• 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

tommytinkle

tommytinkle

tommytinkle

Associate
Joined
20 Feb 2003
Posts
1,035
Location
cornwall
Hey,

Probably been asked a thousand times but I've used search and found nothing constructive for myself!

I play games, occasionally encode videos but mostly degree work and games - the 2600k is affordable to me, but if its not going to net me much benefit over the next two years I'll go 2500k.

Opinions much appreciated :)
 
Both chips are capable of 4.5Ghz.....one has hyper threading one does not.. which will be useful in video encoding but not in games.

Personally the extra cost for saving a few seconds in video encoding seems pointless, put it towards a better Gfx card/Ram/cooler/Hdrive or whatever you might like.
 
well to my mind they are only 3 reasons to get the 2600K, 1 because you need hyperthreading for any apps you use that take advantage of HT & 2 because you don't plan on overclocking, therefore need the higher stock clock speed, or 3, you do plan on doing some serious overclocking, so you will benefit from the higher initial stock clock.

if your just a casual clocker, who doesn't need HT, or the higher stock clock, then the 2500K would fill your needs perfectly. ;)
 
VoG said:
well to my mind they are only 3 reasons to get the 2600K, 1 because you need hyperthreading for any apps you use that take advantage of HT & 2 because you don't plan on overclocking, therefore need the higher stock clock speed, or 3, you do plan on doing some serious overclocking, so you will benefit from the higher initial stock clock.

if your just a casual clocker, who doesn't need HT, or the higher stock clock, then the 2500K would fill your needs perfectly. ;)
Click to expand...

+1

The 2600K will, generally, clock further and more easily than the 2500K, but i'm only talking if you want to push over 5GHz... under that and it really makes little difference.
 
If you only encode every once in a while get the 2500k. I frankly do not think it is worth it unless you encode for work or as a serious hobby.

If you do not overclock then the 2600 might be better just for the extra power at stock but personally if I had both I am not sure I would notice any difference between the two from a game perspective.
 
Personaly I feel that it's not unlikely that we might be seeing multiple threads being used properly in games within the next 3 years. So really it just depends on your upgrade cycle. That being said, we thought that when the q6600 came out 4 years ago ;).
 
Hey,

Still undecided :| The price difference between bundles is only £60 but I just can't make my mind up. If the 2600k clocked better than the 2500 I'd be sold on it.
 
just got a 2500K , wanted a 2600k.
But price difference and realising I wouldent be using the HT much if at all made me see sence.
Any way there will be better chips on this socket sooner or latter and can always upgrade at a latter date if I feel the need .
 
If, when you mention encoding, you mean once in a blue moon, go for the 2500K. They o/c just as well (in some cases, better - it seems each 2500/2500K chip's ability is entirely random).

Put the extra cash towards a larder SSD, or another SSD for RAID-0 fun.

Or, get yourself a WD 1TB SATA III HDD, as they are excellent.
 
2500K would be plenty for you by the sounds of it.
Managed to get mine pretty high and it's stable at 4.8GHz (see sig) so unless you're needing the HT go for the i5 imo.
 
2500K for performance, 2600K for bragging rights and benchmarks.

Few people run their processors at 100% for hours on end every day, so for most the real-world performance difference will be minimal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom