• 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 > 2600K WHY?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nlr
  • Start date Start date
To be fair - its less than 1% difference. I thinks it would be fair to say that the difference is within the margin of error and in WOW the 2500K and 2600K are just as good as each other.
 
cmndr_andi said:
To be fair - its less than 1% difference. I thinks it would be fair to say that the difference is within the margin of error and in WOW the 2500K and 2600K are just as good as each other.
Click to expand...

This. Notice that they use Fraps so there's bound to be a degree of error.
 
chippy08 said:
so really your paying £85 to get hyper threading is it really worth having when it comes to encoding ?
Click to expand...

I would rather put that £85 towards a better motherboard or graphics card. Or maybe an SSD.

Both processors overclocking fairly much the same so not a lot of difference in performance.
 
I still don't understand how it could be possible unless its an error but then why would they display it on AnandTech
 
nlr said:
I still don't understand how it could be possible unless its an error but then why would they display it on AnandTech
Click to expand...

Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it - it's a 0.76% difference in a game that was most likely being limited by graphics card performance by that point.
 
cmndr_andi said:
It does give you better performance - have a look at this page.

Whether this extra performance is worth £85 to you - I suppose you have to be the judge of that yourself.
Click to expand...

29.1 seconds for the 2600k compared to 31.3 seconds for the 2500k hardly anything in it really. I dont think i can justify the extra £85 for 2.2 seconds.
 
Our World of Warcraft benchmark is a manual FRAPS runthrough of a lightly populated server with no other player controlled characters around. The frame rates here are higher than you'd see in a real world scenario, but the relative comparison between CPUs is accurate.

We run on a Radeon HD 5870 at 1680 x 1050. We're using WoW's high quality defaults but with weather intensity turned down all the way.
Click to expand...

Just wanted to add this so hopefully it will help determine the facts.
 
Last edited:
chippy08 said:
29.1 seconds for the 2600k compared to 31.3 seconds for the 2500k hardly anything in it really. I dont think i can justify the extra £85 for 2.2 seconds.
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends what you are doing. For DivX the difference isn't much, but with x264 it is significantly faster with the i7.

Hence if you are encoding large x264 files - then the i7 could be worth it, since you can be saving a fair bit of time.


nlr said:
Just wanted to add this so hopefully it will help determine the facts.
Click to expand...

That makes sense - 1680x1050 @ high quality using a single 5870. With both CPUs giving a performance around 120FPS I would definitely suggest that the performance is being bottlenecked by the GPU. Perhaps with a more powerful GPU you would see the performance we would expect (ie 2600K slightly faster due to higher clockspeed).
 
Last edited:
This is probably due to the way the application is coded, or a quirk of hyperthreading. The algorithm may not be set up to use more than four cores.

There are some situations where parallelization actually makes things run slower, due to the overhead of divying out instructions to the various registers on the cpu. Having said that, this situation usually only occurs with very low overhead algorithms.

Rule of thumb, multicore processing isn't always faster - it entirely depends on the algorithm, and how the application is coded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom