Intel readies Core i7 2700K to spoil AMD's FX launch party

Jos

TS Evangelist
This one somehow slipped through our radar but it seems Intel will have a new high-performance socket LGA1155 processor out in a few weeks to try and spoil AMD's much…

Read the whole story
 

Sarcasm

TS Guru
Given the amount of Intel fanboyism around here, I'm also surprised it slipped under TechSpot's radar.
 

venomblade

TS Rookie
So this is just like AMD releasing a black addition exactly the same but 100mhz more? So I should just get a 2600k and OC it instead of get this?
 
G

Guest

I don't see how, or why this matters. Intel are server chips, truncated.. meant to run bisness software.

Has nothing to do with home pc use, as the "speed" they are talking about in in single threaded BAPCo apps. Intel's $300 cpu are worthless to home owners, unless they need a business cpu that does 1 thing fast.

Otherwise why gimp ur rig with intel?
 

Lionvibez

TS Evangelist
Guest said:
I don't see how, or why this matters. Intel are server chips, truncated.. meant to run bisness software.

Has nothing to do with home pc use, as the "speed" they are talking about in in single threaded BAPCo apps. Intel's $300 cpu are worthless to home owners, unless they need a business cpu that does 1 thing fast.

Otherwise why gimp ur rig with intel?
What the hell are you smoking?
 

SammyJames

TS Enthusiast
Guest said:
I don't see how, or why this matters. Intel are server chips, truncated.. meant to run bisness software.

Has nothing to do with home pc use, as the "speed" they are talking about in in single threaded BAPCo apps. Intel's $300 cpu are worthless to home owners, unless they need a business cpu that does 1 thing fast.

Otherwise why gimp ur rig with intel?
I'm not arguing with you. I would like to hear more from you or from others who have knowledge of how these processors truly work.

I'm in the business of trying to get my PC to run DAW (digital-audio workstation) software properly. Sometimes it can be touch-and-go. As far as doing "one thing well," that is exactly what I need -- unless you interpret this as one TYPE of thing.

In my case, I need processors that can handle thousands of audio samples at once, while simultaneously running special effects (like reverb, delay, chorusing, et cetera) and synthesizer software. It needs to keep everything in lock-step sync, with no stutter, no distortion, no dropouts, et cetera.

Now, I can pretty much DO this using my Q8200 Intel. But I need a more powerful processor, because I want to be able to run the system at 64 buffers all the time. There ARE times when this is easy to do, and others when it becomes impossible. One song that I created caused crashing at 64 buffers, because I was using all kinds of crazy reverbs and intricately-sampled instruments.

Is AMD really better? Is Intel really better? Does the processor really matter THAT much, apart from how "fast" it is? And with today's non-FSB technology, aren't both companies offering similar goods?

Really. If anyone can explain this, I'd appreciate it a lot.

Thank you.
 

soliozuz

TS Rookie
Why do I feel like that Intel is more like Kanye West and AMD is kind of like Taylor Swift?

Yo AMD, I'm happy about the upcoming FX and I'mma let you finish, but Intel has had the best processors of ALL-TIME!
 

Route44

TechSpot Ambassador
Really. If anyone can explain this, I'd appreciate it a lot.

Thank you.
What has been surmised about AMD's new Bulldozer cpu's that are to be released in October sometime is that will be very good for multi-threaded applications.

As for the i7 2700K I do find it interesting that Intel now is trying to price point their latest offerings more akin to AMD's pricing. And before anyone accuses me of any fanboism I run both AMD and Intel.
 
R

RH00D

soliozuz said:
Why do I feel like that Intel is more like Kanye West and AMD is kind of like Taylor Swift?

Yo AMD, I'm happy about the upcoming FX and I'mma let you finish, but Intel has had the best processors of ALL-TIME!
I always love seeing this Kanye West reference in action. :D
 

SammyJames

TS Enthusiast
Route44 said:
What has been surmised about AMD's new Bulldozer cpu's that are to be released in October sometime is that will be very good for multi-threaded applications.

As for the i7 2700K I do find it interesting that Intel now is trying to price point their latest offerings more akin to AMD's pricing. And before anyone accuses me of any fanboism I run both AMD and Intel.
Hey -- thanks. That helps a lot. I was so focussed on performance alone that I forgot about price/performance. I agree that AMD does seem like they are trying to make the world a better place -- at least, for electronic musicians.

The multi-threading thing is interesting to me. There was a time when hyper-threading on an Intel could have spelled disaster for guys like me -- because the software wasn't written with it in mind. But these days, most music production applications are written to take advantage of multi-core and multi-threading processing.

Later.
 

gwailo247

TechSpot Chancellor
Guest said:
I don't see how, or why this matters. Intel are server chips, truncated.. meant to run bisness software.

Has nothing to do with home pc use, as the "speed" they are talking about in in single threaded BAPCo apps. Intel's $300 cpu are worthless to home owners, unless they need a business cpu that does 1 thing fast.

Otherwise why gimp ur rig with intel?
Because I want my solitaire game to boot up really fast. I mean REALLY fast.
 
G

Guest

I have never padded Intel's profits by paying their absurd premium markups and not about to start now

I will be scooping up AMD's FX flagship when it's released
 

dividebyzero

trainee n00b
As for the i7 2700K I do find it interesting that Intel now is trying to price point their latest offerings more akin to AMD's pricing.
That's pretty much how things stand now as far as mainstream price/performance stand. AMD were probably hoping to dovetail the FX series between Intel's SB offerings (price and performance) - they probably would have expected Intel to ratchet up heat also (bearing in mind that a bog-standard forum member surmised as much back in March) , but whereas Intel have wiggle room for pricing (smaller die, more mature process, closer to recouping ROI for Sandy Bridge), AMD have less margin for error.
The 2700K will be nothing more than a re-labelled 2600K ( + 1 bin ), and is obviously going to market specifically to top the highest SKU FX, with the 2600K duelling with the same FX part on a similar price point. From Intel's point of view this would make sense as it removes a degree of ambiguity in review conclusions if the pricing (CPU's and platform) is near identical.

What remains is what software is used in the reviews, and to a lesser degree, power usage and overclocking.

And before anyone accuses me of any fanboism I run both AMD and Intel.
Thats OK, they can accuse me of fanboyism instead (Intel and Intel)...no problem there. Performance gets my money, not performance with an asterisk. If BD brings a good game, I'll gladly ride the bandwagon too...if not, well there's always Piledriver I guess...
 

gwailo247

TechSpot Chancellor
dividebyzero said:
Performance gets my money, not performance with an asterisk. If BD brings a good game, I'll gladly ride the bandwagon too...if not, well there's always Piledriver I guess...
+1
 

Arris

TS Evangelist
Ok, so this is going to OC exactly the same as the 2600K. Sounds like AMDs Black Edition badging to me and not a new product. Given that I've had my 2600K running at 4.7Ghz before I feel there is plenty of headroom for intel to release new products for a while before having to release Ivy Bridge. At least another GHz worth of "new" chips in the from the 2600K yet.
 

dividebyzero

trainee n00b
Ok, so this is going to OC exactly the same as the 2600K.
Yup.
The 2700K isn't an upgrade for 2600K. Since CPU's get comparison reviewed at stock clocks, it effectively adds a small performance increase for the sake of reviews. For the potential customer the only difference being that 2600K's offer a reasonably wide variance in overclockability. Later batches, which would include 2700K, are better overclockers on average than early batch releases, which would increase your chances of having an OC friendly chip. The max multiplier is still 57.
 
G

Guest

Hmmmm, so judging by this and the leaked prices for FX 8150, maybe there was something to that rumour going around overclock.net that clock for clock Bulldozer barely beats Phenom 2 and loses in a lot of applications. Lets certainly hope so, otherwise competition is dead in the CPU market.