Overclock.net banner

2600K worst that 2500K ?!

1K views 30 replies 15 participants last post by  bigmac11 
#1 ·
Hey,

so i had a 2500K and got my self a 2600K because i needed more power for rendering, streaming etc...

I thought the 2600k was good or even better at gaming(and general) than 2500k. Have i never been so wrong...

When i had the 2500k(OC @ 4.2GHz) i could play bf3,far cry 3 and many more at ultra with no lag at all.

Now with the 2600K(OC @ 4.3) far cry3 is not even playable and bf3 laggs a bit..


with 2500k got temps at:
idle:30-35
load:60-65

with 2600k :
idle:37-41
load:68-73

I am using air cooling..for now. first thing in Monday i am getting my H100 from post office...

Can someone give me an explanation PLEASE?
 
See less See more
#4 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by eXXon View Post

Try resetting your Bios (make sure HT is on) to default and redo your overclock.
Reinstall mobo chipset drivers.
This and also make sure you applied your TIM (Thermal Paste) correctly. No air bubbles.
 
#5 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by fedrosishere View Post

Hey,

so i had a 2500K and got my self a 2600K because i needed more power for rendering, streaming etc...

I thought the 2600k was good or even better at gaming(and general) than 2500k. Have i never been so wrong...

When i had the 2500k(OC @ 4.2GHz) i could play bf3,far cry 3 and many more at ultra with no lag at all.

Now with the 2600K(OC @ 4.3) far cry3 is not even playable and bf3 laggs a bit..


with 2500k got temps at:
idle:30-35
load:60-65

with 2600k :
idle:37-41
load:68-73

I am using air cooling..for now. first thing in Monday i am getting my H100 from post office...

Can someone give me an explanation PLEASE?
temperatures are fine.
make sure your ht is enabled and you've reset your cmos.
 
#6 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Namkab View Post

Research the intel tick-tock process. The 2600k isnt a performance upgrade from the 2500k.
Intel's tick-tock process has nothing to do with this. Both a 2500K and 2600K are Sandy Bridge CPU's. A 2600K is clocked 100 MHz higher and has a larger L3 cache, and is faster than a 2500K by about a 15 percent margin, give or take a little: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=287
 
#8 ·
Hyperthreading does help with rendering and streaming but also note that at the end of the day you just went from a quad to a quad w/ ht.

If you're using FME, Openbroadcaster or Xsplit try to tweak some settings to utilize all the cores or check affinity, there may be a setting that sees it as use "4" cores but only tries to use 4 threads = 2 cores.

Also if you just switched CPUs it may not be using the ht like everyone mentioned, check your settings bios and windows (see if its detecting).

There is also the core parking in which it will put some cores offline till it thinks it needs it so you may want to read up on that.

HT does put a little more stress on the CPU increasing the temps a little bit more maybe 2-3-5C so it may be normal.
 
#9 ·
Those temps aren't anything to worry about, it's not like it's CPU throttling at 73C. I would check and see if Windows is correctly identifying it, and that task manager shows 8 threads.

Also I've never heard of this but maybe some games detect available cores at install, meaning maybe BF3 still thinks it should only use 4 cores. If your bored consider re-installing BF3.
 
#11 ·
I would guess running it with hyperthreading OFF as thats basically all the difference is with the 2500k
 
#13 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Namkab View Post

Research the intel tick-tock process. The 2600k isnt a performance upgrade from the 2500k.
The Tick-Tock process has nothing to do with it. They were released at the same time.

The reason for the higher temps and possibly your ingame lag is the HT. HT = 4 extra virtual cores which = more heat and diminishing returns in games that don't support HT.
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkullTrail View Post

The Tick-Tock process has nothing to do with it. They were released at the same time.

The reason for the higher temps and possibly your ingame lag is the HT. HT = 4 extra virtual cores which = more heat and diminishing returns in games that don't support HT.
I already admitted that I was wrong in that post, pointless to point it out again.
 
#16 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmac11 View Post

Here is a direct comparison. http://anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=287

I currently have both cpus and honestly I don't notice a real world difference between them. If your getting worse performance with the 2600k is it possible you bent one of the pins on install?
You say you have both of them, but then ask if he bent one of the pins? LGA stands for Land Grid Array, there are no pins.
 
#17 ·
Well, i checked on Task manager and there are 8 ''cores'' and in device manager it shows intel core i7 2600k. also how do i enable,disable HT? i cant find anything in the bios.
To get it right, the steps i need to do are :

0)Reapply thermal paste
1)have all OCing and vcore back to stock.
2)reset bios.
3)re-install chipset drivers.
4)Run a 3D MARK 11 to see if it got fixed.

Or maybe something else?
 
#18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfej View Post

You say you have both of them, but then ask if he bent one of the pins? LGA stands for Land Grid Array, there are no pins.
That is misinformation. LGA1155 has 1,155 pins, but they are located in the socket, not on the processor. It is entirely possible to bend or break the pins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fedrosishere View Post

Well, i checked on Task manager and there are 8 ''cores'' and in device manager it shows intel core i7 2600k. also how do i enable,disable HT? i cant find anything in the bios.
To get it right, the steps i need to do are :
Can't really say for your board, but should be somewhere similar to advanced CPU control. At least on my Asus board it is in /advanced/cpu configuration/hyper-threading.
 
#19 ·
There may even be an "unlock all cores" option you can edit
 
#20 ·
i run the 3DMARK 11.... Score is p7827
dont know what that means. also this is what troubles me...

CPU set at stock speeds.

Processor
Intel Core i7-2600K
Processor clock1,596 WHY?????
MHzPhysical / logical processors1 / 4#
of cores4
<

WHA? Uses only one core? i dont get it...
Package LGA1155
Manufacturing process 32 nm
TDP 95 W

and the GPU gave me this:

Driver status Not FM Approved
GRAPHICS DRIVER IS NOT APPROVED......
and only 1 gb was used during test...

gonna my PC ..

Also i noticed that CPU-Z tells me that my ram runs at...667 mhz.. wat??
In bios it tells me 1333mhz...
 
#21 ·
i rerun the 3dmark11. cpu at 4.3 GHz
Got P8175
But it tells my it should score higher.. ..
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by fedrosishere View Post

Also i noticed that CPU-Z tells me that my ram runs at...667 mhz.. wat??
In bios it tells me 1333mhz...
That's not an issue. Your ram is running in dual channel 667mhz * 2 = 1333. It does sound like HT isnt enabled or isnt being used tho.

Post a link to the results. It might help to know which scores are low.
 
#24 ·
Yeah well... i just could not help it. I formatted the HDD and it appears i have been missing ..well everything...

I installed BIOS,Chipset,GPU,audio,lan,network,framework,dx11 drivers and now there is an option to overclock from gigabyte in windows(woah!).
biggrin.gif
i never had that. also tons of cool ''new'' features that i have never seen cause i failed to install at my last windows installation. back 2011.
rolleyes.gif


I will run 3dmark 11 and also some gaming benchmarks to see what i have accomplished.
thumb.gif
 
#25 ·
i run 3dmark11 and i got better results that before.(one GPU was removed due to power failure...)

P8524




Are those results good for my hardware or bad?
 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by fedrosishere View Post

i run 3dmark11 and i got better results that before.(one GPU was removed due to power failure...)

P8524




Are those results good for my hardware or bad?
Seems about right, a 4.5GHz CPU OC and 1100+MHz GPU should easily break 10K but at stock those seem normal.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top