• 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 @ 4.5GHz vs 8600K OC?

Kaiju

Kaiju

Kaiju

Soldato
Joined
27 Jan 2005
Posts
3,655
Location
Expat in HK
I find stock 2500K vs 8600K benches but not the mighty 2500K overclocked vs the 8600K overclocked.

I'm looking for the differences in gaming, encoding and compression, so pretty much everything. :D
 
the 8600 will walk the floor with it. not even close. 8600k in games is about as fast as you can get. would be a great upgrade just depends what you after value or performance. the 2700x bundle which ocuk do is not much difference probably better value. better for multitasking about same on games.
 
Thanks, I'm not disagreeing, I just want the numbers to back up your claims.

The real world differences are really that much?
 
Kaiju said:
How much difference are we talking about using Windows?


Thanks.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by using windows?

If just browsing internet and general use then there is no difference.

If you are talking about gaming then the new processors have much more frames and much higher lows. Games run perfectly smooth, night and day difference to the old i5.
 
Right, so for gaming, huge upgrade, for general Windows usage, no difference.

What about compression and video encoding?
 
Kaiju said:
Right, so for gaming, huge upgrade, for general Windows usage, no difference.

What about compression and video encoding?
Click to expand...
The encoding difference is much higher than the gaming improvement. For encoding you're looking at ~100% improvement in encoding speed or say twice as fast. This is going by R15 scores of ~580 of OC 2500k vs ~1200 8600K OC.

The gaming differences will be good though you need percentages, games and actual resolutions rather than somebody just quoting "40-50 fps behind"
 
Last edited:
you can see in actual benchmarks its 40-50 fps. clocking the 8600 to max will see that grow even more. in games like bf1 and the such the older cpus like 2500k can be slide shows.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
you can see in actual benchmarks its 40-50 fps. clocking the 8600 to max will see that grow even more. in games like bf1 and the such the older cpus like 2500k can be slide shows.
Click to expand...
One should never just quote "40 - 50fps" as it needs a frame of reference to be meaningful. When you take things out of it's original context then it can give people the impression you have an agenda you wish to satisfy.
 
MartinPrince said:
The encoding difference is much higher than the gaming improvement. For encoding you're looking at ~100% improvement in encoding speed or say twice as fast. This is going by R15 scores of ~580 of OC 2500k vs ~1200 8600K OC.

The gaming differences will be good though you need percentages, games and actual resolutions rather than somebody just quoting "40-50 fps behind"
Click to expand...
That's perfect. So if you don't game and you don't mind half the speed of encoding, you are golden with a 2500K @4.5GHz.
 
Kaiju said:
That's perfect. So if you don't game and you don't mind half the speed of encoding, you are golden with a 2500K @4.5GHz.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure why you keep going round in circles but yes.

Basically, if you feel its fast enough for what you use it for then don't change. If you do change.. Get ryzen for better performance to cost.
 
Kaiju said:
That's perfect. So if you don't game and you don't mind half the speed of encoding, you are golden with a 2500K @4.5GHz.
Click to expand...

look at it realistically. you have a cpu from 2011 that is £30 2nd hand vs a 2018 cpu which is £250 new wipes the floor with it. if it does what you need keep it but by modern standards they are pretty slow now.
 
lol still got a i7 5830 clocked at 5 ghz lol payed £275 . would cuost you now lol £ 400 and you get ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
 
Still rocking a 2700k @4.5 and the only issues i'm experiencing really are when streaming.
R7 2700x is looking highly appealing to me as of now
 
Kaiju said:
Thanks, I'm not disagreeing, I just want the numbers to back up your claims.

The real world differences are really that much?
Click to expand...

real world you won't notice much of an improvement.

i went from a 2500K to 7600k then a 8500. it never made a big difference i should have just stuck with the 2500K. 2500K was at 4.4ghz. 7600K is what i reverted back to sold the 8500 rig. i have heard the 7600K can hit 5ghz but i'm running stock. will probably try for 4.6ghz one day as i like a safe overclock.

the boost is tiny at best a 2500K at 4.5ghz is more than fast enough for everything.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
look at it realistically. you have a cpu from 2011 that is £30 2nd hand vs a 2018 cpu which is £250 new wipes the floor with it. if it does what you need keep it but by modern standards they are pretty slow now.
Click to expand...

rubbish. i've owned both and the difference is tiny.

cost is irrelevant too. my car is old and worth £4-£6K it still wipes the floor of many new cars worth £20K.

for me to upgrade my car to something which is brand new equivalent and faster i'd need to spend closer to £40K-£50K

then i think to myself i'm going to drop £35K+ for marginal improvement it's not worth it when my car does everything i want it to do.

same goes for cpu's. since the 2500K there has been no huge leaps performance wise. cpu's have stagnated. more cores doesn't mean faster either. only in benchmarks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom