Originally Posted by Ikrin
I don't think two 2500Ks would perform similarly, especially without HT? But, then, I'm not in the business of rendering, so you could educate me on how the the distribution of work would help.
What? Two 2500K's is 8 real cores... 990x 6c/12t is not going to match a pair of 2500Ks... Additionally you're kind of missing the point... If you are doing significant amounts of rendering you are distributing the load... or should be. It could be 2500k's or 2600k's... it doesn't matter. The point is that it doesn't make sense to spend $1000 on a processor for rendering (a parallel task) when you could simply build 2 computers with 80% of the performance for the same price......
EDIT: I misread it as saying you ARE in the business of rendering and thought you were just trying to be a jerk.
The concept is that you have a repetitive task that can be run in parallel over multiple threads. Rather than pay to have old technology running at 6 threads it makes much more sense to have 4 faster threads X2 for a total of 8 threads that are faster than the original 6 for less cost. The idea is that you want the most total throughput (cores*clocks). Not only does a pair of 2500k's result in a higher value for this they are also more efficient per clock. Where you arguably might lose out is in power consumption as you now have two systems when before you had one. This is why a lot of people are switching over to GPU's to render... my core 2.1ghz Core 2 Duo mobile processor would take 3 days to render images that the mobile Nvidia 8400GS using CUDA would take under an hour to do.Edited by rudypoochris - 2/27/11 at 8:48pm