• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

2500k vs 2600k in games

opethdisciple

opethdisciple

opethdisciple

Soldato
Joined
18 May 2010
Posts
23,865
Location
London
In games that scale up to 8 cores (BFBC2 & assuming BF3) does the 2600k outperform the 2500k?

If the answer is there inst much difference, how much life span do you think a 2500k really has, if tomorrows games start scaling beyound 4 cores?

Im a bit wary of jumping on a 2500k as I already have 4 cores, and an upgrade to 4 cores.... seems to my logic a little bit of a side grade.
 
Last edited:
This review (using a GTX 580 GPU) shows the difference between a i5 2500K and i7 2600K in BF:BC2. As you can see, at low resolutions (CPU limited performance) the i7 is a bit faster, but at higher resolutions there isn't any difference. If you are mainly gaming then I would suggest going for the i5 2500K and spending the £70 you save from not going for the 2600K on a more powerful GPU or towards an SSD.

As for lifespan, based on past experience I would say the i5 2500K will be able to handle modern games well for at least three years. However, if we see a new console generation in the next few years then this may accelerate the increase in required CPU power.
 
I'd say go for the 2500k, you probably won't notice that much a difference getting 2600k, and as mentioned, spend the money you saved on a better graphics card or something else :)

Before the days of duel cores, did you worry about going from single core to another faster single core??
 
opethdisciple said:
Im a bit wary of jumping on a 2500k as I already have 4 cores, and an upgrade to 4 cores.... seems to my logic a little bit of a side grade.
Click to expand...

As a point of principle upgrading to the same number of cores is by no means a sidegrade if you are getting higher clockspeed and/or more performance per clock. The majority of people have been doing this for years i.e. until 5 years ago nearly everyone was on single core cpus. In terms of performance per clock just look at the top speed of cpus, bascially it has remained at around 3.4ghz or thereabouts for years and years, since 2003 I think? But of course a sandy @ 3.4ghz is going to blow a P4 @ 3.4ghz out the water even if it only had one core.

Also bear in mind that due to the typically poor threading in games you get severely diminishing returns from adding more cores. The difference between 2 and 4 cores is much greater than the difference between 4 and 6/8 cores.

However in your case a Quad Xtreme @ 3.7ghz is no slouch for gaming and so it may be worth holding fire on the upgrade to see what comes in the future. You'd see a much bigger gain in gaming performance from adding a second card for crossfire for example.
 
Last edited:
Yeah [email protected] is fast enough for modern games. I never seem to understand that with people already possessing a fast quad core cpu, why they want to further upgrade and waste money?:confused:

Upgrading of Cpu imo should only be done when processor starts to become a serious bottleneck.

Agreed with poster above that a second Gpu will be a far better investment:)
 
I would sell the QX while you can still get some money for it. Get the 2500k if it's just for the gaming.
 
I agree with the point that I shouldnt waste money.

But my scenario is this:

In my house we have 3 pc's

1. My sister, P4 2.6GHz 2gb ddr1 ram, crappy mobo and a x800gpu.

2. My old Pc, P4 3.2Ghz 2Gb 533Mhz ram and a 4650gpu

3. My Gaming pc in sig.

My plan was to shift things around. Pc 2 goes to my sis. PC 3 replaces Pc 2 and I upgrade gaming machine to a better platform (cpu, ram, mobo and ssd)

I cant justify replaceing the 5870 yet. Its a good card. Only bought it in September 2010. Over all I'd give it 9/10 for performance.

However, I have money in my pocket, having worked for a few years now and saved a lot!

I did ask the question before if a new cpu, ddr3 ram and an ssd would raise the performance of my 5870 even a little. I think the answer is yes, but obviously only in games that like extra cpu grunt.

Fortunatly my fav game at the moment is BFBC2 and that like cpu power.
By association I am assuming BF3 will also like cpu power.

So a cpu upgrade should raise the performanceo f my 5870, in these games.

There are times playing BFBC2, when lots of things are happening and a massive explosion happens simultaneously, that the computer slows slightly..... I think its the processor calculating the physics rather than the gpu slowing down, although I could be wrong.

I was looking at the 2500k bundle at £429 paired with my 5870 of course at least for another year.

SSD, is a luxury Im undecided if I should do it or not.
 
Well if you have the money spare and the Quad is still going to be useful (its still capable of running everything) then what the hell go for the upgrade*









*just admit it that's the answer you wanted :D
 
Ok, im sold on getting a 2500k over the 2600k.

The only question really is, will it out perform my qx9650 in games to a degree that it will improve my 5870?

BF3 in mind....
 
Moved from Q9650 @4ghz to i2500K@stock ,not long ago - I do not have many specific before and after tests so cannot say with absolute conviction the following :-
'the latter is much smoother/quicker than the former' but to me it is !

I am able to say with absolute conviction that it has been one of my better upgrades ; I notice the better performance every day.- Certainly better than the last couple of gpu upgrades.

Would recommend without hesitation.:)

Was P5Q-E + 2x2gb Dominator Ram @1066 + Q9650
Now MSi P67A-GD65 + 2x2gb Gskill Ripjaws @1600 +i2500K.

I have test results for Crysis and 3d Mark 2006 for the 'old' comp. _ Will run again on new comp and advise.
 
Have run Crysis gpu benchmark (I had only retained details of gpu bench:() to find that @1920x1200 we are talking without AA approx Ave.60.22(old)/61.52(new) High 66.73/85.26 Low 28.9/37.93 and with AAx4 Ave. 51.01/53.03 High 59.03/61.34 Low 29.54/33.94

3d Mark 22694/24709.

Impossible imo to read anything into the above as although the scores are better generally better it is debatable as to wether that may be down to newer nvidia drivers.

Even though the above may not prove my case; am still def. of the view that new system is quicker and a bit less glitchy.

Am still running xp 32bit btw - was expecting that I would have to install windows etc but not needed. Very easy/smooth transition.

Do believe that once I move to windows 7 (64bit) there should be a further improvement.
 
AgedIdiot said:
Have run Crysis gpu benchmark (I had only retained details of gpu bench:() to find that @1920x1200 we are talking without AA approx Ave.60.22(old)/61.52(new) High 66.73/85.26 Low 28.9/37.93 and with AAx4 Ave. 51.01/53.03 High 59.03/61.34 Low 29.54/33.94

3d Mark 22694/24709.

Impossible imo to read anything into the above as although the scores are better generally better it is debatable as to wether that may be down to newer nvidia drivers.

Even though the above may not prove my case; am still def. of the view that new system is quicker and a bit less glitchy.9
Am still running xp 32bit btw - was expecting that I would have to install windows etc but not needed. Very easy/smooth transition.

Do believe that once I move to windows 7 (64bit) there should be a further improvement.
Click to expand...

The most important statistic, if im right is your minimum frames are up by 4-9fps.

Gulf will be bigger in games that like cpu, gulf will be smaller in games that are gpu bound.

According to my shoddy mathematics the 2500k is scoreing at least 13% improvment in minimum frames.

Could you bench BFBC2?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom