From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RQjth-00023z-56 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:07:45 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A903C21C0A3; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:07:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F116121C025 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:06:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FEF21B4039 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:06:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.982 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.982 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.353, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.164, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.201] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k2+WNjxckaQY for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:06:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50C801B401D for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:06:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQjs8-0007Sj-RW for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:06:08 +0100 Received: from 46.196.248.255 ([46.196.248.255]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:06:08 +0100 Received: from masterprometheus666 by 46.196.248.255 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:06:08 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: masterprometheus Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Re: Another hardware thread Followup-To: gmane.linux.gentoo.user Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:05:55 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20111112005129.003a54d3@digimed.co.uk> <4EBF2185.7050801@gmail.com> <20111113115637.3766e813@digimed.co.uk> <4EC2FB10.6040106@xunil.at> <20111116002014.70c4fad4@zaphod.digimed.co.uk> <4EC388D7.6040907@xunil.at> <20111116100933.16d6c90f@digimed.co.uk> <4EC39A5D.2090801@xunil.at> <20111116112510.500a7f06@zaphod.digimed.co.uk> <4EC3A7C0.7010404@xunil.at> <4EC3DAE1.1050006@xunil.at> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 46.196.248.255 User-Agent: KNode/4.4.11 X-Archives-Salt: 8b0ce07d-bb2d-46d6-b843-b65efc68a17b X-Archives-Hash: c6f190b064dc20b6b7639be76561f1e2 Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: > Am 2011-11-16 16:22, schrieb masterprometheus: >> Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: >> >> >>> >>> I ask myself if I need the K-version at all, I don't want to >>> overclock >> >> No, if you're not going to overclock the K version is not needed. > > But as far as I read reviews online it is easy and rather safe to do so > w/ the matching motherboard. So why not ... go for it. Oh I would definitly do that (overclock it I mean). But if there isn't someone with the same name, you've said : >I ask myself if I need the K-version at all, I don't want to overclock > ... Change of heart ? Understandable as these CPUs are easy to overclock. If you don't need the hyperthreading just get the 2500K and a good HSF. You can easily run it @4.5GHz 7/24 and safely. > >>> Did you also consider the newer i7-2700k? Maybe too expensive >>> because it's so new. And I assume it's not that much faster. >>> >>> Although I only assume that, I have to research it ... >> >> The 2700K is nothing different than the 2600K. The only plus is a 100 >> MHz frequency boost. Not worth the extra $70 over a 2600/2600K. > > Yep. So Intel noticed "wow, we get a few of them which run stable even > at 100MHz more, let's sell them for some more money" ;-) True but Intel's MSRP was just $10-15 more than a 2600K. Vendors decided to up the price a bit. Not uncommon with new products.