[Solved] Why would someone want an i7-2600K over an i5-2500K?

Hey guys,

Aside from the slightly higher clock speed, why would someone want to pay ~$100 more on an i7-2600K over the i5-2500K?

Are Hyper-Threading and 2 MB more of L3 cache the only difference? What exactly might you gain from HT and 2 MB more L3 cache? Are there any gaming benefits from this?

It seems like everyone is recommending the i5-2500K, but I'm curious about what you lose out on by going that route?

Thanks,
-TG

how can people compensate for tiny genitalia without getting something bigger, faster, etc., then the next guy?? answer me that!

I have learned to accept my tiny genitalia. It took a few years but I am at peace now.

the fact is most modern CPUs are more then enough for PC gaming. developers won't start pushing the envelope again until new consoles come out (2-3 years), by then the SB CPUs will look slow compared to that market

Great! I can assume my new 2600k with a gtx570sc will crush dragon Age 2!

I'll probably go with the 2600k even if the 2500k is plenty powerful.
May as well get a new computer instead of wasting money on my retirement fund.

I'm assuming there should be a "yet" at the end of that statement?

So, by the time HT will be widely used in games...it should be time for an upgrade anyway and the $100 saved now should be saved for that?

Are there any examples of frequently used or more popular programs that do make good use of HT...or are they pretty much all for a specific user type...if you get what I'm asking here?

OK, I understand what you are saying about gaming...but what about...

"Are there any examples of frequently used or more popular programs that do make good use of HT...or are they pretty much all for a specific user type...if you get what I'm asking here?"

I'm trying to figure out if I would be missing out on anything important/cool.

Wow. i must be behind the times.

I thought they ended that series.

Basically the moral of the story is: if you cant use the power the i7 has, you dont need to waste money for it.

For me, If I had the money i would go after the 2600K due to F@H need for high amounts of cores and threads.

Well they did but so many people still purchased FSX that Microsoft just reconsidered I think and is completely revamping the series.
The are a ton of 3rd party add ons (complex accusim aircraft A2ASimulations) ,extensive modifications for FSX (numerous companies Orbx terrain).
One company has announced recently an add on (TacPack) that will convert it to a combat flight simulator initially with a extensively detailed F/A 18E (Vertical Reality Simulations) and later for other 3rd party aircraft.
I just ordered a 5th copy of FSX Gold Edition just a few days ago for a future PC.I might even get a couple of extra ones on top of that.

With some 3rd party aircraft and some mods easily it makes for good training.Stock it's kinda poor for thatI am going to wait until Zambezi comes out and compare it with the i7-2600K.If it proves better than Zambezi it is paired with perhaps a GTX 580 or newer better card by then.There are quite a few other flight simulators,combat flight simulators coming out lately.

Note entirely, there are some tasks where you don't need all the resources of a core, and a hyperthreaded one would give the same performance benifits. The main problem is the Windows Scheduler, which does not do a good job of allocating threads to individual cores...

It's difficult to select a best answer. How do you qualify it? Best answer for me specifically? Best answer that addresses the question most thoroughly? Best answer for the person doing a search on the subject? A combination of all these things?

I'll do my best, biasing mostly towards the best answer for me specifically.