i7 950 bloomfield v. i7 2600k sandy bridge?

What are some differences between the two? I know they have different manufacturing tech. but what else? Would there be a significant difference?

The i7 950 doesn't overclock as well and preforms worse overall.

For gaming I dont think it really matters in terms of performance. The K series overclocks like crazy 5ghz on air supposedly, but my 920 is at 4.1ghz and doesnt bottleneck my 480's in SLI. The 2600k is a better CPU, but I dont think you will see any improvements FPS wise if you have an I7 at 4ghz or an 2600k at 5ghz. I personally skipped Sandy Bridge and am waiting for the real enthusiast CPU's, Ivy Bridge.

I just dont seee my FPS improving with Sandy Bridge.......well improving to the point where its worth upgrading.

Assuming you were planning on building a rig than you should obviously go with the 2600k.

this will help you out

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-llano-processor,2989-5.html

As you can see the i7-950 performs even worse than the i5-2300. The sandy bridge is so lightning fast that it leaves everything behind it, the i7-2600k is even better than the i7 990 allthough this is true today, the i7 990 has six cores and when games will start using more than four cores, the i7 990 will pop above the i7-2600k. That doesn't apply to the 6- core amd however because a 3 ghz sandy bridge is as fast as a 6 ghz phenom. And the fastest 6-core amd is only about 3.6 ghz.

Might as well wait for next gen, maybe Ivy Bridge. IMO, Right now you're fine on a 1366 build if that's what you have now. It's almost like slide-grading, even if the Sandy Bridge is better, the Nehalem/Bloomfield, etc are still holding up well. In games, you won't notice any real word difference anyway.