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
monglerbongler - Friday, June 14, 2019 - link
You don't need to buy a new computer every year and with an intelligently made upfront investment you can potentially keep your desktop, with minimal or zero hardware upgrades, for a *very* long time/news at 11
If there is any argument that supports this its Intel's consumer/prosumer HEDT platforms.
The X99 was compelling over X58. The x299 is not even remotely compelling. I still have my old X99/ i7-5930k (6 core 40 lane PCIe3). its still fantastic, but thats at least partially because I bit the bullet and invested in a good motherboard and GPU at the time. All modern games still play fantastically and it can handle absolutely anything I throw at it.
More a statement of "future proofing" than inherent performance.
Sancus - Saturday, June 15, 2019 - link
It's always disappointing to see heavily GPU bottlenecked benchmarks in articles like these, without a clear warning that they are totally irrelevant to the question at hand.It also feeds into the false narrative that what resolution you play at matters for CPU benchmarks. What matters a lot more is what GAME you're playing, and these tests never benchmark the actually CPU bound multiplayer games that people are playing, because benchmarking those is Hard.
BlueB - Friday, June 21, 2019 - link
So if you're a gamer, there is STILL no reason for you to upgrade.Hogan773 - Friday, July 12, 2019 - link
I have a 2600K system with ASRock moboNow that there is so much hype about the Ryzen 3, is that my best option if I wanted to upgrade? I guess I would need a new mobo and memory in addition to the CPU. Otherwise I can use the same SSD etc.
tshoobs - Wednesday, July 17, 2019 - link
Still running my 3770 at stock clocks - "not a worry in the world, cold beer in my hand".Added an SSD and upgraded to a 1070 from the original GPU, . Best machine I've ever had.
gamefoo21 - Saturday, August 10, 2019 - link
I was running my X1950XT AIW at wonder level overclocks with a Pentium M overclocked, and crushing Athlon 64 users.It would have been really interesting to see that 7700K with DDR3. I run my 7700K @ 5Ghz with DDR3-2100 CL10 on a GA-Z170-HD3. Sadly the power delivery system on my board is at it's limits. :-(
But still a massive upgrade from a FX-8320e and MSI 970 mobo that I had before.
gamefoo21 - Saturday, August 10, 2019 - link
I forgot to add that it's 32GB(8GB x 4) G.Skill CL9 1866 1.5V that runs at 2100 CL10 at 1.5V but I have to give up 1T command rate.The GPU that I carried over is the Fury X. Bios modded of course so it's undervolted, underclocked and the HBM timings tightened. Whips the stock config.
The GPU is next up for upgrading, but I'm holding out for Navi with hardware RT and hopefully HBM. Once you get a taste of the low latency it's hard to go back.
OpenCL memory bandwidth for my Fury X punches over 320GB/s with single digit latency. The iGPU in my 7700K, is around 12-14GB/s and the latency is... -_-
BuffyCombs - Thursday, February 13, 2020 - link
There are several things about this article I dont like1. In the Game Tests, i actually dont care if one CPU is 50 Percent better when one shows 10 FPS and the other 15. Also I don’t care if it is 200 or 300 fps. So I would change to scale into a simple metric and that is: is it fun to play or not.
2. Development is not mentioned: The Core Wars has just started and the monopoly of intel is over. Why should we invest in new processors when competition has just begun. I predict price per performance will fall faster in the next years than it did in the previous 10 years. So buying now is buying into an overpriced and fast developing marked.
3. There is no Discussion if one should buy a used 2600k system today. I bought one a few weeks ago. It was 170 USD, has 16 GB of Ram and a gtx760. It plays all the games I throw at it and does the encoding of some videos I take in classes every week. Also I modified its cooler so that it runs very very silent. Using this system is a dream! Of course one could invest several times as much for a new system that is twice as fast in benchmarks but for now id rather save a few hundred bucks and invest when the competition becomes stagnant again or when some software I use really demands for it because of new instructions.
scrubman - Tuesday, March 23, 2021 - link
Great write-up! Love my 2600k still to this day and solid at 4.6GHz on air the whole time! I do see an upgrade this year though. She's been a beast!! Never thought the 300A Celeron OC to 450 would get beat! hahaSirBlot - Monday, July 25, 2022 - link
I get 60fps SotTR cpu game and render with rtx 3060ti with ray tracing on medium and everything else ultra. 2600k @4.2