• 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 or 2600k?

The difference in actual practice (using the machine) wont be much to notice.
I ordered the 2500k.
price/performance ratio is important for me.
 
Never been hugely bothered about price/performance. More interested in it fitting in with my upgrade cycle. Usualy only upgrade every 3-4 years if I can help it. So if a 2500k fits in to that nicely then I would just get that, failing that i'd get the 2600k. Think at the moment it looks like i'll get a 2600k.

Todge said:
I'll be testing this very game on Wednesday to compare against my 3.0ghz Q6600 so I'll let you know. If i forget to post or post it elsewhere and you don't see it poke me with a stick or something to remind me lol.
Click to expand...

Ah thats brilliant, cheers. Will you be using a 2600k?
 
FSX with a lot of addons will benefit from the 2600k, for 2 reasons the hyperthreading and the larger cpu cache... FSX is always cpu limited the better the cpu you give it the better it works thats a clear fact that any simmer that has been using Microsoft flight simulator in it's various version will tell you. For FSX always buy the best CPU you can afford that is how I upgrade my home PC, due to the fact I have always used Microsoft flight simulator in it's various version, right from when it lived on a 3.5" floppy and ran on a 286 PC. Also if you use high res textures in addons you need to make sure you get a min of 8GB in that system I have used a concorde addon with it's high res textures and it will only work on a system with more then 6GB of ram. If it was me looking to update my FSX rig now I would be going for a 2600k and sticking 16GB of ram in that pc now, part of the Ram I would setup as a Ram disk for when I run FSX. If you know how to edit the config file for FSX you can set each core to do certain tasks in FSX (Just Google for ways to make FSX run better many people on the internet have FSX CFG files they have altered and optimised).


Also to add FSX can't use dual GPU cards, it will only access one GPU on a dual GPU card.

Regarding how FSX scales with CPU

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/..._cpu_scaling/7

How to make FSX GPU limited is by using eyefinity and using very high resolutions like 5760 x 1200 (read this one too it's funny to see the 5970 actually doing really well considering FSX can only access one of it's GPUs.. Wonders if ATI/AMD added a profile to the drivers to shift some of the loads to the 2nd GPU on the 5970) Strange one...

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/...mance_review/6

I'm guessing FSX will love Sandy Bridge systems with high overclocks.. One reason I would be looking to upgrade to Sandy Bridge is FSX and a lovely 4.6GHz will make it really fly.. Hopeing for some reviews with FSX and Sandy Bridge soon.. If anyone spots any please post them.
 
Last edited:
Todge said:
No a 2500k but apart from Hyper Threading and the 2mb l3 cache they are as far as i am aware identical. SupCom I think only uses a max of 4 cores anyway and even then not much on the 4th.
Click to expand...

I see, so does that mean that hyperthreading wouldn't show much differnce because supreme comander can only use up to 4 threads anyway?

I hope that some time soon someone shows a comparison between the 2500k and 2600k on games that actually use cpu power like supcom.
 
8igdave said:
I see, so does that mean that hyperthreading wouldn't show much differnce because supreme comander can only use up to 4 threads anyway?

I hope that some time soon someone shows a comparison between the 2500k and 2600k on games that actually use cpu power like supcom.
Click to expand...

I think so yes. There have actually been other benchmarks showing the hyperthreading holding the 2600k back in some games against the 2500k.

Trouble is all anyone ever wants to bench is Crysis :rolleyes:
 
8igdave said:
I see, so does that mean that hyperthreading wouldn't show much differnce because supreme comander can only use up to 4 threads anyway?

I hope that some time soon someone shows a comparison between the 2500k and 2600k on games that actually use cpu power like supcom.
Click to expand...

Does Supreme Commander 2 count?



I very much doubt that there are more than a handful of games where an average gamer playing at 1080p resolution would notice any difference between Sandy Bridge and any of the last generation quad cores.
 
Well I don't considering supcom 2 to be a supcom game because they destroyed the series with it. But if it runs the same engine (which it may not as they sold out to the consoles) that does suggest that there is literaly no difference between 2500k and 2600k.

opethdisciple said:
Well I found an article a few days back that *supposedly listed 17 pc games that use 6 cores.

Im not sure if thats 6 real cores or if hyper threaded cores count.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...already-benefit-from-six-cores-CPUs/Practice/
Click to expand...

Read the comments, its a terrible article with no proof to back up any of its claims.
 
Mr Krugga said:
Does Supreme Commander 2 count?



I very much doubt that there are more than a handful of games where an average gamer playing at 1080p resolution would notice any difference between Sandy Bridge and any of the last generation quad cores.
Click to expand...

All this image points out is that the graphics card used in this test is the limiting factor on all but one of the CPU's. They should test at lower resolutions.
 
Azuse05 said:
bittech covered the differences in a concise way. It's not a simple case of ht > i5 since the i5 oc is so high.
Click to expand...

Have read through it, but it's all synthetic benchmarks and two half hearted game benchmarks. Which does rather suggest that they were unable to really show any difference between them. I do think bit-tech do some of the best reviews so for them to have skimped on the gaming side would at least suggest this.
 
Todge said:
No a 2500k but apart from Hyper Threading and the 2mb l3 cache they are as far as i am aware identical. SupCom I think only uses a max of 4 cores anyway and even then not much on the 4th.
Click to expand...

For SC and SC:FA there is a small application called Core Maximizer which will enabled the game to use up to 32 cores. I can say that it does really make a difference in a multi thousand unit game :cool:
 
BlackMaster said:
For SC and SC:FA there is a small application called Core Maximizer which will enabled the game to use up to 32 cores. I can say that it does really make a difference in a multi thousand unit game :cool:
Click to expand...

OMG THATS WHY!

I used to play supcom with a 3.4ghz q6600 and see no lag. Then I went back to it on a 3.2ghz q6600 and I was like WOOOOW LAG! It's becuase I was running the core maximizer before! Thankyou!

So why is it that someone made a mod that does it but the devs couldn't do it them selves eh?
 
Ok I just ran benches on my system in prep for SB arriving. Will update sometime on Wednesday once i've got it all up and running.


Q6600 @ 3.0 ghz, 460GTX 1gb @ 860/1720/2000, 4gb ram
3572 3d Mark 2011 http://3dmark.com/3dm11/397344;jses...m11/397344?key=Mm7JAqhbVJfW9cz3B6xVXUDWYfkyt7

Heaven Benchmark v2.1 everything as high as i could get it.
FPS: 18.0
Scores: 452
Min FPS: 3.1
Max FPS: 43.8

Forged Alliance + core maximiser Everything on maximum 1980x1080x60
SupComMark (sim) : 10000
SupComMark (render) : 7932
SupComMark (composite) : 17932
FPS min[ 12.44] max[ 61.92] avg[ 41.970]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom