Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I doubt it will make a significant difference in gaming -- for instance, it may be the difference between an average FPS of 60 and an average FPS of 75.
I would call a 25% improvement significant
I would call a 25% improvement significant
I would call a 25% improvement significant
curious as to where you're seeing this? i'd love to read a legitimate performance preview
he is referencing the hypothetical number given above
60 * 1.25 = 75
Lol @ this thread. It will make ZERO difference in gaming.
Since anyone buying one of these processors is going to be playing at no lower a resolution than 1920x1200, I don't think the increased performance from the extra cache will be very important. (Though, I would have said the same thing about dual vs quad cores two years ago! I couldn't have been more wrong.)
Judging from the past it has made a difference, q9550 is noticeably better than a q6600 @ the same mhz in gaming for example.
That has more to do with the architecture changes than the extra cache.
LOL.
I will be buying one, and I game at 1650x1050. But yeah, I will be the only one probably.
They are the same architecture.
I'm the OP and yeah I'll be using the same resolution.
well let's not get too hung up on arbitrary numbers. i'd be surprised if reviews show a real-world difference of 25% in gaming.
Haha, same here. I was thinking of springing on a U23H or ZR24, but decided to just wait it out until we get a new display tech (OLED....probably not) or IPS gets even better. That is, if my willpower can hold off my purchasing urges. I have an IPS tv and the colors it displays once calibrated is fantastic, even with the matte screen.
My holy grail is a glossy 24-inch screen that is 16:10 with good enough response times, good color reproduction, and blacks that aren't terribad.
Good luck finding a 16:10 in the future.
Well in their defence, you DID agree with these arbitrary numbers until it was pointed out that those numbers made up for a 25% improvement
if i had to venture a *guess* i would agree with jbz7890. it won't make a significant difference as far as gaming goes.
If you don't care about Hyperthreading I'd say the 2500k is right for you. The cache won't make a difference.I'm not interested in HT or 8 cores, but wonder if 8MB cache (2MB per core) will be worth ~$100 more over the 2500k for gaming?
Of course benchmarks will tell when they are released, but absent that what do you guys think?
It took me a long time to find something relevant, and this is the best I could do. I know we're comparing lopsided stuff here across different generations, but bear with me, it took me half an hour to find it.
Toms's Hardware chart.
Q8300
2.5GHz
2 x 2MB L2
1333MHz FSB.
Q9550
2.67GHz
2 x 6MB L2
1333MHz FSB
The Q9550 has 7% more clock speed, and 200%, or three times more of its cache, but in the benchmarks, the Q8300 performs about 10-20% slower.
I don't think 25% less cache is going to make any noticeable difference to your general experience using the 2500K. I think HT will be more significant as a feature that differentiates the performance between the two. Is it worth $100 for gaming alone? IMHO no, but that's a choice that you must make.
That's L2 cache though, the cache in question is L3 and a much different CPUIt took me a long time to find something relevant, and this is the best I could do. I know we're comparing lopsided stuff here across different generations, but bear with me, it took me half an hour to find it.
Toms's Hardware chart.
Q8300
2.5GHz
2 x 2MB L2
1333MHz FSB.
Q9550
2.67GHz
2 x 6MB L2
1333MHz FSB
The Q9550 has 7% more clock speed, and 200%, or three times more of its cache, but in the benchmarks, the Q8300 performs about 10-20% slower.
I don't think 25% less cache is going to make any noticeable difference to your general experience using the 2500K. I think HT will be more significant as a feature that differentiates the performance between the two. Is it worth $100 for gaming alone? IMHO no, but that's a choice that you must make.
It seems the conclusion is that for gaming there won't be much of a difference, can anyone tell me for video encoding (basically frapsing gameplay footage @1650x1080 or w/e that resolution is then encoding it with virtualdub) would be different between the two processors?
I would imagine HT would have a bigger impact there. Don't know how much though.