Major upgrade. 2500k or 2600k?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
T

TemjinGold

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2006
3,050
65
91
I kept my current system (with the exception of the graphics of course) for 6 years and would've kept it longer if my Ballistix wasn't failing repeatedly. Yes, I could just buy new ram but I don't like buying into a dying standard since I'm using DDR2. The system IS also starting to feel a little old.

I plan on getting new CPU/mobo/ram (and a niftier SATA6.0 SSD once Corsair and Sandforce fix their issues.) I will quite likely keep this system for even longer than 6 years as long as nothing breaks (staying AWAY from Ballistix this time) and computing itself doesn't miraculously take a quantum leap.

With that said, I'm wondering if I should go 2500k or 2600k. I mostly just game and do other less intensive stuff (I don't encode video and the like.) I understand that for folks keeping their system ~2-3 years, the 2500k is the smarter buy. Would it make a difference for someone like me who will keep their system much longer? It isn't an issue of affordability but I hate paying extra for stuff I won't use.

Edit: Forgot to ask - My HX520 is still going strong but it HAS been 6 years. Should I be worried about scouting out a replacement or do you think I'm good?
 
D

dma0991

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2011
2,723
1
0
Your usage seems to be mostly games so it is better to get a Core i5 2500K instead. The extra threads from HT will be idle most of the time if you're not using softwares that are heavily threaded. Get the Core i5 2500K and overclock it to 4.5GHz. :biggrin:

You could use the PSU but since it is 6 years old I suggest changing it anyways due to the components aged and being less efficient than they were when they are brand new. Buy a new PSU and keep the HX520 around as a spare just in case you want to test something.
 
Arachnotronic

Arachnotronic

Lifer
Mar 10, 2006
11,715
2,012
126
Get the 2600k. Games are moving increasingly towards being more threaded. A bigger cache also never hurt!
 
T

TemjinGold

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2006
3,050
65
91
OCNewbie said:
Processor in your sig was released 3 years ago, according to - http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=33932

3 years != 6 years

As for your question: I believe the biggest difference between the 2500 and 2600 is hyper-threading, no?
Click to expand...

Hmm... strange... perhaps I had an interim upgrade I forgot about! Haha nice catch. In any case, the point stands that I will likely keep this new one for at least 6 years. If I made any changes, it was due to stuff not working, NOT due to an urge to upgrade for speed.
 
T

TemjinGold

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2006
3,050
65
91
Intel17 said:
Get the 2600k. Games are moving increasingly towards being more threaded. A bigger cache also never hurt!
Click to expand...

This is the main thing I'm wondering. I doubt hyperthreading will matter much for my use because if cores becomes a bottleneck, I should probably be upgrading at that point. I'm mostly wondering what the difference will be with that extra 2 mb of cache.
 
Arachnotronic

Arachnotronic

Lifer
Mar 10, 2006
11,715
2,012
126
If you want to keep your new machine for ~6 years, I suggest you hold off until Bulldozer. Having 8 cores and a solid upgrade path (Enhanced Bulldozer) would do wonders to future-proof your build.
 
T

TemjinGold

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2006
3,050
65
91
Hmm... when is that coming out? See, this isn't just an upgrade--my current machine is actually barely working and on its last legs. I can hold out for about a month maybe but I don't want to push it because I work on this computer as well.
 
Arachnotronic

Arachnotronic

Lifer
Mar 10, 2006
11,715
2,012
126
Well, then how about an i7-970? Per core you lose ~10% on SNB, but you have 50% more cores...and the x58 platform is NICE.
 
R

RyanGreener

Senior member
Nov 9, 2009
550
0
76
Holding off for unknown performance (Bulldozer) doesn't seem to be an option for you. Sure, it may be intriguing, but you might as well go with what's out right now so you know everything is worked out and tested (no unexpected bugs/etc.)

Go with a 2500k. The 2600k won't really do much for your purposes, and hyperthreading isn't that useful for games as far as I know. Plus, the 2500k is cheaper :p

Another thing I'd like to add is that the 2500k (or Sandy Bridge in general) is so much better/faster then pretty much everything out right now that I highly doubt you'll need to swap it out in years unless games get much harder to run. If anything, just overclock the 2500k. It's easy and highly overclockable.
 
Arachnotronic

Arachnotronic

Lifer
Mar 10, 2006
11,715
2,012
126
Why would we recommend a quad core to someone who wants their rig to last 6 years? In the last 6 years we went from single -> dual -> quad -> hex at the top end with 8 core soon to drop.

Go with an i7 970 and a solid x58 board. LGA 1155 is a dead end platform that maxes out at 4 cores. Don't do it!
 
T

TemjinGold

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2006
3,050
65
91
Thanks, everyone. It looks like the 2500k is better for me. Just one last thing though--does anyone know what impact the extra 2mb cache on the 2600k has? I don't value the HT but that 2mb cache has me wondering...
 
T

TemjinGold

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2006
3,050
65
91
Intel17 said:
Why would we recommend a quad core to someone who wants their rig to last 6 years? In the last 6 years we went from single -> dual -> quad -> hex at the top end with 8 core soon to drop.

Go with an i7 970 and a solid x58 board. LGA 1155 is a dead end platform that maxes out at 4 cores. Don't do it!
Click to expand...

A valid point but consider that for gaming, most games STILL don't take much advantage of more than 2 cores in 6 years time. Dead end platforms don't bother me because I replace the mobo every time I replace the cpu. In the ~20 years I've been building computers for myself, I've never once replaced just the cpu.
 
R

RyanGreener

Senior member
Nov 9, 2009
550
0
76
Intel17 said:
Why would we recommend a quad core to someone who wants their rig to last 6 years? In the last 6 years we went from single -> dual -> quad -> hex at the top end with 8 core soon to drop.

Go with an i7 970 and a solid x58 board. LGA 1155 is a dead end platform that maxes out at 4 cores. Don't do it!
Click to expand...

Easy, because the quad core makes sense for his needs right now and will most likely meet them for the future because of how fast it is compared to EVERYTHING right now, especially when overclocked. Not to mention games may take advantage of more than 4 cores (i haven't been keeping up with PC gaming because I don't PC game) but I doubt many of them do right now. Even if they do, who cares? Sure, it can take advantage of 6-8 cores, but 4 Sandy Bridge cores are pretty damn fast right now.
 
Arachnotronic

Arachnotronic

Lifer
Mar 10, 2006
11,715
2,012
126
All I'm saying is: SNB quad may be "super fast" now (I don't really get why people are excited over it versus Bloomfield/Lynnfield), but in two years it'll look pretty dated.
 
R

RyanGreener

Senior member
Nov 9, 2009
550
0
76
Intel17 said:
All I'm saying is: SNB quad may be "super fast" now (I don't really get why people are excited over it versus Bloomfield/Lynnfield), but in two years it'll look pretty dated.
Click to expand...

Anything in 2 years will look pretty dated. Socket 1366 is more dead-end then 1155 to me.
 
T

TemjinGold

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2006
3,050
65
91
Intel17 said:
All I'm saying is: SNB quad may be "super fast" now (I don't really get why people are excited over it versus Bloomfield/Lynnfield), but in two years it'll look pretty dated.
Click to expand...

Well the 970 does look nice. Too bad it costs 3x as much...
 
D

dma0991

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2011
2,723
1
0
TemjinGold said:
Thanks, that seals it. I don't think the 2600k is worth the extra $100.
Click to expand...

The Core i7 2600K is definitely not worth the extra $100 when it can be spent on a SSD that would definitely give a significantly higher performance boost.
 
sm625

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,172
137
106
2500K + $100 more of gpu seems like a no brainer vs a 2600k. I dont know why anyone would recommend a 2600k. Even more ram or a boot SSD make more sense. Hell, $100 in lotto tickets makes more sense.
 
T

TemjinGold

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2006
3,050
65
91
Haha now I'm curious: Is the 2600k still not worth the $100 if that $100 won't be spent elsewhere? I ask because the rest of my build will not change whether I go with 2500k or 2600k. I'm not compromising anywhere else that's dependent on this $100.
 
Arachnotronic

Arachnotronic

Lifer
Mar 10, 2006
11,715
2,012
126
If you insist on LGA 1155, I still recommend the 2600k. Things will be get more threaded soon...and HT will be useful (and more cache is ALWAYS good).

However, if you go with the 2500k, it's still a *fantastic* chip and I think you'll see a lot of good CPU computing for years to come :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom