Intel Releases Core i7-2700K Processor

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
wooooooooooo! another beast is arrived i think this cpu is the top in the list...
great job by intel just keep it up and don't give chances to amd to beat intel or else i'll die.
 
Until ark.intel.com is updated with tech specs or a retail review is done at a legit site we wont know enough about this binning jazz to make any judgements
 
Bulldozer is a good product, today's software just doesn't show it. It's a fact that Windows 7 does not even recognize BD's architecture and therefore does not know how to place the threads and places them randomly instead of in order. This is why it benchmarks so low. This is FACT.
 
[citation][nom]intel4eva[/nom]so we get a new king of the hill, and reduced prices at the lower end....RIP AMD1969-2011"50% increased throughput, 33% increased core count"[/citation]
AMD isn't dead. They still have Llano, their GPUs, upcoming Trinity, and upcoming Piledriver. Seriously, they make one mistake and people think it's the end of them. Remember Netburst from Intel? Or did you jump onto the Intel wagon with Sandy Bridge?
 


excuses excuses. AMD wanted this chip to be the chip for gamers and enthusiests but all it turned out to be is another mainstream level CPU like the rest of there CPU line. you sound like the pentium 4 fan boy's years ago who were making the same kind of argument to defend that CPU
 
[citation][nom]lp231[/nom]Core i7 2700K, Xeon E-1280 that didn't pass the Xeon test, so got badged as Core i7 2700K? Too bad Core i7 2700k ain't the king of Sandy Bridge CPU, just king in the desktop segment. Xeon E3-1890 is the king, running at 3.6GHz and can turbo up to 4GHz.http://ark.intel.com/compare/52214,55452,52278[/citation]
Xeon isn't the king on all CPUs, nor is the i7 2700k. It's a server CPU/ workstation CPU. It's not designed for average users. Intel is just the king of the hill ATM, but it's hard to say which Intel CPU is king.
 
[citation][nom]pro-gamer[/nom]wooooooooooo! another beast is arrived i think this cpu is the top in the list...great job by intel just keep it up and don't give chances to amd to beat intel or else i'll die.[/citation]

You do realize that the less AMD challenges Intel, the less of an incentive Intel will have to innovate right? Not to mention keeping prices competitive. If AMD doesnt keep Intel honest (I know, its unrealistic to except a huge corporation to be "honest") then we wont be able to afford Intel's new processors.

Dont misunderstand me, im an Intel fan myself, but I also understand economics. Im praying for AMD to challenge Intel.
 
[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]who are they competing with? AMD? this i7 makes bulldozer look like an Intel celeron[/citation]
Then explain how the hell does this "celeron" manages to keep pace or even outpace your beloved i7 2600 in Multimedia (photoshop/3d rendering/media encodin). You know computers are used to other things than games. And don`t tell me 4 vs 8 core because they are not really 8 cores and software is quite badly coded for this kind of CPU.
 
The way i understand it is the 2700k is a center of the die chip, meaning it could have higher overclocking potential than an average 2600k
 
[citation][nom]de5_roy[/nom]i want to see how bulldozer performs with windows 8.0 as well. the sad reality is - amd had time to work with microsoft on the scheduler thing and other performance issues yet it underperformed significantly.otoh linux apps are multithreading optimized, so bd might show some improvements there and they have the opportunity to write optimized driver for that (though i did read at phoronix that the latest bd patch by amd got criticzed by linus torvalds).[/citation]
I must admit that I have not seen *nix performance benchmarks of Bulldozer CPUs. Wouldn't be surprised that they perform substantially better than on Win7.
 
And if AMD dies off (which is unlikely though), what about the x86 agreement between them and Intel? For all we know, Intel might not be able to produce CPUs that are effective if not any. Then again, this is unlikely, and the agreement might just continue.
 


I decided to give Intel a go after AMD lied about the 939's, you do remember that lie don't you?
 
[citation][nom]kilo_17[/nom]So this is basically a 2600k with a slight increase in the factory-set multiplier. Lame.[/citation]
That's how nearly every processor in a family is done.....has been since the original Pentium processor was released in 1993...
 
[citation][nom]dalmvern[/nom]You do realize that the less AMD challenges Intel, the less of an incentive Intel will have to innovate right? Not to mention keeping prices competitive. If AMD doesnt keep Intel honest (I know, its unrealistic to except a huge corporation to be "honest") then we wont be able to afford Intel's new processors.Dont misunderstand me, im an Intel fan myself, but I also understand economics. Im praying for AMD to challenge Intel.[/citation]
I've been trying to point this out to the "crowd" here, but no-one seems to hear it.
 
[citation][nom]AbdullahG[/nom]And if AMD dies off (which is unlikely though), what about the x86 agreement between them and Intel? For all we know, Intel might not be able to produce CPUs that are effective if not any. Then again, this is unlikely, and the agreement might just continue.[/citation]
If AMD dies, I think the most likely scenario is that Intel raises CPU prices well beyond what they are now.
 
[citation][nom]dickcheney[/nom]Anyone got words on the OC headroom?[/citation]
It should be able to hit 5GHz a lot easier on air than the 2600k; I'd love to see how high people can get it on liquid cooling.
 
[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]excuses excuses. AMD wanted this chip to be the chip for gamers and enthusiests but all it turned out to be is another mainstream level CPU like the rest of there CPU line. you sound like the pentium 4 fan boy's years ago who were making the same kind of argument to defend that CPU[/citation]
Bulldozer was intended to be a mainstream CPU.....
[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]That's how nearly every processor in a family is done.....has been since the original Pentium processor was released in 1993...[/citation]
Exactly how did AMD lie about the 939 processors? They were targetted at Gamers and Workstations and performed exceptionally well in both areas.
 
[citation][nom]mousemonkey[/nom]I decided to give Intel a go after AMD lied about the 939's, you do remember that lie don't you?[/citation]
That's not what I'm pointed at. People forget what both sides have done in the past. Intel isn't a saint nor is AMD. There businesses who just make money through their products. Intel has it's share of unethical practices as well. It gets annoying seeing people assume Intel has never done anything wrong or has always made successful products, and it seems this is because of Sandy Bridge's release and how people think it's as amazing as sliced bread. AMD, on the other hand, is very distinctive in terms of their flops.
 
[citation][nom]dalmvern[/nom]You do realize that the less AMD challenges Intel, the less of an incentive Intel will have to innovate right? Not to mention keeping prices competitive. If AMD doesnt keep Intel honest (I know, its unrealistic to except a huge corporation to be "honest") then we wont be able to afford Intel's new processors.Dont misunderstand me, im an Intel fan myself, but I also understand economics. Im praying for AMD to challenge Intel.[/citation]

That's only true up to a point. Whether or not AMD exists, Intel still has to answer to stock holders. Intel wouldn't be generating remotely as much revenue as they are today if AMD was gone and Intel was still trying to sell P4's. Intel still has to innovate in order to drive sales and encourage customers to buy their products and upgrade. It may not be at the same rate that it was with stiff competition, but it can't drop off that much either.
 
[citation][nom]acadia11[/nom]Come on now, it's not even a battle anymore, if AMD had been ontime with Bull dozer, in 2009, they'd be back on the map, but they wer e2 years late and this is what they get.[/citation]
NO, they wouldn't, its slower than a phenom II. This 2700k is only 100mhz faster? come on, everyone knows these things could easily go to 3.8-4ghz on stock voltage and cooler.
 
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]before i fully judge the bulldozer i want to see windows 8 performance, with the amd cpu being written for it, like 7 is with intel, and revision 1 of bulldozer.[/citation]


Dude do you see how far behind BullDozer is, Bulldozer was expected to be ready in 2009 at which point it would have been an amazing CPU, and by now it would be almost 50% faster and more than able to go toe to toe with IVy Bridge, AMD fudged up. That simple and now they are playing catchup and won't catch up any time, soon, I don't even know if they can catch up, atleast before they bought Dec Alpha who was light years ahead anyone else and we got the Athlon, there own engineers are bumbling idiots, so why are you even deluding yourself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom