Are you skipping 2500K/2600K?

Are you skipping 2500/2600K?

  • Total voters
    1,149
As has been stated by Kyle, Dan and a number of other reviewers, there's really no reason to upgrade if you're just gaming (GPU-limited) and already have a higher-clocked i7. I'm holding off for a tick, or if Bulldozer if significantly faster (yeah, right...).
 
Zarathustra[H];1036782024 said:
On a C2D? Yes.

At 2560x1600 on a 6950 my guess would be that you'd be video card limited first in most titles, but there are some that use a surprising amount of CPU power.

I've heard a lot of people complain about BFBC2 and older CPU's. Civilization V also needs a surprising amount of CPU power, especially considering its a turn based strategy game.
Click to expand...

Civ V *does* use a crapton of CPU power (the most of any RTS I've seen so far by far) - it's the only RTS that bogs down Mighty Mouse @ 1280x720/Medium Detail. To put that in perspective, not even the original Supreme Commander (all patches) gets boggy until 1680x1050 @ High Detail.

It's not a BAD game as RTS titles go - however, who would expect Civ V to be more CPU intensive than RA3?

However, I happen to like playing Civ V.
 
I upgraded because its my hobby, I had no real need to other than wanting a CPU that OC'd better than my 920, which I just got unlucky with and had one that never was completely stable past 3.2. That gets passed to my wife, my wife's Q6600 computer gets repurposed for something else and the cycle goes on.
 
I was gonna take the risk with Sata ports and pull the trigger on a 2600k build this week, but looks like all the retailers have made the choice for me. So . . . skipping until Z68 comes out. For now I got an old 680i board and a e6750 thats still trudging along.
 
I'm still on my q6600 and don't think I need it, though it would be nice to emulate all my wii games at full speed :)
 
Quad core to 2600k is a huge step up. I'm glad I did it and didn't wait.
 
PGHammer said:
Civ V *does* use a crapton of CPU power (the most of any RTS I've seen so far by far) - it's the only RTS that bogs down Mighty Mouse @ 1280x720/Medium Detail. To put that in perspective, not even the original Supreme Commander (all patches) gets boggy until 1680x1050 @ High Detail.

It's not a BAD game as RTS titles go - however, who would expect Civ V to be more CPU intensive than RA3?

However, I happen to like playing Civ V.
Click to expand...

It doesn't surprise me if you go back and look at the power needed to run civ4 smoothly at its release. From what I've read I'm not keen on bothering with Civ5 until they patch all the kinks out in the first expansion or two. Its been their mindset ever since civ3.
 
my current PC is used mostly for work and my latest GPU upgrade (6850) is good enough for gaming with AA on a 21" LCD.

since business has been going really great for me lately, for this year I'll be :
- buying UMPC for work machine after Llano release to decide whether to go Llano or Sandy Bridge.
- for PC upgrade I'll be waiting for Bulldozer release, if it's not good enough, then I'm going Intel.
 
Heh, poll hasn't got an option for folks like me who are neither skipping nor upgrading, but instead trying to build/buy their first Desktop ever. Very frustrating to say "I will have one between Jan and the end of Feb" and then have the good stuff recalled, hah!

Granted I don't think the poll needs that option, but even so. Good reading!
 
With 2011 turning out to be potentially for richer people with Intel Extreme processors, Intel can suck my balls unless they do release cheaper "standard" processors for it. I'll be waiting to see what LGA 1356 is.
 
Last edited:
Rossi~ said:
With 2011 turning out to be potentially for richer people with Intel Extreme processors, Intel can suck my balls unless they do release cheaper "standard" processors for it. I'll be waiting to see what LGA 1356 is.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure they will release several CPU's with the 2011 chipset, and not just 1 'extreme' 1000$ cpu, otherwise its a waste of a chipset
 
I ended up building an i4 750 rig last night. I decided that im going to wait for Sandy to Mature alot before I do anything. I could of bought a sandy bridge rig last night really cheap but im going to wait till at least next Feb at tax time. By this time I will have more to choose from maybe ivy bridge & bulldozer.

I will get one of the 3 at a later date
 
dj LiTh said:
Pretty sure they will release several CPU's with the 2011 chipset, and not just 1 'extreme' 1000$ cpu, otherwise its a waste of a chipset
Click to expand...

News is apparently it's being released with only Intel Extreme CPU's initially.
 
Gone to wait for LGA2011 and AMD's new CPU line, hope AMD can give Inter some pressure and get the price down.
 
Got a q9400 @ 3.5 now, pretty happy with it. Will probably upgrade this year along with an SSD.
 
Yes I will be skipping the 2500/2600K, I recently upgraded from a AMD FX-60 to a intel i7 980x.
 
I am on both a C2Q and I7 and am skipping. In fact if I knew then what I know now, I would have skipped I7. It gave me almost no performance gain in the games I play at the settings I played them at over the C2Q with a single 5870. Maybe in a couple more years there will truly be a need to upgrade my I7 PC to play games.
 
GORANKAR said:
I am on both a C2Q and I7 and am skipping. In fact if I knew then what I know now, I would have skipped I7. It gave me almost no performance gain in the games I play at the settings I played them at over the C2Q with a single 5870. Maybe in a couple more years there will truly be a need to upgrade my I7 PC to play games.
Click to expand...

I bit on 2500k and there is no difference between my Q9550 4Ghz and 2500k 4.5GHz. Both tested with Asus 5850 975/1200 crossfire @ 2560x1600.
 
if you got 4 core there is no need for upgrade since most games (console ports) dont care about high clock at all!

SKIPPING
 
I was planning on doing the upgrade to Sandy Bridge because I want to move out of my SFF case to a tower again and wasn't about to buy another LGA1366 mobo.

Seeing that I can't buy motherboards right now, and with volume shipments of fixed chipsets not occurring until April, meaning motherboards likely won't be available in volume until May I can't right now.

I am taking this opportunity to sit back and wait and see if I like Bulldozer. I know it likely won't catch up with SB, but as long as it is fast enough that doesn't matter. As long as it can keep up with my planned dual GTX580's. (Having SLI compatibility would be a plus too, so I won't have to rely on some sort of hack that may or may not work.
 
C2Q and will wait a socket 2011 chip but I’m afraid it’s OC potentials and clock per clock performance won’t be significantly higher than the 2600K so when the day comes I’ll look again at the 2600k and pick it over a more expensive chip with extra cores that I won’t need.
 
Currently on 2500k and upgrading to 2600k.

I have much desire to fold now.:D
 
Last edited:
Ranulfo said:
It doesn't surprise me if you go back and look at the power needed to run civ4 smoothly at its release. From what I've read I'm not keen on bothering with Civ5 until they patch all the kinks out in the first expansion or two. Its been their mindset ever since civ3.
Click to expand...

Actually, Civ 4 was not that bad (a little more intensive than Civ III, but that is pretty much entirely because 4 was the first RTS to move past DX9c).

And that is indeed the issue (at least in the RTS space).

While shooters are actually starting to become more efficient and ramp *down* (yes, that means exactly what it sounds like - Crysis 2 is part of a trend), RTS games are ramping up (compare Sins of a Solar Empire Trinity to Demigod to Elemental - War of Magic; all three from the same publisher, namely Stardock). In a way, I blame both C&C 3 and RA 3 for the ramp-up in graphics requirements in the RTS space.
 
I am currently looking for another motherboard for a lga775. I have a Q9550 and had it overclocked to 3.83. It was pretty peppy. So I will skip the i7, and Sandy Bridge formats for now as I deem my computer fast as what I do.
 
I have Core i7 870 4ghz and 470 sli.and i am quiet happy. i am not upgrade until i feel my computer is slow.
 
On a Core2Quad [email protected] and it deals really well with even the latest games like BC2 being fairly CPU demanding, but it's starting to show it's age, It'll be ready to retire when the 2011 socket is out in Q4 and I'll move straight to an 8 core CPU, I think having an early 8 core CPU with hopefully a lot of over clocking room will give me the best future proofing.

Last chunk of spare cash went towards a 1080p projector which I'm using for a 95" screen right now, I'm getting way more benefit from that than visiting the current i7 range.
 
glen said:
Beg, Borrow, steal a Q9550. I think waiting on IvyBridge is risky. Seems in the past when Intel makes a huge upgrade in technology like Ivy will be it takes many many months after the initial release for them to release a mainstream firecracker CPU for budget buyers. Also with big new technology the first motherboards are usually quickly supersceeded by superior chipsets. I probably won't invest in Ivy until 2013 personally.

To me the i7 wasn't a costworthy upgrade for the budget light user until the SB came out which is really just a last swan song for the i-7 tooling, just like the Q9550 was the best deal for C2D, SB is the best deal for i-core (even though its a different socket.)

I guess what I'm saying is I always buy the last CPU of an Intel technology, they seem to be the best bargain, have the most stable MB's, and can usually hold there own for several years.


So for you selling your MB and buying a SB is something to really consider unless you find a deal on a lightly used E0 Q9550.
Click to expand...

I'm going to Sandy Bridge (LGA1155) not waiting for Ivy (LGA2011) - just not right away.

Neither my application or gaming needs call for more CPU cycles right now (not even virtualization). If anything, I'm either GPU-bound (gaming) or even RAM-bound (virtualization) - the reason I'm RAM-bound is due to the motherboard itself (only two RAM slots, both DDR2) so at some point a motherboard swap will be in order. (My applications, even the x64 versions of Outlook and Word, the two Office 2010 application I use the most, are quite happy, thank you.)

Pricing for B3 LGA115 motherboards is finally becoming sane - however, once LGA2011 arrives, that will, if anything, drive LGA1155 pricing down, and likely kill off existing LGA775 inventories that haven't already been fire-saled/clearanced. Barring some sort of Murphy Issue that kills my current rig, I'm sitting pretty right now, and therefore not in any rush.
 
PGHammer said:
Pricing for B3 LGA115 motherboards is finally becoming sane - however, once LGA2011 arrives, that will, if anything, drive LGA1155 pricing down, and likely kill off existing LGA775 inventories that haven't already been fire-saled/clearanced. Barring some sort of Murphy Issue that kills my current rig, I'm sitting pretty right now, and therefore not in any rush.
Click to expand...


One thing to keep a look out for when S2011 launches is Intel dropping the 2500K/2600K, I suspect these low priced CPU's were unlocked simply to compete with BD. When SBE 2011 comes out Intel would be smart to drop them as they would cut into the enthusiast platform sales and they must be a warranty nightmare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top