Intel CPU question!!!

[Flenzo]

Hey everyone!

I have a question that i cant understand, maybe 'cos people distract me.
So i decided to write here, so many ppl helpt me here! Thank you guys!

So the question is:

I heard this so many times, for example, a Core i5-2500k 4 quad core CPU is not the best 'cos it generates Virtual Cores, and the CPU usage is always at 100%, so what i mean if i run more than 2 or 3 programs in the background Intel slows down or what?

Now In AMD the Cores works apart.

What is the truth?! Give me some light about it!

PS.: if i play a game, and listenin i the background music and streamin at the same time does it slows down that really the Intel i5 2500k? i dont think but i ask to be sure.

Thanks to everyone who reads my long question,i appreciate it! Thank you guys!

Have a nice Day

 

[ctk1981]

Last time I checked the i5 2500 was an actual 4 core processor, no hyper-threading.

No it should not slow down under normal multitasking as you described.

 

[ocre]

i am not sure what your asking but the 2500k is a better deal than anything AMD has to offer in that price range right now. Its all around powerful. It flies through multitasking no problem. AMD does not compete well against this chip.

The 2500k is an unlocked chip for overclocking. If you dont plan on overclocking then you can save some cash on the non K 2500 and an H67 motherboard. If you plan on overclocking (which its so easy its hard not to recommend) then you need a 2500k and a p67 board. Both of which cost a tab more than the non overclocking counterparts.

AMD has nothing currently that really competes well with the 2500k. Its by far the better option, especially for the money.

 

[mrjoltcola]

Hi Flenzo, sounds like some people who are pro-AMD have been giving you misinformation, maybe based on their own misunderstanding of Intel Hyperthreading. Hyperthreading is Intel's "virtual core" technology, bit it simply makes 2 cores out of 1 to run more processes on a single core. The Intel doesn't run at 100% any easier than the AMD. It is hard to achieve 100% on either of these processors without trying. Simply running multiple programs wont do it. They also must not realize the 2500K does not include Hyperthreading, so it has no virtual cores (also known as logical cores). The 2500K has 4 REAL, separate cores (as ocre said). It is 4 independant processors all sharing a single die. They aren't virtual, they are real/physical, they run in parallel, just like the AMD multi-core processors. They can access memory, run calculations, control IO devices, and communicate with each other independantly. The cores may share some of the same controller chips, but that doesn't keep them from running independantly.

The 2500K (and 2600K, and 2700K) currently have no equal in quad-cores, they are the fastest four core processor you can buy. For typical programs, a single Sandy Bridge core executes it faster than any other processor available. For a few dollars less, you can buy a 6-core AMD that is pretty close (a few percentages) behind the Sandy Bridge, and actually beats it in a few multi-threaded benchmarks that make use of more than 4 cores, but in gaming and general use, an overclocked 2500K (4.4-4.6Ghz for example) cannot be touched by the AMD 6-core. That should give you an idea how much faster one of the Intel cores are than one of the AMD cores if it takes 6 to match 4.

All that said, you cannot really go wrong at that price point with either. If someone offered me a 6-core AMD, I'd take it in a heartbeat and be happy. However, if you want the fastest chip, period, you want the 2500K or 2600K.

 

[Flenzo]

Thanks for the reply ckellly81 , ocre and mrjoltcola.
Now im decided (Finally lol ) to get a i5-2500k, with a z68 Asus board.

Really thanks to everyone! I Appreciated the answers. My Respect is yours.

 

[evident]

there are no other alternatives. 2500k or 2600k. everything else is trash. if you need to save money, get the i3 2100

 

[ocre]

there are no other alternatives. 2500k or 2600k. everything else is trash. if you need to save money, get the i3 2100

LOL!

I still see AMDs 6 core as a great budget bargain. It is useful and cheap. In certain task it really shines. Its a nice chip, but no where top of the line. What i like about it is the price, its priced well.

 

[evident]

LOL!

I still see AMDs 6 core as a great budget bargain. It is useful and cheap. In certain task it really shines. Its a nice chip, but no where top of the line. What i like about it is the price, its priced well.

i guess looking back at my post i kind of sound like a troll, but i really didn't mean it that way. of course there are some cases where you might need the extra 2 cores, but i don't think anything comes close to sandy as far as price/performance/wattage is concerned.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

So you want to do gaming, browse on the Internet, listen to music and browse porn at the same time?

 

[GoStumpy]

LOL!

I still see AMDs 6 core as a great budget bargain. It is useful and cheap. In certain task it really shines. Its a nice chip, but no where top of the line. What i like about it is the price, its priced well.

Not arguing the AMD 6-core CPU is good at what it does, but is it really a budget bargain? I can't find it for less than $150... For that price it's only $25 more to get an i5-2300! (Same clock speeds)

 

[janas19]

Not arguing the AMD 6-core CPU is good at what it does, but is it really a budget bargain? I can't find it for less than $150... For that price it's only $25 more to get an i5-2300! (Same clock speeds)

Agree.

 

[fastamdman]

at 150$ it would only be 30 dollars more to get a 2500k. They are 179.99 at microcenter.

2500k > all.

 

[janas19]

at 150$ it would only be 30 dollars more to get a 2500k. They are 179.99 at microcenter.

2500k > all.

I'm kind of dubious about the benefits of paying the extra money for buying unclocked, myself. An i5-2400 at 3.0 Ghz would shred any current game. Plus, it has Turbo Boost. So what's the real benefit of the K version? A little extra performance? Keeping up with the Jonses?

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

I'm kind of dubious about the benefits of paying the extra money for buying unclocked, myself. An i5-2400 at 3.0 Ghz would shred any current game. Plus, it has Turbo Boost. So what's the real benefit of the K version? A little extra performance? Keeping up with the Jonses?

In the picture above, we’re looking at a Core i5-2500, which runs at 3.3GHz by default. When a single core is active, the chip can turbo up to 3.7GHz. If you want, you can change that turbo state to go as high as 4.1GHz. Overclocking these chips relies entirely on turbo however. In the case above, the fastest your chip will run is 4.1GHz but with only one core active. If you have four cores active the fastest your chip can run is 3.8GHz. Makes sense?

With the Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K the chips are fully unlocked and will let you overclock them as far as the CPU and/or your cooling can sustain.
Get it?

 

[janas19]

In the picture above, we?re looking at a Core i5-2500, which runs at 3.3GHz by default. When a single core is active, the chip can turbo up to 3.7GHz. If you want, you can change that turbo state to go as high as 4.1GHz. Overclocking these chips relies entirely on turbo however. In the case above, the fastest your chip will run is 4.1GHz but with only one core active. If you have four cores active the fastest your chip can run is 3.8GHz. Makes sense?

With the Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K the chips are fully unlocked and will let you overclock them as far as the CPU and/or your cooling can sustain.
Get it?

With respect, that graphic simply shows how high a clock speed gets. It does not how a 5.0 Ghz clock translates into game performance. My point is a regular i5 plays games just fine, there seems to be little reason to pay extra for unlocked unless you are an enthusiast.

 

[GoStumpy]

The difference between a K and a non K chip is what, $15? $20? No point in starting a K vs non K argument here...

The argument we should have is the fact that we can't use Microcenter prices when we have no idea if people CAN buy from there. Newegg.com is somewhere that everyone can buy from. When I price someone a computer I don't use a local store that they may or may not be able to buy from

 

[janas19]

The difference between a K and a non K chip is what, $15? $20? No point in starting a K vs non K argument here...

The difference is at least $30. That's nothing to scoff at. Seriously, if the i5-2400 can run any game on the market, isnt it a good idea to consider it?

Just sayin.

 

[Flenzo]

So you want to do gaming, browse on the Internet, listen to music and browse porn at the same time?

Yea uknow Dual Screen ftw

 

[fastamdman]

Janas19 - It has nothing to do with what CAN run games and everything with how. The 2500k, while being overclocked because EVERYONE who has this chip should be overclocking it, will have better fps, plain and simple.

How much FPS increase doesn't matter considering the small price jump. Running 24/7 at anywhere from 4.5ghz to 5ghz is a big increases. In real world programs you can save A LOT of time overclocking. For example in folding at home a stock 2500k might take 4:25mins per percent. While my overclocked 4.5ghz 2500k takes under 3mins to do the same task, cough 2:40 to be exact.

Also the above is an example, I am not 100% sure how long it takes stock as I never ran the app stock. Eitherway there are HUGE increases to overclocking depending on the application you are running, not everyone "just games" and even with gaming, there can be big increases.

Google some benchmarks of the 2500k overclocked and 2500k stock. THEN take the "overclocked 2500k" benches and compare then to your little 2400. Big difference for "at least 30" dollars. With the chips being as cheap as they are now, it is the best price to performance on the market chip for gaming.