I always play games. Is 2600 worth $30 more to 2600K?

[andrern2000]

I always play games. If I add $30 more to buy 2600K, would it worth the money? For motherboard I think I'll choose Asrock P67 PRO 3, will be running @1600 Mhz memory.

 

[Degausser]

If you plan to overclock your CPU then yes, definitely. The normal 2600 can't be overclocked.

You could even drop down to a 2500k and see almost the same performance while gaming because most games around don't really benefit much from hyperthreading. A high clock rate and 4 cores will be better than a lower clock rate and 4 core and 4 hyperthreaded threads.

 

[Leaps-from-Shadows]

The ASRock P67 Pro3 is a good choice for mainboard. It's what I bought, and I'm happy with it. Currently running with a 2500K and 12GB of DDR3-1600 RAM.

For gaming, a 2500 or 2500K will be good enough for the next five years or so. You don't need the 2600's Hyperthreading unless you do Photoshop or programs like that. Use the saved money on a better video card or something.

If you want to overclock, get the 2500K. Otherwise, the 2500 is a better choice.

Psycho -- sad to see you leave the Sandy Bridge fold. We'll miss you...

 

[andrern2000]

Thx guys. Rly 5 yrs? I only overclock mildly, not heavy overclocking. According to cpu_benchmark the difference is 6700 to 9300. But it's true the difference price is a smack dab $100, possibly upgrading 560 to 570. ohwrighty..

 

[geekapproved]

Definitely get the 2600/2600K if your going for future-proof. It has 4 more virtual cores and can act as a octo-core in a lot of scenarios.

Too bad you'll have to wait till around April though to buy it.

 

[Leaps-from-Shadows]

At the level of horsepower we're talking about here, the video card is more important.

If the 2500K allows you to get a GTX 570 instead of a GTX 560 Ti, get the 2500K. You'll be glad you did.

And as far as more cores = future proof ... we've had multi-core systems for how long and yet the vast majority of our games still take advantage of only one or maybe two cores? Basically, you'll be upgrading to an entirely new system before you ever have a chance to regret getting a 2500K instead of a 2600K.

 

[geekapproved]

At the level of horsepower we're talking about here, the video card is more important.

If the 2500K allows you to get a GTX 570 instead of a GTX 560 Ti, get the 2500K. You'll be glad you did.

And as far as more cores = future proof ... we've had multi-core systems for how long and yet the vast majority of our games still take advantage of only one or maybe two cores? Basically, you'll be upgrading to an entirely new system before you ever have a chance to regret getting a 2500K instead of a 2600K.

Really? That's an amazing prediction. I've been running my same gaming system for over 4 years now and don't plan to upgrade till BD or SB-E.

It's great if your JUST a gamer like most kids on here. However if you use REAL applications, the hyperthreading is definitely worth the extra money, your getting basically 4 more core. Oh and just so you know, there are A LOT of games that use 3-4 cores and some use 5-6 cores. Don't be left behind behind because your taking a gamers point of view.

If you get the 2600(k), you won't have any reason to upgrade for 3-4 years, where as if you go with the 2500K, you'll feel left behind when 8 core BD's and SB-E's start rolling out in just a few months.

If your strictly a gamer and surfer, then by all means save the $100 toward a better VC and get the 2500K.

 

[Leaps-from-Shadows]

Okay geeky ... we could get into a pissing match here. We really could -- I can feel the storm a-brewin' right now. But I'm going to stop it here.

There may be a game or two that use that many cores (though I have yet to see proof of such a beast), but as I said before, the vast majority (99.99%) still use one or two cores.

The OP specifically states the primary purpose of the system in the first sentence. Going by that, the 2500K will be a good CPU for four or five years -- at which point it'll be time to upgrade the entire system.

Hell, you even admit to running a four-year-old system. You don't actually need to upgrade it now do you? You could still run with that for another year or two.

 

[simon12]

Games may use more cores but they don't benefit from hyperthreading only cores the 2500K is and in 4 years will still be as good as the 2600K

 

[andrern2000]

Definitely get the 2600/2600K if your going for future-proof. It has 4 more virtual cores and can act as a octo-core in a lot of scenarios.

Too bad you'll have to wait till around April though to buy it.

What do u mean wait till around April?

Ok2, so it's a tight choice between 2500K and 2600K. But will GTX 570 bottleneck 2500K? uh, sorry, i mean the reverse. Will 2500K bottleneck 570?

 

[henryvalz]

What do u mean wait till around April?

You have to wait until April to get a properly functioning motherboard for Sandy Bridge.

 

[Leaps-from-Shadows]

Yeppers. Intel found a flaw in the SATA controller for the Cougar Point chipset used in H67/P67 mainboards. It will likely be April before fixed versions are available.

And no, Intel's second most powerful processor won't bottleneck nVidia's second most powerful graphics processor. They kind of fit together perfectly.

 

[andrern2000]

Oh ok. So I guess even Asrock PRO 3 needs some tweaking before April. I guess I just buy it on April. If 2500K don't bottleneck 570 I guess it's enough to go 2500k then, buy I might rethink about 2600K. Thanks for the advice.

 

[andrern2000]

Best answer selected by andrern2000.

 

[Mousemonkey]

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey