i7-970 vs. 2600 in benchmarks question

[michaeld]

I just got through looking over cpu performance benchmarks -
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_look...70+%40+3.20GHz - and was rather suprised.

Basically, the i7-970 came out 4th, the 2600k came out 7th, and the 2600 came out 10th.

I have a HPE-570t with an i7-2600 (not the k). Because of the c200 chipset defect, HP has told me I could either exchange my computer (I understand even swap) for an HPE-590t or waith until sometime in April when I can get a new 570t with a defect-fixed motherboard.

Almost everything I have read has told me the 2600 was a better processor than the 970.

And then I come across your site, which has a decidedly different result.

I've got no ideological loyalties here. If the 970 is truly better, I'd like to know so I can get the 590t instead.

To add to the 590t pot, it ALSO has a Blu Ray, which the 570t does not. And it has an extra gig of RAM (9 gig vs 8 gig for the 2600 machine).

I've been advised to just buy a Blu Ray burner and install it for about $50 or so. Because the 2600 was just that much better. And I was kind of decided on doing that.

Until I came upon this benchmark test.

Could someone explain the results and give me advice?

FYI, the 590t specs are available here.

I can't link to the 570t - because it's been taken off the market until the chipset defect is corrected - but the spec I've got for it is this:
HP Pavilion Elite HPE-570t PC
• Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
• Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 quad-core processor with Turbo-Boost [up to 3.8GHz, 8MB cache]
• 8GB DDR3-1333MHz SDRAM [4 DIMMs]
• FREE UPGRADE! 1.5TB 7200 rpm SATA 3Gb/s hard drive from 750GB
• No additional office software
• Norton Internet Security(TM) 2011 - 15 month
• 1GB DDR3 ATI Radeon HD 5450 [DVI, HDMI, VGA adapter]
• No speakers
• LightScribe 16X max. DVD+/-R/RW SuperMulti drive
• Wireless-N LAN card
• 15-in-1 memory card reader, 1 USB, audio
• No TV Tuner
• Beats Audio -- integrated studio quality sound
• HP USB keyboard and optical mouse

[David (PassMark)]

The i7 970 is a 6 core CPU.
The 2600 is a 4 core CPU.

Each core of the 2600 is significantly faster than the 970. So for tasks that involve using just 1 to 4 cores the 2600 is a better choice.

But if you have a task that involves maxing out all 6 cores at the same time, then the 970 might be better (but not by much).

Not many applications can use 6 CPU cores at the same time. Must run into bottlenecks in the RAM, GPU, or disk access which means you rarely get to max out 6 cores in a desktop machine in normal use.

I don't think you'll notice the 1GB of RAM difference. What you would notice is adding a SSD (solid state hard drive) if you can. A SSD would have a much bigger impact than the difference between these two CPUs.

[michaeld]

passmark,

Thanks for the response.

What you say is basically what I had thought prior to seeing the cpu benchmark (link here). Which was why I was somewhat surprised to see the 2600 showing 10th.

Most of the other benchmarks I've come across clearly seemed to indicate that the 2600 was the better processor for MOST tasks, and that I would be better off sticking with the machine I've got.

But every now and then (like the benchmark above), I come across something that makes me think maybe I should consider that 970 machine.

What I really want is something that will a) be durable and b) resist obslelescance. The Sandy Bridge has a brand new architecture, but the 970 has six cores. You could see it going either way. What if more and more programs are designed for six cores, and my poor 4 core just can't handle it? And what if the programs continue to develop using no more than 4 cores, and the 970 isn't as fast?

I'll look into this SSD, because I'm new to this and don't even know what it is.

Having said that, one of the limitations to the 570t is power. It is only a 300 watt system (I'm not sure what the power supply to the 590t is). So I've got to figure out what I could and could not add if I keep the 570t.

[David (PassMark)]

What I really want is something that will a) be durable and b) resist obslelescance.

Don't buy a computer then.
Try a brick house, or gold bullion instead

Whatever you get today will look like rubbish in 5 years and have a 2nd hand resale value of about $150.

I don't think you'll ever really need 6 cores because your RAM, DISK and video card just won't keep up. Switch to a high end video card(s) and SSD(s) and you might make slightly more use of your high end CPU.

[michaeld]

Don't buy a computer then.
Try a brick house, or gold bullion instead

Whatever you get today will look like rubbish in 5 years and have a 2nd hand resale value of about $150.

I don't think you'll ever really need 6 cores because your RAM, DISK and video card just won't keep up. Switch to a high end video card(s) and SSD(s) and you might make slightly more use of your high end CPU.

Look, I've seen other people refer to resisisting obsolescance, and seen them get the same dismissive answer you gave me. I know you didn't mean it in a demeaning way, and I don't take it that way.

But do you seriously believe that if I got an AMD X2 that it would be able to keep up with the programs and the computing needs of the future as well as my Sandy Bridge???

The Sandy Bridge and the Gulftowns represent dramatically different concepts. And it seems quite logical to think that one or the other might well fit in better in, say, two years than the other.

Will we see more and more six-core (and up) programs and applications where there really aren't that many right now? Or will the Sandy Bridge concept, with fewer cores but more power per core, begin to catch on?

I don't see how that is a meaningless or nonsense question. Not at all.

The $150 thing will quite probably be true. But my point isn't about residual dollar value, but about the ability of a computer to continue to serve my needs in the future.

That said, you do help me with your point about the video card and the SSD (which I did look up).

I will seriously consider that. And that means I need to see if I can install them on my 300 watt 570t.

[David (PassMark)]

But do you seriously believe that if I got an AMD X2 that it would be able to keep up with the programs and the computing needs of the future as well as my Sandy Bridge???

And AMD x2 is already rubbish. By getting the Sandy bridge you are buying another year or so of useful live in your PC.

Look back at the Pentium4. It doesn't matter now if you have a P4 2Ghz or a Celeron 2.6Ghz. They are both more or less equally crap by today's standards. But at the time, when they were new, the difference seem important.

Or put another way. If there is a 5x increase in CPU speeds in the next 5 years. Then the 0.1x difference you are worrying about now is totally irrelevant.

[michaeld]

If there is a 5x increase in CPU speeds in the next 5 years. Then the 0.1x difference you are worrying about now is totally irrelevant.

Well, if there is truly only a .1% difference, then what I'm worrying about is truly irrelevant.

But the cpubenchmark connected to this forum doesn't seem to indicate a mere "0.1x" difference.

Between the i7-970 and the i7-2600, there is a difference in performance scoring between 9,938 and 8,937 - which constitutes an 11.2% difference in their scores.

I've seen other benchmarks which give significant performance advantages to the 2600 (at least, to the k model).

This is the very first time I've seen anyone say that there is only a 0.1x difference in these two processors.

Here's an interesting real world comparison:

The Core i7-2600K also smoked all comers in our Photoshop CS5 test, blasting through all twelve filters in two minutes 57 seconds. That’s nicely beyond even what we have seen with six-core chips from both AMD (four minutes 20 seconds for the Phenom II X6 1100T) and Intel (the Core i7-970, which costs upwards of $800, required 3 minutes 37 seconds);

That's like a 25% difference. Hardly 0.1x.

I understand that you're talking about the 0.1x difference being something that we'd be looking at in several years, rather than right now. And maybe the Pentium 2Ghz and the Celeron 2.6Ghz were obsolete at the same time and in the same sense. Were they?

People talk about hyperthreading and stuff like that, and that six cores are better for that. But I don't even really know what that means. I know that certain video editing applications apparently favor the 970. But I really don't know which ones to know if I'd ever use them.

But I what do know is that it seems that for certain applications, the 2600 is not just "0.1x" better, but signicantly better. And that for others the 970 is significantly better. And I'm trying to figure out which processor would be better for my needs. And it seems that given the radically different design of these two processors, it is extremely unlikely that they arrived at the exact same destination with maybe a 0.1x difference.

I understand the philosophy that in a hundred years who's going to care. But I happen to care right now.

[David (PassMark)]

5x = 5 times better (500%).
0.1x = 0.1 times better (10%).

Given that it is pretty much a fact that CPUs speeds will double and double again over the next 5 years, it isn't worth worrying too much about todays small difference from a obsolescence point of view. My point is that other factors (like the disk speed) are much more critical to the performance.

Getting a 50x increase in random disk access times (via a SSD) will be MUCH more noticeable than the small difference in the CPUs.

[michaeld]

My decision got more complex, based on what I'm learning.

You had mentioned a video card being more important than the processor in terms of keeping up and staying fast.

I did a little checking.

My 570t system only has a 300 watt power supply. And it would be inadequate for a video card upgrade.

Talking with HP, I'm told I could upgrade to a 460 watt psu for $56. And I saw someone with my computer say they had upgraded to an ATI HD 5770 (my computer has the base HD 5450) for $10.

The computer with the 970 I was considering already comes with a 460 watt psu, and has a HD 6570. I don't really know how good that is compared to either the 5750 or the 5450.

With these features, I think I would have just got the 970 machine, but I read more carefully and saw that it only comes with a blu ray player, not a writer. And HP charges far more for a writer than what I could buy one for, it seems.

Now, in addition to deciding whether I should opt for the i7-970 system, I'm also deciding whether I should let HP do the above psu/video card upgrade, or do it myself later.

This is a whole new world for me.

[David (PassMark)]

You also need to consider what you are planning on using the machine for. The 5450 is a nice media center card (low power, low heat, low noise). But not so good for games.

Are you really going to burn blu-rays. The blanks are expensive when I checked last. Cheaper to buy a 1TB external USB HDD instead.

[michaeld]

You're right, of course. What I'm going to use the computer for makes a great deal of difference in what kind of features I should get. And the problem is, I don't fully know.

I've got a machine that is capable of doing far more than any I've ever had. I'd rather like to explore it's capabilities and do things I may not have thought of doing.

I can't imagine playing many games (some, but not much), but I'd like to get a lot more into photoshop and video editing, for instance.

And that leads into the question as to whether the i7-2600 plus the HD 5450 is a better configuration for me than the i7-970 plus the HD 6570???

As to burning Blu Ray (and I'm not that into movies, either, but I've had memory storage problems on my last two notebooks, and I NEVER want to have them again), I think the price has already come down considerably.

Check this out: Amazon is selling a 20 pk of 25 GB Blu Ray discs for 27.99 out the door. That's like 56 cents a GB. And as Blu Ray catches on, I think the price will come down even further. I also think the price of the dual-sided ones will come down.

But I suppose you're right: you can get a 1 TB HD for $70, which is 70 cents a GB. And the prices of those are going to come down, too.

I've got an external 1 TB HD myself (a Seagate). Paid about $90 about a year and a half ago. I'm actually suprised they haven't come down a lot more in price since then.

The Blu Rays would be slower, on the one hand, of course; but they would be more durable, on the other. I back up all my important stuff that I put on the external drive. And I back it up using CDs (and now DVDs).

I don't need that kind of storage now. So I could afford to wait a while, and add it when I need it and the prices come down. But it's nice to know that you can dump that kind of data to storage and be able to access it reasonably fast.

Anyway, based on all that, I've now got three main possibilities:

1) I can keep the 570t and have HP do the upgrade to the 460 watt psu and the (I think) better HD 5770 card for $66.

2) I can keep the 570t and do the upgrade myself later as I need to and as the prices come down. I'd probably spend more than the $66 for option 1, but I'd undoubtdedly end up with something bigger and badder, too.

3) I can exchange the computer for the i7-970 machine with the 460 watt psu and the even better still (I think) HD 6570 and probably figure I'd never do an upgrade.

[David (PassMark)]

The 5450 is not adequate for playing current 3D games.

There are at least 288 other models of video cards that are faster. See,
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/vi...Radeon+HD+5450

If you are doing video encoding then get the sandy bridge machine. It is far better at this particular task (when used with the right software).

[michaeld]

Whoo - Hoo! In the top 300!!! That's like winning in the public schools!!!

So it seems as though the upgrade would definitely be in order, assuming I got the prices correct (I definitely got the PSU price from HP correct). The 5770 was clearly well within the top 50 of the same benchmark list.

That said, what did you think about the benchmark that had the 970 so much better than the 2600?

MOST of the other benchmark tests I've seen had the 2600 outperforming the 970. This site allows direct comparison, and the 2600 wins easily (although I had to select the 'k' version, which I don't have).

[David (PassMark)]

...that had the 970 so much better than the 2600?

The difference between the 970 and 2600K was only 6% and the margin for error in benchmarks is probably only just under this. A more accurate statement is that the performance is near identical between these 2 CPUs.

..and the 2600 wins easily

Out of the benchmarks listed at your link the 970 won about an equal number of tests as the 2600. So your conclusion that the 2600 wins easily would seem to be plain wrong.

The CPU performance is so similar you should stop worrying about it. Worry instead about the stuff that might make a difference. Like power, heat, disk performance, price, monitor size and GPU performance.

[michaeld]

Out of the benchmarks listed at your link the 970 won about an equal number of tests as the 2600. So your conclusion that the 2600 wins easily would seem to be plain wrong.

Not true.

I think you looked the benchmarks over too quickly. Many of them were "lower is better." And so at a glance the scores could deceive.

I actually counted: Out of 42 separate benchmarks, the i7-970 won 11. The i7-2600 won the remaining 31. The 2600 was "the winner" in basically 3/4s of the tests.

That just aint "about an equal number of tests."

It would also seem that if they were basically equal, that I should get the 970 computer. Because it would also give an extra gig of RAM and it would give the 460W power source, and it would give the better vid card, and it would give the Blu Ray. Cetaris parabis, with an equal processor, the other deal is better.

I have a window of opportunity to choose between two systems. And I want to make the best choice now, rather than learn six months down the road that I should have taken the other.

I'm of course talking to as many people as will give me the time of day. Most of them are saying the 2600 is a better processor, and to stick with it and spend the extra money on the PSU and GPU upgrades. But I came across the benchmark that had the 970 emerging a clear winner, and want to understand why.

If the 970 IS better, then I should get the 970 system. If they're roughly the same, I should get the 970 system.

Only if the 2600 is measurably better at the applications I want (mostly photos and video editing, with possibly a little gaming) should I stick with the 2600 system.