• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

System Comparisons

S

Slachtbeest

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
248
Just wanted to see what feedback I'd get on the following system comparisons.

How much of a difference would there be going from:

E8600 (stock @ 3.33), ASUS Rampage II, 4GB Corsair Dominator, GTX 580

-to-

i5 2500K (stock @ 3.3), MSI P67A-GD65, 6GB Corsair Vengeance, GTX 580

?

My wife is running the dual-core E8600 system, only used for gaming, so I would expect a huge difference moving to the SB i5 2005K build for her.

She really needs the upgrade more than I do, so would the i5 2005K set-up be worth the move?
Or stick with the 9xx series right now?

P.S.
What coolers are compatible with the 2005K?
Currently have TRUE on my wife's system for the E8600, but cant find any under socket 1155 specifically, only 1156. Are they interchangeable?
Is there a bracket to use the Thermalright TRUE with 2005k?

Edit: The i7 950 is on sale right now, but not sure whether to go that route, which will cost more between CPU and mobo, or go with the 2500K for my wife's upgrade.
 
Last edited:
Dont bother sandy bridge isnt as it all worked up to be... wait for Ivy bridge,.
 
leo013087 said:
Dont bother sandy bridge isnt as it all worked up to be... wait for Ivy bridge,.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but looking to upgrade now. Been putting it off long enough.

The i5 2500K should almost equal my i7 920, from what I've seen/heard, though I need some clarification.

It would be cheaper than even going with the 950 right now, though it's on sale, due to the 950 and mobos being more expensive than the 2500K and compatible mobos. Trying to figure out which, because her dual-core set-up just isn't cutting it anymore.

Would like feedback from others regarding my questions/comparisons, thanks.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't bother upgrading the i7 system you have already, there will be very little gains there at all, pretty much only the extra clock speed from the 2500k.

The E8600 system will benefit the most, especially if she does anything that will take advantage of the extra cores.

The 1156 mounting kit will work on the new 1155, they take the same size heatsink.
 
leo013087 said:
Dont bother sandy bridge isnt as it all worked up to be... wait for Ivy bridge,.
Click to expand...

And you're basing this on what exactly?

The fact that SB runs cooler? Uses less power? Is easier to overclock? And easily overclocks to higher speeds? Or???

My 920 4.2GHz/Classified system ran like a dream for the last 1.5yrs but I dumped it for a 2600K SB setup anyways and don't regret it for second. Given that I've gone from 4.2GHz to 4.8GHz with lower idle temps. It took me weeks to originally figure out the 920 OC settings. The SB OC took about three setting changes in the BIOS.

As if all of the above was enough to justify the move, the fact is you can build an SB system for just about the same price as LGA1366 right now so why not do it? If you're building a system TODAY, there's very few (if any) reason to go LGA1366. If you're updating, you can pawn off your old CPU, mobo and RAM and only end up paying $100-$200 to make the (worthwhile) move to SB. In my case, I recouped 100% of my cost selling back the 920 & Classified . . . so why the heck not do it?

When LGA2011 comes around a year from now, I'll do it all again. But in the meantime, I've got a faster, cooler and more efficient system all the while. No brainer to me.
 
What games does she play that aren't ok on the e8600?

The 2500k would be a good upgrade, why only at stock?
 
Insomniator said:
What games does she play that aren't ok on the e8600?

The 2500k would be a good upgrade, why only at stock?
Click to expand...

Well, it's not that they're "not OK", but it's pushing things a bit; system is obviously long in the tooth, being a dual-core.

Everything from Borderlands and Killing Floor (not a heavy game, I know), to Guild Wars (very light), but will be getting into all the upcoming titles, such as Bulletstorm, Guild Wars 2, Diablo III, Crysis 2 and Rage (which will make her system crumble) etc. etc.

She needs to be able to run things well at 1920 res, and be "future-proofed", and at least up with the current.

No OC'ing for me anymore. I believe hardware should be "good enough at stock", and it usually is, so I've no need for OC'ing, aside from the hardware longevity factor and general fuss. Either way, personal preference. I don't even OC my 920, along with my GTX 580, I eat everything for breakfast, so no need.

I'm pretty sure moving to the 2500K would be a huge upgrade for her, so if enough agree, then I'll probably go that route.
 
Slachtbeest said:
Well, it's not that they're "not OK", but it's pushing things a bit; system is obviously long in the tooth, being a dual-core.

Everything from Borderlands and Killing Floor (not a heavy game, I know), to Guild Wars (very light), but will be getting into all the upcoming titles, such as Bulletstorm, Guild Wars 2, Diablo III, Crysis 2 and Rage (which will make her system crumble) etc. etc.

She needs to be able to run things well at 1920 res, and be "future-proofed", and at least up with the current.

No OC'ing for me anymore. I believe hardware should be "good enough at stock", and it usually is, so I've no need for OC'ing, aside from the hardware longevity factor and general fuss. Either way, personal preference. I don't even OC my 920, along with my GTX 580, I eat everything for breakfast, so no need.

I'm pretty sure moving to the 2500K would be a huge upgrade for her, so if enough agree, then I'll probably go that route.
Click to expand...

I agreed already above but I'll agree again here if that counts as two votes?!?!?

Going from an E8600, you'll definitely see an improvement. However, why get the 2500K if you're not going to OC it? The whole point of getting the K CPU is for the unlocked multiplier and the (easy) ability to OC. Just get the 2400 or 2500 if you have no intention of OC'ing.
 
The 2500K will be a nice upgrade for gaming. Some will be mild increases and some will see major increases (like Far Cry 2). Slightly lower load power use and much lower idle.

If you are 100% certain you would never overclock then you might look at a non-K and save a few bucks. It can still overclock up to 4.1 down the road (easily on default voltage) if you wanted to but it would save you $15.
 
Well, pretty sure I wont bother OC'ing, but there's only a $20 difference between the two, oddly. I guess I could just go with the non-K then.

So, overall, you guys think there would be a noticeably large performance increase from what she's running now? Seems relatively obvious there would be, but just wondering by how much sort of across the board.

Also, wondering if the E8600 is bottlenecking the GTX 580 at all...?

Some demanding games coming out this year, though what's odd, is that her system runs really well now with things maxed-out, for the most part. Maybe due to the E8600 @ 3.33 being the highest-end dual-core (aside from the Extreme), the 4GB RAM and the GTX 580.

Maybe it's not totally worth the upgrade yet...?

I know there would definitely be a difference, but I'm trying to weigh the balances right now between the differences. The E8600 is great, but I wanted to move her over to quad at this point.

Is socket 1155 going to a lasting thing? Or is Intel changing things up in the near future to something else again all together?
 
Look, I am not trying to start any kind of argument but this idea that the 2500k is some big step past the dual cores in gaming is not correct.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/balanced-gaming-pc-overclock,2625-12.html
Check anandtechs bench section as well.

If you look around you will find plenty of evidence that the dual cores, especially overclocked, are not being trounced in games except those games that can use more than 2 cores. Which most don't. If your wife games with vsync on and has a 580 she is not going to see any dramatic or significant or perhaps noticeable improvement in most of what she plays. And if the overclocking argument is used then someone show me how 4.5ghz is that much better than 3.8 ghz when all you are trying to push is 60fps at 1920x1080 (or similiar).
When I compare an e8600 and an i7 2600k they are both pushing almost everything past 60fps. Where is the gain here? FarCry2...

Look, I am all for the upgrade, I am probably dropping by MC to pick up a combo deal tonight. But I hate the rhetoric.
Upgrade because you want everything else faster, because you just like the idea but if you are upgrading just for games don't expect a huge increase. This is go fever. The chips are great, they run fast, but a three year old
e8400 @3.6+ is still getting the job done. Unless benchmarks above 60fps count more than playing games at 60FPS.
 
I don't think I agree that an E8400 is getting the job done for a GTX 580. I went from a Q9550 at 4.0 to a 2600K at 4.5, and I got at least a 10% increase in framerates in the games I've checked so far (F1 2010, JC2, Metro 2033), with a higher jump in miminum frame rates, with a GTX 480. So I think you'd see a significant improvement with the GTX 580. More and more games are supporting quad-core, so you'll get a good jump there, along with the 2 generation (or is it 3?) jump in instructions per clock.

I'd say get the K chip - the price difference is negligible, and overclocking so easy, you might as well make it possible to change your mind down the road.
 
Forceman said:
I'd say get the K chip - the price difference is negligible, and overclocking so easy, you might as well make it possible to change your mind down the road.
Click to expand...

especially if you keep the chip a while and when the time comes again down the road that it's starting to feel on it's last legs, a huge OC is only a few keystrokes away to help get you/her through until the next upgrade.
 
If you play games like Civ5 and StarCraft II then the upgrade to a 2500k would be a big improvement. Not for the cores, but for the architecture. The cores add some future proofing though, but I doubt many games will need more than 4 cores by the time 1155 is EOL.

In short, 1155 offers 1366 like performance clock for clock (give or take) for a much reduced cost. You do get less power and a better OC, but it really is incremental. If you didn't upgrade to 1366 because of cost, 1155 is likely your ride. I think LGA2011 is going to be one expensive setup when it comes. I suspect we will see a lot of one dimm per memory channel boards to keep costs down.

The amazing thing about 1155 isn't its absolute performance limit. Instead it is the fact that everything gets better and it competes with the high end socket for a fraction of the price. From your comment about OCing, I think 1155 is your kind of socket/system.
 
Also, 1155 is a dual channel setup, so the 6GB kits aren't useful. You need a 2x2GB or 2x4GB setup. I can tell you the vengeance line works fine with 1155. 1.5V RAM is highly recommended.

I used these: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...233144&cm_re=vengeance-_-20-233-144-_-Product

They also sell CAS 8 dimms, but for the cost difference you won't notice it IMHO. Set the timing controls to XMP and they run great at DDR3-1600.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top