New Core i7-2700K crowns Sandy Bridge lineup

Intel quietly updated its price list yesterday, adding a new top-of-the-line offering to its Sandy Bridge family and trimming the prices of three low-cost chips along the way.

The newcomer is dubbed Core i7-2700K. It has a base clock speed of 3.5GHz, 100MHz quicker than the i7-2600K, but otherwise looks very similar with four cores, eight threads, and 8MB of L3 cache. According to CPU-World, the i7-2700K features a 3.9GHz peak Turbo speed and a 95W power envelope. Intel prices the new CPU at $332, only $15 higher than the i7-2600K.

Interestingly, the i7-2700K’s arrival hasn’t pushed down prices across the rest of the Core i7 and i5 lineups. Rather, Intel has selectively trimmed the price of a handful of budget offerings: the Core i3-2120, which slipped from $138 to $117, and the Sandy Bridge-based Pentium G850 and G630, which dropped from $86 and $75 to $75 and $64, respectively. The quickest Sandy Bridge Pentium, the G860, will still set you back $86—in volume quantities, at least, a caveat that applies to all of the figures in Intel’s official price list.

Yesterday’s changes seem like a far cry from past Intel responses to new AMD processor releases, which I seem to recall involving deeper, more meaningful price cuts. Alas, processors like the Core i5-2500K and i7-2600K are still without equal nearly 10 months after their launch. Only AMD’s FX-8150 has the chops to trade blows with the i5-2500K, yet it’s both more expensive and currently unavailable.

Comments closed
    • kroker
    • 8 years ago

    Shouldn’t this have been called 2610K or something? 100MHz is hardly worthy of a 2700K label, considering the differences between 2600K and 2500K (larger cache & hyperthreading which can bring a big performance boost in heavily multithreaded applications)

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 8 years ago

    Clearly, Intel had planned to use the 2700k to keep their chips ahead of the game, but when AMD tripped and fell they suddenly didn’t have a reason to adjust much of anything.

    The only reason they bothered to release the 2700k is because they had already done the work of making it, so why not, right? But I can’t help but think the 2600k with such a small difference is going to drop some since the 2700k would seem to offer the promise of a better binned chip… for only $15 more. Once you’ve paid over $300, you might as well drop the extra $15.

    • Ryhadar
    • 8 years ago

    Am I missing something here?

    Steps to get a 2700K
    1.) Buy it
    –OR–
    1.) Up the CPU multiplier by 1 on your 2600K
    2.) Enjoy your new 2700K

    I mean, does the 2700K come with a newer stepping or something?

    Note: Legitimate question

    • ermo
    • 8 years ago

    Is it just me, or does it look like intel is getting a pretty good handle on its 32nm process?

    I ask because it seems to me that all the chips with nerfed on-board gfx are silently being phased out in favour of chips at the same speed with full HD3000 gfx on-chip?

    In that light, it’s getting harder and harder for even an AMD-biased buyer such as myself to justify splurging on the new AMD platform (I recently bought a 955BE drop-in upgrade to replace a 720BE in a 790X-based motherboard).

    I fear much rests on both the B3 Zambesi stepping and the Trinity APU (as well as GloFo ironing out the kinks with the 32nm process, obviously) — if both fail to compete well against the venerable Barcelona-derived parts, AMD is in for veritable butchering in the consumer space…

    • WaltC
    • 8 years ago

    [quote<]Only AMD's FX-8150 has the chops to trade blows with the i5-2500K, yet it's both more expensive and currently unavailable.[/quote<] I kind of think it would be very premature of Intel to change its SB pricing in reaction to an AMD cpu which hasn't actually begun shipping as of yet...;) Now, should BD start shipping in a tweaked form (yield issues addressed) which provides SB with a much tighter run for the money, at that point I'd imagine we'd see Intel get busy adjusting prices downward. I really, really want to see AMD successfully tweak this cpu and successfully overcome the current 32nm yield issues BD has. I want it mainly because I'll be darned if I will ever pay Intel $600-$1k for a desktop cpu ever again...!

      • Mr Bill
      • 8 years ago

      Truth and worth logging in for a +

      [quote<]I want it mainly because I'll be darned if I will ever pay Intel $600-$1k for a desktop cpu ever again...![/quote<]

      • JumpingJack
      • 8 years ago

      [quote<] I kind of think it would be very premature of Intel to change its SB pricing in reaction to an AMD cpu which hasn't actually begun shipping as of yet...;) [/quote<] So it was a paper launch? How come so many people are showing BD in the signatures in the forums then? [quote<]... I'll be darned if I will ever pay Intel $600-$1k for a desktop cpu ever again...![/quote<] Intel has a $217 i5-2500K (faster than BD in most cases) which is cheaper than AMD's flagship. If you look hard enough, you can find it for as low as $190, and if you live close to a Microcenter probably even cheaper. Actually, I think you would be darned if you every bought an Intel CPU period.

        • Chrispy_
        • 8 years ago

        The ONLY reason the i5-2500K is $217 is because you can get a PhenomII X6 1090T for fifty bucks less.

        This is his point. AMD must survive even if it’s only to stop intel from quadrupling their prices again. I have no interest in AMD processors for myself, but that doesn’t mean I don’t really really want them to do well.

      • Draphius
      • 8 years ago

      my wallets always been a fan of amd chips but with how cheap the 2500K is i cant see myself buying an amd chip anytime soon, plus those bulldozers take so many watts that they probly cost u more then the 2500K would have cost after a year of use. i want AMD to stick around becuase its always nice to have competition in a market for the consumer but i see bulldozer as a huge letdown on all fronts

    • yogibbear
    • 8 years ago

    They probably had this ready to launch a i7 2900k or whatever… but just clocked it to a tiny bump as they noticed the “meh” that was bulldozer.

    • luisnhamue
    • 8 years ago

    this CPU changes nothing.

    • sschaem
    • 8 years ago

    TR Request.

    Do you have an original i7-2600K from around launch ?

    If so, could you try to see how the original i7-2600k and this i7-2700k undervolt at the same frequency?
    (Maybe run the signature Cinebench Task energy test)

      • NeelyCam
      • 8 years ago

      Hmm… That would be interesting.

      I have an “original” i7-2600K from the launch, but my stupid Intel mobo doesn’t let me undervolt…

        • indeego
        • 8 years ago

        Dumb ‘n stupid Intel trying to reduce their development/QA/support costs and keep profit margins higher/end-user-prices low. Fricken Id10Ts, I tells ya.

        • JustAnEngineer
        • 8 years ago

        I bought mine less than an hour after midnight on launch day. Does that make it “original”?

      • Firestarter
      • 8 years ago

      To reach any kind of conclusion, you’d have to get a decent sample size. Something like 10 of each.

        • NeelyCam
        • 8 years ago

        Depends on the difference.

    • phileasfogg
    • 8 years ago

    what’s the difference between i3-2120 and i3-2125? They appear to have the exact same clock frequencies (and other specs) – yet, the 2125 is priced $17 higher than the i3-2120. (134 vs 117).

      • PixelArmy
      • 8 years ago

      HD 2000 vs HD 3000 graphics.
      [url<]http://ark.intel.com/compare/53426,59080[/url<]

        • phileasfogg
        • 8 years ago

        Thanks all. I should have checked the ark.intel.com site before I posted the question, sorry 😉
        If the CPU+mobo combo deals offered by a few stores (MicroCenter is one example) hit the $150 level for i3-2125, I’ll jump in. (hopefully by Black Friday 😉

      • willmore
      • 8 years ago

      The 2120 has HD2000 graphics while the 2125 has HD3000, so twice the execution units in the graphics engine.

    • chuckula
    • 8 years ago

    There’s nothing very interesting about the 2700K at stock speeds, just slightly faster than the 2600K. What should be interesting is whether the now very mature 32nm process and selected binning provides better overclocking for the 2700K vs. the average OC on the 2600K.

      • Draphius
      • 8 years ago

      id be happy with the same overclocking potential cause they allready overclock extremely high and easily. ive got my 2500K running at 4.8ghz on air with 1.365v and my #2 core is a redheaded stepchild, so if it can hit 5ghz no problem on air id be happy

    • srg86
    • 8 years ago

    That’s weird, there’s no non-k version. The VT-d support is actually (slightly) more useful to me than an unlocked multiplier. Still either would do.

      • Prion
      • 8 years ago

      Yeah I was going to say, is there a version of this with the same clocks, locked multi, and the better IGP and enabled market segmentation features coming?

        • aceuk
        • 8 years ago

        The Xeon E3-1275 (http://ark.intel.com/products/52277) features the virtualization features of the 2600 and the graphics of the 2600K. I imagine there will be a E3-1285 with the same clock speed as the i7-2700K eventually.

    • OneArmedScissor
    • 8 years ago

    “Yesterday’s changes seem like a far cry from past Intel responses to new AMD processor releases, which I seem to recall involving deeper, more meaningful price cuts.”

    Your memory is foggy. The closest thing I can recall to a price cut, ever, is when the Q6600 was moved to the $500 and then $300 tier, which previously did not exist for quad-cores, because quad-cores previously did not exist. Was that even in response to the Phenom? Probably not. They just happened to sell like crazy at that price, compared to several times as much. Imagine that…

    Everything else is always just a 100 MHz or so speed bump from a new stepping, and has no impact on prices. You’ve always had to pay $300+ for the full blown thing. Name one point where that wasn’t the case.

    How quickly we forget that there was a $600 Lynnfield. If Intel was so very unpressured, then why isn’t a faster i7 filling that void? What they’re doing is trying to keep average prices from falling any further by appeasing the middle of the road.

      • chuckula
      • 8 years ago

      So you start your post by saying that Intel never cuts prices, then end your post by saying that Intel cut prices and both contradictory points show what desperate straits Intel is in… yup, par for the course in a OneArmScissor post.

        • OneArmedScissor
        • 8 years ago

        Lower average selling prices ≠ price cut

        They’ve sold things down to about $30-40 all along. People just have less reason to go much beyond that, especially for laptops.

        You guys can keep living in denial all you want, but the writing has been on the wall for years. Say goodbye to your “enthusiast” market.

        Also, I like how I have a nice -7 going here, and nobody could refute my simple request:

        “You’ve always had to pay $300+ for the full blown thing. Name one point where that wasn’t the case.”

    • Neutronbeam
    • 8 years ago

    “Yesterday’s changes seem like a far cry from past Intel responses to new AMD processor releases, which I seem to recall involving deeper, more meaningful price cuts.”

    You don’t have to cut prices if you have no real competition. Why cut prices when AMD is shooting itself in the foot–or head–with an noncompetitive product such as the FX-8150?

    • jcamel24
    • 8 years ago

    Of course, the day after I bought a 2600K. Just my luck!

      • StuG
      • 8 years ago

      I’m the same way, but really there is no reason in complaining. 100Mhz is fairly null in comparison, and anyway you have an unlocked multiplier…so just bump it up to the same level! 😀

        • SomeOtherGeek
        • 8 years ago

        Ann save 15 bucks in the process…

      • NeelyCam
      • 8 years ago

      Return for a refund?

        • jcamel24
        • 8 years ago

        Nah. Got it @ a Micro Center ~100 miles away. This CPU + $155 mobo for $386 after tax is still a steal!

          • NeelyCam
          • 8 years ago

          Yep, that [i<]is[/i<] a steal..

          • Chrispy_
          • 8 years ago

          And you’re going to overclock anyway to get the most performance possible out of it, right? Otherwise you’d have just bought an i5 which is already complete overkill for almost everything there is on the market today 😛

          These two chips come from the same factory using the same process. As you know – yields are a lottery. Your 2600K may be from a better wafer than one that’s been certified and approved as a 2700K.

      • Ryhadar
      • 8 years ago

      *Edit* Sorry didn’t mean to reply to this thread.

      • SoM
      • 8 years ago

      return it then get the 2700

      • Vaughn
      • 8 years ago

      Its only 100mhz faster not a big deal.

      But it also your fault for being uninformed this release has been on the net for quite some time now.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This