i7 2600 vs i5 6600

surya13 · Jul 9, 2016

hi

i want to know which one of these is good for gaming

in some benchmarks, the 2600 is 20-30% better than the 6600 and in some others, both perform almost the same

in geekbench 3,
the 6600 leads in all single core tests
the 2600 leads in most tests for integer performance
the 6600 leads in most tests for floating point performance

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/7020679?baseline=7117370

in the above link, the score of 6600 is mine and the score of 2600 is taken from the geekbench browser (the memory performance of my 6600 is limited by my motherboard and the memory scores are low)

so which of 2600 and 6600 is better for gaming??

Chugalug_ · Jul 9, 2016

For gaming the i5 6600 is much better.
It has stronger single core performance, meaning that it will be much better for the most part in games due to the fact that most games do not fully utilize hyperthreading yet. This will be more present in DX12 in the future when it becomes the standard.
On top of that is based on a much newer architecture/socket, meaning the motherboards for it will have better features such as USB 3.1 and USB Type C on the higher end models.
I would only recommend getting the i7 2600 if you stream, create or render video content, as the hyper threading can greatly speed up render times.
Otherwise the i5 6600 is the way to go. Also consider upgrading to the 6600k model and grabbing a cooler such as the Shadow Rock LP (low profile) or Cryorig H5/H7 to go with it, as the extra base clock is very good, even if you're not overclocking.

sizzling · Jul 9, 2016

Scroll down to the results with dedicated gpu's. They are well matched, some games can take advantage of the i7's hyper threading but some the extra speed of the single core performance of the 6600.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/287?vs=1646

The extra speed of the 6600 is more likely to help if running high fps for a 144Hz monitor.

If you have neither I would buy the 6600, if you already have a 2600 then an upgrade to a 6600 is not worth the cost in my opinion

Chugalug_ · Jul 9, 2016

sizzling :

The lack of upgrade ability, outdated motherboard externals and aging chips make the i7 2600 a questionable choice, especially for gaming where the i7 is not fully utilized unless the game is open world and is very demanding, an example being GTA V or The Witcher 3 (rarely).

The i5 6600 is simply the better choice because of the fact that in 90% of titles, there will be little to no difference between the two, and the extra costs of acquiring the aging components for the build can be more trouble than its worth, as even if you one was building from scratch they could simply pick up 16GB of DDR4 and a H110M motherboard for around or just under $90 all up, rather than search around for these older parts which would cost more than they would be worth.

I don't understand however why you would want to spend all this money on old components and parts when you could just get the i7 6700/6700k which is compatible with the parts you currently own.
It is completely out of the question to get the 2600.
Get the i7 6700k and a cheap cooler if you render video and do heavy multi tasking, but if you just do gaming stick with what you have. It is a great CPU.

sizzling · Jul 9, 2016

I must have updated while you were typing, I agree with all that. Without knowing where he is coming from it's hard to advise. Does he already have the 2600?

Chugalug_ · Jul 9, 2016

sizzling :

He already has the i5 6600 and is wondering if he should get the i7 2600.

superninja12 · Jul 9, 2016

Chugalug_ :

thats stupid

Chugalug_ · Jul 9, 2016

superninja12 :

I know, i've explained it above, let me know if you feel anything is missing or has not being touched upon.

Chugalug_ · Jul 9, 2016

sizzling :

The 6600 due to being a quad core processor without hyperthreading will make the experience less stable compared to an i7 which has twice the cores due to hyperthreading being present, which allows it to spread load across more cores. Very few games are CPU bound currently, but the extra speed of the 6600 provides little benefit compared to the i7 ESPECIALLY at high frame rates, where the stability of the i7 is a determining factor. Even though the i5 will give higher frame rates in games that use less cores, it will struggle to maintain consistency, whereas the i7 generally provides a more stable frame rate in those which do utilize higher core counts, even though the frame rates may be very similar in this regard.
Just thought i'd clear this up, not saying that buying the i7 is the better choice here however.

Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163 · Jul 9, 2016

The 6600 is almost on par with a i7 2600 in multithread apps.

Chugalug_ · Jul 9, 2016

Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163 :

It is, however gaming which is the primary focus here shifts more into the i7s court in terms of the stability offered, while the i5 is still the best option for pushing overall higher frame rates in games which utilize less threads, read above for my justifications of each and recommendation.

Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163 · Jul 9, 2016

What stability issues are you referring to?

Running multiple apps at once won't give the edge to the i7, because no apps are that heavy. If they are, then games still get to use the stronger cores of the i5. If the apps are that heavy, then you won't play your game at playable framerates either on the i5 or the i7.

sizzling · Jul 9, 2016

I missed he had the 6600 already as he didn't say this but only implied it by giving his score. I'd take 6600 for all the reasons already stated

Chugalug_ · Jul 9, 2016

Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163 :

I'm referring to issues with stability when running rendering apps and games with a non HT quad core such as the 6600.
I owned a 2600 briefly back in 2012 when I got a good price for it and ran it at stock speeds while rendering an adobe file and gaming. I experienced no issues whatsoever and found the experience to be very stable.
Trying the same thing with an i5 6500 while testing on request for a client late last year however, I noticed deep, albeit brief (1-2 seconds at the most) frame drops while running Black Ops 3 and rendering.
It may just be my personal experience, but I firmly believe the i7 to have the upper hand in multi tasking apps as mentioned above.
I am not however recommending that OP spend money on this CPU regardless, as they already own a 6600 at which I have instructed them to not upgrade to an i7 (6700, 6700k) unless they are performing heavy multi tasking and running rendering apps.

surya13 · Jul 9, 2016

i have the following:
1)i5 6600
2)a friend who brags that his i7 2600 is far better than my 6600

so i want to know which is better
1)in current games
2)in upcoming games

Chugalug_ · Jul 9, 2016

surya13 :

In current games the i5 6600 is better.
In upcoming games as apps start to utilise more cores, the i7 2600 will be slightly better, however it will only be fully utilized when DX12 becomes mainstream, which could be another 2-3 years, meaning that his CPU may well suffer from degrading before then if he has been using it since it came out, which was early 2011 from memory, or fail completely.
Chances are it may become obsolete around that time due to constant improvements in efficiency, performance and value, which may phase out his CPU, as that socket is starting to show its age with the non-k CPUs, which typically have a higher lifespan in terms of remaining relevant in performance.
So until multi-threaded applications become better, the i5 6600 has the lead.

nikoli707 · Jul 9, 2016

surya13 :

the 2600 is definitely not far better than a 6600. in non gaming benchmarks they are pretty close but the 6600 is overall a better cpu for most users. the 6600 will have better single core numbers while the 2600 may put up better multithread scores. this does depend on the benchmark. in the real world the 6600 should feel a bit snappier for normal day to day tasks.

in gaming they are still pretty close. with a gpu like a gtx970/r9-390 its going to be hard to tell the differences in performance between the two, but the 6600 is definitely a little better. with a 980ti or better gpu the 6600 will start to pull away fast once the gpu starts saturating the cpus.

if your friend had a 2600k that was overclocked to say 4.5ghz then i would say yes for sure it is faster in every aspect, considerably in multithread. but otherwise a 3.4/3.8ghz 2600 is still a good cpu. like said above, in future games that are coded correctly to take advantage of hyperthreading on a i7 the locked 2600 will still fare well as long as one doesn't use anything better than a single gtx1080. if you throw a gtx1080ti on there is going to be a huge bottleneck, as there also would be on a locked 6600.

surya13 · Jul 10, 2016

what does gaming use??
integer performance or floating point performance or both??

Chugalug_ · Jul 10, 2016

surya13 :

CPUs use both of these in any load situation due to the fact that its cores are being used.
Gaming at the moment only utilizes a few cores unless it is an open world title with good optimization such as GTA V.
As such the extra hyperthreaded cores on the i7 which are slower than the i5, are obsolete in most gaming applications.
This means that less cores running faster are better for gaming, and will give a higher frame rate, although you always want to stick with a quad core at least no matter what you're doing unless its a very basic browsing typing or emailing machine, or a budget build.

Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163 · Jul 10, 2016

Games use threads.

i7 2600 vs i5 6600

Honorable

Titan

Titan

Titan

Titan

Titan

Glorious

Titan

Titan

Dignified

Titan

Dignified

Titan

Titan

Honorable

Titan

Splendid

Honorable

Titan

Dignified

Share this page