• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Recommend me a CPU

D

DrewSG3

Senior member
Right now I'm rocking a Q9300, while it's a decent chip, it's starting to show it's age, especially now that I'm dealing with 1080p encoding and stuff like that for my HTPC.

So, my question is do I wait for an Bulldozer for an affordable 8 core, or should I go with a 2600k now and be done with it? If Bulldozer is coming out next month or so, I can wait

Main use for my PC

1) Encoding, especially 1080p files
2) Gaming
3) HTPC which I may spin off
 
If you're doing a lot of encoding, the 2600K is the way to go. You can wait for Bulldozer, but if I'm not mistaken, each pair of BD cores shares an FPU unit which is important for encoding.
 
If you can wait then wait. For encoding Bulldozer might work better for the same price for gaming my personal opinion is that it will not.
 
I am still rockin a C2D E6400 @ 3ghz myself. With the release of the 2500k, it has definitely tempted me to upgrade now. I think the best bang 4 buck cpu is clearly the 2500k that can be overclocked on air fairly easily. A $200 cpu that basically dominates all others heh. It is even on sale right now at microcenter for $180, but unfortunately, not online. The 2600k is a waste of money if you ask me. Why pay more for something you can get with the cheaper 2500k anyways.
 
Last edited:
Fallengod said:
The 2600k is a waste of money if you ask me. Why pay more for something you can get with the cheaper 2500k anyways.
Click to expand...

Because the OP stated this:

DrewSG3 said:
Main use for my PC

1) Encoding, especially 1080p files
2) Gaming
3) HTPC which I may spin off
Click to expand...

HT makes a significant difference in video encoding. Encoders such as x264 will make use of as many cores (real or virtual) that you can throw at it.

35043.png


As seen above, the 2600K is about 25% faster than the 2500K at stock clocks. If we compensate for the difference in clocks, it's still almost 22%. This means a 6 hour encode on the 2500K would take a little less than 5 hours on the 2600K (at the same clock speed). That's pretty significant.
 
When you say HTPC, are you going to be running it in a small enclosure near your TV? Meaning heat and sound levels are important to you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top