E8600 @ 4.5ghz, is the bump to 2600K worth it?

T

The-Tmann

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 8, 2001
Messages
5,540
I have a rock solid low vid e8600 (on quiet air), all stable.

If I can pull 5 Ghz. on air w/ a 2600k I'm ready to do so
is 5Ghz common enough to expect this?
if so it is even worth the $ time and hassle to build a new pc?
I game and do some light vid editing and basic PC tasks.

If I can't go 5ghz + I won't bother...:)
LMK!
 
Depending on how much voltage you want to push into it. I think 4.8ghz is the common clock. I cant speak aboutthe 2600k from experience, but my 2500k does 4.8ghz at 1.38 volts. I think it will do 5ghz with 1.42-1.45 but i have not tried.
 
Just running a 2600k at 4.5 ghz (every 2600k should be able to reach this unless you have the worst possible batch, and even those should do it at 1.4v) will give you at least a 35% speed boost in single threaded programs. And for programs that use more than two cores? Well, you already know the answer to that.
 
What kinda voltage you running that e8600 @ for 4.5?
 
I would wait. Prices will eventually drop, maybe not this year but early next year. Then it will be worth the upgrade - there isn't anything out right now that you need the quad for, the 8600 will run all your games just fine (especially with that nice OC!)

btw, for the record I do have the 2600K and i had an E6850 @ 3.6Ghz before. IMHO while playing most of the same games I was playing before the difference I am seeing is negligible. There are noticeable improvements in a limited amount of games, (BC2, MAFIA2 mostly) But those were at acceptable levels before anyway, so no big deal.
 
The T-man said:
I have a rock solid low vid e8600 (on quiet air), all stable.

If I can pull 5 Ghz. on air w/ a 2600k I'm ready to do so
is 5Ghz common enough to expect this?
if so it is even worth the $ time and hassle to build a new pc?
I game and do some light vid editing and basic PC tasks.

If I can't go 5ghz + I won't bother...:)
LMK!
Click to expand...

Intel should've made a i3 2100K for 150.00 just for you, and me. :( But truthfully Intel is only in the buisness of price gouging the customers it has ;)

Though IMO you need a quad or hex in this day and age for gaming. So I'm not sure if I would have gotten one...
 
But truthfully Intel is only in the buisness of price gouging the customers it has
Click to expand...

Intel can do that because it only has a very weak competition for the whole SB lineup especially when it comes to games. Hopefully buldozer has something on the desktop or things will get worse.
 
I think it's worth it. (kinda) :D

Having a quad core CPU is becoming more and more of a necessity for gaming, especially if you have to feed a high end GPU. At current prices a 2500K is a great deal (You can get em for under $200 after sales tax at Microcenter) and you have decent odds of hitting 5GHz. A 2600K is a bit better but unless you're doing a lot of video rendering and it's not really worth the extra $100.

Another thing to think about is that even if you can't get a 5GHz OC, you have to consider the higher IPC on the new chips. Clock for clock, a 4.8GHz 2500K will be as fast or faster than a Core 2 Quad at 6+ GHz.
 
patric said:
I think it's worth it. (kinda) :D

Having a quad core CPU is becoming more and more of a necessity for gaming, especially if you have to feed a high end GPU. At current prices a 2500K is a great deal (You can get em for under $200 after sales tax at Microcenter) and you have decent odds of hitting 5GHz. A 2600K is a bit better but unless you're doing a lot of video rendering and it's not really worth the extra $100.

Another thing to think about is that even if you can't get a 5GHz OC, you have to consider the higher IPC on the new chips. Clock for clock, a 4.8GHz 2500K will be as fast or faster than a Core 2 Quad at 6+ GHz.
Click to expand...

2500K is a sweet spot right now, my problem is if I'm goin to spend over 200+ on CPU I would just spend another 100 to get the current high end for that socket (the 2600K).

It's 2 bad the reasonably priced boards for that socket have like CFX, and it's like 16 x one slot and 4x for the other GFX card lol. Or they just have 1 CI-X slot. Then if you really want a decent SLI/CFX mobo with Sata 6 and USB 3.0 your gonna pay 200.00-250.00+ there. By the time you do all that and grab sum memory you spent a huge chunk, but heck you have the current high end for Quad core so that should make a person happy.

I spent 209.98 for my Quad Core, CFX Mobo with SATA6 + USB 3.0, and Ram. But yeah it's not nearly as fast.
 
Last edited:
The T-man said:
1.395v. :)
It'll boot windows and game at 4.7Ghz.
the vid on it's only 1.825v.
Click to expand...

1.825v would kill an e8600 instantly.
The golden e8600 I sold did 4.4ghz at 1.25v with a default vid of 1.121275
 
You have to be lucky with the chip batch to hit 5ghz. Just check out any batch thread on the SB chips. Since that is a requirement you listed just wait for 22nm chips they will have a better chance of overclocking higher. Or you can do what my friend does and buy 5x cpu's at a time from Frys and test them out return the poor overclockers.
 
OP ask any one who got a 2600k or 2500k to take you on with 3dmark 2001. See who get the best score
 
Spooony said:
OP ask any one who got a 2600k or 2500k to take you on with 3dmark 2001. See who get the best score
Click to expand...

Especially @ VGA rez ;) 640x480.

Can you imagine emulating Super Mario Bros. @ 2000FPS!?! or Pac Man! :p I don't even want to try....literally....that would be retarded.

Hey Jealousy :)
 
my 2500k is at 5ghz @ 1.43v-1.44 it goes up and down lol. I run an H50
 
I don't have a 2600K but my 2500K can do 5ghz (not sure if stable) but it does get super hot. I have a H50 with 2 fans (push/pull). The chip needs just over 1.5v for 5ghz and temps at these settings for me are mid 90's, almost 100. At 4.5ghz and 1.31v my LinX load temps are low 60s. Idle in low 30s. The huge increase in temps is not worth the extra 500mhz frequency.
 
rUmX said:
I don't have a 2600K but my 2500K can do 5ghz (not sure if stable) but it does get super hot. I have a H50 with 2 fans (push/pull). The chip needs just over 1.5v for 5ghz and temps at these settings for me are mid 90's, almost 100. At 4.5ghz and 1.31v my LinX load temps are low 60s. Idle in low 30s. The huge increase in temps is not worth the extra 500mhz frequency.
Click to expand...

Is this in prime that it gets so hot? or in general gaming/use? Is it hot in your house?
 
Don't be fooled, now is not a great time to upgrade. I would wait for socket 2011, that way you have the option for hex or octo core cpus down the road. You won't have that option if you buy a motherboard today.
 
The T-man said:
Anyone else?
Click to expand...

From what I've seen and read, only a small fraction of SB chips will stably do 5GHz. 4.7-4.8GHz seems to be a much more common ceiling, with less-outstanding batches topping out around 4.5GHz.

So no, don't just expect to buy a 2500K or 2600K and jump straight to 5GHz. You can, however, buy a 2500K or 2600K, jump to somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.3GHz at stock voltage, and 4.5GHz usually under 1.35V (varies chip to chip, naturally).

My 2500K hit 4.5GHz easily just by upping LLC on my motherboard (provides approximately 1.34V under full load, less under light load... ASUS overclocking recommendations include leaving C1 and EIST turned on, which is fine by me). Didn't get a chance to test higher before leaving the country for a few weeks, so when I get back, I'll see how high it goes.
 
You should wait. A) You managed an epic overclock on your current chip B) 5ghz isn't guaranteed on 2600k. Realistically you'll get 4.5-4.7. C) Socket 2011 is right around the corner and more of a real upgrade than the stuff we have now.

Remember the 2600K is not meant to be Intel's flagship. It's the mid range. The fact that it performs like top end hardware is irrelevant. Sandy Bridge is all the rage right now but I'm expecting to see a ton of 2600K's and associated hardware in the For Sale forum once Intel releases the real high end stuff later this year. I'm rockin a Q9550 right now and as tempting as the 2600K is it just doesn't seem like a worthwhile upgrade at the moment.
 
I went from a E8600 @ 4.0ghz to Core i5 750 @ 3.6 and difference was huge. Even if your 2600k gets stuck at 4.0 (unlikely) it will be much much faster.
 
I have three 2600K's...one which clocks to 5.6GHz and two others which clock to 5.3GHz regardless of mb used. I recommend the Biostar TP67XE now that it is available once again.

If you would like to consider a trade with your e8600 I might part with one of the 5.3GHz cpu's. PM me for details. ;)
 
I also went from an E8500 @ 4.3 to a 2600k. BC2 already runs noticeably better, and the CPU is still at stock settings.
 
Yes, I did a bunch of tests with the dual cores for my game clan and while most did ok, the quad cores are noticeably smoother, at least in BlackOp's. If you un-park the cores it will really perk up mouse response as well.
 
The T-man said:
I have a rock solid low vid e8600 (on quiet air), all stable.

If I can pull 5 Ghz. on air w/ a 2600k I'm ready to do so
is 5Ghz common enough to expect this?
if so it is even worth the $ time and hassle to build a new pc?
I game and do some light vid editing and basic PC tasks.

If I can't go 5ghz + I won't bother...:)
LMK!
Click to expand...

I went from an E8500 @ 4ghz to a Q6600 and in BC2 my fps doubled, same in other multi threaded games.

some games tho were worse..

it's a toss up..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top