Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2600k or 2500k??

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 2600k or 2500k??

    Well it looks like i might be the lucky recipient of the 1000+ deal so i am going to be needing a cpu, question is which one i5 or i7?

    Are the 2600k really worth the extra 70+ for hyperthreading, bit of extra cache? Stock speed accounts for nothing as i WILL be overclocking neither does the extra speed of the onboard gfx as i will, obviously, be using "proper" gfx. Or are they basically just epeen devices? It will basically only be used for gaming as i have my "hack" (see sig) for day to day duties.

    I am coming from an i5 750 @ 4ghz so will be looking for something more than a sideways upgrade so will be looking to overclock to at least 4.5ghz on the ud4 i am hoping to get.
    Laptop: i7-3610QM~16GB~GT635M
    Gamer: i7 3820 @ 4.4Ghz~MSI X79A-GD65~16GB Redline 2133~HIS R290(X)~TT A90~CM SILENT PRO 1000w~U2713HM.
    Canon 5D Mk3 16-35 F4L / 24-105L / 180mmL / 70-200 2.8L IS II / Sigma 50mm f1.4DG / Sigma 150-600 Sport / 2x 430EXii (Me on 500px)


  • #2
    If it's heading into your gaming machine, I'm not convinced the extra threads of the 2600K are worth it - 70 is a lot of money for 4 extra threads and an extra 2MB L3 cache. As you say, the onboard GPU is basically moot if you're gaming but you'd be getting a K edition either way with the faster HD3000 GPU, so it doesn't really matter.

    Some of the competitive overclockers argue the 2600K can usually go a little further than 2500Ks but I think they're very similar and it's (as with everything) luck of the draw of the chip. You should get 4.5 with ease whatever you choose, and with a half decent mobo 4.7 24/7 should be within reach of most people with 1.4V vcore.

    But yeah, I can't see the 2500K struggling for a while, personally couldn't justify the extra for the 2600K myself if I was building PC solely for gaming. Put the savings towards beer money, or maybe a shiney new PSU/HSF?
    Gaming :: Intel Core i7 5820K, Gigabyte GA-X99-UD5, Gigabyte GTX1070, 16GB Crucial 2400MHz DDR4, Corsair H100, BlackGold BGT3620 DVB-T2, Dell U2410, Fractal Arc Midi R2, Samsung 850 Pro 128GB, Samsung 850 Pro 1TB, WD Red 4TB, Creative SoundBlaster Z, Logitech X-230, Seasonic X-650, G900, G510s, 10 Pro x64
    Work :: Dell Precision M6800, Intel Core i7 4800MQ 2.7GHz, 16GB RAM, Samsung 850 Pro 128GB, Crucial MX100 256GB, AMD FirePro M6100, 17" 1920x1080, 10 Pro x64

    Comment


    • #3
      From what i have read for most of us there is very little reason to buy the 2600k over the 2500k.

      Tomshardware sums it up quite well

      Take the Core i5-2500, add 2 MB of L3 cache, Hyper-Threading, and a 100 MHz bump across the board. What do you have? The Core i7-2600K.

      It doesn't sound like much of an improvement, and frankly it will make remarkably little difference when it comes to gaming. The 70 spread between the Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K is only recommended if you want to brag, because you're probably not going to notice any appreciable frame rate difference. The Core i7's strength is only really exploited in heavily-threaded workstation applications, rather than games.
      http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/best-g...w-32221-4.html
      I am not losing weight! I'm getting rid of it. I have no intention of finding it again!

      Growing old is inevitable. Growing up is optional

      Comment


      • #4
        Yup pretty much as i read on the t'interwebs too, little to no difference, basically only bragging rights at the end of the day?

        Unless someone can prove different i think i will probably be going down the same route, 2500k.
        Laptop: i7-3610QM~16GB~GT635M
        Gamer: i7 3820 @ 4.4Ghz~MSI X79A-GD65~16GB Redline 2133~HIS R290(X)~TT A90~CM SILENT PRO 1000w~U2713HM.
        Canon 5D Mk3 16-35 F4L / 24-105L / 180mmL / 70-200 2.8L IS II / Sigma 50mm f1.4DG / Sigma 150-600 Sport / 2x 430EXii (Me on 500px)

        Comment


        • #5
          2600k is good for editing and such, the hyper threading can actually be a hinderence when gaming, such that often people with them turn off this feature during games.

          Let's be clear about the Sandybridge, they are generally 10-15% faster on a clock for clock basis than older models so even at 4ghz you will have a faster, cooler, more energy efficient cpu. That said I've not heard of anyone failing to get beyond 4ghz at least! I'm personally at 4.5ghz with my 2500k and that seems to be pretty standard, although a lot of people sit at 4.4ghz as once you go beyond this point the benefit to v increase is stupid...but hey up to u! UD4 is good, maybe look at the GD53 or GD65, both very good. Personally I've got the Asus P8P67 Pro, and never had a prob!

          Comment


          • #6
            not worth the extra go with the 2500k use the extra 70 on a better graphics card if needs be will give you more of a boost
            My RIG: MSI GE62 2QD Apache I7 4720HQ, 8GB DDR3, 128GB SDD + 1TB HDD, GTX 960M 2GB, Windows 10, 15.6" IPS screen.

            Comment


            • #7
              Get the 2500k, 70 goes a long way on coolers / fans / money towards case/gpu
              --
              Fractal R4 (shhh!) 3570k, z77x-d3h, 16gb, R9-270X, 240gb SSD, 2tb mirror w/ 60gb cache drive

              Comment


              • #8
                70 is more usefull elsewhere. I wouldn't go for a 2600k unless I had a couple grand to spend on a rig.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Not sure tbh mate, if you can use the extra cores then yes worth every penny.


                  26k will be from a higher bin so should give you better clock speed when you do clock it and even more if you turn off the ht.

                  For me its worth it if you can use the extras but I do think a few only have the 26 for the epeen.
                  "Those able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses."
                  Plato

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yeah get the 2500K mate.

                    As said 70 is alot of money for less than 10% performance increase.

                    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=287


                    Nearly the money for a Crucial M4 SSD there.

                    Freedom isn't free"



                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Oh mine I thought I would go for 26K, but the most people said nothing much different ! I don't understand why the price different?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by jaff90110 View Post
                        Oh mine I thought I would go for 26K, but the most people said nothing much different ! I don't understand why the price different?
                        The differences are more cache, very slightly higher clock speed and hyper threading so sort of 8 cores instead of 4
                        I am not losing weight! I'm getting rid of it. I have no intention of finding it again!

                        Growing old is inevitable. Growing up is optional

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Should I go with 26K then? Do you think the price of this 25K and 26K will drop down sometime in the future?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            It was a no brainer for me.. I went for the 2500K. Yes, the 2600 is faster, but in every day applications, its not 40% faster, which is basically how much extra you're paying! 2500K = Best bang for buck 2600K = Could be faster if you have the programs to use the extra threads..



                            Originally posted by coiler
                            Stomach was rumbling like a fatman landing on Sanctuary

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Aaron View Post
                              It was a no brainer for me.. I went for the 2500K. Yes, the 2600 is faster, but in every day applications, its not 40% faster, which is basically how much extra you're paying! 2500K = Best bang for buck 2600K = Could be faster if you have the programs to use the extra threads..
                              +1 to this, I probably wouldn't get a 2600K if i were to upgrade to 1155. The 2500K does everything without breaking a sweat. The 2600K is ideal if you do lots of video editing etc, i would put the 70 towards a SSD or a better graphics card. But if money is no object then you might as well get the 2600k
                              CPU:Intel I7 3770K 5GHZ |CPU Cooler:Noctua NH D14|RAM:16GB Corsair Vengeance White LP|MB:Asus P8Z68-V PRO/GEN3|GPU:Asus GTX 980 Strix OC|PSU: Corsair AX 750|HDD:2x Corsair 240GB Force GS| 2X WD 2TB Red|Sound Card:Asus Xonar HDAV|Speakers:Sony STR-DN850+Yamaha Speakers+Tannoy TS2.10|Mouse/Keyboard:Corsair K95/M95|Case:Corsair 500R|

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X