Originally Posted by BallaTheFeared
What's your definition of "never"?
Please don't take what I said someplace else, where it wasn't meant to go. You shouldn't need to manipulate the conversation just so you can continue to argue, admit you were wrong and move on.
Disable HT on an i7 and you have a i5 you paid 33% more for.
The price was never part of the argument. You, like Blackout want to bring up an unrelated point to the argument, which was 2500K performs better than the 2600K in games.
Quote, "If you're looking to upgrade, an i5 2500k actually gets slightly better FPS than a 2600k."
My original point was, even with HT on, on average the 2600K will perform better and you can also turn off HT whenever you are gaming, and you enable back whenever you need it. I hope that's simple enough for you.
So you either have a problem reading or you're just defending your purchase.
Originally Posted by one-shot
And from your source, of the wins the 2500K had over the 2600K, those percentages are .75%,1.2%,2.2% and 3.7%.
When the 2600K is ahead, its lead includes 1.9%,2.2%,3.5%7.3%, 7.5% and 11.7%.
The 2600K has more wins and those wins it has are much higher percentage wise than the wins the 2500K has over it.
Hopefully this puts things into perspective.
Well thank you one-shot, this should put things into perspective. Oh and this is with HT on.
Balla, don't lose sleep over the fact that 2600K outperforms the 2500K, HT on or off.
Originally Posted by Blackout621
when I said it outperformed it, I was referring to when HT was on.
Yea I understand that but your original statement makes it seem like the 2500K on average performs better than the 2600K in games, which is just false info. Even in situations where HT has a negative impact, the 2600K on average pumps out higher FPS compared to the 2500K due to the larger cache size and higher clock speed + turbo.Edited by Clairvoyant129 - 12/20/11 at 8:47pm