facebook rss twitter

Intel slips in Core i7 2700K Sandy Bridge chip

by Alistair Lowe on 24 October 2011, 15:03

Tags: Intel (NASDAQ:INTC)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qa7r3

Add to My Vault: x

In a somewhat expected announcement, Intel officially released its Core i7 2700K CPU today. Based on the current Sandy Bridge architecture, the quad-core chip is clocked at 3.5GHz with a Turbo Boost of 3.9GHz. This means it's 100MHz faster than the 2600K - a chip that's been out for a while already.

Our benchmarks have shown the 2600K bests most of the hex and octo-core CPUs in applications that aren't heavily multithreaded. However, when it comes to crunch time on heavily parallel tasks such as encryption, compression and multithreaded benchmarking programs such as wPrime, AMD's FX-8150 octo-core Bulldozer just comes out on top.

With the 2700K, Intel should be able to close this multithreaded performance gap, firmly putting the Bulldozer cores on the back foot. Priced on Scan.co.uk at £287 retail, Intel’s Core i7 2700K is 45 per cent dearer than the AMD’s FX-8150, retailing at £198.97. Even with the expected increase in benchmark results, this is a significant price gap, though as we have reported previously, those looking to overclock have a lot of wiggle room with the quad-core i7s; the ‘K’ in the product name indicates an unlocked multiplier, and the 2700K manages to stay within the 95W TDP.

Intel has seemingly managed to stop AMD’s Bulldozer in its tracks, but for those not looking to overclock, the FX-8150 would still make a good budget buy for some.



HEXUS Forums :: 13 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Is it just me or is this chip a little redundant considering the 2600K has an unlocked muliplier :crazy:
… AMD's FX-8150 six-core Bulldozer core

So, that's six cores plus an extraneous one at the end - still leaves us a core short though… ;) I know the whole cores v. modules thing is a bit confusing with bulldozer, but I didn't think it was that bad…
00oceanic
Is it just me or is this chip a little redundant considering the 2600K has an unlocked muliplier :crazy:

Kinda, they both have the same TDP though so the higher starting clockspeeds of the 2700 might mean you can get the same overclocks with less voltage. Probably not worth shouting home about though! I would say its more redundant because it had no competition anyway :(
00oceanic
Is it just me or is this chip a little redundant considering the 2600K has an unlocked muliplier :crazy:

This chip will be better on the performance/volts scale.
scaryjim
So, that's six cores plus an extraneous one at the end - still leaves us a core short though… ;) I know the whole cores v. modules thing is a bit confusing with bulldozer, but I didn't think it was that bad…

Innocent mistake? =P

The 2700k is a little redundant, what it means is that generally the 2700k will have better quality silicon and thus be more overclockable but Intel of course only look for it to run stable at 3.9Ghz so really what you get as on overclocker is slightly less of a gamble (an increased chance that you're receiving superior silicon).