6 fucking years old

>6 fucking years old
>oc's like a fucking badass
>beats AMD's top of the line cpu in most gaming workloads
>despite using much slower memory (2133 vs 2933)
Will the 2600k ever stop being relevant?

Other urls found in this thread:

anandtech.com/bench/product/1719
youtu.be/B1d9bxbd8HI
youtube.com/watch?v=VDo-j00vUtw
youtube.com/watch?v=4sx1kLGVAF0&feature=youtu.be
tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1700-cpu-review,5009-9.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

what does this say about the intel buyers who bought everything after? that they're mindless idiots?

That they spent alot of money on a few percentage difference, interpret that any way you like.

Especially at higher resolutions the differences become minimal

Reminder these benchmark were before the windows updates and uefi updates

You're welcome to show other benchmarks if you like

wut? those benchmarks are from 2 days ago, way after those '''updates''' (which didn't even provide any tangible perf boost).

Idk user. Are you saying I made a mistake going from an e8400 to an i7 3770? Because it wasn't Sandy Bridge? Does that make me a mindless idiot?

Feel free to counter argue OP with your own benchmarks if you disagree.

>tfw bought i7 3930k when it came out
>can hit 5ghz flat without trying on a relatively cheap custom loop
>every generation I look at all the new things coming out
>every generation I secretly want to upgrade
>every generation is a 5% increase that my overclock tops anyway
>3930k had PCIe 3.0 already no reason to upgrade
>already have 2133 ram, no reason to want DDR4
>end up buying a new graphics card every year just so I have something to do with it
It's actually kinda suffering.

Actualy that has been my upgrade cycle for the last couple of years after getting a 2600k.

Having moved to 1440p makes the cpu upgrade even less relevant.

I keep getting hyped over cpu releases but then I realize I would be getting single percentages worth of extra performance from a new cpu while if I sink that money into a better gpu I get 20-30% extra performance.

Pretty awesome desu, the amount of value I got from the 2600k is amazing

>mfw my i7 860 and 4GB GTX 680 is still performant enough for games on ultra or high settings 1080p

I do all productivity and work on laptop anyway.

>enough
For 30 fps maybe

Even the biggest AMD shills have said that anyone with a 4c/8t since Sandy Bridge probably doesn't need to upgrade. Definitely don't need to for most gaming.

It's the people that bought a 4c/4t in the past 3 years that are massive cucks and retards.

Don't be retarded. The person you replied to said sandy bridge. E8400 isn't sandy bridge.

I actually got a 2700k first, since I worked for an Intel "retailer" they have sales to the "retailer" employees every year during christmas/summer, got a 2700k for $90 built computer with that, and then during their summer sale they had 3930k's for $120 so I picked one up and have been using it since, gave the 2700k to my gf. Neither of us have ever had a single hiccup or even anything that stresses them enough to be worth an upgrade.

I'm right there with you man, even though I can get new intel CPU's every year for dirt cheap I just can't legitimately come up with a reason to. When is the next great overclocker like sandybridge coming?

>tfw had i7 920
>tfw tarded and decided I was gonna try and hit 4ghz on air
>hit it, was stable for an hour
>PFFFFFTTSZZZZZ
>board literally has scorch marks on it :^)
fugggg

Well i'd say in terms of overclocking the 7700k is in the same ballpark as the 2600k.

You obviously have not used anything like it recently. Does 45+ fps easily.

Have not had to go to medium settings to stay above that yet. Much better deal than the hd7950 I had which gave me lots of stutters at the time.

Any news on how the 6900k/6850k are doing?

I have.

And there is no way the 680 with that cpu does 45+ fps on ultra settings 1080p in demanding games such as witcher 3 for example

Am 4.1ghz on air right now.
Performance is good, I guess somewhere between 2500 and 2600. Might beat 6400 if ram was faster.

They're the hottest item right now, still. Both performance and tdp (:

>wut? those benchmarks are from 2 days ago

The video is from two days ago. Are you telling me that you believe that their testing on all those CPUs, the on-camera stuff, the video editing, rendering and the accompanying article were all done in one day?

Which model 680 and which cpu you have?

I mean does the 6900k/6850k have any advantages over 3930k apart from DDR4? Anything super cool with x99 chipset?

>It's actually kinda suffering.
that goyim mentality

Here you go, 31 fps on 1080p witcher 3 ultra

Custom variants might increase this number by 10-15% but even then it's still nowhere near 45+ fps

anandtech.com/bench/product/1719

Is that the model you have? Do you dumb fuck even know how much better performance is with high instead of ultra?

Read
And fuck you dumb fuck for posting benchmark of 2GB card when I say I have 4GB you idiot.

None of that will magically make the fps go up by 50% you mouthbreating mongoloid.

Keep living in your own fantasy world though

again with this dumb chart.

look if you are going to compare the 2600k to a cpu on the chart then compare it to all the cpus in the chart.


so if you just look at this chart, that means that every fucking cpu launched after the 2600k is useless.

its like 5 fps behind the 7700k @ 5.1 ghz lol.


So either this chart is absolute dogshit or intel has failed to innovate and has cucked you dipshits out of billions of dollars on new hardware that wasnt needed.

If you want to talk about innovation you might want to take a look at the AMD side of things.

They took 6 years to release a cpu that can barely compete with a 6 year older Intel cpu, and on the GPU side of things there latest and greatest is a rebrand of their budget card.

>benchmark of 2GB card when I say I have 4GB you idiot

That makes no fucking difference in The Witcher 3. It uses under 2GB VRAM at 1080p.

>changing the subject
>dodging the question

You're idiot. No point arguing with idiot.

youtu.be/B1d9bxbd8HI

>changing the subject
The subject was whether the 2600k would ever stop being relevant, then you decided to talk about Intel's lack of innovation, so you were the first to change the subject.

And what question am I dodging, there wasn't even a question in your post.

>barely competes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in games
>complete BTFOs in multithreaded productivity workloads and anything actual useful.

Most multithreaded workloads are gpu accelerated.

So you're talking about an extremely small niche where the Ryzen cpu's are actualy worth it.

I don't think anyone ever said the 2600k was no longer relevant.

But the same intelavivs that say how great it is to hold up so long are the same sort of people who'll try and say the -57600k is good when it's worse on average than the 6 year old i7-2600k.

>Most multithreaded workloads are gpu accelerated.
Better tell that to all the people buying Xeons which were Intel's biggest profit segment.

>gaming

back to Sup Forums

...

People who use Xeons in the profession segment do not buy Ryzen cpu's lol

youtube.com/watch?v=VDo-j00vUtw

sure, buddy

no. im still using a 2500k and its more than enough for me.

at least post the clock for clock
youtube.com/watch?v=4sx1kLGVAF0&feature=youtu.be

clock for clock has even worse frametimes for some reason

>stock speeds
fake news

Dude why do you have rub the salt in my wounds like that? I bought a Vishera fx-83xx back in 2013 and regretted it ever since. Bought into the "muh 8cores, muh bang for the buck why do you need an overpriced intel" meme.
This is the reason why i'm reluctant to buy Ryzen right now (i have to replace another system with an older cpu). Don't want to be in the same situation again.

Must suck being doubly ignorant.
I knew buying Bulldozer back then was a bad buy and got Sandy Bridge.
I know buying Ryzen is worthwhile now and I'm getting it.

You fucked up then and now you're fucking up again. Can you do anything right?

>I know buying Ryzen is worthwhile now and I'm getting it.

But a Ryzen 7 with decent ram and mobo would cost you more than i7 7700k setup. It's still a raw platform with lots of issues. Also intel is going to release their coffee lake and 10nm cannonlake chips in early 2018. AMD will probably get btfo once again, i've seen it before.
>inb4 zen+ in 2018

I just see Cannonlake as the Pentium D trying to match the Athlon64x2

>But a Ryzen 7 with decent ram and mobo would cost you more than i7 7700k setup
There is no point in Ryzen 7 unless you NEED 8 cores. R5 1600x at 4Ghz= 1800x but with 6 cores.
Most games are stuck at 12 threads, and it's enough for anything not multi threaded.

sure it took a while. but Zen beats the living daylight out of 8370. and competes with a 6900k in most cases costing half as much.

thats a 40% increase in performance over last gen.


Intel on the other hand just overclocks their cpus. clearly shown in OPs pic. clock for clock the 7700k is the same as a 2600k.

thats 5 generations of a standstill. so please fuck off.

that was someone else.

but you are dodging. the thread was about intel vs amd cpus. and how useless the 7700k and how Intel has shafted people. even with skylake-X you will have to upgrade your mobo which is fucking lol.

I own a 2600K and even I think this chart is a load of shit. Fuck off OP, you are the faggot.

>But a Ryzen 7 with decent ram and mobo would cost you more than i7 7700k setup
Thanks for the input, shill.
> 10nm cannonlake chips
I'm not interested in a laptop CPU.

I'm getting a 1600X. That'll have about 40% more raw power than a 7700k, which I need since I rarely do gayming. Even with fast RAM, it'll be cheaper.
People who bought 2133mhz RAM for 7700k CPUs were retards anyway. Spending $1000+ on a PC then not an extra $50 on RAM is just so stupid. It does more than a high overclock does in many cases.

Already got my 32GB of RAM. It's nice not being a poorfag that has to justify his shitty purchases.

please delete your reddit formatted post

>GamersNexus

Can you possibly be any more of a fucking retard?

*chases shekel down the street*

>pointing out the fact that intel offers an overall better solution for less money in case of 7700k
>somehow that's shilling

stay classy, /g

also
>I'm getting a 1600X. That'll have about 40% more raw power than a 7700k, which I need since I rarely do gayming. Even with fast RAM, it'll be cheaper.

You're not serious are you? Don't tell me that you fell for all these pro-ryzen reviews paid by amd PR department. Look here for an unbiased review of comparison between 1700 and 7700 for example: tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1700-cpu-review,5009-9.html

And 1600 is doesn't even have the benefit of additional cores, which is the only advantage over intel in this price segment. Why would you buy a clearly inferior cpu?
And if you need muh cores you should definitely get yourself a Xeon or a 6950x. These are far superior products that offer amazing performance, and unlike amd you don't need to wait for "bios updates" and "performance improving patches" - they just work. If you're actually use your pc for work there's absolutely no reason to buy ryzen.

Just overclock it to a housefire :^)

>unbiased
>tomshardware

Yeah, you're gonna have to make your shilling a little less obvious, cocksucking piece of shit that should kill itself.

It could also say they built their computers after 2011.

where be my 5820k?

1700+cooler+motherboard
$330+$0+$80

7700k+cooler+motherboard
$330+$50+$140
MUH VALUE

RAM is going to be the same 3000 or 3200 either way.
Have fun upgrading to a $250 2066 board for your 7740k, cuck.

>unbiased
>tom's shillware
lmfao

2600k AND ryzen 1700x owner here. Nice cherrypicked old benchmarks.
Difference is sandy bridge stutters if you do something else while gaming.

I'm actually thinking about buying a used 5820k. It might be a bit slower, but it's still 6/12 + costs less than a new ryzen 7 also i would save some money because i already have some ddr3 ram. The only problem is getting a good deal on cpu+mb combo, because 2011-v3 mb prices are still too high.

>1700 motherboard
>$80

ayyyy lmao

>AMPajeets will never NOT be BTFO by based intel

WAKE ME UP

Don't you want to be part of the "Has to close every program before you launch a game" master race? I love gaming like it's 1995.

Okay, $85-$95 for a good one that's equal to or better than a $140 Z270 one.

The $95 B350M Prime has 10 phase VRMs.

That user has no idea what VRM phases are and how much of a cuck he is and how jewed he's getting.

You're right, they buy Snowy Owl and Naples

>B350M Prime
>a good one

Lol, nice try shill.
Anyone, who has a clue about the subject knows that ryzen 7 can only compete with 7700k when OC'd and you can't do that with shitty b350 chipsets. If you want a comparable performance you need a x370 one and it will cost you at least $150. At the same time you can get very good 1151 board for less than $100, since the platform has been around for some time and it far more reliable than new am4 chipsets.

I've read the reviews about this "good one for $95" and I see how full of shit you both are. Unless you're a samefag.

>you can't do that with shitty b350 chipsets
Might want to kill yourself now and avoid the embarrassment, mate.
Just looking out for you here.

I'm so glad I didn't buy into 1366 and I waited a couple extra months and got a 2600k, and that even as retarded as I was when I built this computer, I didn't fall for the fx 8350 shilling. The only problems I have are the USB 3 drivers got fucked up after I did a Windows refresh after w7 fucked up and wouldn't install programs because of a bunch of DLLs missing.

seeing that skull on the wall, i cant help but imagine nazis enjoying Undertale.

Gaming like it's a console.

b350 has no problems going up to 3.8ghz, so a good match with 1700

Shilltastic post, fellow shill. I also agree that Ryzen sucks and all their motherboards are whores.

Ironically the newer consoles (and even the old-ass PS3) dedicates one or more cores to the OS so it can do shit in the background without impacting gaming performance.

Let's be real, for most of you it doesn't really matter what CPU you use. This is just another variation of the tired My Tribe vs. Your Tribe fight.

b350 are usually fine for at least 1.4v, which can bring you to 4ghz on decent silicon. That's just a basic one.

Someone would have to be retarded like to think 10 phase VRMs aren't enough to regulate much more voltage than that.

Thank god he killed himself and he's gone now. Saved himself the embarrassment.

This is about ending 5 years of Intel jacking up prices, switching sockets every two seconds, and putting out mediocre upgrades.

Nice. My 1700x only goes up to 3.8 stable on 1.35v on my b350m-a but I havent tried too hard

I don't understand why you would use same clock speeds. Doesn't it make sense to overclock as much as you can on each and still be stable THEN compare them?
That way you are comparing the actual potential of each cpu?

Because it was a test to look for issues in the API, and not a performance test of the CPUs themselves. Nice job skipping the introduction and shit.

Kek. I'm glad I got the 2600k and didn't wait for bulldozer. It's difficult to believe there was so little progress in 6 years.

>b350 are usually fine for at least 1.4v, which can bring you to 4ghz on decent silicon

Sure, before it goes up in flames under load. But since amd shills don't have to pay for the cpus they are getting it doesn't matter i guess.

Also it's funny af how you cut out ram part of that screen, rofl. You're not fooling anyone. Good luck getting more than 2133 with that "good one" mobo for $90, ayy lmao.

>4.7Ghz
>2133Mhz memory
>cherrypicked gaming benchmark
Ryzen 8 core is literally double the performance of a 2600k @ 4.7Ghz. Same per core performance. Double the cores.

>Kek. I'm glad I got the 2600k and didn't wait for bulldozer. It's difficult to believe there was so little progress in 6 years.
But now with ryzen, look at AMD shills repeat the same mantra again.
>buy ryzen, everything will become so multi threaded that the extra cores will really help out, think of the future, ignore performance now!

Because the cores aren't over half as weak this time, tard.

The architecture is more like Intel's now. Or, rather, it's more like K10 which Intel copied to fix their shitty p4 and core2duo archs.

>And 1600 is doesn't even have the benefit of additional cores, which is the only advantage over intel in this price segment. Why would you buy a clearly inferior cpu?

1600
6core 12 thread
less than 4 core 8 thread
$219
>better go spend 4 times more! intel wont fail you goy!

>better go spend 4 times more! intel wont fail you goy!
>4 times
Which intel cpu are you referring to?

ah sorry, was thinking of 6900k, still 2 times more if you dont count differences in motherboard cost

>was thinking of 6900k
Since when does the 6900k have
> 4 core 8 thread
? I mean that is what you were comparing ryzen to in your post Or are you using all the arguments vs every cpu in one post?

shoo shoo stinky shill

if the 2600k is still relevant, how does it compare with the 3rd, 4th and 5th gen? will a 3rd gen beat it? will a 4th gen? the 5th?

>ah sorry, was thinking of 6900k, still 2 times more if you dont count differences in motherboard cost
Na it's more than double.

1600+motherboard
$220+$85
$305

6850k+motherboard+cooler
$600+$200+$70
$870

That's almost 3x.
The 6850K is going to be a bit better overclocked, but like 13% better not 300%.

They're in the picture on the OP, you dumb faggot.

The 7600k is worse than the 2600k.

no it was in response to his
>And if you need muh cores you should definitely get yourself a Xeon or a 6950x. These are far superior products that offer amazing performance, and unlike amd you don't need to wait for "bios updates" and "performance improving patches" - they just work. If you're actually use your pc for work there's absolutely no reason to buy ryzen.

Whenever I start to think of shill accusations as boogiemen I see something like this and remember it's real.
I wish Sup Forums never got popular enough to advertise on

>i7-3770
>Not the superior K series
>Chip bonded with IHS by pajeet cum

>Does that make me a mindless idiot?
Actually yes

uhh...
Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge were only software locked.

You could overclock the non-k CPUs.

>tfw still using this cause there's no reason to upgrade