• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

DELETED_25227

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clock for clock a 2600k is only 5-10% slower than a 4770k. Having said that, you can also overclock them 5-10% faster! An i7 2600k at 5GHz is practically equal in performance to a 4770k at 4.6GHz.

The only time it really makes a difference is if the application uses the very latest instruction sets. However for gaming, this is almost never the case and rarely makes much of a difference.
 
jh30uk said:
Even though its an i7 that 2600k will hold back a high end card somewhat esp SLI.

I doubled my min FPS in many games going from a 5GHZ 2700k to a stock 4770k (crap clocker) with same GPU at that time which was a GTX 680 4GB.
Click to expand...


Stop making up rubbish. And thank god you have nothing else to say on the matter.

Davedree said:
Talking out your butt, you provide no data or mentioning of what games and resolution you were playing at for a comparison. Either there was something wrong with your system or your operating system.

Here's a cpu bound game http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/01/intel-core-i7-4770k-cpu-review/6
at 1080p using would you believe it a 680,
And guess what a 4770k and 2600k at stock and overclocked doesn't show gains like you claim. Now as most games are gpu bound at 2560x1440 and above the difference in minimums between intel processors will be even smaller.
So I'm calling you out on your 5ghz 2700k that was holding back your 680, aswell as your claim that a 2600k will hold back a high end gpu.
Click to expand...

haha maybe he was playing at 640*480 :D Fully agree with your post.
 
I seriously hope that a 5GHz 2700K wasn't holding you back... :p

When I eventually get my affairs in order and get round to upgrading my PC, I will probably chuck in a couple of nice GPU's and buy some better screens. The 2700K will be staying very much where it is. :)
 
I would personally get the 970. Not only is it quicker, but it uses a considerable chunk less power, and runs cooler.

Depends what the price difference is and whether or not you care about power usage and heat. :)
 
Davedree said:
Talking out your butt, you provide no data or mentioning of what games and resolution you were playing at for a comparison. Either there was something wrong with your system or your operating system.

Here's a cpu bound game http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/01/intel-core-i7-4770k-cpu-review/6
at 1080p using would you believe it a 680,
And guess what a 4770k and 2600k at stock and overclocked doesn't show gains like you claim. Now as most games are gpu bound at 2560x1440 and above the difference in minimums between intel processors will be even smaller.
So I'm calling you out on your 5ghz 2700k that was holding back your 680, aswell as your claim that a 2600k will hold back a high end gpu.
Click to expand...


They this was long ago so less of the insults.

If you bothered to read the forum you would see plenty other found the same.

So get lost.
 
jh30uk do you have an links I can look at? I'm not saying you're lying or anything I just want to see it myself as I am on a 2600k and it would be interesting to see if it would be worth changing my CPU.
 
Frenzy said:
jh30uk do you have an links I can look at? I'm not saying you're lying or anything I just want to see it myself as I am on a 2600k and it would be interesting to see if it would be worth changing my CPU.
Click to expand...

Nope I am done as there is 3 smartasses in here who thing its all BS as they know better.

I was not a member of this forum so there is no posts of it and I would not bother anyhow as I do not have anything to prove.

I know what I gained and I did say some games and MIN FPS but I think some of the smartasses do not grasp that and I was surprised myself, you can even use my nick and search and see I mentioned it many times and others backed it up with their findings.

I never said a 2700k was holding me back, the AVG and Max FPS were not that much less.

Let them use search and go and pick all other peeps posts who clamed the same.

There is a big difference from a 680 to a 980 about 2x the power so I will matter even more today.

Sorry to not be much help but trying to helps peeps here gets you insulted 9/10 esp by one of them who does not even know the final clock speed of a 4770k.

I regret building the Haswell so late in the day (Jan 2014) as the SB was good enough but the itch finally got me.

So was it worth it, not to me NO.

The part about low RES = CPU and High RES = GPU (someone hints at above) is a rule of thumb that does not always matter as the game engine can be CPU or GPU bound for example F.E.A.R was all about the GPU.

If that was set in stone then today at 1920x1080 and above we would all be fine with a CPU running 1.0GHZ but all sites for years now during reviews have clocked the CPU's up a good bit to try elevate/remove bottlenecks when showing game reviews/benches.

From memory COD Ghosts would have been a new game I was playing before and again after the 2700k to 4770k swap (Xmax-Jan)

I was playing at 2304x1440p so not a low RES, that game was bugged at launch I know but it did double the MIN FPS after the 4770k.

I actually played it a 2nd time after March when swapped the 680 4GB to a 780Ti.
 
Last edited:
jh30uk said:
An other insulter, get lost also.
Click to expand...

Insulter? Nope, just calling you out on your wild claims of doubling your minimum frame rates by going from a 5GHZ 2700K to a 4770K. And now you are saying that you did at 1440p resolution and in Call of Duty Ghosts which isn't that CPU bound, you would have to play at some stupid low resolution to even notice the difference.

Anybody claiming that they doubled their min frame rate by going from a 2700K to a 4770K is misleading and is not helping anybody

Show some proof.
 
What part did you not read that I was not member here so did not post anything?

I do not care what you think as no doubt you never did the same swap and I have nothing to prove.

Since you are on a mission go and use search and pick all the thread where peeps say the same.

You seem to be hung up on the speed of the 2770k, its a different architecture than the Haswell that is why there is a difference.

The manner in what you replied does you or the other two no favours in me even bothering.

I will not be replying to you.
 
Last edited:
jh30uk said:
Nope I am done as there is 3 smartasses in here who thing its all BS as they know better.

I was not a member of this forum so there is no posts of it and I would not bother anyhow as I do not have anything to prove.

I know what I gained and I did say some games and MIN FPS but I think some of the smartasses do not grasp that and I was surprised myself, you can even use my nick and search and see I mentioned it many times and others backed it up with their findings.

I never said a 2700k was holding me back, the AVG and Max FPS were not that much less.

Let them use search and go and pick all other peeps posts who clamed the same.

There is a big difference from a 680 to a 980 about 2x the power so I will matter even more today.

Sorry to not be much help but trying to helps peeps here gets you insulted 9/10 esp by one of them who does not even know the final clock speed of a 4770k.

I regret building the Haswell so late in the day (Jan 2014) as the SB was good enough but the itch finally got me.

So was it worth it, not to me NO.

The part about low RES = CPU and High RES = GPU (someone hints at above) is a rule of thumb that does not always matter as the game engine can be CPU or GPU bound for example F.E.A.R was all about the GPU.

If that was set in stone then today at 1920x1080 and above we would all be fine with a CPU running 1.0GHZ but all sites for years now during reviews have clocked the CPU's up a good bit to try elevate/remove bottlenecks when showing game reviews/benches.

From memory COD Ghosts would have been a new game I was playing before and again after the 2700k to 4770k swap (Xmax-Jan)

I was playing at 2304x1440p so not a low RES, that game was bugged at launch I know but it did double the MIN FPS after the 4770k.

I actually played it a 2nd time after March when swapped the 680 4GB to a 780Ti.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Here are some benchmarks

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/56005-intel-core-i7-4770k-22nm-haswell/?page=14

Here is some more

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1111

You can compare yourself and see minimum frame rates.
 
jh30uk said:
What part did you not read that I was not member here so did not post anything?

I do not care what you think as no doubt you never did the same swap and I have nothing to prove.

Since you are on a mission go and use search and pick all the thread where peeps say the same.

You seem to be hung up on the speed of the 2770k, its a different architecture than the Haswell that is why there is a difference.

The manner in what you replied does you or the other two no favours in me even bothering.

I will not be replying to you.
Click to expand...

OF course you won't reply. You make up crazy stuff and get insulted because it's been shot down. You know you are wrong and you know can't back up anything you claim.

Haswell is a different architecture but for gaming it's not much better than Sandy Bridge. Here is another review, showing the total war cpu benchmark.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/01/intel-core-i7-4770k-cpu-review/6

They benchmark using a 680 and compare both stock and overclocked CPU's. A 4.7 GHz 4770K beats a 5Ghz 2600K by 1. So much for double the min rates then.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom