If the K difference in how Intel CPU's benchmark relfected outside of graphics??
I have a Core i5 2300. Its a decent CPU that paired up with a HD 6870 1GB, and 8GB of system ram is fast enough for now for what I'm doing: Games, scientific applications, the occasional bit of video editing, and tons of homework for pharmacy college.
However, I'm looking at upgrading potential in the future. Whenever I see a benchmark for a "K" series processor on Passmark it is always substantially ahead of its non-K variety even at similar clock speeds. Okay, it has a better graphics processing unit *(HD3000 vs HD2000 in the non-K), and I understand passmark reflects that, and it probably should. What I am asking is, does the difference show up in actual system performance otherwise? The only time I'll be using HD2000 or HD3000 graphics is if I'm RMA'ing a graphics card, or maybe trouble shooting a driver. Though I suppose its not inconceivable that I could find a need for 8 monitors ...
So real world, should I be extrapolating results the 2600 (non K) performance to see what say a 2700K can really do, or take those 2700K benchmarks as what they are for running with a graphics card?
Might I do better with the upgrade dollar going to SSD's rather than looking at processors at all down the road? I took the time to put in reasonably quick 7200RPM drives, but its nowhere near SSD level performance.
Going from a normal HDD to a SSD will make your computer seem a lot faster than upgrading the CPU from the i5 you already have.
Dual monitors will also increase your productivity more than an faster CPU.
As you aren't going to be using the onboard graphics get the non K CPU variant. Unless you are planning on overclocking, in which case get the K CPU.
Definitely on the monitors...
I've been a multi-monitor user since the early Matrox cards came out. (I wish they made something competitive with AMD & NVIDIA, but no dice!) I currently run 3 displays, with plans for 4 displays when I get a bigger desk. That was one of the things which got lead me to the Sapphire Flex 6870 I purchased, it had good multi-monitor support without (some of) the hassles. ATI drivers & software DO make me miss working with Matrox though. Just an example, when my computer resumes from sleep, or even turning off monitors it has a hard time finding all of the DVI displays, even the ones that aren't run through display port. Its probably a catalyst issue, but it is an annoyance to have to push the input buttons on the monitors, and then use hydravision to (usually successfully, but not always) return things to their rightful monitors & positions.
I think you are right about the SSD vs CPU upgrade path for bang for the buck. I'm expecting several of the science applications I run to start using the GPU to help (a few of them already have, but these folks are pretty slow to adapt to things that don't have extensive error checking).
Probably by the time the Core i7 reaches the price point I would buy it, it will be obsolete. 6 years ago I needed a workstation to do the tasks I'm doing now with reasonable snappiness. A lot changes in PC's in a couple years.
Thanks for your advice!
Last edited by Salt; 01-02-2012 at 03:02 AM.
There will be a whole new collection of reasonably priced "Ivy Bridge" CPUs coming out around March / April 2012. They should wipe the floor with the existing CPUs.
Originally Posted by passmark
Ivy Bridge CPU has the same clocks and the same performance just a mild drop in TDP
The GPU is basically the same GPU with 4 more EUs
and you really have to fix that problem with K processors....
I told everyone about the bug with the Intel Sandy Bridge and they overclocked beyond the point where the CPU reads the multiplier...
Now you have a bentmark on your hands good luck fixing it
i7 2600 @ averaged: 4.5GHz = i7 2600K @ 3.4GHz
I congratulate you for totally ignoring me
Or at least fix it by Passmark 8 and remeber most transcoding applications nowadays use SSE4.1/4.2 that don't use AVX Int or Xop Int
Last edited by Seronx; 01-13-2012 at 01:36 AM.
All the commendatory I have read is that Ivy Bridge will perform better than Sandy Bridge.
Should be higher turbo boost speeds, architecture improvements, faster larger cache, and much better GPU.
Clock speed doesn't count for all that much nowadays. Same clock speed doesn't mean same performance.
> and you really have to fix that problem with K processors
Benchmark works fine and is accurate.
It just happens that the K processors perform better, on average, in real world systems.. Where there is an issue is in the accurate splitting up and filtering of submitted results that are from a poorly configured system, or from a system with overclocking. Every new range of CPUs creates new issues with O/C detection. A big part of the problem is that CPUs now overclock and underclock themselves during normal operation.
But we are working to getting a more accurate split in the charts. Benchmark itself is OK however.