Overclock.net banner

i5-2500k vs i7-2600k

38K views 39 replies 23 participants last post by  TomBrooklyn 
#1 ·
#2 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by this n00b again;11945857
trying to debate if a $100 dollar difference in the two.

opinions please...
If you have programs that take advantage of HT and 2MB more cache. If not, then the choice is clear.

If you like the epeen, get a 2600K or if you always have second thoughts about getting the second best, get 2600k still.

For value, it's no contest, hands down 2500K. They overclock the same, it's just a benefit of 30-50% more performance thanks to HT and maybe 10-15% more thanks to the cache in best case scenarios.
 
#3 ·
What do you plan on doing with the chip?

The 2600k is probably worth is if you will be doing very heavy multitasking or use anything that is heavily threaded. It will also be slightly faster overall because it has 33% more cache.
 
#4 ·
Depends on what you do.

Are you a gamer and only do light encoding and other multi-threaded tasks? If so grab the i5.

Are you a music/video junky and will be using mostly multi-threaded apps? If so grab the i7.

The cache may or may not offset the performance hit you'll receive in programs that don't respond well to HT.
 
#5 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blameless;11945905
What do you plan on doing with the chip?

The 2600k is probably worth is if you will be doing very heavy multitasking or use anything that is heavily threaded. It will also be slightly faster overall because it has 33% more cache.
the same thing everyone else here does/plans-on-doing with their chips....
 
#9 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by BallaTheFeared;11945907
Depends on what you do.

Are you a gamer and only do light encoding and other multi-threaded tasks? If so grab the i5.

Are you a music/video junky and will be using mostly multi-threaded apps? If so grab the i7.

The cache may or may not offset the performance hit you'll receive in programs that don't respond well to HT.
The performance hit is much bigger from the lack of cache than from HT. HT can never shave off than a few percentage ~1%-3% when it has an adverse effect and it rarely occurs (hardly actually) and should be a non-concern. Besides you can always turn off HT but you can't increase cache. But it's up to each person if that is worth the extra $100. For me, I would definitely go for it.
 
#10 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129;11945946
The performance hit is much bigger from the lack of cache than from HT. HT can never shave off than a few percentage ~1%-3% when it has an adverse effect and it rarely occurs (hardly actually) and should be a non-concern. Besides you can always turn off HT but you can't increase cache. But it's up to each person if that is worth the extra $100. For me, I would definitely go for it.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=287

If you feel that is worth $100 grab it, it's your money.

Also note the i5-2500k has lower clocks and lower turbo... so when you see it beating the higher clocked higher turbo'ed i7 in gaming benchmarks wonder to yourself how come.
 
#11 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by BallaTheFeared;11945982
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=287

If you feel that is worth $100 grab it, it's your money.

Also note the i5-2500k has lower clocks and lower turbo... so when you see it beating the higher clocked higher turbo'ed i7 in gaming benchmarks wonder to yourself how come.
According to your benchmarks, it beats it in 2 game by a few percentage like I said. Everything else, the 2600k murders the 2500k. Also you can turn off HT.
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by BallaTheFeared;11946073
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/109?vs=47

Man, seems like something is wrong here.

1156 beating the 920 where have I seen this before?

Oh yah, i5-2500k with lower clocks beating the i7-2600k - roger.
Just so you know this site is not that reliable; the i7 920 is definitely a better processor than the i5 750. I can find hundreds of better benchmarks proving this.
 
#16 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by this n00b again;11945914
the same thing everyone else here does/plans-on-doing with their chips....
There is a pretty wide variety of uses between OCN members and individual systems among OCN members.

I have a few gaming specific systems, a netbook, a general purpose monster that does lots of encoding/virtualization, and a workstation for genetics phylogeny.

All of them are overclocked.
 
#17 ·
Quote:
My honest opinion, if you have a 1366 cpu at you have no real reason to move to 1155. Wait till ivy bridge at least.

Just my 2 cents.
 
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by maximus20895;11949792
Really, this is the dumbest thing I have seen recently. Why are people moving to SB with an i7 overclocked. You won't tell a difference and yes, you are wasting your money. Sounds like people have more ego than sense on here.
It's probably due to the constant taunts of people who are upgrading to Sandy Bridge.

Especially the AMD owners (or people with old Intels) who are suddenly getting excellent CPUs (instead of the 2nd rate CPUs they were using) and their egos get massively inflated by it and they feel like sticking it to everyone's face...
 
#21 ·
Quote:


Originally Posted by Gnomepatrol
View Post

My honest opinion, if you have a 1366 cpu at you have no real reason to move to 1155. Wait till ivy bridge at least.

Just my 2 cents.

Have to agree with this, 1155 isn't much of an improvement from 1366.
 
#22 ·
Why would anybody move from 1366 to sandybridge, it's the biggest sidegrade known to man + you lose pci lanes and can't run triple channel memory (if that is your thing).

Most situations the i7 2600k will win i7 920's but by what? hardly anything clock for clock. (OK sandybridge can oc a bit higher but..)

Don't waste your money mate
 
#24 ·
For me the decision was easy to upgrade: I had a q6600 that pushing three years old and thats about my build cycle period. I was going for a i7 950 and asus sabertoothX58(awsome board, it was the one thing that really made it hard to go sandy) back around dec 10th, when I started researching my new build, and I kept hearing about sandy bridge in my reasearch, so I started looking into that also.

Well It did not take long to realize that for the same price as a 950 I could get a 2600k or even a 2500k(for $100 less) and still have better(2600k) or equal(2500k) performance. So I figured I would go for the 2500k and save $100 that I would have spent on a 950 that was about the same.

Then I thought for just a $100 more I could get a 2600k that, performance wise, rivalled an i7 980X and topped everything else in terms of stock performance and overcloking ability. So I decided to get the best for once and build myself a wicked system. The choice wasn't that hard for me since I had allocated about $300 for my cpu. I would say if you can spare the $100 go for the 2600k over the 2500k and you will never regret it.
 
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