i7 920 vs 2600k comparisons?

[roller11]

Like many, I have a i7 920 setup and considering going to 2600k. Thing is, I'm not seeing any direct comparisons between these two. Lots of reviews, but the i7 920 is typically downclocked to 2.66Ghz. Since both chips have adjustable clocks, the only meaningful comparison is full speed vs full speed. Has anyone done a test where both the i7 920 and 2600k went head to head at a typical max clockspeed scenario, like 4.1Ghz/4.8Ghz for the i7 920/2600k?

[GAR]

The 2600K is a better buy ATM, the only reason to go with X58 and i7 920 is for 3xSLI, no GPU out now is bottlenecked by 8x pcie slot. That being said, the i7 2600K overclocks better, runs cooler, is newer tech, P67 has no northbridge, the board wont hold you back from a good OC, 2600K has an unlocked multi, i mean the list goes on, the dual CH on SB outperforms the triple ch on X58 as well. Get the i7 2600K, clock for clock it is def. faster, around 20% depending on app, sometimes more, sometimes less.

[DAK1640]

Go to Microcenter this Sunday...

[donmarkoni]

@GAR:
You are stating your opinion, which is partially incorrect, instead of posting links of reviews as OP was asking for. No offense meant.

@roller11
It would be a step down for you from 1366 to 1155. It is newer architecture, but it is meant to replace 1156, so if you are looking to replace your 24/7 rig, then I say don't. If you just want to play, then go ahead.
I did a comparison of my rig with some review sandys running at 4.8GHz. I know it's not fair, I have 6 core CPU, but difference was huge in my favor, 60-120%, believe it or not.
And about memory, Everest/AIDA64 is not doing a good job representing a difference between dual and triple channel.

[Alex-Ro]

120%
?????

Yea right,you just can't admit that these new generation babies run well.And youre saying that 4c8T 2600K@4.8 ghz vs 6c12T 980x@4.5 ghz you sometimes gain 120%?WHen new arhitecture is about 20% faster c/c than previous?Give me a break....

[-=DVS=-]

OP has 920 not 980 which is significantly more expensive. Comparison is not relevant.

[bro20000]

Have replaced my 950i7 with a 2600k and the difference is unreal alot cooler and alot faster welll worth with it!

[flopper]

@GAR:
You are stating your opinion, which is partially incorrect, instead of posting links of reviews as OP was asking for. No offense meant.

@roller11
It would be a step down for you from 1366 to 1155. It is newer architecture, but it is meant to replace 1156, so if you are looking to replace your 24/7 rig, then I say don't. If you just want to play, then go ahead.
I did a comparison of my rig with some review sandys running at 4.8GHz. I know it's not fair, I have 6 core CPU, but difference was huge in my favor, 60-120%, believe it or not.
And about memory, Everest/AIDA64 is not doing a good job representing a difference between dual and triple channel.

for one tenth of the price of one 6 core Intel 32nm chip I get a new MB, new cpu and ram.
selling old rig and get new.

gaming which I am interested in shows no benefit with more cores and at some point, there isnt any visible differences in use.

people tend to forgot to check what they use the computer for.
if the new or old support their use or not.

for me, sandy babe sits perfectly in the upgrade from 1366.

[cowpuppy]

Have you seen the prices on these new chips at micro center......bargain ......I think not .......at the cheapest 219.00 for the 2400 I thought this was going to be a budget chip for the masses. I would buy a I7 950 over the the new k series. don't care about on board video.

You know what would be kool Intel....if they would build in some kind of power saver so that the onboard video would run during desk top and then drop out as you fired up 3D games and switch you into sli or crossfire. now if the would do that I would consider this product. but until then it's just like buying a board with onbord video nothing I really want.

[mdzcpa]

The OP is not asking what system to purchase, P67/2600k vs. X58/920. That answer would be obvious. The new tech rocks and provides way more bang for the buck. Although the P67 is not the high end chipset and is a bit more restrictive than the X58 in overall bandwidth, it offers enough gains to compensate. On on the CPU side it's a No Contest.

That said, if I were sitting on a nice 4Ghz+ I7 with X58 set up would I upgrade now? Nope. The gain is there, but not worth the outlay from a day-to-day seat of the pants meter on one hand, while the P67 isn't all that enticing for the hardcore benchers either...especially the triple and quad SLI guys.

I'm sure more benches will come out showing both systems up to speed. There is no doubt the awesome Turbo Boost on the 2600k makes it look pretty great against stock speed I7 parts. But get both parts up to speed, and the gap narrows.

If I were sitting on a P55 with modest I7 chip, I'd consider the upgrade.
If I'm on an X58 and a solid I7 clocking chip, I'd sit this round out and wait for the performance chipset due out later.

[X.T.R.E.M.E_ICE]

I want to see a clock for clock comparison. i7 920 at 4000mhz and a 2600K at 4000mhz. I have a i7 930 that does 4.5Ghz so unless the sandy at 4.5Ghz beats the i7 930 at the same speed it will not be an upgrade for me as I have 2 x GTX 580 and both at x8 speed will loose some fps in games.

[mdzcpa]

These are not clock for clock comparisons, but they give some idea of overclocked I7 scores compared to overclocked Sandy's:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/...ssors_review/3

[road-runner]

The OP is not asking what system to purchase, P67/2600k vs. X58/920. That answer would be obvious. The new tech rocks and provides way more bang for the buck. Although the P67 is not the high end chipset and is a bit more restrictive than the X58 in overall bandwidth, it offers enough gains to compensate. On on the CPU side it's a No Contest.

That said, if I were sitting on a nice 4Ghz+ I7 with X58 set up would I upgrade now? Nope. The gain is there, but not worth the outlay from a day-to-day seat of the pants meter on one hand, while the P67 isn't all that enticing for the hardcore benchers either...especially the triple and quad SLI guys.

I'm sure more benches will come out showing both systems up to speed. There is no doubt the awesome Turbo Boost on the 2600k makes it look pretty great against stock speed I7 parts. But get both parts up to speed, and the gap narrows.

If I were sitting on a P55 with modest I7 chip, I'd consider the upgrade.
If I'm on an X58 and a solid I7 clocking chip, I'd sit this round out and wait for the performance chipset due out later.

I have to agree, I have several I7 920 rigs and cant see taking a loss on selling all of them to spend more for each than what I have in each of them for an upgrade. Just not worth it in my opinion especially when I got most of the 920s for $200 at microcenter...

[rge]

These are not clock for clock comparisons, but they give some idea of overclocked I7 scores compared to overclocked Sandy's:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/...ssors_review/3

That review compares an i7 980 at 4.4ghz vs i7 2600k at 4.4ghz. Like other reviews, looks like the 2600k is ~10% faster clock for clock than X58 i7's 980 (or 920) in single threaded apps like hiper pi, and slower than 980's 6 cores in software that uses all cores. And 2600K is more power efficient and OC's better on avg.

What is stopping me and probably many others from going to 2600K from X58 i7 is I cant decide now which platform I want to be on, extreme or mainstream. Looking at the intel roadmap here, looks like intel has set things up so you could bounce back and forth between mainstream/extreme platform cpus and upgrade performance every 6 months (except those heavily using multithreaded apps). But, since I am not into selling, I am not upgrading mobo/cpu every 6 months, 1x per year is max for me.

The mainstream track will get cheaper/better value cpu's and looks like will get technology first, extreme looks like will get more cores and few other perks. If I knew price, power efficiency, etc of both would be easier to decide, but if they keep this up, I need to decide which track to be on. And for those that like to sell and are going to do both I envy you...but changing platforms/mobo every 6 months is too much.

[SBB]

I've got a 2600k on the way, should be here tuesday, so I can run some benches against my i7 920 @ 3.8 (bad clocker ) and report back if you don't find anything sooner

edit: That HardOCP review seems like pretty good info

[road-runner]

Yea I am getting tired of changing, about the time I manage to buy a few rigs and get them all going they come out with a new socket then the stuff I have isnt worth anything. We need some cheap 6/12 core 1366 cpus...

[roller11]

I've got a 2600k on the way, should be here tuesday, so I can run some benches against my i7 920 @ 3.8 (bad clocker ) and report back if you don't find anything sooner

edit: That HardOCP review seems like pretty good info

My 920 is an average clocker, 4.2Ghz for all 24/7 apps. I'd like to see mostly game bemchmarks, perhaps the CPU scores from 3DM vantage. Also, I would like to transcode some of my huge Blu Ray movies to mkv as long as video and audio quality is not degraded.

[Callsign_Vega]

I am not seeing any architecture improvements in performance numbers when it comes to gaming with Sandy Bridge benchmarks. Here are some examples:

On overclockersclub, the over clock benchmarks are a 2600k in grey bar at 4.65 Ghz. The i7 920 is in blue but only over clocked to 4 Ghz. About a 16% higher clock on the 2600k.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/revi...5_2500k/10.htm

Far Cry 2: At 1680x1050 over clocked, the 2600k scores 147 and the 920 scores a 131. That's only a 12% improvement with a 16% higher clocking.

Modern Warfare 2: At 1680x1050 over clocked, the 2600k scores 257 and the 920 scores a 224. That's only a 15% improvement with a 16% higher clocking.

Batman: At 1680x1050 over clocked, the 2600k scores 335 and the 920 scores a 312. That's only a 7% improvement with a 16% higher clocking.

With these numbers, for gaming if you have a 9xx series i7 that over clocks really well, you would see hardly any improvement. I run a 920 D0 at 4.55Ghz and even if I did get a 2600k up to 5Ghz, I'd see at the most 5-10% performance gain. Not really a viable upgrade path for us current i7 9xx owners, but if your buying a completely new gaming PC, the 2600k is the way to go.

Another interesting note, clock for clock, the 920 is generally faster than the 980x which is black on those charts at 4.3Ghz.