Considering 2500k over 2600k

T

TorxT3D

Gawd
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
649
im starting to come to my senses on spending my money wisely.
i didnt know how good the 2500k overclocked until i started reading around.. ive already got an h50 ready for it, so out of the box im looking to oc to 4ghz.. i think that'll be plenty for myself and what i do.

BUT i need to make sure its the right decision away from buying the 2600k.
Of course, gaming, all the latest crap...
The only intensive thing i do with my computer is using photoshop, convertx2dvd or maybe handbrake for converting movie files to dvd.

This upcoming week, or next week i'll be making the purchase, so i need some reassurance. :)
I could save $150 and put that towards a nice ssd (C300, or C400/vertex3 whenever that comes out)
 
i would use that $150 to get a ssd or wait until the new intel g3's come out. 4ghz quad core will be good for anything in this day and age.

i use a core i3 540 o/c 4.2 and i add'd ssd it was the big upgrade i could see on everything. it made my computer lighting fast to me.

but at the end of the day its your money. you do what makes you happy
 
For a $150 difference I wouldn't either, unless you are using it in a time = money scenario (such as for professional use). The 2600k for sure does not offer a performance increase proportionate to its price even for apps that take advantage of hyper threading.

As far as I know the OC difference is for sure not worth the price difference, it really depends on luck of draw. Some review sites I believe received 2500ks which clocked higher than the 2600ks they received. Mainly factor in the addition of hyper threading, and to a lesser extent the possible importance of the larger cache size in the future.

I was actually considering the same choice, and for me the difference was only $98 dollars. I decided to drop down the 2500k though, and use that money for other things. Part of my reasoning though was I would try to resell and switch to an Ivybridge later on, and the upgrade would feel larger by getting something lower now.
 
For most people the 2500k is the best choice. It can oc almost as much as the 2600k and it performs about the same in pretty much every game. You just wont have hyper threading.
 
TorxT3D said:
Of course, gaming, all the latest crap...
Click to expand...

That means you want to be current. You're looking at 2 or 3 years before you upgrade again (if you wait that long) and in my mind it isn't likely the 2600 would extend the time before your next upgrade in any way. I'd say 2500 and spend the cash elsewhere.

Unless you think HT and 2MB of L3 is going to get you another year ;)
 
Saying that "reviewers received 2500k's that overclocked higher than 2600k's" is somewhat of a fallicy in reasoning. I can come and say "hey! I received a 2600k that overclocked higher than another 2600k with HT off!" See how utterly stupid that sounds?

You need a suitable sample size of 2500k's comparing 2600k's with HT disabled, before you can make a valid conclusion.

And from what I've seen, 2600k's as a whole, tend to go a bit higher than the average 2500k's, but there are exceptions.

And even more so, when disabling Hyper Threading on a 2600k *always* allows you to clock a bit higher *or* lower the vcore a few notches.

Overclocking on these SB chips are complete luck of the draw. Batch numbers mean nothing. What does seem to mean something is the default VID of the chips, which more often than not, relate to the highest absolute multiplier attainable without needing PLL overvoltage, and the voltage required for 5 ghz on air.

Two identical batch numbers can vary greatly...

And, unless you're completely broke, it's always better to have more features for a rainy day. HT *is* useful, and when games start being able to utilize more than four threads correctly, you'll be glad you have HT. *even more if you're on a budget*.

If you plan on keeping your CPU more than a year, go with the 2600k. If you plan on ditching it for Ivy Bridge, then go with the 2500k.
 
I love HT, makes gaming so much smoother. Some games use 8 threads - other times I think it gives the game 4 threads and 4 threads are left for the OS to do things in the background. Either way, I prefer to have HT.

Went from a 4.8Ghz 2500k to 4.8Ghz 2600k.
 
I have a 2600K, but if I had to do it again, I'd get the 2500K - and my usage is probably pretty similar to what you say you will be doing. I vote for getting the 2500K and spending the extra cash on some other component.
 
I had a 2600K before, but I'm going with the 2500K when the boards start shipping again.
 
Falkentyne said:
Saying that "reviewers received 2500k's that overclocked higher than 2600k's" is somewhat of a fallicy in reasoning. I can come and say "hey! I received a 2600k that overclocked higher than another 2600k with HT off!" See how utterly stupid that sounds?
Click to expand...

My example of the 2500k OCing higher than the 2600k was to point out the exact same thing you are saying, that it is "luck of the draw," and that buying a 2600k, and in this case for more than the usual price difference, simply to get a higher clock is not worth it. What you are paying for when you get a 2600k is hyperthreading and the 2mb cache.

Also hyperthreading is a bit misleading, it isn't the same as 8 actual cores, no where close. If you look at heavily multithreaded CPU benchmarks, which would show a difference more so than any future game, the performance difference is simply not there even for those from a value stand point.

Does this mean the 2600k is bad in terms of value? It certainly beats (by a lot) moving up the 6 core first gen i7s if you need the extra multithreaded performance, but you are paying for greatly diminishing returns compared to the 2500k. The 2600k is a higher end premium product, and like most, you pay a premium for it.

I cannot see any reason to recommend a 2600k for gaming though unless you already have a very high end GPU setup and monitor setup already, as that money ($150 in this case) would give you much better results in those areas.
 
Forceman said:
I have a 2600K, but if I had to do it again, I'd get the 2500K - and my usage is probably pretty similar to what you say you will be doing. I vote for getting the 2500K and spending the extra cash on some other component.
Click to expand...

This.

I don't really regret the decision, I don't think you would either. But, if cash is really an issue I don't think you're getting your money's worth compared to the 2500.

I have seen a lot of people saying that gaming is smoother with HT than without it, and I have seen a lot of people say the opposite. I'm not so sure the result is related to HT as it is related to the rest of the system. Fine tuning a PC is not as easy as you'd think, and more is not always better.

The bottom line is that at the end of the day the 2000 series of processors are quad core. HT doesn't change that and when the games or programs you are running really start to demand 8 cores it will painfully show, HT or no HT.
 
By the time a 2600k is *slow*, actual 8 core cpu's will be mainstream. So that point is moot.

But if you are buying an upgrade and plan to sit on it for a few years (example: married couples who are limited in how much money they can spend), then it makes sense to go with the HT and the 2 mb of cache. And a 4 core CPU with 8 threads WILL perform significantly better than a 4 core 4 thread CPU. GTA4 already proved that (this game can use 8 threads), two years ago, where an overclocked QX9650 got simply dominated by a stock i7-920 at 2.6 (2.8?) ghz. That was the only game at that time that was massively cpu limited. And it was HT that made the difference here. Normally, a 4 ghz QX should be at least as fast as a stock 920 with HT off.
 
2500's might oc a little better because of the lack of hyperthreading, but it's really a good feature to have. I'll take my 2600K at 5 ghz WITH hyperthreading thank you. :cool:
 
Falkentyne said:
By the time a 2600k is *slow*, actual 8 core cpu's will be mainstream.
Click to expand...

Let's hope so, I'd hate for my next upgrade to be to another quad core.

That's kind of the point, though. By the time its slow you'll need to move on to 8 cores anyway. 2MB of L3 and HT will not stop this.
 
I always say buy the best you can afford at any given time.

By "best" I mean, I would sooner have a 2500K with an SSD than a 2600K without, but that's just me. SSD drive in itself speeds things up no end. For day to day use, SSD is an absolute joy to have inside your machine. Needs to be used and felt to be understood.
 
awesome, i think the decision is made for 2500k + ssd. thanks for all the replies... :D
 
I have a 2500k, and it can do pretty much anything I can throw at it.

The 2600k isn't worth the price premium to me.
 
TorxT3D said:
im starting to come to my senses on spending my money wisely.
i didnt know how good the 2500k overclocked until i started reading around.. ive already got an h50 ready for it, so out of the box im looking to oc to 4ghz.. i think that'll be plenty for myself and what i do.

BUT i need to make sure its the right decision away from buying the 2600k.
Of course, gaming, all the latest crap...
The only intensive thing i do with my computer is using photoshop, convertx2dvd or maybe handbrake for converting movie files to dvd.

This upcoming week, or next week i'll be making the purchase, so i need some reassurance. :)
I could save $150 and put that towards a nice ssd (C300, or C400/vertex3 whenever that comes out)
Click to expand...

I think you pretty much answered your own question! 2500k for the win. You'll feel much better next time you want to upgrade since you haven't sunk a lot of $$ in the current system
 
As others said, it is the better deal for sure. The highest end stuff always costs more and gets you less. The only thing that really makes it worth it is hyperthreading and that is only worth it in real specialized situations. Nothing you've listed qualifies. While handbrake is CPU intensive, it doesn't benefit from HT since each thread uses 100% CPU. It only benefits from more cores. Photoshop just doesn't need the kind of CPU power we've got these days, unless your images are just massive.

Gaming is probably the least core intensive thing out there. Most games only use 2 cores well. Some can use more, but they don't do much with them. There are a few games that'll use 4, but that is rare and really it.

Only place you'd probably find it useful is something like video processing or the like. If you had lots of separate plugins, all of which needed CPU time but not tons of it, more hardware threads would help things run faster/smoother. Virtual Machines would be another area. If you have tons of VMs the context switching can get real heavy and HT can help. Of course in practice it always tends to be disk that limits them anyhow.

So if you need to keep the cost down, get a 2500 and be happy. It'll do all you need easily and save you some cash. I'm not saying don't get a 2600 if you really want one, it's features aren't completely useless, just not worth the money for a gaming rig. As such if saving money is the order of the day the 2500 is a wonderful choice.
 
So, all else being equal, assuming decent yields from both CPUs, which one has the higher OC potential? 4.6 with a modest voltage bump seems very doable on almost all 2600Ks. Is that the case with almost all 2500Ks? 4.6?
I'm coming from a 920 @ 4.0/3.8. I don't want to upgrade to a 2500K if they typically only see 4.2/4.3 max OCs.
 
Brahmzy:
If you aren't hurting for cash, then definitely get the 2600k. It's always a wise choice to buy as much CPU as you can afford, until it simply isn't worth it anymore (EE land). You won't be disappointed. I bought a 2600k and I'd buy a second one if I had to do it all over again.

HT has its uses. Those BFBC2 and those old GTA4 benchmarks/screenies already proved that.
I'd only buy the 2500k if I were low on money and had to cut back somewhere, or if I didn't plan on keeping the chip more than a few months.

There's an OC survey on both here and XS, so you can see how the chips are doing.
 
Brahmzy said:
So, all else being equal, assuming decent yields from both CPUs, which one has the higher OC potential? 4.6 with a modest voltage bump seems very doable on almost all 2600Ks. Is that the case with almost all 2500Ks? 4.6?
I'm coming from a 920 @ 4.0/3.8. I don't want to upgrade to a 2500K if they typically only see 4.2/4.3 max OCs.
Click to expand...

The lowest I've seen anyone be able to go with a 2500k is 4.4, and that's with pll overvoltage disabled. Most can hit 4.6 pretty easily.

Incase you don't know, pll overvoltage is an added feature in newer BIOS versions for sandy bridge motherboards that let you overclock higher than you would be able to otherwise.

On most boards you should be able to hit 4.6 ghz with 1.3 to 1.35 volts.

If you look at my signature, you'll see that I hit 4.8 ghz on 1.38 volts, but to be fair, I do have an above average chip.
 
Ordered a 2600K and some G.Skill goodness a few hours ago. Now just need the the P8P67-D and 2 Vertex 3's to be released!
 
Sunny_Stefan said:
Why did you choose the 2600k over the 2500k?
Click to expand...

Not quite sure, other than I have HT now and resale when I go Ivy Bridge will fetch more than a 2500K... In the grand scheme of things (i.e. whopper tax returns :D ) $100 ain't nuthin'.
 
grabbed the 2500k + gd65 + 4gb gskill ripjaws-x 1333 thursday.

the 2500k was a no brainer thanks to you all (and my limited funds), the msi board will look great with a matching twin frozr, and the gskill 1333 can apparently be tweaked to 1600 speeds without overclocking... overclocks great too if i wanna do that.
but from what ive read i dont think ram really has anything to offer on p67 setups??

either way, im pretty sure i'll be satisfied, esp coming off this old athlon 64/k8n neo2. lol
 
It depends somewhat. There are minor improvements for some uses with faster ram with diminishing returns past 1600 CL9. For typical gaming, basically none past 1333 CL9, which is stock speed. Going to 2x4gb would be the better option before considering 1600 speed ram.
 
TorxT3D said:
grabbed the 2500k + gd65 + 4gb gskill ripjaws-x 1333 thursday.

the 2500k was a no brainer thanks to you all (and my limited funds), the msi board will look great with a matching twin frozr, and the gskill 1333 can apparently be tweaked to 1600 speeds without overclocking... overclocks great too if i wanna do that.
but from what ive read i dont think ram really has anything to offer on p67 setups??

either way, im pretty sure i'll be satisfied, esp coming off this old athlon 64/k8n neo2. lol
Click to expand...

You want the expensive RAM only if you're in a benchmarking contest. You can get some nice results on benches.
If you're just a pure gamer, forget it. Unless you want to spend an extra $150 for a couple higher fps...and that's assuming you aren't video limited....
 
I bought a 2600K because I wanted the HT. I do a lot of encoding and it has been worth it to me. My previous CPU's without HT would cause my system to lockup for a few seconds here and there which I believe caused some coasters from time to time. Since upgrading to the 2600K I haven't had a coaster and my system runs super smooth when I am encoding and performing other task at the same time. Maybe HT is the reason. Plus, I upgrade once every two or three years and I wanted the best during that time period. The good thing about buying the top of the line component is that you don't have to second guess yourself if you got the best.
 
the 2600k has 2mb more cache than the 2500k and it usually clocks higher
 
It's probably in my head but I could swear HT makes everything snappier and smoother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top