Page 1 of 2
1
2
LastLast
  1. #1

    Price on I-7 Processors

    I69-2600K ::Intel Core i7-2600K BX80623I72600K Unlocked Processor - Quad Core, 8MB L3 Cache, 1MB L2 Cache, 3.40 GHz (3.80 GHz Max Turbo), Socket H2 (LGA1155), 95W, Fan, Retail(0.9 lbs)

    249.99 on Tiger Direct - Cheapest I've seen it, do you think think this price will stay low until after the first of the year? Or should I scoop this up, and rather than buy my new computer build in 1 fail swoop just go 1 piece at a time, starting with this. I know there are probably better i7's than this, that's why I'm looking for advice.

    I don't see this processors on Newegg, and cheapest I-7 they got is 299.99.

  2. #2
    Blademaster
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    25
    That one is a 2nd generation Intel core i7, from Q1, 2011 .
    U can already buy 3rd generation models.
    just my 2 cents

  3. #3
    If you're building it piecemeal, the processor and graphics card are the absolute last things you want to buy.

    Everything else doesn't change much (although if they come out with a new processor line and you bought an Ivy/Sandy Bridge MoBo then you're stuck with that or returning the MoBo): Power Supply, Case, Hard Drives, SSD's, RAM (you will want to check your MoBo to make sure it isn't triple channel though!), CD Drives I guess.

    That leaves you with the most expensive components last, but at least you can take advantage of the Black Friday sales for some things (and honestly the deals they offer on the i7's and the best graphics cards are poor, while the above components usually have great deals).

    And FYI, the above processor IS on Newegg - for $269.99, and just so you know, it's a Sandy Bridge processor, you might have been looking at their Ivy Bridges, seeing the lowest price of $299.99.

  4. #4
    Herald of the Titans shroudster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    netherlands
    Posts
    2,890
    it is an older series and got replaced with the 2700k. (http://www.microcenter.com/search/se...i7&ekw=i7&rd=1 $200 for later series even) 2700k or 3770k (3770k is best if in budget range)
    i5 ones going for even cheaper (http://www.microcenter.com/search/se...i5&ekw=i5&rd=1) 3570k (2500k isn't bad but later one is worth the few extra bucks)

    cpu + sales > microcenter from what im seeing past week.

  5. #5
    Warchief Kezotar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    not sure
    Posts
    2,051
    if you're considering overclocking go with sandy - if not go with ivy.
    I7 - 4930K / 16 GB - 1600MHZ / R9 290 Core 1220 MHZ - Memory 1550 MHZ

  6. #6
    Herald of the Titans shroudster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    netherlands
    Posts
    2,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Kezotar View Post
    if you're considering overclocking go with sandy - if not go with ivy.
    that makes no sense..... ivy ones oc just fine aswell just abit more heat but nothing too drastic tbh.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by shroudster View Post
    that makes no sense..... ivy ones oc just fine aswell just abit more heat but nothing too drastic tbh.
    Idd :P Ivy overclocks better but in regards of higher temperatures. 22nm cpu should always clock better than a 32nm cpu from the same architecture.

  8. #8
    I am Murloc! Cyanotical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Co
    Posts
    5,034
    Sandy overclocks on average higher than Ivy, this is mainly due to thermal issues with the 22NM process on Ivy, the trade off is that Ivy is more efficient, so it doesn't need to clock as high as sandy to reach the same performance levels, and does use less power than Sandy

    currently both generations spoil consumers, they are extremely easy to get a 24/7 stable clock, and only need a moderately good heatsink to do so

    i7-4790K | Z97 Class. | 8GB DDR3-2133 | GTX-690 Quad SLI | RAIDR | 512GB Samsung 830 | AX1200 | FT02
    Dell U2711 | Ducky Shine3 YoS | Steelseries Sensei Wireless | Xonar Essence One | KRK RP8G2s

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyanotical View Post
    Sandy overclocks on average higher than Ivy, this is mainly due to thermal issues with the 22NM process on Ivy, the trade off is that Ivy is more efficient, so it doesn't need to clock as high as sandy to reach the same performance levels, and does use less power than Sandy

    currently both generations spoil consumers, they are extremely easy to get a 24/7 stable clock, and only need a moderately good heatsink to do so
    Uh? A 22nm overclocks always better than a 32nm CPU.

    The reason why Ivy Bridge is getting hot is due to the ugly marketingstrick Intel did. They rather used thermal paste between the CPU die & HSP instead of solderattaching the HSP to the cpu die. Intel still wants to sell their Sandy Bridge..

    Pretty sure IB clocks better if they just solderattached instead of making use of cheapass TIM.

  10. #10
    I am Murloc! Cyanotical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Co
    Posts
    5,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithh View Post
    Uh? A 22nm overclocks always better than a 32nm CPU.

    The reason why Ivy Bridge is getting hot is due to the ugly marketingstrick Intel did. They rather used thermal paste between the CPU die & HSP instead of solderattaching the HSP to the cpu die. Intel still wants to sell their Sandy Bridge..

    Pretty sure IB clocks better if they just solderattached instead of making use of cheapass TIM.
    Faithh, where are you getting these ideas, everyone, and i mean everyone knows that IB can't clock as high as SB, mostly due to the laws of physics and thermodynamics

    the TIM issue amplified the problem, but is was not the source

    the problem is that as you get smaller, it takes less energy to generate heat, so with an IB processor, a change from 1.322v to 1.333v may increase your temps beyond what passive cooling is capable of

    the other part of the problem is that with a smaller size, there is less surface area to propagate the transfer of heat

    so to clock IB higher, you need to use active cooling

    SB doesnt have as much of a problem, in fact the limit with overclocking on sandy is the voltage limit, that is you will reach a limit in speed where adding incremental voltage does not increase stability

    on average, the voltage limit on most SB chips is reached at a higher clock speed than the thermal limit reached on most IB chips

    i7-4790K | Z97 Class. | 8GB DDR3-2133 | GTX-690 Quad SLI | RAIDR | 512GB Samsung 830 | AX1200 | FT02
    Dell U2711 | Ducky Shine3 YoS | Steelseries Sensei Wireless | Xonar Essence One | KRK RP8G2s

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyanotical View Post
    the TIM issue amplified the problem, but is was not the source

    the problem is that as you get smaller, it takes less energy to generate heat, so with an IB processor, a change from 1.322v to 1.333v may increase your temps beyond what passive cooling is capable of

    the other part of the problem is that with a smaller size, there is less surface area to propagate the transfer of heat

    so to clock IB higher, you need to use active cooling
    This is false. When they switched to 22nm fab, the TDP of the chip went down with it. Sandy is a 95W chip where as Ivy is a 77W chip. Ivy has more transistors than Sandy. Otherwise, we would have expected Ivy to be a 65W chip due to the 22nm fab.

    Don't read into Intel's PR. They fucked up Ivy with the shitty thermal grease.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyanotical View Post
    SB doesnt have as much of a problem, in fact the limit with overclocking on sandy is the voltage limit, that is you will reach a limit in speed where adding incremental voltage does not increase stability

    on average, the voltage limit on most SB chips is reached at a higher clock speed than the thermal limit reached on most IB chips
    If you fix the thermal grease, Ivy overclocking is also voltage limited. And no, voltage vs clock for Sandy and Ivy are the same.

    Sandy:


    Ivy:

  12. #12
    I am Murloc! Cyanotical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Co
    Posts
    5,034
    not really:

    http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/art...eplacement-160



    Ivy still has the issue of concentrated heat, when you add more transistors you increase the potential thermal output due to resistance, and then shrinking the whole process makes it worse, the lines and gates on the silicon simply do not have enough area to dissipate the heat as well, this is why the thermal curve on Ivy is so steep

    the idea of it overclocking better comes from the voltage needed to achieve the same clock speed, if two chips can reach 4.5Ghz, one ivy, and the other sandy, the ivy chip will always use less voltage

    however, if 4.5 is the limit for the ivy chip (because you cant passively cool it for the voltage needed to reach 4.6) then more often then not, the sandy chip will be able to clock higher before it reaches a voltage limit

    i7-4790K | Z97 Class. | 8GB DDR3-2133 | GTX-690 Quad SLI | RAIDR | 512GB Samsung 830 | AX1200 | FT02
    Dell U2711 | Ducky Shine3 YoS | Steelseries Sensei Wireless | Xonar Essence One | KRK RP8G2s

  13. #13
    While increase of transistors will increase total power output, this does not increase power density. Going from 22nm to 32nm also does not increase power density since the actual power consumption goes down. Thinner wires cause higher resistance which lower power draw with the same voltage.

    You can't passively cool Ivy beyond 4.5 or whatnot because there's this shitty thermal grease between the chip and the IHS. Compared to solder, thermal grease has high thermal resistance.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXs0I5kuoX4

    He went from 95 - 75 - 66 - 66 to 56 x4.

    If he was able to bring temperatures down with higher quality TIM, then the temperatures would be even better if solder (aka metal) was used.

    By the way, I like how the reviewer in pugetsystems smeared out the TIM. If its known that spreading TIM doesn't fly above the IHS, why do it below the IHS.

    http://images.pugetsystems.com/image...800&height=800
    Last edited by yurano; 2012-11-24 at 05:04 AM.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by yurano View Post
    I'd love to see what cooler is used to get 50*c at 4.5GHz
    Kuroiwolf - 90 Brewmaster Monk
    Youtube Account Twitch TV
    Computer: Intel I7-3770k @ 4.5GHz | 16GB 1600MHz DDR3 RAM | AMD 7970 GHz @ 1200/1600 | ASUS Z77-V PRO Mobo|

  15. #15
    I am Murloc! Cyanotical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Co
    Posts
    5,034
    Quote Originally Posted by yurano View Post
    While increase of transistors will increase total power output, this does not increase power density. Going from 22nm to 32nm also does not increase power density since the actual power consumption goes down. Thinner wires cause higher resistance which lower power draw with the same voltage.

    You can't passively cool Ivy beyond 4.5 or whatnot because there's this shitty thermal grease between the chip and the IHS. Compared to solder, thermal grease has high thermal resistance.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXs0I5kuoX4

    He went from 95 - 75 - 66 - 66 to 56 x4.

    If he was able to bring temperatures down with higher quality TIM, then the temperatures would be even better if solder (aka metal) was used.

    By the way, I like how the reviewer in pugetsystems smeared out the TIM. If its known that spreading TIM doesn't fly above the IHS, why do it below the IHS.

    http://images.pugetsystems.com/image...800&height=800
    thinner lines do not limit the power draw, the draw will be the same, but the thinner lines will have more current running through them and generate more heat when overclocked, they will allow current until they fail

    the power usage and TDP ratings are for stock daily use, not overclocked and under a stress test, these can vary hugely, the 980x was originally a 130w CPU, but was well known for pushing close to 450w when overclocked to near 5Ghz

    when it comes to the best way to apply TIM, thats like arguing over who's grandmother makes the best chocolate chip cookies

    i7-4790K | Z97 Class. | 8GB DDR3-2133 | GTX-690 Quad SLI | RAIDR | 512GB Samsung 830 | AX1200 | FT02
    Dell U2711 | Ducky Shine3 YoS | Steelseries Sensei Wireless | Xonar Essence One | KRK RP8G2s

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyanotical View Post
    thinner lines do not limit the power draw, the draw will be the same, but the thinner lines will have more current running through them and generate more heat when overclocked, they will allow current until they fail
    I'm going to stop you right there. Smaller process means smaller die which results in reduced power.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyanotical View Post
    when it comes to the best way to apply TIM, thats like arguing over who's grandmother makes the best chocolate chip cookies
    Which is fine but its obvious that the method used in your link is terrible. Look at all dem craters.

  17. #17
    I am Murloc! Cyanotical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Co
    Posts
    5,034
    Quote Originally Posted by yurano View Post
    I'm going to stop you right there. Smaller process means smaller die which results in reduced power.
    more of the other way around, the smaller die requires less power, combined with the newer 3d gates means the processor is more efficient and spends less time on logic than older cpus, and thus has a lower TDP

    that all goes to hell when you start overclocking though

    Quote Originally Posted by yurano View Post
    Which is fine but its obvious that the method used in your link is terrible. Look at all dem craters.
    he could have done better, personally though i dont see why we dont have heatsinks designed to go directly on the CPU instead of the heatspreader

    i7-4790K | Z97 Class. | 8GB DDR3-2133 | GTX-690 Quad SLI | RAIDR | 512GB Samsung 830 | AX1200 | FT02
    Dell U2711 | Ducky Shine3 YoS | Steelseries Sensei Wireless | Xonar Essence One | KRK RP8G2s

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyanotical View Post
    more of the other way around, the smaller die requires less power, combined with the newer 3d gates means the processor is more efficient and spends less time on logic than older cpus, and thus has a lower TDP

    that all goes to hell when you start overclocking though



    he could have done better, personally though i dont see why we dont have heatsinks designed to go directly on the CPU instead of the heatspreader
    Well, some people have been able to drop their temps by a bunch while some others only seen a few degree temps dropping down. This fix is very very tricky.

    IB requires less voltage than SB which is normal because of the 22nm procede. Getting to a lower procede will always result in lower temperatures, lower voltage and TDP.

    IB is a better overclocker but it's get too hot. The HSP is rather a heat barrier than dissipating heat.

    The IB has trigate transistors which is true, but this is meant for having a bigger gate area so the electricity moves better.

    This is not the main reason why IB clocks better, it's the 22nm architecture.

    Do you even realize the CPU die size is like 5 times smaller than the HSP? With older CPU's there wasn't an HSP, you only saw the cpu die size. HSP is just meant for extra protection and better temps. HSP = heatspreader..

  19. #19
    Herald of the Titans shroudster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    netherlands
    Posts
    2,890
    alright so to how many people on mmo-c do advanced thermodynamics apply?
    you could say the SB overclocks higher but since IB also reaches in the high 4+ghz region it is quite a moot point (anything beyond 4,4 won't affect current games i believe and higher clocks are usually without HT so productivity is also lost with extreme high clocks on I7 chips for folding@home as an example)

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by shroudster View Post
    alright so to how many people on mmo-c do advanced thermodynamics apply?
    you could say the SB overclocks higher but since IB also reaches in the high 4+ghz region it is quite a moot point (anything beyond 4,4 won't affect current games i believe and higher clocks are usually without HT so productivity is also lost with extreme high clocks on I7 chips for folding@home as an example)
    Isn't a solid 30 fps enough to raid? During raids you're rather focused on your environment and bars and you'll be automatically ignoring how smooth the game runs. Aslong as you don't have a 1-3sec freeze, it's okay.

    I don't see the point yet of HT. But in the future like over 2-3 years it will have it's advantage for the 2nd and 3rd gen i7's or i3's. Also there's an option in nvidia contron panel (threaded optimization), this function is allowing me to use all the 8 cores on my 2600k but 0% difference in fps because the 6 threads are rather taking work off the 2 main threads.

    @Op I would just rather ignore the i7 tbh. An i5 is more than enough to play games and video-editing. Who cares if the i7 finishes converting a video in 7mins while the i5 does it in 10mins?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •