Just swapped my 1090T for a 2500K

[Gigantopithecus]

You bought a new PC without doing your research, that's your fault and no one else's.

Sure the 2500k is FASTER in almost everything than the 1090T, but not by a huge amount and DEFINITELY not something you would 'feel' when using your computer every day.

Probably the biggest gain would be in single or double-threaded applications like many games or non-multi threaded encoding applications.

Expecting the 2500k to be 'night and day' is just silly.

Edit: The 1090T is already faster than 90%+ of other computers anyway, it is not slow...

This, this, this. Any modern dual core is sufficient for routine/everyday applications. Unless you're doing something compute-intense, there's not much difference between a $60 Athlon II X2 250 and a $325 i7-2600K.

The CPU has reached the point where it is so much more powerful than most software applications' requirements that it is no longer that important a consideration when building most computers. The biggest bottlenecks in most computers are the GPU and the HDD.

 

[bgt]

I expected the 2500K to make a difference, not a "night and day difference".
Anyway, as long as people are happy with the SB 2500K's, thats all that counts.
BTW is the i7 2600K a bit snappier? Or is it a minor difference?

 

[tommy2q]

my 2600k at 4ghz with 8 gig of ram is a little snappier than my old opteron at 2.4ghz with 2gig of ram in everyday usage. if you didn't pay close attention, you might not even notice a difference. warcraft 3tft played exactly the same but it's a really old game..

 

[AnandThenMan]

You may or may not be aware of it, or you may simply not care, but it is comments like the one I bolded in your post above (that can be found throughout your posts in this thread) which do little beyond giving rise to the impression that you have an ax to grind with Intel and as such you are very much prejudiced to find some reason to dislike the Intel setup.

When it comes to matters of subjective assessments the question of impartiality is paramount, thus this observation of your demeanor towards Intel in general is relevant and I'd be the fool to wholesale ignore it.

At best you need to divorce yourself (your specific rig and application usage patterns) from that of the generalized audience for which benchmarks are intended to benefit and recognize that you may very well be in the minority owing to a specific app usage pattern you fall into.

I think it is also fair to consider the possibility that the Intel system is simply not as capable of delivering a more seamless user experience. You may not agree with this, but I don't think it's fair to call out this person and more or less say they have an axe to grind, therefore in the process dismissing completely what that have posted as incorrect.

My personal experience (have both an i7 and a 6 core AMD system) shows that the AMD box is just, smoother. It handles multiple tasks better. I don't know exactly why, not sure I care at this point. If I want to do some CPU intensive stuff that will take hours or even days, the i7 is what I'll use. But for general use, zipping around 4-5 programs at random as part of my work flow, I like the AMD rig better.

For some reason there are people that are unable to fathom or accept that AMD can be better at something, because they see the synthetic benches with Intel out front.

 

[bgt]

At last someone notices the difference also. It is strange that there is such a strong preference for the Intel systems while when 1 own them both the outcome is different enough to notice.

 

[bryanW1995]

I expected the 2500K to make a difference, not a "night and day difference".
Anyway, as long as people are happy with the SB 2500K's, thats all that counts.
BTW is the i7 2600K a bit snappier? Or is it a minor difference?

2600k has h/t, which probably won't make any difference to you at all.

 

[Imouto]

[...] when 1 owns them both the outcome is different enough to notice.

Did you mean "isn't"?

 

[VirtualLarry]

I built two identical rigs (well, I showed someone else how to build a computer with one of them, they did most of the work). The CPUs were a little different, though, one had an E5200 (2.5 Ghz dual-core), and the other had an E3300 (2.5Ghz dual-core).

I tested the one I built with the E5200, and it was fairly snappy. I think that was even before I overclocked it to 3.0. Anyways, I didn't notice any slow spots, doing things like opening control panel and the like.

The rig with the E3300, I tested briefly after installing Win7 64-bit (same as the other one, both using the mobo CD for drivers), and it seemed to pause briefly when I clicked on Control Panel.

I couldn't quite put my finger on it.

The HD in the E3300 rig, had been in a car in the hot sun for a while. (Otherwise identical HDs in both rigs.)

Whether it was down to 1MB less L2 cache, or a HD that had gotten degraded due to heat in a car, I don't know. All I know was that an otherwise nearly-identical rig had unexplained, noticeable, lag.

 

[bgt]

Did you mean "isn't"?

No mistake. There IS a difference in experience between the 2500K and the 1090T in using it for daily work. Since I use them continiously(about 8 hours/day) for my work and I have them both face to face it is quite easy to notice the difference. I use them for installing SW/HW repairs/extracting/collecting files etc. And games....no difference.

 

[bgt]

I built two identical rigs (well, I showed someone else how to build a computer with one of them, they did most of the work). The CPUs were a little different, though, one had an E5200 (2.5 Ghz dual-core), and the other had an E3300 (2.5Ghz dual-core).

I tested the one I built with the E5200, and it was fairly snappy. I think that was even before I overclocked it to 3.0. Anyways, I didn't notice any slow spots, doing things like opening control panel and the like.

The rig with the E3300, I tested briefly after installing Win7 64-bit (same as the other one, both using the mobo CD for drivers), and it seemed to pause briefly when I clicked on Control Panel.

I couldn't quite put my finger on it.

The HD in the E3300 rig, had been in a car in the hot sun for a while. (Otherwise identical HDs in both rigs.)

Whether it was down to 1MB less L2 cache, or a HD that had gotten degraded due to heat in a car, I don't know. All I know was that an otherwise nearly-identical rig had unexplained, noticeable, lag.

I only use SSD's for the Windows system so I have no lag.