I currently have the "upgrade itch" - and I´ll skip Ivy, and won´t wait for whatever is next.

 

Does anyone have experience upgrading from an i5 2500K to the i7 2700K?

 

The extra 2 Mb cache might be good for FSX I guess..?

Last week I went from a 2600K to a 2700K. Does that count?

Yes it does, I can see you get 4.8 Ghz with 1.34v, that´s good!

 

I better do it, there´s probably 2-3 years more before we see a significant step-up in Ghz from Intel..

Yes it does, I can see you get 4.8 Ghz with 1.34v, that´s good!

 

I better do it, there´s probably 2-3 years more before we see a significant step-up in Ghz from Intel..

 

Actually, I tried 5.5GHz @ 1.52 for a couple of minutes just to see if it would boot. It did. The temperatures began to soar (80c+), even at idle. However, I shut it down as soon as I could so that it could not do any damage. 5.0GHz runs very stable at 1.42GHz. It might do it on a bit less, but I have not experimented extensively with lower v-core. Bottom line is that the 2700K is extremely capable.

 

My 2600K was able to boot at 5.2 @ 1.5Ghz in a similiar fashion, but would not do more that a few seconds on Prime 95. Never tried it on the 2700K, and won't venture so far north again. We are talking about being on the rediculously skinny knife edge. I am not as much of a risk taker as I once was, so only running 4.8Ghz to 5.0Ghz in FSX is just fine for me.

 

I don't know if there are any "special batches" but I don't think so.

I also decided against the 2600K and got the 2700K. I run [email protected] just as Stephen does. I'd highly recommend this chip as it seems apparent to me that it is the most capable OC chip available on the market.

Awesome!

 

Yep, sure is luck of the draw which batch are the top-performers, I don´t have any knowledge of that..

 

Found this:

 

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18368874

 

Looks good!

Awesome!

 

Yep, sure is luck of the draw which batch are the top-performers, I don´t have any knowledge of that..

 

Not very much with the 2700's. So far, on other websites also, they all seem to perform very similarly.

 

The 2600's and 2500's have a much greater margin of variation than the 2700's.

Been reading... and I like this:

 

"This new chip is the Core i7-2700K. In many ways it's a much more interesting processor than the Intel Core i7 3960X.

We don't mean that in a technological sense. Deep down, the 2700K is nothing new.

It's the same four-core Sandy Bridge generation die seen in several existing chips, including the Intel Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K. The number of four-core Sandy Bridgers is legion.

 

However, the 2700K is the new de facto king of Intel's line of LGA1155 models.

For us, it's the LGA1155 socket that's really relevant to PC enthusiasts and gamers, not the highfalutin', server-derived LGA 2011 platform and its quad-channel silliness.

 

The 2700K, then, is the fastest chip any mere mortal is likely to run in his PC any time soon."

 

http://www.techradar...#articleConten

 

- but I don' t like this:

 

"We disliked:

Sadly there's absolutely no difference between this chip and the cheaper Intel Core i7 2600K apart from a higher price tag and a CPU multiplier upped by one notch.

And every single 2600K out there could manage that on the reference cooler.

Final word:

A great chip, but barely any better than the 2600K. Hardly worth Intel's bother bringing it out."

 

 

Nevermind, he´s apparently not an FSX guy..!

Been reading... and I like this:

 

"This new chip is the Core i7-2700K. In many ways it's a much more interesting processor than the Intel Core i7 3960X.

We don't mean that in a technological sense. Deep down, the 2700K is nothing new.

It's the same four-core Sandy Bridge generation die seen in several existing chips, including the Intel Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K. The number of four-core Sandy Bridgers is legion.

 

However, the 2700K is the new de facto king of Intel's line of LGA1155 models.

For us, it's the LGA1155 socket that's really relevant to PC enthusiasts and gamers, not the highfalutin', server-derived LGA 2011 platform and its quad-channel silliness.

 

The 2700K, then, is the fastest chip any mere mortal is likely to run in his PC any time soon."

 

http://www.techradar...#articleConten

 

- but I don' t like this:

 

"We disliked:

Sadly there's absolutely no difference between this chip and the cheaper Intel Core i7 2600K apart from a higher price tag and a CPU multiplier upped by one notch.

And every single 2600K out there could manage that on the reference cooler.

Final word:

A great chip, but barely any better than the 2600K. Hardly worth Intel's bother bringing it out."

 

 

Nevermind, he´s apparently not an FSX guy..!

 

On Newegg they are the same price (ok, i7-2700K is 5 bucks more :) ) And if you are patient, you can even get the i7-2700K cheaper like I did with a special sale for 299.99 CDN. :Big Grin:

So Stephen, did u notice any difference (at all) in fsx between the 2 cpu's?

Pierre

As an experiment ran FSX last evening at 5.2 Ghz at 1.48 vcore for a few minutes then dropped back down again. No problems at all with temperatures only around 70c. All settings except the multiplier and v-core were the same as what I use for standard 4.8 Ghz operations.

 

These things are like greased lightening!

 

Kind regards,

 

So Stephen, did u notice any difference (at all) in fsx between the 2 cpu's?

Pierre

 

Hi Pierre,

 

There would be better FPS with the super high overclocks if I was not using the locked 30 FPS/one half VS refresh rate settings. I choose cooler and safer vcore and temperatures over higher FPS. However if FPS were the problem, the 2700K (when in a matched system) is the answer.

 

Kind regards,

Thank you. Might make the jump...

Pierre

Thank you. Might make the jump...

Pierre

 

Going from a 2600K to a 2700K is not really an upgrade I think, but more like a retuning for lower vcore and less heat, at least in my case. There really is no practical advantage from a flying perspective, I suppose, but who cares, right? :Nerd:

 

Kind regards,

Funny, yes; who cares? That's what I figured (lower vcore, less heat)

Thought I would ask anyway.

You have a nice day Stephen,

Pierre

Actually, I tried 5.5GHz @ 1.52 for a couple of minutes just to see if it would boot. It did.

 

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh............. :Drooling: :Drooling: :Drooling: want it!!!!!!!!!! That's 700Mhz more on the same Vcore I'm about running now. And my watercooling is surely gonna bring some 10degrees down.

 

My GF would probably kill me if I bought it though!