Upgrading from an Intel Core i7-2600K: Testing Sandy Bridge in 2019
by Ian Cutress on May 10, 2019 10:30 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- Intel
- Sandy Bridge
- Overclocking
- 7700K
- Coffee Lake
- i7-2600K
- 9700K
Power Consumption
One of the risk factors in overclocking is driving the processor beyond its ideal point of power and performance. Processors are typically manufactured with a particular sweet spot in mind: the peak efficiency of a processor will be at a particular voltage and particular frequency combination, and any deviation from that mark will result in expending extra energy (usually for better performance).
When Intel first introduced the Skylake family, this efficiency point was a key element to its product portfolio. Some CPUs would test and detect the best efficiency point on POST, making sure that when the system was idle, the least power is drawn. When the CPU is actually running code however, the system raises the frequency and voltage in order to offer performance away from that peak efficiency point. If a user pushes that frequency a lot higher, voltage needs to increase and power consumption rises.
So when overclocking a processor, either one of the newer ones or even an old processor, the user ends up expending more energy for the same workload, albeit to get the workload performed faster as well. For our power testing, we took the peak power consumption values during an all-thread version of POV-Ray, using the CPU internal metrics to record full SoC power.
The Core i7-2600K was built on Intel’s 32nm process, while the i7-7700K and i7-9700K were built on variants of Intel’s 14nm process family. These latter two, as shown in the benchmarks in this review, have considerable performance advantages due to microarchitectural, platform, and frequency improvements that the more efficient process node offers. They also have AVX2, which draw a lot of power in our power test.
In our peak power results graph, we see the Core i7-2600K at stock (3.5 GHz all-core) hitting only 88W, while the Core i7-7700K at stock (4.3 GHz all-core) at 95 W. These results are both respectable, however adding the overclock to the 2600K, to hit 4.7 GHz all-core, shows how much extra power is needed. At 116W, the 34% overclock is consuming 31% more power (for 24% more performance) when comparing to the 2600K at stock.
The Core i7-9700K, with eight full cores, goes above and beyond this, drawing 124W at stock. While Intel’s power policy didn’t change between the generations, the way it ended up being interpreted did, as explained in our article here:
Why Intel Processors Draw More Power Than Expected: TDP and Turbo Explained
You can also learn about power control on Intel’s latest CPUs in our original Skylake review:
The Intel Skylake Mobile and Desktop Launch, with Architecture Analysis
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
213 Comments
View All Comments
Midwayman - Monday, May 13, 2019 - link
I think the biggest thing I noticed moving to a 8700k from a 2600k was the same thing I noticed moving from a core 2 duo to a 2600k. Less weird pauses. The 2600k would get weird hitches in games. System processes would pop up and tank the frame rate for an instant, or just an explosion would trigger a physics event that would make it stutter. I see that a lot less with a couple extra cores and some performance overhead.tmanini - Monday, May 13, 2019 - link
I agree, the user experience is definitely improved in those ways. Granted, many of us think our time is a bit more important than it likely really is. (does waiting 3 seconds really ruin my day?)ochadd - Monday, May 13, 2019 - link
Enjoyed the article very much.Magnus101 - Monday, May 13, 2019 - link
You get about 3Xperformance when going from an upclocked 2600k@4.5GHz to a 8700k@4.5GHz when working in DAW:s (Digital Audio Workstation), i.e running dozens and dozens of virtual instruments and plugins when making music.The thing is that it is a combination of applications that:
1. Use all the SSE/AVX or whatever all the streaming extensions that makes parallell flotaing point calculations go much faster. DAW is all about floating point calculations.
2. Are extremely real-time dependent to get ultra low latency (milliseconds in single digits).
This makes even the 7700 k about double in performance in some scenarios when compared to an equally clocked 2600k.
mikato - Monday, May 13, 2019 - link
"and Intel’s final quad-core with HyperThreading chip for desktop, the 7700K""the Core i7-7700K, Intel’s final quad-core with HyperThreading processor"
Did I miss some big news?
mapesdhs - Monday, May 13, 2019 - link
"... the best chips managed 5.0 GHz or 5.1 GHz in a daily system."Worth noting that with the refined 2700K, *all* of them run fine at 5GHz in a daily system, sensible temps, a TRUE and one fan is plenty for cooling. Threaded performance is identical to a stock 6700K, IPC is identical to a stock 2700X (880 and 177 for CB R15 Nt/1t resp.)
Also, various P67/Z68 mbds support NVMe boot via modded BIOS files. The ROG forum has a selection for ASUS, search for "ASUS bolts4breakfast"; he's added support for the M4E and M4EZ, and I think others asked the same for the Pro Gen3, etc. I'm sure there are equivalent BIOS mod threads for GIgabyte, MSI, etc. My 5GHz 2700K on an M4E has a 1TB SM961 and a 1TB 970 EVO Plus (photo/video archive), though the C-drive is still a venerable Vector 256GB which holds up well even today.
Also, RAM support runs fine with 2133 CL9 on the M4E, which is pretty good (16GB GSkill TridentX, two modules).
However, after using this for a great many years, I do find myself wanting better performance for processing images & video, so I'll likely be stepping up to a Ryzen 3000 system, at least 8 cores.
mapesdhs - Monday, May 13, 2019 - link
Forgot to mention, someting else interesting about SB is the low cost of the sibling SB-E. Would be a laugh to see how all those tests pan with with a 3930K stock/oc'd thrown into the mix. It's a pity good X79 boards are hard to find now given how cheap one can get 3930Ks for these days. If stock performance is ok though, there are some cheap Chinese boards which work pretty well, and some of them do support NVMe boot.tezcan - Monday, May 13, 2019 - link
I am still running 3930k, prices for it are still very high ~$500. Not much cheaper then what I paid for it in 2011. I am yet to really test my GTX 680's in SLI. Kind of a waste, but they are driving many displays throughout my house. There was an article where some Australian bloke guy runs an 8 core sandy bridge - e (server chip) vs all modern intel 8 core chips. It actually had the lowest latency so was best for pro gamers, lagged a little behind on everything else- but definitely good enough.dad_at - Tuesday, May 14, 2019 - link
I run 3960X at ~ 4 GHz on X79 ASUS P9X79 and have nvme boot drive with modified BIOS. So it is really interesting to compare 2011/2012 6c/12t to 8700K or 9900K. I guess it's about 7700K stock, so modern 4c/8t is like old 6c/12t. Per core perf is about 20-30% up on average and this includes higher frequency ... So IPC is only about 15% up: not impressive. Of course in some loads like AVX2 heavy apps IPC could be 50% up, but such case is not common.martixy - Monday, May 13, 2019 - link
Oh man... I just upgraded my 2600K to a 9900K and a couple days later this article drops...The timing is impeccable!
If I ever had a shred of buyer's remorse, the article conclusion eradicated it thoroughly. Give me more FPS.
I saw a screenshot of StarCraft 2. On a mission which I, again, coincidentally (this is uncanny) played today. I can now report that the 9900K can FINALLY feed my graphics card in SC2 properly. With the 2600K I'd be around 20-60 FPS depending on load and intensity of the action. With the new processors, it barely ever drops below 60 and usually hovers around 90FPS. Ingame cinematics also finally run above the "cinematic" 30 FPS I saw on my trusty old 2600K.