alexander.dumbass or others.
I'm think of building a new desktop. Will it be worth the extra money to buy a six-core over a 4-core?
Here is what I'm looking at........
Intel Core i7-2600K Sandy Bridge 4 core http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115070 $314.99
Intel Core i7-970 Gulftown 6 core http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115066 $559.99
My question is the 6 core Gulftown for $599.99 worth the extra money over the 4 core Sandy Bridge? I realize I will also have to spend more for the LGA 1366 motherboard for the Gulftown.
I've built 2 computers before but not too much on the best components.
Any help would be much appreciated.
I was listen to a hardware podcast. The host said something interesting. He said that they weren't seeing any remarkable difference with faster ram on a system, nor triple versus double channel memory. He said a lot of the hardware increases in performance don't really pan out in the real world.
I have a friend who make videos. He has the 980. He said that what used to take 10 hours on a 920 now can be done in a little over a couple of hours. The increase extra money was worth it for him. I would never see the benefit of the 980.
I would stick with Sandy Bridge.
If you are interested in poking around a little deeper, I found an interesting site that has some INSTRUCTION CYCLE information on Intel CPU. Just for the curious and rather technical. I do not how accurate the information is but I tend to have more confidence in transparent sites. He is candid about his methodology and has his test programs available for download and analysis.
IMO, transparency = more likely to be honest.
Here's an article that talks about the comparisons:
"At $583, the -970 still feels overpriced. At $999, the -990X is even more so. But at least the -990X guarantees the fastest possible frequencies and sports an unlocked clock multiplier—a feature we so dearly coveted until AMD started arming gobs of its chips with the Black Edition moniker and Intel answered back with the K-series.
As one vendor of very expensive motherboards told me recently, there are folks out there who’ll pay to own the fastest of anything, though. Our mission today is to figure out if the Core i7-990X is indeed the fastest processor out there. Or, does the Core i7-2600K oust it using a more efficient architecture?"
So, they don't seem to like the 970 over Sandy Bridge and the article goes on to look at the 990 in comparison.
This information should help you make your decision.
I'd go with the Sandy Bridge and put the difference into a nice SSD or better graphics...
"Two months ago, when I finished testing Intel’s Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K, I came to the conclusion that you’d have to be battier than Charlie Sheen with a suitcase of blow to spend $1000 on a Core i7-980X Extreme Edition in the face of Sandy Bridge-based CPUs. I was so convinced, in fact, that I didn’t bother benchmarking the super-exclusive chip, and instead focused on drilling deep into Quick Sync and Intel’s HD Graphics engines.
Now, in the face of a new flagship processor, we see that there are actually situations where a Core i7-900-series chip still makes sense. Frankly, enthusiasts and gamers need not apply. You can get so much value from the Core i5-2500K for $230 that it’s entirely worth waiting for new P67-based motherboards before you buy something new. Or, hold off for Z68, which will have some surprises of its own. The $770 you pocket as a result of not buying an Extreme Edition CPU buys a sick set of GeForce GTX 570s in SLI and a couple terabytes of storage.
But if your workstation is responsible for making you money; if it’s a true workhorse that you know for a fact muscles through threaded software like Premiere Pro, 3ds Max, and MainConcept (among others), then there’s a legitimate business case for buying the highest-end processor possible. And if you’re in that position, you can probably calculate exactly how long it’ll take for the Core i7-990X to pay for itself.
More so now than ever before, Intel’s X58 Express platform is being pegged as a 1P server/workstation configuration, and not a power user’s toy. There are limited reasons you’d actually want to spend $1000 on a processor in light of Sandy Bridge’s potency. The reasons are there though, and we’ve illustrated where you can expect to see them surface…"
It depends what you will be using the computer for. i.e. games or graphic software or just legacy software and regular use.
Most software's today are not built to use the full potential of the higher cpu usage (aka parallel programming) so if you don't have to just go with the cheaper 4 core. IMO.
The "it depends" is the correct answer. What is the purpose of your project? Both will be fun projects.
Some thoughts, BUT only you and your wallet determine the right answer:
Gulftwown = Westmere EP.
Check into DUAL SOCKET EP solutions. They will cost more because of complexity of design. You know: double the electronics but much lower volumes usually means higher cost and price.
Gulftown supports instruction sets through SSE 4.1 with AES encryptions instructions if that is important.
135 watts consumed from your power supply is fewer watts for add-in boards.
You can play with overclocking if that seems interesting. Sanybridge might have a dual socket solution but you probably need the 2011 socket with the extra pins and cost.
95 watts consumed from your power supply leaves 40 extra watts. You can either use that for more graphics with an addin board (gaming) or for a slightly lower utility bill and cool running (quieter fan).
If you are careful about the 1155 socket and motherboard design choice, Ivybridge might be a direct plug in for your current board. You can be the first on your block with the new system.
Sandybridge supports the same Gulftown instructions plus the new 256-bit AVX vector instructions. There is not much that exploits the AVX yet but there seems to be an industry wide migration to exploit new instructions.
They are similar in base frequency, cache sizes and bus bandwidth. I think there was some improvements in the internal cache design on the chip that might be visible to benchmarks.
Hyperthreads give you about 50% to 80% of the compute power depending the application mix.