. Offcourse some games do stutter sometime but nothing big. Good to see this chip is a great oldie that can still come along in games.
Nice Review Hilbert.
I'm still running the 2500K and at 4.7GHz not having issues at all. Offcourse some games do stutter sometime but nothing big. Good to see this chip is a great oldie that can still come along in games.
Cave Waverider
Senior Member
Posts: 776
Senior Member
Posts: 776
Posted on: 03/22/2018 10:36 AM
Nice. I'd love to see one of those with the Core i7 3930K or 3960X Sandy Bridge E (including 4-4.5GHz overclock) as well. I somehow doubt it's worth an upgrade right now, especially when taking the high prices into account.
Nice. I'd love to see one of those with the Core i7 3930K or 3960X Sandy Bridge E (including 4-4.5GHz overclock) as well. I somehow doubt it's worth an upgrade right now, especially when taking the high prices into account.
Endymion
Member
Posts: 89
Member
Posts: 89
Posted on: 03/22/2018 10:36 AM
Does there really exist people that use 2600k at stock clocks? What's the point of review? Let's make strawpoll and ask 2600k owners at what clocks do they use this CPU. I think 90% of users would use it under OC conditions.
And where is more processor oriented games like BF1 etc. ?
MAX and LOW FPS? ..
Does there really exist people that use 2600k at stock clocks? What's the point of review? Let's make strawpoll and ask 2600k owners at what clocks do they use this CPU. I think 90% of users would use it under OC conditions.
And where is more processor oriented games like BF1 etc. ?
MAX and LOW FPS? ..
burebista
Senior Member
Posts: 1710
Senior Member
Posts: 1710
Posted on: 03/22/2018 10:37 AM
Thx man.
I'm still fine with my 2500k @4.5 and a 1060.
Thx man.
I'm still fine with my 2500k @4.5 and a 1060.
ocsystem
Member
Posts: 91
Member
Posts: 91
Posted on: 03/22/2018 11:01 AM
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.
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.
Clawedge
Senior Member
Posts: 2139
Senior Member
Posts: 2139
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: 1481
Senior Member
Posts: 1481
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: 6768
Senior Member
Posts: 6768
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: 1995
Senior Member
Posts: 1995
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)
cryohellinc
Senior Member
Posts: 1670
Senior Member
Posts: 1670
Posted on: 03/22/2018 11:36 AM
Mega Guide:
Do you have 1080p screen or 1440p/4k?
1080p - Yes, worth an upgrade.
1440p/4k - No, keep using it as GPU is the bottleneck.
Mega Guide:
Do you have 1080p screen or 1440p/4k?
1080p - Yes, worth an upgrade.
1440p/4k - No, keep using it as GPU is the bottleneck.
moeppel
Senior Member
Posts: 137
Senior Member
Posts: 137
Posted on: 03/22/2018 12:00 PM
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)
In a nutshell this is true but bear in mind that general computing tasks (and particularly multitasking) will likely also feel lot better with a modern CPU and platform overall. With next generation of GPUs, whenever it'll come, the 2600K might even starts falling behind in WQHD/UHD.
Those on a budget can certainly drive their Sandy and Ivy for a little bit longer but they are at the verge of falling helplessly behind - if not this year then I suspect 2019 to be year in which an era comes to an end. They've had fantastic run, which last but not least is also thanks to Intel's overall stagnation until AMD threw Ryzen our ways.
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)
In a nutshell this is true but bear in mind that general computing tasks (and particularly multitasking) will likely also feel lot better with a modern CPU and platform overall. With next generation of GPUs, whenever it'll come, the 2600K might even starts falling behind in WQHD/UHD.
Those on a budget can certainly drive their Sandy and Ivy for a little bit longer but they are at the verge of falling helplessly behind - if not this year then I suspect 2019 to be year in which an era comes to an end. They've had fantastic run, which last but not least is also thanks to Intel's overall stagnation until AMD threw Ryzen our ways.
fOrTy_7
Senior Member
Posts: 301
Senior Member
Posts: 301
Posted on: 03/22/2018 12:04 PM
Kinda nice review, but I would say that providing only avarage FPS stats for game benchmarks is so retro these days.
Where are the minimal FPS stats? %1 and 0.1% FPS drops?
Kinda nice review, but I would say that providing only avarage FPS stats for game benchmarks is so retro these days.
Where are the minimal FPS stats? %1 and 0.1% FPS drops?
Ourasi
Senior Member
Posts: 290
Senior Member
Posts: 290
Posted on: 03/22/2018 12:11 PM
2600K overclocked to ~ 4.5ghz with 16gb 2133mhz RAM turns into a whole other story, running it at stock with 1333mhz RAM is kinda "what is wrong with this picture" stuff, but hey, some grandma might run it at stock as an "interweb thingy" :p
2600K overclocked to ~ 4.5ghz with 16gb 2133mhz RAM turns into a whole other story, running it at stock with 1333mhz RAM is kinda "what is wrong with this picture" stuff, but hey, some grandma might run it at stock as an "interweb thingy" :p
rl66
Senior Member
Posts: 1700
Senior Member
Posts: 1700
Posted on: 03/22/2018 12:18 PM
Thx man.
I'm still fine with my 2500k @4.5 and a 1060.
When you see that 1st child still use an old core2 Q9550 OC with a 1060 and R6 siege put everything at max by default at 1440... then of course you are still fine with your 2500K
Thx man.
I'm still fine with my 2500k @4.5 and a 1060.
When you see that 1st child still use an old core2 Q9550 OC with a 1060 and R6 siege put everything at max by default at 1440... then of course you are still fine with your 2500K
alanm
Senior Member
Posts: 7899
Senior Member
Posts: 7899
Posted on: 03/22/2018 12:19 PM
Stock 2600k @ 3.4ghz. Add 30-40% to the benches since these chips can easily OC to that.
Stock 2600k @ 3.4ghz. Add 30-40% to the benches since these chips can easily OC to that.
Raider0001
Senior Member
Posts: 379
Senior Member
Posts: 379
Posted on: 03/22/2018 12:19 PM
Well You all bought in your overclocking capabilities which has nothing to do with the cleverness of the old days of overclocking - it was all done with a lot of risk but not paid.
What it means basically U did not OCed at all, it was bought in speed.
Well You all bought in your overclocking capabilities which has nothing to do with the cleverness of the old days of overclocking - it was all done with a lot of risk but not paid.
What it means basically U did not OCed at all, it was bought in speed.
rl66
Senior Member
Posts: 1700
Senior Member
Posts: 1700
Posted on: 03/22/2018 12:21 PM
Non OC intel 2*00 are not as weak as you think...
2600K overclocked to ~ 4.5ghz with 16gb 2133mhz RAM turns into a whole other story, running it at stock with 1333mhz RAM is kinda "what is wrong with this picture" stuff, but hey, some grandma might run it at stock as an "interweb thingy" :p
Non OC intel 2*00 are not as weak as you think...
Embra
Senior Member
Posts: 600
Senior Member
Posts: 600
Posted on: 03/22/2018 12:47 PM
Great review HH!! Thanks.
Great review HH!! Thanks.
thebeastman
Junior Member
Posts: 16
Junior Member
Posts: 16
Posted on: 03/22/2018 12:55 PM
Great review , very nice processor !
but I think it s time to change : I ve just changed my 3770k@4.5Ghz for 8700k@4.7Ghz (on all core)
I had too many stuttering on BF1 , Battlefront 2 , Pubg or Assassin credd origin.
Now no more stuttering , games are perfectly smooth (1440p)
And I think , we ll have more and more new games that demands very good processor (Far Cry 5 etc...)
Great review , very nice processor !
but I think it s time to change : I ve just changed my 3770k@4.5Ghz for 8700k@4.7Ghz (on all core)
I had too many stuttering on BF1 , Battlefront 2 , Pubg or Assassin credd origin.
Now no more stuttering , games are perfectly smooth (1440p)
And I think , we ll have more and more new games that demands very good processor (Far Cry 5 etc...)
ttnuagmada
Member
Posts: 44
Member
Posts: 44
Posted on: 03/22/2018 01:00 PM
Stock clocks and DDR3 1333? Wish you had at least thrown a 4.5ghz+ with some faster ram in the mix.
Stock clocks and DDR3 1333? Wish you had at least thrown a 4.5ghz+ with some faster ram in the mix.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 32903
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 32903
Posted on: 03/22/2018 01:04 PM
Yeah, that was what I wanted to do as extra (tweaking), the H67 board, however, did not allow CPU tweaking. Memory wise I had to choose, either faster 8GB or 16GB reference JEDEC - I really wanted 16GB of memory opposed to some faster 8GB I had sitting there (all dusty btw). Also the H67 mobo had issues with faster memory (which was a normal thing in the pre-XMP days
)
Stock clocks and DDR3 1333? Wish you had at least thrown a 4.5ghz+ with some faster ram in the mix.
Yeah, that was what I wanted to do as extra (tweaking), the H67 board, however, did not allow CPU tweaking. Memory wise I had to choose, either faster 8GB or 16GB reference JEDEC - I really wanted 16GB of memory opposed to some faster 8GB I had sitting there (all dusty btw). Also the H67 mobo had issues with faster memory (which was a normal thing in the pre-XMP days
)
The Goose
Senior Member
Posts: 2113
Senior Member
Posts: 2113
Posted on: 03/22/2018 01:04 PM
Not sure about pci-e lane improvements, my last 6 cpu`s(2500k,4790k,g4560,6600k,6700k and 7700k) have all been limited to 16 lanes whereas my 4820k i had 40 on the cpu to play with and i didnt have the option for m.2 pci-e x4 back then.
Not sure about pci-e lane improvements, my last 6 cpu`s(2500k,4790k,g4560,6600k,6700k and 7700k) have all been limited to 16 lanes whereas my 4820k i had 40 on the cpu to play with and i didnt have the option for m.2 pci-e x4 back then.
matox
Junior Member
Posts: 13
Junior Member
Posts: 13
Posted on: 03/22/2018 01:08 PM
I really really liked this article. Thank you!
Additionally, I think someone needs complain about how crappy the 6600k is in comparison. I'll do it: it's just a shameful. I'm glad Ryzen forced intel to up their game a notch.
Thanks HH!
I really really liked this article. Thank you!
Additionally, I think someone needs complain about how crappy the 6600k is in comparison. I'll do it: it's just a shameful. I'm glad Ryzen forced intel to up their game a notch.
Thanks HH!
Kaarme
Senior Member
Posts: 1170
Senior Member
Posts: 1170
Posted on: 03/22/2018 01:09 PM
Still a better CPU than mine, which is a perfect example of how Intel didn't bother to do anything during all those years when AMD couldn't put up a fight. Three whole generations between that CPU and mine, yet the old basic i7k still beats the much newer i5k. But I'm glad Intel made hundreds of billions of profit in the meantime. Not a single cent of it was used for the benefit of the customers.
I'm so glad AMD was finally able to make a comeback. It was such a sick market.
Still a better CPU than mine, which is a perfect example of how Intel didn't bother to do anything during all those years when AMD couldn't put up a fight. Three whole generations between that CPU and mine, yet the old basic i7k still beats the much newer i5k. But I'm glad Intel made hundreds of billions of profit in the meantime. Not a single cent of it was used for the benefit of the customers.
I'm so glad AMD was finally able to make a comeback. It was such a sick market.
pages 1 2 3 4 > »
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 8682
Great review Boss.