2700k is muuuch better.
The 960 isn't very receptive to overclocking. The 2700k is among the sandy bridge line. It overclocks veeeeery well. The thing is, the 2700k is comparable to the i5 2500k. Both overclock to around the same performance levels, and even show that the performance levels are usually around the same when overclocked but the 2700k is ~150$ more (last time I checked). The only benefit from going from an i5 2500k to an i7 2700k is that all of the i7 line has hyperthreading. Hyperthreading is really only good if you're very heavy on video rendering, and other project media files as such. Otherwise there won't be much of a noticeable difference. If you feel like you could use the little extra efficiency bump from hyperthreading, then the i7 2700k is pretty amazing.
I've seen people run their i7 2700k's to ~5.0GHz (not sure what the voltages/cooling is, but I'm sure they have really really good rigs to get a stable clock that high) and I've seen people run their i5 2500k's to ~the same benchmark. Usually the chip can easily get ~4.5-4.8GHz. Personally I can't get my i7 960 past 3.98GHz without being unstable. Most people seem to be getting it around 4.0GHz, too.
You could look at the i7 2600k (basically the same thing as the i7 2700k except 50$ cheaper). Otherwise I'd highly recommend the i5 2500k
EDIT: Don't consider either of these if you don't want to OC.
The 960 isn't very receptive to overclocking. The 2700k is among the sandy bridge line. It overclocks veeeeery well. The thing is, the 2700k is comparable to the i5 2500k. Both overclock to around the same performance levels, and even show that the performance levels are usually around the same when overclocked but the 2700k is ~150$ more (last time I checked). The only benefit from going from an i5 2500k to an i7 2700k is that all of the i7 line has hyperthreading. Hyperthreading is really only good if you're very heavy on video rendering, and other project media files as such. Otherwise there won't be much of a noticeable difference. If you feel like you could use the little extra efficiency bump from hyperthreading, then the i7 2700k is pretty amazing.
I've seen people run their i7 2700k's to ~5.0GHz (not sure what the voltages/cooling is, but I'm sure they have really really good rigs to get a stable clock that high) and I've seen people run their i5 2500k's to ~the same benchmark. Usually the chip can easily get ~4.5-4.8GHz. Personally I can't get my i7 960 past 3.98GHz without being unstable. Most people seem to be getting it around 4.0GHz, too.
You could look at the i7 2600k (basically the same thing as the i7 2700k except 50$ cheaper). Otherwise I'd highly recommend the i5 2500k
EDIT: Don't consider either of these if you don't want to OC.
What he said. Sandy bridge line has these processors with K at the end, which means its factory unlocked for overclocking. They overclock very well and its easier than 960, buy if you're into some serious overclocking, you'll ofcourse need better cooler if not water cooling. Also 2700K is on the new socket and sandy bridge is pretty much future proof for some time. But I think 2700k is too pricy for the little gain you get. I would suggest you get 2600K. Its almost the same, it has 0.1GHz slower frequency and instead of 35 bus/core it has 34 bus/core and that's it, while you save 50$, which you can invest in other components. You can also go for much cheaper Core i5 2500K, which is mostly described as best performance for price processor at the moment. It has a little slower frequency than 2700K, but the main difference here is no hyperthreading support. On 2700K you have 4 cores and 8 visual cores(threads), while on 2500K you have 4 cores and 4 threads. 2700K is much better and multitasking and such stuff, but 2500K is a really good deal for the price.
Don't hate, it's too big a burden to bear.
Sigs made by: LaCorpse, jhoijhoi, Katoki, JEFFY40HANDS, The_Nameless_Bard and Sk1llbug
-||- Check out my Master Yi guide -||-
Well.. The i7 960 is OOOOOOLD, don't get it. That would probably be a bad idea.
It's also in a bigger architecture while Sandy Bridge CPUs(960=45nm, 2500=32nm) are more power efficient and better in price/performance.
I'm not sure the 2500k is stronger in raw power than 960, but I don't think it's far off and I'm sure it's a lot cheaper.
The 2500k is plenty fast enough for any game you'll ever want to play anyways.
It's also in a bigger architecture while Sandy Bridge CPUs(960=45nm, 2500=32nm) are more power efficient and better in price/performance.
I'm not sure the 2500k is stronger in raw power than 960, but I don't think it's far off and I'm sure it's a lot cheaper.
The 2500k is plenty fast enough for any game you'll ever want to play anyways.
"I walked up to her big butt and asked her *** butt what." - Lil Wayne, lyrical genius
"I can't decide where I stand on abortion, on one hand it is killing children, on the other it gives women a choice." - ???
"I can't decide where I stand on abortion, on one hand it is killing children, on the other it gives women a choice." - ???
Yea if you're willing to spend that much on very marginal performance improvement. Otherwise I'd stick with the i7 2600k. The 2700k is very very. Only slight. A bit. Betterish. Hyperthreading doesn't really help for streaming performance, just sayin'.
You need to log in before commenting.
<Retired Moderator>