2500 K or nay?

[CosmicMight]

Nope, not even remotely interested in pushing it. 3.8-4.0 ghz and I'm done!

So this will take me what, 5 minutes in BIOS? I wonder what the base clock is...with a 4 ghz oc will I even have to play with the voltage? Assuming a base clock of 100Mhz, for example, is it really as simple as bumping up my multi from 34 to 40 and rebooting? How will this impact TB if I go with a 2600k?

 

[tweakboy]

Ill pass, Ill wait for some real technology improvement like the i9 12 core.

 

[CosmicMight]

Ill pass, Ill wait for some real technology improvement like the i9 12 core.

Keep your weird troll posts out of my thread. If that temptation is too much for you, please let me know and I will gladly add you to ignore.

 

[ilkhan]

Nope, not even remotely interested in pushing it. 3.8-4.0 ghz and I'm done!

So this will take me what, 5 minutes in BIOS? I wonder what the base clock is...with a 4 ghz oc will I even have to play with the voltage? Assuming a base clock of 100Mhz, for example, is it really as simple as bumping up my multi from 34 to 40 and rebooting? How will this impact TB if I go with a 2600k?

For 4.0Ghz? Yeah, it likely will be that simple. Maybe some voltage adjustment, we'll see how they do when the retail samples start getting out. And yes, the base clock is 100Mhz.
Not sure what you're referring to with "TB". HT won't be changed, if thats what you meant.

 

[CosmicMight]

For 4.0Ghz? Yeah, it likely will be that simple. Maybe some voltage adjustment, we'll see how they do when the retail samples start getting out. And yes, the base clock is 100Mhz.
Not sure what you're referring to with "TB". HT won't be changed, if thats what you meant.

Cool, thanks. No, I meant Turbo Boost. That's what started me thinking about this to begin with...if TB is a bump to 3.8, and I only plan on going to 4, why even pay the extra $20? Then I read up on TB; doesn't seem to make a big difference.

Then again, neither will the difference between TB and 4.0. Without question I will get a 2500k - it's not even $20 - at the very least. The only question is if I should get the 2600 or 2600k. That's more substantial. We'll see what I get from "Santa" this year, lol.

 

[ilkhan]

Cool, thanks. No, I meant Turbo Boost. That's what started me thinking about this to begin with...if TB is a bump to 3.8, and I only plan on going to 4, why even pay the extra $20? Then I read up on TB; doesn't seem to make a big difference.

Then again, neither will the difference between TB and 4.0. Without question I will get a 2500k - it's not even $20 - at the very least. The only question is if I should get the 2600 or 2600k. That's more substantial. We'll see what I get from "Santa" this year, lol.

Oh. Turbo. Well, you can adjust the turbo boost amount for each number of cores, but normal turbo isn't going to be 3.8Ghz with all four cores, it'll be 3.8Ghz when the GPU and 3 cores are all idle.

 

[TekDemon]

I'm leaning towards the 2600K as well if only for the extra cache. From what I've seen, the full original intel cache size gives processors quite a bit of longevity. The cache-flush E8x00 Core 2 Duos still deliver very playable FPS in pretty much every game out there, whereas the gimped versions would cap your FPS pretty badly. I mean these are pretty much the only 3 year old processors that'll run Starcraft 2 with the best of them. So I think that extra $100 up front for the HT and extra cache is well worth it since it'll probably be usable an extra year after the 2500K is struggling.