Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [WCCF] Rumor: Ivy Bridge compared against i5 2300 & i5 760 Clock to Clock
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[WCCF] Rumor: Ivy Bridge compared against i5 2300 & i5 760 Clock to Clock - Page 4

post #31 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by conzilla View Post

Do gamers really care about power consumption? I personally don't. And 5% for a new gen seems fail.

I see you're new to hardware. Ivy Bridge is essentially just a die shrink of Sandy Bridge. You should be grateful that there's any IPC improvements at all.

Lower power consumption = less heat = higher overclocks.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom 9750 (stock) MSI MS-7548 (Aspen) HD 6950 @ 971/1387 1.25v 8GB DDR2 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
750GB Windows 7 64-bit ASUS VH238H 1920x1080 Seasonic X-650 Gold 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Rosewill Smart One Razer Naga Razer Scarab 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom 9750 (stock) MSI MS-7548 (Aspen) HD 6950 @ 971/1387 1.25v 8GB DDR2 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
750GB Windows 7 64-bit ASUS VH238H 1920x1080 Seasonic X-650 Gold 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Rosewill Smart One Razer Naga Razer Scarab 
  hide details  
Reply
post #32 of 63
even if ivy released with 0% performance increase over sandy it wouldnt be a fail. those of you saying that its a "bulldozer" fail are completely misinformed. did you think ivy would stand up next to sandy as sandy did to the previous then? its a die shrink not a whole new arch. why would you consider it a "bulldozer?"

bulldozer=5 years of poor ideas, and thinking more is better (cores, power consumption, temps) and the cpu it self cant keep up with the same brand's(amd) newest gpus(bottleneck). which even an i3 2100 outperforms an 8150 in gaming.

intel has spent the last few years focusing on power efficiency and creating a name for itself in the graphics section, without sacrificing performance, and if haswell maintains the scale of things, you will see something very special when it is released.

ivy = small improvements over sandy, not a revolutionary 6ghz chip.

ivy is more intended for the mobile side of things anyways.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I5 2500K 4.7ghz 1.36v MSI Z68A-GD80 (G3) MSI GTX 680 TFIII 4GB SLI 1248mhz core 6.5ghz mem 16GB Patriot Viper X Div 2 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2xM4 64 GB Raid 0 4x5900rpm Baracuda Raid 0 Pioneer BDR Windows 7 Home Premium Triple Asus 27" monitors 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Tt Challenger Ultimate Corsair AX-1200 NZXT Switch 810 Mionix Naos 5000 
Mouse Pad
Mionix Propus 380 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I5 2500K 4.7ghz 1.36v MSI Z68A-GD80 (G3) MSI GTX 680 TFIII 4GB SLI 1248mhz core 6.5ghz mem 16GB Patriot Viper X Div 2 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2xM4 64 GB Raid 0 4x5900rpm Baracuda Raid 0 Pioneer BDR Windows 7 Home Premium Triple Asus 27" monitors 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Tt Challenger Ultimate Corsair AX-1200 NZXT Switch 810 Mionix Naos 5000 
Mouse Pad
Mionix Propus 380 
  hide details  
Reply
post #33 of 63

If you shop at MicroCenter, it doesn't make sense to buy anything but an i5-2500k if you are an enthusiast, truly...

 

The i7-2600K sells for $280 at MC...  (Not worth it IMHO)

The i5-2500k sells for $180 at MC...

The i3-2100 sells for $100 at MC..

 

The performance difference between the 2500k & the 2600k isn't worth $100, not really...

The $100 difference between the i3 and i5 is worth it because of the Performance of the i5-2500k.. (about 40% more performance)

 

Just saying...

 

35044.png

 

As you can see by this chart from AnandTech, the difference in performance isn't much between the i7 and the i5, yet it's quite different between the i3 and the i5...

 

i7-2600k = 26.8 % Higher than i5-2500k (Not worth $100, sorry)

i5-2500k = 39 % Higher than i3-2100k (worth $100?)

 

Personally I'd rather have a true quad core than a dual core with Hyper Threading, but that's just my opinion...

 


Edited by _GTech - 2/20/12 at 9:19am
The Rock
(15 items)
 
  
Reply
The Rock
(15 items)
 
  
Reply
post #34 of 63
Yeah, I go by the "Tick" processors for desktops, "Tock" processors for laptops, hence why I'll be getting an Ivy Bridge laptop this year.

I didn't realize my i5-760 still had pretty good performance compared to the current stuff. But then again, those processors are locked ones, and mine still falls behind the 2500K.

Upgrading my work to i3-2100 and Pentium G620's cause what they had before were 5-year old Core 2 Duos. Had to order then by the end of last year so I couldn't wait for Ivy Bridge for them. The C2D were too old to do any worthy upgrades to them and some of them only could go up to 2GB of RAM and we were upgrading to Windows 7 across all computers and that needs at least 4GB to do anything decent in it. They don't need quad-cores or anything like that cause the most taxing thing they do is Outlook and run dual monitors. As long as they're set for another 5 years, they'll be fine. By that time, we'll be upgrading to Windows 9, which hopefully won't be too bad and not completely turned into Metro. worriedsmiley.gif
post #35 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lareson View Post

Yeah, I go by the "Tick" processors for desktops, "Tock" processors for laptops, hence why I'll be getting an Ivy Bridge laptop this year.
I didn't realize my i5-760 still had pretty good performance compared to the current stuff. But then again, those processors are locked ones, and mine still falls behind the 2500K.
Upgrading my work to i3-2100 and Pentium G620's cause what they had before were 5-year old Core 2 Duos. Had to order then by the end of last year so I couldn't wait for Ivy Bridge for them. The C2D were too old to do any worthy upgrades to them and some of them only could go up to 2GB of RAM and we were upgrading to Windows 7 across all computers and that needs at least 4GB to do anything decent in it. They don't need quad-cores or anything like that cause the most taxing thing they do is Outlook and run dual monitors. As long as they're set for another 5 years, they'll be fine. By that time, we'll be upgrading to Windows 9, which hopefully won't be too bad and not completely turned into Metro. worriedsmiley.gif


 The i3-2100 is a great $100 processor, for sure, and if you want to save money, then, to me it's a worthy replacement for any low end system...  (Provided you aren't doing extensive Encoding / Compressing / Gaming)

 

The Rock
(15 items)
 
  
Reply
The Rock
(15 items)
 
  
Reply
post #36 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by _GTech View Post

If you shop at MicroCenter, it doesn't make sense to buy anything but an i5-2500k if you are an enthusiast, truly...

The i7-2600K sells for $280 at MC...  (Not worth it IMHO)
The i5-2500k sells for $180 at MC...
The i3-2100 sells for $100 at MC..

The performance difference between the 2500k & the 2600k isn't worth $100, not really...
The $100 difference between the i3 and i5 is worth it because of the Performance of the i5-2500k.. (about 40% more performance)

As you can see by this chart from AnandTech, the difference in performance isn't much between the i7 and the i5, yet it's quite different between the i3 and the i5...

i7-2600k = 26.8 % Higher than i5-2500k (Not worth $100, sorry)
i5-2500k = 39 % Higher than i3-2100k (worth $100?)

This is a truly stupid post full of bad information.

#1 You are using a single 7-zip benchmark. Seriously?
#2 You have decided that because of this single benchmark, all enthusiasts should get a 2500k
#3 Your numbers are wrong. The price difference is $80 between the i3 and i5
#4 There is no 2100k. This does not exist
#5 Arbitrary performance percentages don't help anyone.
#6 $100 isn't much to some people, as shown by the multiple $10,000 rigs on this website

You are paying $100 more for a 2600k for improved performance in heavily threaded tasks. Trancoding? Rendering? Folding? Engineering simulations? The 2600k crushes the 2500k in these tasks because that is what it is designed to do. For anyone doing lots of these tasks, $100 is a TINY price to pay to shave hours off compute times. The 2500k is awesome bang for the buck (I recommend it all the time!), no doubt about it, but to blanket all enthusiasts as people who don't need hyper threading because of a single stupid 7-zip benchmark is about as useless as possible. Please don't speak for me until you at least know what you are talking about.
Edited by DayoftheGreek - 2/20/12 at 9:40am
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600k 4.5GHz @ 1.32V Asus P8P67 Pro EVGA GTX 580 Mushkin 2133 9-10-9-24 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 840  WD Black Silver Arrow Windows 7 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2211H Rosewill RK-9000BR Seasonic X750 HAF X 
MouseAudio
Razer Lachesis Grado HF2 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600k 4.5GHz @ 1.32V Asus P8P67 Pro EVGA GTX 580 Mushkin 2133 9-10-9-24 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 840  WD Black Silver Arrow Windows 7 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2211H Rosewill RK-9000BR Seasonic X750 HAF X 
MouseAudio
Razer Lachesis Grado HF2 
  hide details  
Reply
post #37 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lareson View Post

Yeah, I go by the "Tick" processors for desktops, "Tock" processors for laptops, hence why I'll be getting an Ivy Bridge laptop this year.
I didn't realize my i5-760 still had pretty good performance compared to the current stuff. But then again, those processors are locked ones, and mine still falls behind the 2500K.
Upgrading my work to i3-2100 and Pentium G620's cause what they had before were 5-year old Core 2 Duos. Had to order then by the end of last year so I couldn't wait for Ivy Bridge for them. The C2D were too old to do any worthy upgrades to them and some of them only could go up to 2GB of RAM and we were upgrading to Windows 7 across all computers and that needs at least 4GB to do anything decent in it. They don't need quad-cores or anything like that cause the most taxing thing they do is Outlook and run dual monitors. As long as they're set for another 5 years, they'll be fine. By that time, we'll be upgrading to Windows 9, which hopefully won't be too bad and not completely turned into Metro. worriedsmiley.gif

Yeah clock for clock you're in good position still. However, the 2500k and the likes of SB in general can clock near or past 5ghz, so long as they're unlocked. That's the main performance differentiator.
 
Cheesecake
(16 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500k Gene-Z Gen3 R9 290 G.Skill Sniper 8 GB 1866 9-9-9-28-1T 
CoolingCoolingPowerCase
Kraken Lots of airflow :P TX850 version 2 Plasti-Dipped 350D 
AudioAudioAudio
Xonar DX [sold] Sennheiser HD 555 FiiO E10 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsCooling
Phenom II X4 @ 4000/2800 ASRock Extreme4 970 Big Air Cheesecake  Tr Silver Arrow 
CoolingCase
Tr Shaman Centurion 590 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Cheesecake
(16 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500k Gene-Z Gen3 R9 290 G.Skill Sniper 8 GB 1866 9-9-9-28-1T 
CoolingCoolingPowerCase
Kraken Lots of airflow :P TX850 version 2 Plasti-Dipped 350D 
AudioAudioAudio
Xonar DX [sold] Sennheiser HD 555 FiiO E10 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsCooling
Phenom II X4 @ 4000/2800 ASRock Extreme4 970 Big Air Cheesecake  Tr Silver Arrow 
CoolingCase
Tr Shaman Centurion 590 
  hide details  
Reply
post #38 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by DayoftheGreek View Post

This is a truly stupid post full of bad information.
#1 You are using a single 7-zip benchmark. Seriously?
#2 You have decided that because of this single benchmark, all enthusiasts should get a 2500k
#3 Your numbers are wrong. The price difference is $80 between the i3 and i5
#4 There is no 2100k. This does not exist
#5 Arbitrary performance percentages don't help anyone.
#6 $100 isn't much to some people, as shown by the multiple $10,000 rigs on this website
You are paying $100 more for a 2600k for improved performance in heavily threaded tasks. Trancoding? Rendering? Folding? Engineering simulations? The 2600k crushes the 2500k in these tasks because that is what it is designed to do. For anyone doing lots of these tasks, $100 is a TINY price to pay to shave hours off compute times. The 2500k is awesome bang for the buck (I recommend it all the time!), no doubt about it, but to blanket all enthusiasts as people who don't need hyper threading because of a single stupid 7-zip benchmark is about as useless as possible. Please don't speak for me until you at least know what you are talking about.

^This! thumb.gif

If _GTech buys nothing he can save all that money since all he needs is 5 fingers and 5 toes for computing! Win!
Edited by Madclock - 2/20/12 at 9:48am
Mad's Machine
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7-930@3.95GHZ Asus P6X58D-E EVGA GTS 450 Adata 4gb DDR3 1688Mhz 
CoolingOSMonitorPower
CM Hyper 612 PWM Windows 7 Ulimate 32bit HP W22 PC Power & Cooling 610W Silencer 
Case
CM 334 Nvidia Edition(Modded) 
  hide details  
Reply
Mad's Machine
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7-930@3.95GHZ Asus P6X58D-E EVGA GTS 450 Adata 4gb DDR3 1688Mhz 
CoolingOSMonitorPower
CM Hyper 612 PWM Windows 7 Ulimate 32bit HP W22 PC Power & Cooling 610W Silencer 
Case
CM 334 Nvidia Edition(Modded) 
  hide details  
Reply
post #39 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by _GTech View Post


 The i3-2100 is a great $100 processor, for sure, and if you want to save money, then, to me it's a worthy replacement for any low end system...  (Provided you aren't doing extensive Encoding / Compressing / Gaming)

Nope, they mainly use web-based programs, dual monitors (which we use Nvidia 520's for 2 digital connections anyways) and a phone monitoring program on a couple. And for those that will be using just basic programs, they're getting the G620's. Still 2x better performance than what they had before. The G620's we got a great deal on, Systemax pre-built systems for $399 for everything and all we need to do is add a graphics card for dual monitors (I know that the onboard has dual monitor support, but I want digital connections) and the 2 monitors, all for under $700. The i3-2100's I'm building those systems, around $600 for the systems, cause the people that are getting those already have dual monitors so we don't need to spend the extra $200+ on monitors.

Outlook I've noticed uses the most out of everything that they have running. Somehow one of the computers has 1GB of RAM with 128MB used for onboard graphics and he's somehow using 1.1GB with page files. I was surprised on how well his computer is running using that much page files.

I do know that we have a couple laptop purchases coming up, so I'm waiting for Ivy Bridge for those, due to wanting to get them Ultrabooks with better battery life. I'm just sick of these HP ProBooks that we have.
post #40 of 63
Ivy rockz tongue.gif

Waiting for low-end series rolleyes.gif
Piji
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 4460 Gigabyte H97-D3H EVGA GeForce GTX 960 SuperSC ACX 2.0+ Kingston HyperX Fury 1866MHz 16GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung 840 EVO 250GB WD Caviar Green 1TB Pioneer DVR-S21FXV Noctua NH-U12S 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Pro x64 SAMSUNG P2270 Logitech K400 ENERMAX NAXN 450W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
ENERMAX Clipeus ECA3210A Logitech Performance MX GIGABYTE PreSonus FireBox 
  hide details  
Reply
Piji
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 4460 Gigabyte H97-D3H EVGA GeForce GTX 960 SuperSC ACX 2.0+ Kingston HyperX Fury 1866MHz 16GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung 840 EVO 250GB WD Caviar Green 1TB Pioneer DVR-S21FXV Noctua NH-U12S 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Pro x64 SAMSUNG P2270 Logitech K400 ENERMAX NAXN 450W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
ENERMAX Clipeus ECA3210A Logitech Performance MX GIGABYTE PreSonus FireBox 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [WCCF] Rumor: Ivy Bridge compared against i5 2300 & i5 760 Clock to Clock