Are you skipping 2500K/2600K?

Are you skipping 2500/2600K?

  • Total voters
    1,149
I'm on an i7-920 an will be giving it to my parents this summer so I have no choice but to get it, unfortunately. I will probably also then upgrade in January 2012 or so, whenever LGA2011 comes out.
 
Skipping....because Im on an I7 @ 4ghz, and im noy CPU bottlenecked in anyway.

Plus I want an 8 or 10 core 2011 socket :)
 
Still running a C2D E6400 @ 3.2GHz. Rest of the specs in the sig. This was a pretty nice system in the day and I was able to use evga's step up just in time to my current card.

I remember when Intel reduced the price of the Q6600 down to $200 and people were going nuts. Overclocking it to 3.6GHz easy. I sat out on this though and continued to wank off to Nehalem rumors.

That finally came out as the i7-920 and the numbers were out of this world. And so was the price. Motherboards were hard to find and at $350, the processor was around the same price. It was really tempting but too new, expensive, and decided to again wait it out.

After seeing a few bumps in clock speed of that chip while keeping the same price... and first looks at 32nm 6 core chips... I was again, excited for future products.

And now... the 2600k. WOW. intel does it again. Clock per clock gains in performance, awesome prices on the chips and board... this has been super tempting but that initial recall gave everyone a scare.

And now with LGA2011.... I'm assuming 6/12 core/thread will become a major trend here but combining with all the 2600k goodness. Bringing back the bus overclocking, now having quad channel DDR3. I'm waiting for this and want to see how it compares. But an upgrade is screaming at me now. Just need to hold it off a little longer...

After this there is just a 22nm shrink of this... and those are going to be lowend parts. boring. My time to jump is soon.
 
RamonGTP said:
Like I said, there are certainly valid reasons not to upgrade. Not seeing an improvement in what you do is one of them. A problem that no longer exists isn't.
Click to expand...

Why are you being an Intel apologist? I told you clearly the reason that launch issues affected my decision is because it tainted the platform in my eyes. The fact that there were no huge gains to be had over my current system is one thing but at the time I could have sold my stuff and gone to a 2500k system without spending much. I actually started to consider it but while doing the math one day I suddenly found I could not get a motherboard for it. Then started reading about the problems and why.....and I stepped away quickly, because if it was a clean no-brainer I would have been considering it. Tainted it the problems did. Thats what I am trying to tell you, and the fact that they finally got it sorted out has everything to do with my decision to stay because now we are already talking about the next Gen launch. Now there's a very good likelihood they will have a much better launch this time after that fiasco. So I think next time will be great, especially if BD comes out strong.
 
Yes

Granted, I'm using an e4300 now. I think that after nearly 6 years, it's time for an upgrade.
 
I picked up a 2500k because when I finally decided to jump into a Core i5/i7 rig, I knew SB was just around the corner.

I'm even more confident that I made the right decision now that I hear that 1155 CPU's will be compatible with the next Intel chipset coming out with Native USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt. I'll just pick up the new chipset board, get all of the feature improvements, and throw my old quad back in.
 
I don't feel the need to upgrade yet.. I've been running an E5200 Wolfdale overclocked to 3.8Ghz with an ATI 4870 1gig card at 1920x1200 since May of 2009 and it handles all the games I throw at it with the exception of GTA4 which I had to lower some settings to get it smooth. I don't do any video with my PC only games and web surfing and the dual core seems to be working great for me. I hope I can milk it for at least another year before I upgrade but we'll see if any of these new games crush my system.
 
hangin on to my q6600 fer another 9-10 months or so...hope to see the octa cores before I decide to upgrade.
 
Loving my Q9550 still - I think my next upgrade is an SSD this year and a new CPU maybe next. For my resolution though, I'm note seeing much of a point and my system is pretty solid as is.
 
I won't be upgrading until Ivy Bridge. Simply because there are no PC games that has stressed out my system that much...surprisingly enough.
 
i7 920 D0 @ 4.1GHz + 6950 2GB @ 6970. Instead of blowing the money on a 2500k or 2600k, added an OCZ Vertex 2 120GB and upgraded the RAM to 4x 2GB OCZ Reapers.
 
I am in the club, baby. 2500K comes today. P67 motherboard on Thurs. A few more items and my budget beast is complete. My Phenom 2 will be relegated to HTPC duties.
 
I will laugh my butt off so hard, and bump this thread if SB loses to BD in single threading and multi-threading in a few short weeks from now :cool: :D

If not I might have to join this crappy party up in here :rolleyes: :p
 
teletran8 said:
I will laugh my butt off so hard, and bump this thread if SB loses to BD in single threading and multi-threading in a few short weeks from now :cool: :D

If not I might have to join this crappy party up in here :rolleyes: :p
Click to expand...
are you insinuating that AMD is relevant in processors??? :rolleyes:
 
Haiku214 said:
With a 4 Ghz i7, you don't even have to upgrade anytime soon
Click to expand...
I'm afraid of this argument's effectiveness. It's what kept my E6600 around from 2006 to the end of 2009. Hell, the 'ol 965P-DS3 Rev 1.0 has seen a 6600GT, X800GTO, X1900XT, 8800GTS 320, 4850 and 4890 o_O
 
I'm currently using a Q9550 and plan on skipping Sandy Bridge, for now. I want to see what SB-E and/or Ivy Bridge brings to the table before I do a complete upgrade. The Radeon 6950 I just put in to replace 2 3870s already feels like I'm back up to date with all my gaming needs.
 
may I revisie what I voted? I orginally was going to skip, but I'm now the not so proud owner of one i5 2500k and two i7 2600k....
 
MaynardLD50 said:
are you insinuating that AMD is relevant in processors??? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Your comment = :D

Show me a brand new Intel Quad Core Processor under 80.00 usd that can outperform my 455 X3 with a 90.00 mobo that easily unlocks the 4th hidden core with changing one setting in bios. Which = an X4 processor. Then, there is also easy OC settings. I chose the 5% OC setting there as well.

So now I have a AMD Quad Core CPU @ 3.45ghz on stock cooling. And for when I purchased it from Newegg, it went for 78.00 dollars brand new in December 2010. You won't ever find a brand new Quad Core for under even 100.00 usd from Intel (Maybe a Dual Core, if your lucky). Their Sandy Bridge Quads are 2x-4x the cost lolbro.

So I bet you also think a 2600K OC or not, with stock cooling or aftermarket cooling (which spends more of your money) nets a 4x overall improvement in FPS in every game @ 1080p or encode Blu-Rays @ 4x the speed as my 78.00 dollar AMD Quad Core CPU? :D

Sorry Intel loses badly in price vs performance to the intelligently informed consumer (who doesn't waste his money :)), and why you might ask? Well Because, Intel FAILS to perform in that price range at all in my eyes. I know there's plenty like you. Have a nice day! :D
 
teletran8 said:
Your comment = :D

Show me a brand new Intel Quad Core Processor under 80.00 usd that can outperform my 455 X3 with a 90.00 mobo that easily unlocks the 4th hidden core with changing one setting in bios. Which = an X4 processor. Then, there is also easy OC settings. I chose the 5% OC setting there as well.

So now I have a AMD Quad Core CPU @ 3.45ghz on stock cooling. And for when I purchased it from Newegg, it went for 78.00 dollars brand new in December 2010. You won't ever find a brand new Quad Core for under even 100.00 usd from Intel (Maybe a Dual Core, if your lucky). Their Sandy Bridge Quads are 2x-4x the cost lolbro.

So I bet you also think a 2600K OC or not, with stock cooling or aftermarket cooling (which spends more of your money) nets a 4x overall improvement in FPS in every game @ 1080p or encode Blu-Rays @ 4x the speed as my 78.00 dollar AMD Quad Core CPU? :D

Sorry Intel loses badly in price vs performance to the intelligently informed consumer (who doesn't waste his money :)), and why you might ask? Well Because, Intel FAILS to perform in that price range at all in my eyes. I know there's plenty like you. Have a nice day! :D
Click to expand...

I do not think you fully understand how much faster a 2600K is than your Athlon X4 or for that matter how much faster it is than an 1100T. Also if you want price/performance go for the 2500K, fully unlocked multi and it's already a quadcore when you buy it. :p As far as I'm concerned intel is fine price/performance wise. Did you know an 1100T sells for more than a 2500K and it performs MUCH MUCH WORSE?
 
Comparing an Athlon X4 to a 2500k or 2600k is retarded. They are nowhere near in the same league. I'll bet even a Core 2 Quad would outperform an Athlon X4 quite easily. Sure, you didn't spend a lot, but you also got performance that is at it's very best only as good as Intel's 3 year old offerings.
 
I'm running a stock Q6600 with 8GB of PC8500 and a GTX560 Ti
I see no reason to upgrade my CPU at this time. Nothing I run feels slow. I have no problem with the games that I play, and I never feel like things that I do are slowing me down.

My brother has an i5 760 so I have a reasonable idea of how much faster it is. I completely agree that I would see a vast improvement in processing power, I just don't see that I need it right now.
Before I bought my GTX560 i was running a GTX460. I was actually looking at getting a new CPU then, but with the new video card I don't feel its necessary.

I'd like to have a 2600k, but I'm going to wait. Maybe this fall I'll make the switch, but his CPU will hold me over for one more summer.
Making it 4 years of being used daily. Twice as long as any other previous computer I've ever owned.
 
Valshistixol said:
I do not think you fully understand how much faster a 2600K is than your Athlon X4 or for that matter how much faster it is than an 1100T. Also if you want price/performance go for the 2500K, fully unlocked multi and it's already a quadcore when you buy it. :p As far as I'm concerned intel is fine price/performance wise. Did you know an 1100T sells for more than a 2500K and it performs MUCH MUCH WORSE?
Click to expand...

that only matters if you will use it in ways that utilize this speed. for general everyday use, even gaming, it's not a crucial thing.....if your everyday use is encoding video and time is money, then it's different, but many if not most people on these forums with those machines have it simply because it benchmarks faster, braggin rights, etc......because they want the fastest thing around, not because they actually get good use of that speed
 
For general usage (web browsing, multimedia playback, general productivity), Pentium 4 performance is already more than enough. Most of the time it's the HDD that's making the system feel slow. A Pentium D 2.8GHz has no problems playing a 1080p H.264 video, and still feels very snappy provided you defrag the hard drive often enough.

I went with AMD because I don't like the way Intel prices its crap and artifically cripples its cheaper products. Even if SB/IB is way faster, I don't really care because most of the time I'm not CPU limited anyway.
 
I'm running a QX9650@ 4.2 with a pair of 5870's on an X48 board.....all watercooled...I currently have no need to upgrade, but I skipped LGA 1366 so I feel its time for me to bite the bullet and upgrade anyway.....
I will be getting a 2600K as soon as I decide which board I want to pair it with....
 
nobody_here said:
that only matters if you will use it in ways that utilize this speed. for general everyday use, even gaming, it's not a crucial thing.....if your everyday use is encoding video and time is money, then it's different, but many if not most people on these forums with those machines have it simply because it benchmarks faster, braggin rights, etc......because they want the fastest thing around, not because they actually get good use of that speed
Click to expand...

or because starcraft 2, my primary game, choked my Phenom II 955BE and X3440 rigs :( 955BE was only clocked at 965BE speeds, X3440 was at stock with no turbo boost enabled. Sandy Bridge is the best option for mITX power, IMO, so that's the route I went... and I still have an AMD mITX rig incomming, and the ol' X3440 :D wheeeee...... three GPUs, too... hmmm...... maybe I do need another SG07 and another mITX case, lol.
 
nobody_here said:
that only matters if you will use it in ways that utilize this speed. for general everyday use, even gaming, it's not a crucial thing.....if your everyday use is encoding video and time is money, then it's different, but many if not most people on these forums with those machines have it simply because it benchmarks faster, braggin rights, etc......because they want the fastest thing around, not because they actually get good use of that speed
Click to expand...

what makes you think most people don't make good use of their hardware, at one time or another? it seems like the standard train of thought amongst PC forums is: if your system is better than mine, then you've clearly wasted money for the sake of bragging rights. when i purchased my Q6600 back in 2007 it was a lot more processing power than i needed. by the end of its life it was struggling. it doesn't make sense from a financial perspective to buy a processor that's *just* enough for your needs.
 
Last edited:
nobody_here said:
that only matters if you will use it in ways that utilize this speed. for general everyday use, even gaming, it's not a crucial thing.....if your everyday use is encoding video and time is money, then it's different, but many if not most people on these forums with those machines have it simply because it benchmarks faster, braggin rights, etc......because they want the fastest thing around, not because they actually get good use of that speed
Click to expand...

There are plenty of games that will easily see a large benefit from a 2500/2600k over an Athlon X4... Seriously, this discussion shouldn't even be happening.
 
I went from C2D to i7 900 series. Couldn't really justify the extra hundred or so for the 2600k.

I love my 950. :D
 
I have no reason to upgrade from my 920 at 4.2. Sure the new processors are a bit more efficient and overclock better, but what I have now doesn't even get maxed out other than when benchmarking as it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top