i7-970 vs. 2600 in benchmarks question

[David (PassMark)]

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.

Any reasonable summary would conclude the CPUs are very close. You probably failed to discount the results that were really too close to call (< 5% difference) and the tests that weren't about performance, but were about power consumption (watts).

There is no doubt the 2600K is a more efficient CPU by a fair margin (in terms of watts required to perform a task).

Any old CPU will do photos.
For video editing the 2600K will be the winner. Especially for future software (there are special very efficient instructions in the sandy bridge CPUs for this, that aren't in the 970).
For gaming is won't matter much which one you select as the video card will screw the performance, not the CPU.

But the 970 will win on tasks that max out 6 cores, and don't use the disk or GPU (but there aren't too many of these in real life).

You are fixated on the wrong thing. But I am repeating myself......

[michaeld]

But the 970 will win on tasks that max out 6 cores, and don't use the disk or GPU (but there aren't too many of these in real life).

You are fixated on the wrong thing. But I am repeating myself......

Here's what I'm fixating on, Passmark: My very next decision is to choose between these two computers. "Fixated" isn't a bad word; I am fixated upon whether to keep the 2600 machine or move to the 970 machine.

And the 970 machine, as I said, has a better power supply, a better video card, an extra gig of RAM and a Blu Ray player.

And the ONLY reason I wouldn't opt for that 970 machine is if the 2600 is the better processor. Particularly for MY needs.

Once I decide which machine to go with, or stay with, I will feel free to tackle some of the things you're pointing out. As an example, if I keep the 2600 machine, I will upgrade to the 460W PSU and the 5770 GPU. And maybe I'd add a SSD rather than the Blu Ray.

But first I have to decide WHICH MACHINE to take. And the single biggest difference in these two machines is the processor.

Hence the fixation.

Now, you say something that very much gets to my fixation itch; you say that the 970 will win out on tasks that max out six cores, and don't use the disc or GPU (but there aren't too many of these in real life).

Now, that statment would very definitely make me want to opt for the 2600, in and of itself. I have read similar statements from others, so it certainly seems to be accurate. But what are those tasks that max out the six cores, and don't use the disc or the GPU? You say there aren't many, but if I had a better sense of what they were, I could look them over and say, "I'll never do that!" Or, "That sounds like something I want to do."

That would help me get over my fixations...

[michaeld]

Btw, Passmark,

I have an uncle who is the computer administrator for Cal Tech. Obviously he knows a thing or two about computers.

He recently suffered a stroke, and I am just not going to bug him with my persistant and annoying computer questions.

But I've bugged him in the past, and he sounded quite a bit like you in the sense that he said not to worry over much about the processor. But rather look at other things (and at the time, he told me to focus on the screen size/resolution and the ROM and RAM memory for the notebook I was getting).

So I understand where you're coming from, I think, and since you're saying what my MENSA uncle university computer administrator would probably say, I respect where you're coming from.

What makes my present situation different is that I've had two computers thrust upon me, and I simply need to make a decision between them.

I've got to choose between the HPE-570t and the HPE-590t. I've talked about what each system has and doesn't have, and you've talked about what I probably need that neither system has. But my next decision is to decide which of these two computers to get.

[David (PassMark)]

Best of luck in your decision....

[michaeld]

Thank you.

For anyone who stumbles across this tale, I talked with a guy today who recommended I stick with the 2600 machine I've got. He said the biggest deal for him was the new 1155 socket, which would be the most upgradable.

He told me that with the 460W power and the 5770 card upgrade, I would have a much better machine than the 970 system.

He also said that, in his view, the software would likely be written much more for the Sandy Bridge and the more powerful four cores than they would the six core processors (especially the older Gulftowns).

Made sense to me.

[Josh9114]

I7-970 vs. i7-2600k

Hello, I was reading this thread about the decision between the i7 970 and the i7 2600k and I am trying to decide the same thing. I like the idea of having more cores but not if it sacrifices too much power. Now I am needing the cpu configuration for music recording and production and I was wondering if you two guys might have any input on that? Thank you for whatever info you can give.

[David (PassMark)]

For music production, I don't think you'll notice much of a difference. But if there is particular application that you use all the time, then you might want to research benchmarks done in the particular application.