• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

2600 vs 2600k

T

thebaest

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
183
First off, its nice to see that Newegg has reactivated their sandy bridge CPUS (it may have been a while, but I havent checked in a while), but I noticed 2 different ones, the 2600 and 2600k. The only thing side by side that I noticed different was the integrated graphics on the 2600k were the 3000 line instead of the 2000. Its irrelavent either way becuase Im not using onboard video, but is there anything else different between the 2? Itd be nice to save $30 on the 2600, but if there is anything architectually different on the 2600k Id probably go for it.

2600: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115071
2600k: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115070
 
Last edited:
The main difference is the 2600K has an unlocked multiplier. With the new clock generator design an unlocked multiplier is basically essential for overclocking.
 
K= Unlocked multi to allow overclocking

Non k = Locked multi so you cannot overclock

Only the K edition can overclock. You can't overclock via FSB or w/e they call it these days anymore.
 
sweet, thanks! although its really annoying that they lock down things like that >< I would sure hope that that doesnt include their "turbo boost" to 3.8ghz. I dont think I will be needing to overclock anyway. Stock speeds over my Q6600 are going to be noticable right out of the box ^^
 
xBanzai89 said:
K= Unlocked multi to allow overclocking

Non k = Locked multi so you cannot overclock

Only the K edition can overclock. You can't overclock via FSB or w/e they call it these days anymore.
Click to expand...

Not entirely true. Every Sandy Bridge processor with Turbo Boost capability (read: not Core i3) can have the multiplier increased by 4 (this affects all modes of operation, including Turbo Boost modes). Take a look at this article where they overclock a Core i5 2400 to 3.6 GHz (4-core turbo speed):

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i5-2500-2400-2300_11.html#sect0

This means that a Core i7 2600 (stock clock 3.4 GHz) could be clocked to the following speeds:

3.9 GHz (4 cores loaded, turbo)
4.1 GHz (2 cores loaded)
4.2 GHz (1 core loaded)

Not the best that chip can do, but certainly very fast!

CHECK HERE if you're not sure what speeds particular processors are capable of:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/picture/?src=/images/cpu/core-i5-2500-2400-2300/table2.png
 
Last edited:
Also, the 2600 supports vt-x and vt-d. The 2600k supports vt-x but not vt-d. If you know what that means, then it's probably worth knowing, if not, you probably won't need to worry about it :p
 
seanmcd said:
Doesn't the K version have a faster video speed?
Click to expand...

Yes it does.

But the OP says he doesn't care because he won't be using onboard video. You also can't use the onboard video AND overclock using current chipsets, so it's a moot point anyway :D
 
WiLLiSTER said:
Also, the 2600 supports vt-x and vt-d. The 2600k supports vt-x but not vt-d. If you know what that means, then it's probably worth knowing, if not, you probably won't need to worry about it :p
Click to expand...

This is a huge disadvantage for the 2600k. You think you are buying the best with the 2600k being unlocked but it cannot do virtualization as well as the cheaper 2600. My coworker just found this out the [H]ard way. Pun intended.:D
 
PCMusicGuy said:
This is a huge disadvantage for the 2600k. You think you are buying the best with the 2600k being unlocked but it cannot do virtualization as well as the cheaper 2600. My coworker just found this out the [H]ard way. Pun intended.:D
Click to expand...

I really hope that bulldozer trully does destroy sandybridge, Intel doing this horsecrap is ridiculous. BTW, I run my 2600k stock and it's still faster than anything I had before (Q6600 @ 3.6Ghz, x4 965 @ 4.2Ghz, x6 @ 4.0/4.2Ghz), so a 2600 non-k is a great chip.
 
Rauelius said:
I really hope that bulldozer trully does destroy sandybridge, Intel doing this horsecrap is ridiculous. BTW, I run my 2600k stock and it's still faster than anything I had before (Q6600 @ 3.6Ghz, x4 965 @ 4.2Ghz, x6 @ 4.0/4.2Ghz), so a 2600 non-k is a great chip.
Click to expand...
Ain't that the truth. Outside of the random freezes I've been getting with my system, its been extremely quick and I'm happy I upgraded. Unfortunately, I have a feeling AMD might end up doing something similar but we'll just have to see when they finally release it. Hopefully they don't disable Virtualization. Still crap that Intel did with their more expensive chip (albeit not much more expensive).

What it really comes down to is if you can take advantage of VT along with a need for the on-chip graphics or if you want to overclock with ease (P67 vs H67 really). Other than that, at stock, they are one in the same.
 
I thought I would ask here instead of starting a new thread...why is there such a disparity between the 2600 and the 2600K in CPU benchmarks? I was considering the 2600 over the K, just because I don't need on-board graphics, and virtualization stuff IS important to me. But so is also speed for video encoding. Is there anyone with any real-world experience between the two, in equal tests, and not just a common "benchmark"?
 
Here are the differences between the Intel® Core&#8482; i7-2600 and then Intel Core i7-2600K:

Intel Core i7-2600
-Support for TXT (Trusted Execution Technology) a business level virus protection feature.
-Support for VT-d (Virtualization with Directed I/O) with supported boards allow you to assign hardware to a VM.
-Intel HD 2000 Graphics.

Intel Core i7-2600K
-Unlocked multiplier (allows easy overclocking by simply changing the multiplier in the Bios)
-Intel HD 3000 Graphics

There is about a $15 price difference between these processors. So to pick up the ability to get a great deal better performance in the future for $15 is very nice option. But in the end the difference between these processors at stock speeds really comes down to the graphics.
 
grimster said:
I thought I would ask here instead of starting a new thread...why is there such a disparity between the 2600 and the 2600K in CPU benchmarks? I was considering the 2600 over the K, just because I don't need on-board graphics, and virtualization stuff IS important to me. But so is also speed for video encoding. Is there anyone with any real-world experience between the two, in equal tests, and not just a common "benchmark"?
Click to expand...

There should be not disparity between the two at all if at the same (default clock) speed... Both support Visualization just fine, with the K missing out on VT-d...
The main advantage of K is that you can OC the f@$% out of it, and that in itself will outweigh any "negatives" it may have compared to non-K version.
 
Well, I don't overclock anything, so that $15 for more performance doesn't mean anything for me, since I wouldn't be using it. If you look at benchmarks, there is a huge difference between the 2600 and 2600K. I am wondering if anyone has any real numbers instead of some kind of company who is paid to maybe fudge the numbers to push a product.
 
grimster said:
Well, I don't overclock anything, so that $15 for more performance doesn't mean anything for me, since I wouldn't be using it. If you look at benchmarks, there is a huge difference between the 2600 and 2600K. I am wondering if anyone has any real numbers instead of some kind of company who is paid to maybe fudge the numbers to push a product.
Click to expand...

Link???????
 
WiLLiSTER said:
Also, the 2600 supports vt-x and vt-d. The 2600k supports vt-x but not vt-d. If you know what that means, then it's probably worth knowing, if not, you probably won't need to worry about it :p
Click to expand...

yeah...this pisses me off, I have a 2500K that I would possibly want to move to a ESXi server role later on (after I get a new rig) but the lack of vt-d may mean my wife gets it when I get something new instead ...oh well it might give me an excuse to build a proper server instead.


the lack of vt-d on the K processors is infuriating... intel always seems to pull stunts like this for no apparent reason...
 
I only use that site because they also have server CPUs. Now I'm thinking they may really under-rate the dual socket setups. 2600 it is for my next setup.
 
atarione said:
yeah...this pisses me off, I have a 2500K that I would possibly want to move to a ESXi server role later on (after I get a new rig) but the lack of vt-d may mean my wife gets it when I get something new instead ...oh well it might give me an excuse to build a proper server instead.


the lack of vt-d on the K processors is infuriating... intel always seems to pull stunts like this for no apparent reason...
Click to expand...

they segment their market even more and force people to buy another cpu if they want virtualization. Besides virtualization is something targeted more towards professionals, and the typical professional doesn't overclock. it would have been nice if they didn't disable it, but it is clear why they did.
 
plugwash said:
The main difference is the 2600K has an unlocked multiplier. With the new clock generator design an unlocked multiplier is basically essential for overclocking.
Click to expand...

The other difference is the 2600 supports vt-d. The 2600k doesn't.
 
PCMusicGuy said:
This is a huge disadvantage for the 2600k. You think you are buying the best with the 2600k being unlocked but it cannot do virtualization as well as the cheaper 2600. My coworker just found this out the [H]ard way. Pun intended.:D
Click to expand...

Not so fast, my friend.

VT-d is, at best, a niche issue for *all* CPUs, Sandy Bridge or otherwise.

VT-d itself stands for VT with Directed Input/Output and is useful for providing exclusive access to specific host hardware by a virtual machine (such as a network adapter or dongle, for example). The hardware given such exclusive access is then rendered unusable by the host. (In most cases, the host operating system has no support for the I/O device in question, which is why VT-d is needed, in addition to standard virtualization support via software.)

For general-purpose usage, VT-x (supported by all Sandy Bridge CPUs, including Celeron-G) and/or Hyper-V (supported by i3 and above) works just fine. Note: Hyper-V does not require VT-d; it *does* require support for Second-Level Address Translation (SLAT), which is supported by P67 and all Z-class chipsets (both the current Z68 and the upcoming Z77), 4 GB or more of system memory, and the appropriate CPU and OS support. (Windows Server 2008 R2 supports Hyper-V today, as does the Developer Preview of Windows 8 x64.) Unless you truly need to give a specific guest exclusive hardware access (such as to a dongle), either VT-x (leveragable by Windows 7 today in the typical ways) or the Developer Preview of Windows 8 (x64 only - install Hyper-V via Programs and Features in Control Panel) would make better sense.

Rather amusingly, due to the super-low prices for DDR3 system memory today, I find Hyper-V's 4 GB system memory requirement small beer today. (Consider that I bought 4GBx2 of DDR3-1333 just two days ago for $41USD, including tax - retail. Half that amount of DDR2-800 - what I run today - would cost me more than that.) Even if i5 performed no better, clock for clock, than Lynnfield - which it basically replaced - I would stay with LGA775/DDR2 (or any other CPU and DDR2) *why*? If you value your time and your money, staying with DDR2 is a sucker bet - and each additional day sucks you further down the money drain. LGA775/DDR3? Almost as bad a bet, considering that except at the higher end, DDR3 on LGA775 is on just two DIMM sockets - at those prices, almost any P67 or low or midrange Z68 motherboard makes better money sense. (I'm a cheapskate - of course I looked at that option! Again, even assuming zero performance gain, staying the course with LGA775 made no money sense whatever.)

Then throw in bundle pricing (most retailers and e-tailers; Newegg, TigerDirect, and MicroCenter are the standouts). There is *always* at least one bundle involving a Sandy Bridge CPU and motherboard paired together for a lower price than when bought separately (with retailers and e-tailers having bundle events at the same time, they can be played off against each other) - MicroCenter alone has run their "Vitamin K" event or variants thereof almost continuously since August 1st. (I have seen it unavailable in one form or another for a grand total of three days over that period - one per month.) I'll be basically going i5-K for i3's price. (And that is despite going to a better Z68-based motherboard due to wanting to insure forward-compatibility with Ivy Bridge.) Passing up that sort of pricing isn't just silly - it's tupid, not merely oft. While I may at times be oft (it's part of living in Cheapskate Territory), I refuse to be tupid needlessly.

The "Vitamin K" bundle pricing should especially be a wake-up call for anyone even *thinking* about a non-K Sandy CPU that has a MicroCenter nearby. Because of the bundle savings, the event puts the non-K Sandies on the wrong side of the price curve. (The spread between the i5-2400 and i5-2500K at MC normally is $30USD in favor of the non-K CPU; the same is true between i7-2600 and i7-2600K. The bundles swap the price positions: i5-K is $10 less than straight i5, and i7-K is $50 less than straight i7.)

It gets no better if you leave i3 (no K version) in the mix - MicroCenter, for example, has no bundle pricing built around i3. ("i3?" says Der Bundle Natsi, "No discount for you!") The price difference between i3 and i5-2500K is normally $80 - bundle pricing halves that ($40 less than i5-K) - you are going to say that the performance difference between i3 and i5-K isn't worth $40?

As I said before - at times oft, but never deliberately tupid.
 
marylandman said:
they segment their market even more and force people to buy another cpu if they want virtualization. Besides virtualization is something targeted more towards professionals, and the typical professional doesn't overclock. it would have been nice if they didn't disable it, but it is clear why they did.
Click to expand...

Not - instead, throw Windows 8 on it and run Hyper-V (far less restrictive than VT-d).

Hyper-V is more restricted than VT-x - however, it's not even as close to being as restricted as VT-d.

The biggest restriction on Hyper-V today is host-OS support - among shipping operating systems, it's limited to Windows Server 2008 R2. (However, the Developer Preview of Windows 8 x64 also supports Hyper-V as a host - add it via Programs and Features in Control Panel.)

On the hardware side, it requires support for Second-Level Address Translation (SLAT), of which support for Virtualization Technology for Directed Input/Output (what VT-d stands for) is an optional feature, Hyper-V does *not* require it. (It can leverage it; however, it doesn't need it.) One major reason VSXi supported it was because VSXi is a *server-based* virtualization platform - it also could be run on versions of Windows Server prior to 2008R2 (in addition to non-Windows operating systems).

VT-x is the least-restrictive form of hardware-virtualization support for Intel CPUs - other than Atom, there are few CPUs in LGA775/1156/1366/1155 that *don't* support it. (In fact, there are fewer than ten - across all four LGA packages.) Even the Celeron Dual-Core E3xxx (LGA775) and Celeron-G (LGA1155) support it. XPMode in Windows 7 was specifically designed to leverage this feature - however, even the free VirtualBox leverages it better (especially in terms of support for not just operating systems other than Windows, but even x64 Windows operating systems, including XP64, Vista x64, and 7 x64 - the current version of VirtualBox even lets you run the Developer Preview of Windows 8 x64 in a virtual machine).

Largely due to the ubiquity of VT-x, desktop hardware virtualization is now a checkbox-item, and has been for at least a year.

Hyper-V is the next step up from VT-x and, like VT-x, originally launched in server CPUs (Intel XEON, to be precise). Now Sandy Bridge, like Wolfdale did for VT-x, is making Hyper-V ubiquitous (VT-x remains supported across Sandy Bridge, from highest K to lowest-G) - I don't know if Hyper-V is supported below i3, however. (It sounds plausible that because Intel introduced VT-x with Conroe/Kentsfield, but made it ubiquitous with Wolfdale/Lynnfield, they may take a similar tack here - introduce Hyper-V to the desktop with Sandy Bridge, but make it ubiquitous with Ivy Bridge.)

Hyper-V opens things a bit more as far as what can be done with desktop virtualization, even above VT-x, even without VT-d; I can attach a real SATA/eSATA HDD to an unused port and make it exclusive to a guest running under Hyper-V (or even VT-x today) running WHS 2011 or even Server 2008 R2. (That's possible right now.) The only thing VT-d brings to the table is that I can attach a peripheral that the host does not support to a specific guest (that's where the Directed I/O comes in to play); however, the performance penalty imposed on the host by the need for Directed I/O makes it a niche use at best - Hyper-V without Directed I/O or even straight VT-x makes better sense from a performance standpoint.
 
PGHammer, I agree on your points.

My coworker was building a rig and testing Hyper V. The company I work for uses VMWare exclusively and we do require VT-d because of nature of work. Sometimes we have to setup an old project using Windows NT 4.0 system with ancient serial cards talking to some custom simulation software. Certainly makes it handy to have in those cases and we definitely fall into that niche use.
 
PCMusicGuy said:
PGHammer, I agree on your points.

My coworker was building a rig and testing Hyper V. The company I work for uses VMWare exclusively and we do require VT-d because of nature of work. Sometimes we have to setup an old project using Windows NT 4.0 system with ancient serial cards talking to some custom simulation software. Certainly makes it handy to have in those cases and we definitely fall into that niche use.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. I don't discount niche users (or even niche uses) - however, unless you fall into that niche, a more general-purpose (and less pricey) CPU/motherboard/GPU/etc. choice may make better sense.

Take, for example, the E3400 I mentioned (it's also the core of Mighty Mouse) - I sidegraded from E1200 because my biggest thing (aside from light gaming) is virtualization *because* I support home users and home-based/small businesses, most of which are running old(er) hardware (or ex-enterprise hardware). Being able to simulate older hardware running newer software (especially x64 versions of Vista and 7, but also various Linux distributions as well) helps me avoid running into any software-based *gotchas* troubleshooting that hardware/software mix.

Now, with the upcoming i5-K-based upgrade, Hyper-V (due to support in Windows 8 as a host) is in a position to supersede VT-x (both P67 and Z68 support SLAT, as do the i3 and above CPUs) without taking away VT-x; right now, you can't run Linux distributions or OS X under Hyper-V (fortunately, I can still run VirtualBox in Windows 8 just fine). That means I can have closer-to-native performance of simulated Windows VMs (far less overhead with Hyper-V as opposed to VT-x) and no additional per-VM costs. Win for me, win for my customers.
 
I looked up VT-d for VirtualBox, and it doesn't even support it yet (or AMD IO-MMU) so it's a non-issue for even VirtualBox users presently.
 
The last benchmark I saw from the Bulldozers put a near 25-50% performacnce gap between Intel's latest and AMD's latest., I don't think that bulldozer will be doing any knocking over any time soon.

There's probably either an engineering or a niche reason why the 2600k supports fewer Virtualization.
#1 - People buying overclockable CPUs probably don't need to run 3-5 VMWARE instances.
#2 - Perhaps there's a performance difference that is measurable to people who buy overclocked CPUs that can be better taken advantage by nopt having the extra transistors or what not required to support vt-d.

Personally I think Intel's latest blunder is with their new platform controller not supporting any modern technologies. I'm alwso waiting a few years for people to start wardriving neighborhoods and wiping everyboyd's hard drive and destroying their hardware with the Crippleware that Intel is getting people to buy. Although, perhaps in light of the Zombie Apocalypse perhaps nobody will be using computers in 1-2 years.
 
Fort_Major said:
The last benchmark I saw from the Bulldozers put a near 25-50% performacnce gap between Intel's latest and AMD's latest., I don't think that bulldozer will be doing any knocking over any time soon.

There's probably either an engineering or a niche reason why the 2600k supports fewer Virtualization.
#1 - People buying overclockable CPUs probably don't need to run 3-5 VMWARE instances.
#2 - Perhaps there's a performance difference that is measurable to people who buy overclocked CPUs that can be better taken advantage by nopt having the extra transistors or what not required to support vt-d.

Personally I think Intel's latest blunder is with their new platform controller not supporting any modern technologies. I'm alwso waiting a few years for people to start wardriving neighborhoods and wiping everyboyd's hard drive and destroying their hardware with the Crippleware that Intel is getting people to buy. Although, perhaps in light of the Zombie Apocalypse perhaps nobody will be using computers in 1-2 years.
Click to expand...

If you are referring to VT-d, think really hard - what is the *only* use for VT-d today that can't be met by either Hyper-V or VT-x? Exclusive guest access to hardware unsupported by the host - a niche use at best. Anything else can be tackled by either Hyper-V (supported by Windows Server 2008 R2 today, and Windows 8 Developer Preview x64 on i3 and above today) or VT-x/AMD-V (supported on current-generation CPUs from both, except for the absolute low-end of Intel's lineup, such as Atom - even the Fusion APUs, Celeron/Pentium-G and Celeron/Pentium DC of today support VT-x except for niches).

I don't play in that niche - I need, at most, *generic* emulated hardware; therefore, VT-x (and Hyper-V going forward) suits me just fine. What Hyper-V brings to the table (over and above VT-x, which is *still* supported by Sandy Bridge) is reduced overheard for supported guests (primarily Windows for now) - further, by taking care *not* to install guest-OS support of a proprietary nature (such as either VMware Tools or VirtualBox Guest Additions) I can even painlessly migrate guests between VT-x based and Hyper-V hosts without suffering a re-creation-time or any other penalty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top