To 2600K or not to 2600K : That is the question

[Spike]

yes the 2500k is the better cpu if gaming is the highest concern.

That's my thought. I splurged on a 6970 so I really should be looking to save some cash elsewhere.

However, lets say I get into video encoding, which I am thinking about, how much will the lack of ht penalize me? Is the difference a matter of hours, minutes, or seconds for an average movie? Anyone else decide to go with an i5 last gen and regret it for the lack of ht?

 

[toyota]

That's my thought. I splurged on a 6970 so I really should be looking to save some cash elsewhere.

However, lets say I get into video encoding, which I am thinking about, how much will the lack of ht penalize me? Is the difference a matter of hours, minutes, or seconds for an average movie? Anyone else decide to go with an i5 last gen and regret it for the lack of ht?

well look at reviews and decide for yourself.

 

[Makuab]

I dont understand, are there even any games that can utilize the full power of a 2600k? or even any of the sandybridge CPUs?
My friend and I are still on 775 and we can play almost every game smoothly.

 

[toyota]

I dont understand, are there even any games that can utilize the full power of a 2600k? or even any of the sandybridge CPUs?

no not really. by the time someone has a gpu that will make the 2500K a limitation we will have faster cpus for the same amount of money anyway.

 

[Castiel]

I wish the reviews would have had some BC2 benches. Would make my decision SO much easier

 

[toyota]

I wish the reviews would have had some BC2 benches. Would make my decision SO much easier

you have to be kidding. NO cpu is going to make ANY difference in ANY game over what you have now. and have you even looked at reviews because some used BC 2?

http://www.legionhardware.com/artic..._2500k_and_core_i7_2600k_sandy_bridge,12.html

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-2500k-and-core-i7-2600k-review/21

 

[Castiel]

you have to be kidding. NO cpu is going to make ANY difference in ANY game over what you have now. and have you even looked at reviews because some used BC 2?

I looked at all the reviews. I still can't decide. :biggrin:

 

[CosmicMight]

I dont understand, are there even any games that can utilize the full power of a 2600k? or even any of the sandybridge CPUs?

Most people factor budget into buying a new proc, so they try to squeeze as much life and performance out of their chip for as long as possible. Most people (myself included for both of these btw) also are distracted by shiny benchmarks, whether they know they need it or not.

Having said that, you are obviously correct. People have said all along that 760 performance is fine for 90% of most people using their pc for games + general use. If that chip was substantially cheaper than SB, it would still be worth a look - but the price/performance is wildly skewed toward SB.

This is why I don't understand the bitter 1366 users; your system is still baller and you get another 18-24 months out of it easy. For those of us who are running E-series (and perhaps 1156) chips however, SB is such a no-brainer it's not even funny.

 

[jimhsu]

Most people factor budget into buying a new proc, so they try to squeeze as much life and performance out of their chip for as long as possible. Most people (myself included for both of these btw) also are distracted by shiny benchmarks, whether they know they need it or not.

Having said that, you are obviously correct. People have said all along that 760 performance is fine for 90% of most people using their pc for games + general use. If that chip was substantially cheaper than SB, it would still be worth a look - but the price/performance is wildly skewed toward SB.

This is why I don't understand the bitter 1366 users; your system is still baller and you get another 18-24 months out of it easy. For those of us who are running E-series (and perhaps 1156) chips however, SB is such a no-brainer it's not even funny.

@ whether SB is an improvement over the i processors:

Yes, for minimum frame rates in certain classes of games (RTSes, simulations being the big culprits). Makes the difference between playable and "argh too frustrating to play".

To list a few at random:
Starcraft II
Dragon Age
Supreme Commander (say, 80x80 maps with 7 AIs)
X3 Terran Conflict (in all sorts of random places)
Distant Worlds (which defies the concept of what a modern game IS and uses massive CPU power with hardly any GPU)
Civilization 5 (http://techreport.com/articles.x/20188/8)

Unfortunately most games still can't utilize more than 2 threads, so vector performance matters a lot. Hence where Sandy bridge (with overclockability and some IPC improvements come in).

2500K vs 2600K for gaming. No, I don't suppose it matters, or will matter, one bit. Get the cheaper one.

But I haven't even migrated to any of the i-series processors yet, so my opinion doesn't really matter.

 

[CosmicMight]

@ whether SB is an improvement over the i processors:

Yes, for minimum frame rates in certain classes of games (RTSes, simulations being the big culprits). Makes the difference between playable and "argh too frustrating to play".

To list a few at random:
Starcraft II
Dragon Age
Supreme Commander (say, 80x80 maps with 7 AIs)
X3 Terran Conflict (in all sorts of random places)
Distant Worlds (which defies the concept of what a modern game IS and uses massive CPU power with hardly any GPU)
Civilization 5 (http://techreport.com/articles.x/20188/8)

Unfortunately most games still can't utilize more than 2 threads, so vector performance matters a lot. Hence where Sandy bridge (with overclockability and some IPC improvements come in).

2500K vs 2600K for gaming. No, I don't suppose it matters, or will matter, one bit. Get the cheaper one.

But I haven't even migrated to any of the i-series processors yet, so my opinion doesn't really matter.

I am a big SB homer, but if I had an 870+ I wouldn't bother with it, even for SC2. But many other users and I have far less powerful pcs.

I would certainly not agree that your opinion doesn't matter and you'll get no argument from me on any of your points. I have often quoted SC2 as a reason to go SB, that and the other games you listed would fall into the 10%.

 

[shabby]

The other side of the coin though is get the cheaper 2500k, and then swap it for a 22nm 6-core cpu in 12 months time. They should support the same motherboard.

Knowing intel they'll add one new feature, take out a pin and presto... gotta get a new mobo.
I think im gonna go with the 2500k, don't think i use any special apps that would get a boost form ht/extra cache.

 

[Edrick]

I have decided to go for the 2500K and save the $100. Only reason is because I will be upgrading to LGA2011 this year. If I did not plan to upgrade so soon, there would be no question I would get a 2600K.

 

[jimhsu]

I am a big SB homer, but if I had an 870+ I wouldn't bother with it, even for SC2. But many other users and I have far less powerful pcs.

I would certainly not agree that your opinion doesn't matter and you'll get no argument from me on any of your points. I have often quoted SC2 as a reason to go SB, that and the other games you listed would fall into the 10%.

Agree with the assessment that current 1366 people shouldn't have a reason to upgrade, unless they simply don't care about the cost - in which case they shouldn't care about this thread. If I had a 870 or 920 instead of a Core 2 Duo series, I wouldn't care - until 2011, which might bring something interesting though.

 

[Castiel]

you have to be kidding. NO cpu is going to make ANY difference in ANY game over what you have now. and have you even looked at reviews because some used BC 2?

http://www.legionhardware.com/artic..._2500k_and_core_i7_2600k_sandy_bridge,12.html

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-2500k-and-core-i7-2600k-review/21

Appreciate you taking the time to find those for me.

 

[Anomaly1964]

at least 2600k? there is nothing above 2600k. and if this is for gaming then the 2500k makes more sense.

Newb time, can you tell me why?

 

[toyota]

Newb time, can you tell me why?

why the 2500K makes more sense? well its 100 bucks cheaper and gives the same performance in games. by the time a 2500k starts being a limitation we will have much faster cpus to choose from.

 

[Jumpem]

I would go 2600. I have no intention to overclock, so the extra $23 for a "K" is a waste.

 

[toyota]

I would go 2600. I have no intention to overclock, so the extra $23 for a "K" is a waste.

why? that extra 23 bucks can keep the cpu relevant for much longer. and even a monkey can oc these cpus.

 

[Jumpem]

why? that extra 23 bucks can keep the cpu relevant for much longer. and even a monkey can oc these cpus.

I've lost interest in it. I don't want to tweak. I want to put together, install Windows, and be done with it.

 

[toyota]

I've lost interest in it. I don't want to tweak. I want to put together, install Windows, and be done with it.

well I could understand that but Sandy Bridge is insanely easy. an overclock to 4.0 will require nothing more than setting the multi to 40.

 

[Red Storm]

why? that extra 23 bucks can keep the cpu relevant for much longer. and even a monkey can oc these cpus.

Indeed. There is no reason at all to not get a K series chip if you're building an SB rig, it seems to overclock very easily.

That being said, I do not like the lockdown Intel has put on low end OCing, those are by far the funnest chips to crank up! It's always a nice feeling to get high end performance for low end price. Here's hoping that AMD does not follow Intel's lead in this regard.

 

[amenx]

I think SB is overhyped in many reviews. I hate it when a review puts a 3.4ghz 2600k against a 2.9ghz i7 950 and concluding its a big step forward performance-wise. This aside from SBs enhanced turbo-boost. SHOW ME THE SAME CHIPS IN GAMING BENCHMARKS AT SAME CLOCKS, NO TURBO-BOOST. Then we'll really see how unimpressive SB really is. Dont get me wrong, in selected non-gaming (and synth) benches it may give a better result, but thats it. I'll wait for SB's successor before I move from my i5-760.

 

[toyota]

I think SB is overhyped in many reviews. I hate it when a review puts a 3.4ghz 2600k against a 2.9ghz i7 950 and concluding its a big step forward performance-wise. This aside from SBs enhanced turbo-boost. SHOW ME THE SAME CHIPS IN GAMING BENCHMARKS AT SAME CLOCKS, NO TURBO-BOOST. Then we'll really see how unimpressive SB really is. Dont get me wrong, in selected non-gaming (and synth) benches it may give a better result, but thats it. I'll wait for SB's successor before I move from my i5-760.

well you are missing the point. SB comes stock with faster clocks, is slightly faster clock for clock, will oc MUCH better than an i7 950 while using MUCH less power for the SAME amount of money or cheaper. but yes if you have a current i5/i7 there is no need to go Sandy Bridge for now.

 

[IntelUser2000]

I think SB is overhyped in many reviews. I hate it when a review puts a 3.4ghz 2600k against a 2.9ghz i7 950 and concluding its a big step forward performance-wise. This aside from SBs enhanced turbo-boost. SHOW ME THE SAME CHIPS IN GAMING BENCHMARKS AT SAME CLOCKS, NO TURBO-BOOST. Then we'll really see how unimpressive SB really is. Dont get me wrong, in selected non-gaming (and synth) benches it may give a better result, but thats it. I'll wait for SB's successor before I move from my i5-760.

1. They cost the same
2. i7 950 is 3.06GHz, and can sustain 3.20GHz with Turbo, 2600's sustained multi core frequency is 3.5GHz: http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//...ask=view&id=98&Itemid=42&limit=1&limitstart=2
3. Games were always GPU bound, even at moderate settings and a top notch graphics card

 

[amenx]

Btw, SB is ideal for non-enthusiasts and non-overclockers because of its high ghz and enhanced turbo-boost. For that type of consumer (probably 90% of the market), SB is a huge win and a brilliant marketing design by Intel. Thats who Intel designed these chips for, not for enthusiasts at Anandtech (unless they are still on dual cores wanting to go quad).