2500k 5ghz on compares to 6600k at stock?

nightrider1470 · 24 Mar 2017 at 08:31

Just wondering

IvanDobskey · 24 Mar 2017 at 08:41

Not a lot in it I'd say.

If anything, the 2500k will be a little quicker.

Disco_P · 24 Mar 2017 at 14:11

Use the bench tab of CPU-Z and compare to the 6600K.

jabbz · 28 Jun 2017 at 21:12

I would have thought 2500k @ 5ghz would win even though it's IPC is lower. Would be interesting to see how fast it would have to run inorder to mach the 6600k.
In fact I would say the 2500k would have to run between 4.2 and 4.3ghz to match the 6600k at stock. If any one has both cpu's to try this, it would be interesting
to see how far off I am.

muon · 28 Jun 2017 at 22:03

2500K@5ghz would whoop it.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/288?vs=1544

But, why would you limit the 6600K?

In above comparison remember 6600K does 3.6ghz 4 core boost gradually increasing to 3.9ghz single core boost. The 2500K does 3.4ghz 4 core boost going to 3.7ghz single core boost.

https://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/uk/en/support/processors/000005647.html

Using the Cinebench numbers above, 2500K at about 4.6ghz would beat the 6600K at stock (3.6ghz).

Psycho Sonny · 29 Jun 2017 at 12:06

i've got a 2500K @ 4.4 Ghz on stock volts. Don't want to put more volts in it for minimal gains. So I take it the 2500K is still good for the next 2-3 years? so long as it has around 4.4Ghz - 5Ghz overclock.

muon · 29 Jun 2017 at 12:18

Psycho Sonny said:
i've got a 2500K @ 4.4 Ghz on stock volts. Don't want to put more volts in it for minimal gains. So I take it the 2500K is still good for the next 2-3 years? so long as it has around 4.4Ghz - 5Ghz overclock.

Not really. The 6600K at stock isn't good for 2-3 years.

Remember Intel have stagnated the market with mainstream 4C/4T chips. Now that is changing.

Psycho Sonny · 29 Jun 2017 at 15:33

muon said:
Not really. The 6600K at stock isn't good for 2-3 years.

Remember Intel have stagnated the market with mainstream 4C/4T chips. Now that is changing.

so you reckon in 1-2 years time a stock 6600K will struggle to play the latest games and your GPU will demand a CPU upgrade

DragonQ · 29 Jun 2017 at 15:42

5 GHz is 39% more than the 3.6 GHz the i5-6600K would run at (stock, all cores). Skylake is at best 39% faster clock-for-clock than Sandy Bridge, funnily enough (10% Ivy Bridge, 15% Haswell, 5% Broadwell, 5% Skylake). I'd assume the i5-2500K would win in most cases, basically anything that doesn't use the newer instruction sets of the i5-6600K. The i5-6600K might edge ahead in some low-threaded scenarios with the higher boost clock. Worth checking benchmarks for your usage applications though.

Roar87 · 29 Jun 2017 at 18:33

Psycho Sonny said:
i've got a 2500K @ 4.4 Ghz on stock volts. Don't want to put more volts in it for minimal gains. So I take it the 2500K is still good for the next 2-3 years? so long as it has around 4.4Ghz - 5Ghz overclock.

I upgraded from a 2500k, the difference is night and day in gaming.

muon · 29 Jun 2017 at 18:42

Psycho Sonny said:
so you reckon in 1-2 years time a stock 6600K will struggle to play the latest games and your GPU will demand a CPU upgrade

Some games are already maxed out on 4T processors. I would expect it to be more common over the next 1-2 years and not suitable for high quality settings in 2-3 years.

Overclocking would mitigate that, but people with a 2500K can't suddenly overclock further.

Psycho Sonny · 29 Jun 2017 at 19:32

ok cool. i've got a HTPC with a kabylake system in it. everything in it is top of the line bar the CPU (G4560) and it's using onboard graphics because of the fact it's a HTPC. so i'll get me a decent CPU and throw my GPU in there and make my 2500K my HTPC in a year or so's time.

Panos · 30 Jun 2017 at 06:36

Guys, 2500K isn't adequate even at 5Ghz. Last year upgraded from 4820K @ 4.9Ghz (and briefly to 4930K @ 4.5) to 6700K @ 4.8Ghz and there was a HUGE jump in performance across the board.
Since moved briefly to 1700X @ 4ghz and 2 months now to 6800K @ 4Ghz and not looking back. Everything runs even faster than the 6700K @ 4.8. Let alone the 4820K

IvanDobskey · 30 Jun 2017 at 07:20

I went from a 2500k at 4.3ghz to a 6700k at 4.6ghz and it is definitely smoother and more consistent frame rates for playing games. I wouldn't say night and day difference though.

DragonQ · 30 Jun 2017 at 08:44

Panos said:
Guys, 2500K isn't adequate even at 5Ghz. Last year upgraded from 4820K @ 4.9Ghz (and briefly to 4930K @ 4.5) to 6700K @ 4.8Ghz and there was a HUGE jump in performance across the board.
Since moved briefly to 1700X @ 4ghz and 2 months now to 6800K @ 4Ghz and not looking back. Everything runs even faster than the 6700K @ 4.8. Let alone the 4820K

Whether it's "adequete" for whatever purpose (which you didn't mention) isn't what the OP was asking though. The question was quite specific. I wouldn't get a 4c/4t CPU for any serious rig now but hey ho.

IvanDobskey said:
I went from a 2500k at 4.3ghz to a 6700k at 4.6ghz and it is definitely smoother and more consistent frame rates for playing games. I wouldn't say night and day difference though.

That sounds like a realistic expectation, although remember you're comparing an older, lower clocked, CPU with a newer, higher clocked one, which also has SMT.

Disco_P · 30 Jun 2017 at 11:35

I wouldn't recommend any 4c/4t CPU unless it is less than £100.

DragonQ · 30 Jun 2017 at 11:40

Disco_P said:
I wouldn't recommend any 4c/4t CPU unless it is less than £100.

It'd probably have to be even lower than that considering a decently clocked 2c/4t Kaby Lake chip is regularly ~£50.

Doogles · 30 Jun 2017 at 12:00

DragonQ said:
It'd probably have to be even lower than that considering a decently clocked 2c/4t Kaby Lake chip is regularly ~£50.

Problem is dual cores are too weak now for gaming, unless you are happy with playing older games or 30 fps you do need a fairly recent quad core.

Roar87 · 30 Jun 2017 at 13:53

IvanDobskey said:
I went from a 2500k at 4.3ghz to a 6700k at 4.6ghz and it is definitely smoother and more consistent frame rates for playing games. I wouldn't say night and day difference though.

My 2500k struggled to hit above 4.2ghz and my 7700k does 5ghz so an 800mhz difference probably helps as well as RAM that's literally twice as fast

Psycho Sonny · 2 Jul 2017 at 23:12

Roar87 said:
My 2500k struggled to hit above 4.2ghz and my 7700k does 5ghz so an 800mhz difference probably helps as well as RAM that's literally twice as fast

every 2500K could hit 4.4Ghz without even putting the volts into the red zone, it was 50/50 whether you got one that could hit 4.4 or 4.5 without increasing volts into the red zone. if you wanted to go into the red then it depended on the chip whether it stopped at 4.6 or 5.

for you to only get 4.2 it was either a really bad chip or you were doing something wrong. did you have a decent mobo? disable additional stuff on mobo? etc, etc.