CPU Benchmark comparisons

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
M

mattratcathat

Prominent
Dec 27, 2017
4
0
510
Using an old work desktop for HTPC. Considering upgrading the CPU because it struggles with 4k video. It comes close but skips on ocassion. I used Afterburner to watch my resource usage and it shows my CPU pegged out.

I currently have an i5 2400. My research has come up with that the best I can do for an upgrade on the current motherboard is the i7 2600k. (LGA 1155 socket and Q65 chipset) Please correct me if you see something wrong there.

I looked up the benchmarks for the i5 2400, i7 2600 and i7 2600k.
=1&cmp[]=868&cmp[]=793]https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1&cmp[]=868&cmp[]=793
In case the link doesn't work. 2400 = 5928, 2600 = 8210, 2600k = 8464

Can I use these numbers to come up a percentage better? 8464/5928=1.428. So is the 2600k 43% better than the 2400?
 
Solution
EpIckFa1LJoN
Yes and no. While synthetic benches give a good idea of how much better any given CPU will perform, it is far from real-world differences and there are more things to consider.

Given that the 2600k is hyper-threaded and slightly faster at stock, yes, it will be slightly faster. However, not 43%. Real world applications I'd say it's about 10-15% faster. With an overclock, since the 2400 lacks that capability, it should be even faster maybe 20%. The only time the 2600k will actually be that much faster is if the program utilizes 100% of the CPU.

here's an example. I had a 6700k with an overclock to 4.7GHz (4cores/8threads) My RealBench score was about 102,000 with my 1080 Ti Graphics and XMP enabled for RAM.
I recently got an 8700k...
Sort by date Sort by votes
EpIckFa1LJoN

EpIckFa1LJoN

Admirable
Jul 27, 2016
1,794
0
6,460
Yes and no. While synthetic benches give a good idea of how much better any given CPU will perform, it is far from real-world differences and there are more things to consider.

Given that the 2600k is hyper-threaded and slightly faster at stock, yes, it will be slightly faster. However, not 43%. Real world applications I'd say it's about 10-15% faster. With an overclock, since the 2400 lacks that capability, it should be even faster maybe 20%. The only time the 2600k will actually be that much faster is if the program utilizes 100% of the CPU.

here's an example. I had a 6700k with an overclock to 4.7GHz (4cores/8threads) My RealBench score was about 102,000 with my 1080 Ti Graphics and XMP enabled for RAM.
I recently got an 8700k. Running everything at stock, 4.3GHz (6cores/12threads) 1080 Ti, RAM at stock. My score was 136,000. So in theory my new CPU should perform about 33% better than the old one right? wrong.

It's entirely application dependent. In Fallout 4 for example it actually helped very little. I'd say I gained between 5-10% avg fps over the 6700k. However, my minimum fps was up more than 50%.

In most applications there is absolutely no difference because they weren't even using the 6700k at full capacity so the 8700k didn't do anything the 6700k couldn't.

In WoW in particular, I actually LOST performance. Because WoW only uses 4 cores anything more than that is almost useless. I lost about 10fps changing CPU's. Because my old one was running at 4.7GHz and the new one is at 4.3GHz so I lost a little under 10% of my core clock speed.

So yeah it depends...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom