Just swapped my 1090T for a 2500K

[bgt]

The IGP is not OK. Its speedy enough only quality is awful. Using a 6450 now.
Should have got a P67. Ah well....will try to swap it.

 

[Arkaign]

Oops, yeah I didn't understand clearly you had an H67 instead of P67. Yeah swapping should be fairly easy, and you don't appear to be a candidate for using onboard video anyway. I have the P67 Pro and it's running wonderfully.

 

[86waterpumper]

I thought the hd2000/ 3000 was a function of the cpu and not the chipset? z68 boards are limited then in graphic speed?

 

[dma0991]

I thought the hd2000/ 3000 was a function of the cpu and not the chipset? z68 boards are limited then in graphic speed?

Yes, the HD2000 and HD3000 IGP is part of the CPU but chipsets like the P67 disables the IGP function. It is only boards that have H61, H67 and Z68 chipsets are able to utilize the IGP.

 

[86waterpumper]

Right I knew that only the z68 and h series chipsets support the onboard video I was referring to this...

t depends on the settings you have at 4.5GHz but some do get a Core i5 2500K + H67 just because they want an IGP that is better than the HD2000 and do not need a IGP that is better than the HD3000.

This led me to believe that for some reason with a h chipset you could have hd3000 spec igp and only 2000 for the z68...but I guess you were talking about the k cpu having the better graphics rather than the mb. Looks to me like the z68 chipset is definately the one to go for with all the features it has.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Geez. OC the snot out of that 2500K, willya? It hands the 1090T its a$$ in literally every useful comparison on the Web. Besides, who plays two games at the same time? Then come back and tell us if there's stuttering.

 

[bgt]

Geez. OC the snot out of that 2500K, willya? It hands the 1090T its a$$ in literally every useful comparison on the Web. Besides, who plays two games at the same time? Then come back and tell us if there's stuttering.

Well, at 3.3Ghz the SB its not spanking the 1090T at all. The more I load my Windows system, to the level my 1090T is at, with programs the slower it gets. Also the booting process. And I did not say I play games on it yet.

 

[Fayd]

Geez. OC the snot out of that 2500K, willya? It hands the 1090T its a$$ in literally every useful comparison on the Web. Besides, who plays two games at the same time? Then come back and tell us if there's stuttering.

i do. at least i used to.

how i wish i had at the time a 6 core CPU, with massive amounts of ram. would have been nice. could have loaded up an entire bot train with ingame bots.

 

[edplayer]

Yes, pity. Anyway..a reason to swap to the 2500 for me was energy consumption. Don't know how much it will go up when on 4.5Ghz?

No, but you can tell us (when you get a new motherboard)!

Plus you can have it at 4.5GHz with EIST on so it will run at 1.6GHz most of the time.

 

[soccerballtux]

Using the 2500k as my main computer as of now but I am not entirely happy with the multitasking speed. Small programms fly.
In trying to see the differences between these 2 CPU's I am using both with the same setup in software.
The 2500k boots very fast and unpacks a single item truly fast.......but when heavy multitasking is involved it looses out to the 1090T sometimes to a degree that I think its stalling. For a 4core cpu its mighty fast though. Normal feel is however the 1090T isn't really fast in anything but also not really slow in anything while the 2500K can be. The 2500K perf. is sometimes worse than the 1090T and sometimes better/faster. The 1090T is more balanced.
However power draw from the wall is a difference.
idle(surfing) load(Winrar perf.test)
1090T 66W 115W 2750 perf. Winrar
2500K 43W 85W 3100 perf.

Playing XXHighend music programm now(through optical SPdiff with external Highend DAC=enjoying tremendously), typing here, moving a file from 1 disk to another, doing a backup and an extraction and the CPU starts sweating.

Will keep on testing and look for differences





Asus P8H67-M LE/i5 2500K/8GbCrucial1333Mhz/C300-64GbSSD+1Tb/Win64HP
Asus M4A88TD-M EVO/PhII1090T/8GbCrucial1333Mhz/M4-64GbSSD+1Tb/Win64HP

people need to get over their computers. I was doing what you're talking about 8 years ago on my 2.3ghz sempron64 machine.

 

[bgt]

No, but you can tell us (when you get a new motherboard)!

Plus you can have it at 4.5GHz with EIST on so it will run at 1.6GHz most of the time.

:thumbsup:

 

[Blue_Max]

Since you have a 2500K, did you get a new Z68 motherboard? Being able to use a 20-64GB SSD as a cache to improve the performance of ALL your disk-related activities and would probably make a very visible difference for you!

 

[gramboh]

Well, at 3.3Ghz the SB its not spanking the 1090T at all. The more I load my Windows system, to the level my 1090T is at, with programs the slower it gets. Also the booting process. And I did not say I play games on it yet.

Benchmarks of old and new system?

 

[edplayer]

:thumbsup:

hey check these out:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-2600k-990x_12.html#sect0

 

[amenx]

and the gaming benches...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-2600k-990x_4.html#sect0

 

[bgt]

waiting for my P67 mainboard. And benches....they have no real value. Real life experience is what counts. You won't notice a 30% difference in speed.
Stuttering is what you notice also. They are better indicators than numbers.

 

[jvroig]

waiting for my P67 mainboard. And benches....they have no real value. Real life experience is what counts. You won't notice a 30% difference in speed.
Stuttering is what you notice also. They are better indicators than numbers.

What you say does have some merit, however, the difficulty there is:
1) Benches are quantitative and objective
2) "Stuttering" / "real life experience" is qualitative and subjective.

#1 is easy to publish, share, prove, re-test, redo, and validate. Hence, it is given the recognition that it has now.
#2 may be easy to publish and share, but the proving, re-testing, redoing, and validating them is next to impossible, or in some cases just much harder.

I can't just make a review/article based on #1 that is made up, because readers will spot the inconsistencies, attempt to do a re-test or any validation, and find out that I am totally crazy.

I can easily make a false "review" based on #2, because all I have to say is "I used them side by side, and this may seem counter-intuitive, but the Intel Pentium 4 definitely outclasses the Athlon 64 in real life experience, it just feels smoother and more natural, as if god willed it for your game to run on steroids! You won't see it in benches, you have to experience it yourself, and that's what matters, the experience, the stuttering (or lack of it in the Pentium 4)"

This is why we have to rely on quantitative methods.

 

[bgt]

Absolutely true. The thing is however there is no experience number available in any test. Thats why I always like to have both sides of the story. In general I find that with all the Intel systems I buy/use/sell the hype around the numbers is always blown out of proportion. I am always amazed how well the AMD's deliver even if they are 10-200% slower in numbers than Intel systems.

My pc: http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1904993

 

[nyker96]

I had a similar experience going from a per core faster C2d dual core cpu to a x4 620 both overclocked to about 3.25-3.5ghz. My take is similar to yours, while doing individual tasks the amd chip is slower and you can clock it. Like unrar or rar but the x4 feels more responsive especially when there's a virus scan in the background. The C2D would stutter and you notice that while the x4 you don't feel the scanning at all.

I do about 7-8 programs at a time w/ 2 VM so the x4 is a clear winner here for me. It feels more responsive while I'm sure individually the program runs slower than C2D. But in real life, I hardly wait for a long running program to complete, just leave it in the background to do its work, so the x4's slower core don't really factor in as much.

However, during gaming which mostly depend on per core speed, I definitely take a hit in fps compare to c2d. But I mostly do multitasking, just light gaming, so the x4 is better fit for me. I wouldn't recommend x4 over a intel dual core for heavy gaming though.

 

[ZOXXO]

That cloud looks like an elephant.

 

[bgt]

That cloud looks like an elephant.

 

[Makaveli]

I had a similar experience going from a per core faster C2d dual core cpu to a x4 620 both overclocked to about 3.25-3.5ghz. My take is similar to yours, while doing individual tasks the amd chip is slower and you can clock it. Like unrar or rar but the x4 feels more responsive especially when there's a virus scan in the background. The C2D would stutter and you notice that while the x4 you don't feel the scanning at all.

I do about 7-8 programs at a time w/ 2 VM so the x4 is a clear winner here for me. It feels more responsive while I'm sure individually the program runs slower than C2D. But in real life, I hardly wait for a long running program to complete, just leave it in the background to do its work, so the x4's slower core don't really factor in as much.

However, during gaming which mostly depend on per core speed, I definitely take a hit in fps compare to c2d. But I mostly do multitasking, just light gaming, so the x4 is better fit for me. I wouldn't recommend x4 over a intel dual core for heavy gaming though.

Maybe i'm missing something but you compared a Dual core vs a Quad noticed the quad was faster when running more than one task.

 

[yottabit]

Personally I find it relatively easy to get a dual core to choke but I have a very hard time getting my i5 750 to show any signs of weakness and I consider myself quite a heavy multitasker. Even if I'm folding on my CPU with all 4 cores it still somehow manages to smoothly operate webbrowsing, etc. Sometimes I'll run multiple instances of games just for fun.

 

[Zensch]

Absolutely true. The thing is however there is no experience number available in any test. Thats why I always like to have both sides of the story. In general I find that with all the Intel systems I buy/use/sell the hype around the numbers is always blown out of proportion. I am always amazed how well the AMD's deliver even if they are 10-200% slower in numbers than Intel systems.

My pc: http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1904993

1.664V on the 2500k? Yikes! That is way too high.

 

[yottabit]

1.664V on the 2500k? Yikes! That is way too high.

Holy crap! Seeing as how you can hit ~4 Ghz on stock volts there's a problem there. Unless that's a glitch somehow?

Even the hardcore people are normally arguing about whether 1.5v is safe...