You can't be serious: 980x V 2600K

JGBR · 18 Jul 2011 at 13:28

So my fellow overclockers , custom pc and "other well known review sites and publications" claim that the 2600k is faster then a 980X

Can someone explain perhaps how 980X owners (such as myself ) are now in the slow lane? Should 980X users considering abandoning ship? Or is it all hype and the 980X is more then enough to last us for a .... X ...amount of time to come.

Martini1991 · 18 Jul 2011 at 13:32

The 2600k has faster cores.
The 980x has more cores.
12 threads are barely used in anything bar rendering etc, the 2600k is therefore faster in app's using 8 threads or less., hell, the 2500k in anything that uses 4 cores or less will destroy your 980x at stock.

Venares · 18 Jul 2011 at 13:39

What he said.
Essentialy the 2600k is faster per core then the 980.
Unless your talking apps that are truely multi-threaded and can make full use of all 8 cores on the 980, the 2600k will oblitorate it.

kristmace · 18 Jul 2011 at 13:39

I bet his 980x is overclocked though so stock tests that review sites do are useless. It does look like the 2600k OCs higher than the 980x though.

Martini1991 · 18 Jul 2011 at 13:49

kristmace said:
I bet his 980x is overclocked though so stock tests that review sites do are useless. It does look like the 2600k OCs higher than the 980x though.

Which just furthers the gap.

Venares said:
What he said.
Essentialy the 2600k is faster per core then the 980.
Unless your talking apps that are truely multi-threaded and can make full use of all 8 cores on the 980, the 2600k will oblitorate it.

980x is 6 core.

joeyjojo · 18 Jul 2011 at 14:11

JGBR said:
...980X is more then enough to last us for a .... X ...amount of time to come.

Of course it will last you for a good while. I'm still using a dual core at 3.2, working fine.

ATIorNvidia · 18 Jul 2011 at 14:15

Sandybridge IPC is slightly better than Nehalems, so Sandybridge will be faster if you're using a program to uses 4 cores or less. A 970/980x/990x is much faster if you can utilize all of its cores/threads.

Venares said:
What he said.
Essentialy the 2600k is faster per core then the 980.
Unless your talking apps that are truely multi-threaded and can make full use of all 8 cores on the 980, the 2600k will oblitorate it.

A little faster than =/= obliterate.

bilko100 · 18 Jul 2011 at 14:17

joeyjojo said:
Of course it will last you for a good while. I'm still using a dual core at 3.2, working fine.

I guess you don't play much BFBC 2 then?

joeyjojo · 18 Jul 2011 at 14:21

bilko100 said:
I guess you don't play much BFBC 2 then?

Nah, not been playing any games made in the last 10 years

JGBR · 18 Jul 2011 at 14:50

I've got my 980X up at 4.2.

However i rarely run multi thread apps, perhpas the rendering software, about it.

(im also adverse to chucking out 800 gbp of CPU Lol and slightly annoyed that a 230 gbp chip beats it)

Redmint · 18 Jul 2011 at 15:02

JGBR said:
(im also adverse to chucking out 800 gbp of CPU Lol and slightly annoyed that a 230 gbp chip beats it)

There's a lesson there, Intel extreme editions are always massively over priced and will usually be beaten by a £200 chip of the next generation. Same thing when the QX9650 came out and was beaten by the i7 920/930 not long after.

panyan · 18 Jul 2011 at 15:04

Redmint said:
There's a lesson there, Intel extreme editions are always massively over priced and will usually be beaten by a £200 chip of the next generation. Same thing when the QX9650 came out and was beaten by the i7 920/930 not long after.

+1 the EXTREME ULTIMATE SUPER-DUPER editions of anything are massively overpriced

dave_beast · 18 Jul 2011 at 15:16

The 980x is the best non SB chip for home users, IB looks set to be awesome, I just hope the core unlocker chips are not priced intergallactically like the X series

DragonQ · 18 Jul 2011 at 16:16

ATIorNvidia said:
Sandybridge IPC is slightly better than Nehalems, so Sandybridge will be faster if you're using a program to uses 4 cores or less. A 970/980x/990x is much faster if you can utilize all of its cores/threads.

A little faster than =/= obliterate.

15% more IPC but also can overclock higher (~4.8 GHz vs ~4.2 GHz), so when both are fully overclocked the i7-2600K would be ~30% faster in single-threaded applications whereas the i7-980X would only be ~15% faster in heavily multi-threaded applications (i.e. all cores being used).

ATIorNvidia · 18 Jul 2011 at 16:41

DragonQ said:
15% more IPC but also can overclock higher (~4.8 GHz vs ~4.2 GHz), so when both are fully overclocked the i7-2600K would be ~30% faster in single-threaded applications whereas the i7-980X would only be ~15% faster in heavily multi-threaded applications (i.e. all cores being used).

15% faster in multi threaded applications? Did you just pull that figure out of thin air? Core speed and gains don't scale linearly either.

JonJ678 · 19 Jul 2011 at 00:11

Redmint said:
There's a lesson there, Intel extreme editions are always massively over priced and will usually be beaten by a £200 chip of the next generation. Same thing when the QX9650 came out and was beaten by the i7 920/930 not long after.

This isn't terribly fair. Your example of QX9650 vs first stepping Q9650 is valid, and (with the possible exception of phase change) comparing the i7 920 and i7 965 is similarly appropriate. Neither extreme edition made sense.

However the 980X came out when the i7 920 D0 was the smart buy, and they aren't remotely comparable. A die shrink to 32nm coupled to an extra two processing cores makes them entirely different beasts. The 980X, overclocked, remains the fastest single cpu option available and will continue to do so until socket 2011 at my last check. That is a remarkable lifespan as leader of the pack.

Semi-offtopic, all the bleating about nothing being properly multithreaded so six core chips are worthless is nonsensical. I can't name anything that runs well on eight (on reflection, four) threads that wont run better on twelve. If you don't run any software which benefits from additional processing threads, don't buy a hyperthreaded quad core. If you must go out and buy a processor which will spend its entire life with cores switched off, don't complain about it later.

A 980X makes a hell of a lot of sense compared to dual socket workstations. An overclocked hex core vs two stock quad cores for much less money appeals. It still makes a lot of sense in that realm. If you're buying it to play games, I don't get it.

FoxEye · 19 Jul 2011 at 00:15

JGBR said:
I've got my 980X up at 4.2.

However i rarely run multi thread apps, perhpas the rendering software, about it.

One wonders why you bought a 6-core CPU in that case?

spleenharvester · 19 Jul 2011 at 00:17

joeyjojo said:
Of course it will last you for a good while. I'm still using a dual core at 3.2, working fine.

Indeed. My other rig is still running a 5 year old 8800GT and 5000+, still doing quite well for its age.

gurusan · 19 Jul 2011 at 05:13

More cores still aren't better these days, which is another reason why Bulldozer will be a fail.

ATIorNvidia · 19 Jul 2011 at 05:18

gurusan said:
More cores still aren't better these days, which is another reason why Bulldozer will be a fail.

You have no clue how Bulldozer will end up performing, so don't act like you do. Also, it's worth to note that not everybody builds rigs to play games, there are many uses for 8 cores.