Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

I7 950 vs i7 2500 vs i5 2500K vs i5 760

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 11, 2011 4:55:44 PM

Hello,
I am actually so confused between all of them, having read reviews some people favour the old i7 950 over i7 2500, but I dont see how i7 950 can bee better when its a £100 cheaper? and the 2500 supports sandy bridge (sorry if im wrong)
I am not really good with hardware, but I really wanna be, I am finishing school in a week, Ive got a job for when i finish school so I am planning to save around £500 in a months time. Maybe I should save up a little bit more and get an i7 2500L? Is it really worth it?
Btw I am saving up for whole system unit, excluding the monitor

More about : 950 2500 2500k 760

June 11, 2011 5:05:25 PM

2500K*
the* whole system unit
sorry about the typos x.x
Related resources
June 11, 2011 6:51:07 PM

Thanks guys,
I was thinking about going for an i7-950
How is it not better than i5 2500K?
a b à CPUs
June 11, 2011 6:59:52 PM

Sandy Bridge is just a better architecture. Check the benchmarks: the 2500K is just about the best thing out there. The 2600K is only slightly better, and significantly more expensive: 2500K for sure.
Tom's latest gaming CPU article is where I'm getting this:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/best-gaming-cpu,review-32...
June 11, 2011 7:07:08 PM

its only £50 more, is that worth it?
and 2500K has 2MB less than 950, how does that work out? thankyou so much!
a b à CPUs
June 11, 2011 8:27:03 PM

In overall performance.......The 2500K beats the i7 950 in 90% of tasks
a b à CPUs
June 11, 2011 9:29:19 PM

sizzling_fates said:
its only £50 more, is that worth it?
and 2500K has 2MB less than 950, how does that work out? thankyou so much!


It's a new arch.

There is also much greater overclocking headroom mainly thanks to the die shrink (45nm-->32nm).

Give this a read.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sandy-bridge-core-i...

June 11, 2011 10:55:57 PM

thanks, that article was actually a lot of help. I dont see why i7 950 is £10 more than i5 2500K,
anyway one more question (sorry to bother you), how do i know if a case supports my motherboard? and is it reallly hard fitting one in? I've never done this before, but i really wanna get into this stuff.
June 11, 2011 10:57:23 PM

Raidur said:
It's a new arch.

There is also much greater overclocking headroom mainly thanks to the die shrink (45nm-->32nm).

Give this a read.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sandy-bridge-core-i...

thanks, that article was actually a lot of help. I dont see why i7 950 is £10 more than i5 2500K,
anyway one more question (sorry to bother you), how do i know if a case supports my motherboard? and is it reallly hard fitting one in? I've never done this before, but i really wanna get into this stuff.
a b à CPUs
June 11, 2011 11:57:13 PM

You can't make any comparisons of performance with Intel's pricing.

An overclocked 2600k can be twice as fast as a stock i5-760.
June 12, 2011 1:31:56 AM

The i5-2500K is better than the i7-950 sizzling_fates =]!

Price doesn't always matter, trust me! For example, look up the X6800 on google, its a Core 2 Duo Extreme. Its architecture is from technology back from around 2006, but see how its still just as expensive as the i5-2500K? The i5-2500K will beat up that X6800 badly! So the i5-2500K compared to the i7-950, the i5-2500K is better. It has newer architecture and can process things more efficiently and faster, regardless of a little less cache size =]

You can't go and buy the i5-2500K and ultimately expect to fit it inside of your existing motherboard unless if your sure you already have a Socket 1155 motherboard! If you have a motherboard planned to already buy then were okay. If so, post the motherboard you are planning to buy then we can tell you the size of the case you need! =D
June 12, 2011 2:16:44 PM

hyrule571 said:
The i5-2500K is better than the i7-950 sizzling_fates =]!

Price doesn't always matter, trust me! For example, look up the X6800 on google, its a Core 2 Duo Extreme. Its architecture is from technology back from around 2006, but see how its still just as expensive as the i5-2500K? The i5-2500K will beat up that X6800 badly! So the i5-2500K compared to the i7-950, the i5-2500K is better. It has newer architecture and can process things more efficiently and faster, regardless of a little less cache size =]

You can't go and buy the i5-2500K and ultimately expect to fit it inside of your existing motherboard unless if your sure you already have a Socket 1155 motherboard! If you have a motherboard planned to already buy then were okay. If so, post the motherboard you are planning to buy then we can tell you the size of the case you need! =D


Thanks,
I know that, I am gonna get a motherboard with socket1155, but when I browse through cases, their specification say that they're compatible with ATX and micro ATX motherboards and I have no idea what that means /.\ I could tell you what motherboard I'm planning to get but then I won't learn how you figure out what case to buy, I wanna do it all on my own, thanks though :) 
June 12, 2011 2:28:41 PM

Quote:
i5 2500k is an insane cpu for the price asked. get it you wont be dissapointed :) 

How about I add another £50 and get 2600K?
a b à CPUs
June 12, 2011 2:36:11 PM

sizzling_fates said:
How about I add another £50 and get 2600K?

Going large is never a bad thing IMHO.
a b à CPUs
June 12, 2011 2:58:42 PM

It depends on what you use the PC for. since almost all the guys here are average users where gaming is the heaviest load their pc has done, yes The i5-2500K is better for an average user, its faster for people who just surf the net, email, photo viewing editing, and gaming of course, it has higher clockspeed, and the overclocking is an advantage, it will be much faster in non multi thread apps. If using CPU-intensive threaded tasks, such as HD video rendering, and image rendering and animations, that need triple-channel RAM and hyperthreading, the i7-950 that is a good choice because it will run much stable for that usage. believe me thats what i do with my pc.
June 12, 2011 4:47:25 PM

Quote:
do you need hyperthreading?
what you gonna be doing with your new pc?

Yeah, I am gonna be playing around with animations and gaming.
June 12, 2011 4:54:44 PM

oby20 said:
It depends on what you use the PC for. since almost all the guys here are average users where gaming is the heaviest load their pc has done, yes The i5-2500K is better for an average user, its faster for people who just surf the net, email, photo viewing editing, and gaming of course, it has higher clockspeed, and the overclocking is an advantage, it will be much faster in non multi thread apps. If using CPU-intensive threaded tasks, such as HD video rendering, and image rendering and animations, that need triple-channel RAM and hyperthreading, the i7-950 that is a good choice because it will run much stable for that usage. believe me thats what i do with my pc.

I wanna use it for animations, video editing, movies, and ofc gaming, do you think its worth spending another £50 and getting the i7 2600K instead?
thanks.
a b à CPUs
June 12, 2011 11:21:12 PM

no, its not worth spending, i7 2600k is just like an i5 2500k with hyperthreading. you will be needing a triple channel memory for animations, also its new Turbo mode only works effectively with single threaded applications, or applications that use less than the available cores, so the impact of the Turbo mode in animations will be small. i see sandy bridge as turbo version of the old LGA 1156, a gaming cpu for an average user, but not definitely for an intensive user such as animator and video editing 3D renderers.
i7 950 or i7 960 would be a better choice for that usage.
the main problem with the Sandy Bridge is the CPU may be fast enough, the rest is no more than mediocre at best. the problem with its chipsets, P67, Q67 and H67, is identical to the P55 chipset The lack of PCI-e lanes. This prevents one to use a nVidia MPE capable video card AND a raid controller. For high performance both are needed, but it is impossible on these platforms, due to the lack of PCI-e lanes. In addition only PCI-e 2.0 lanes are supported, not 3.0.The new platforms have the same shortcomings as the P55, making it unsuitable for serious editing. The H.264 test results with software MPE i thisn Tom's Hardware show 20:55 for the 2600K and 26:02 for the i7-950. 24% difference.
The best i7-950 in the PPBM5 benchmark has 93 s in the H.264 test and 127 s for the render test. An overclocked i7-920 has 65 and 73 s respectively. 43% and 74% respectiviely. These tests are incomparable, but the conclusion is clear Sandy Bridge is not faster than an OC'ed i7-920/930/950, still needs a nVidia card and still needs a raid controller, which is impossible. Sandy Bridge has no noticeable benefits over an OC'ed 920 and seriously suffers from the memory architecture for NLE work, combined with an intergrated graphics 'chip' that is unusable.
June 12, 2011 11:38:01 PM

oby20 said:
no, its not worth spending, i7 2600k is just like an i5 2500k with hyperthreading. you will be needing a triple channel memory for animations, also its new Turbo mode only works effectively with single threaded applications, or applications that use less than the available cores, so the impact of the Turbo mode in animations will be small. i see sandy bridge as turbo version of the old LGA 1156, a gaming cpu for an average user, but not definitely for an intensive user such as animator and video editing 3D renderers.
i7 950 or i7 960 would be a better choice for that usage.
the main problem with the Sandy Bridge is the CPU may be fast enough, the rest is no more than mediocre at best. the problem with its chipsets, P67, Q67 and H67, is identical to the P55 chipset The lack of PCI-e lanes. This prevents one to use a nVidia MPE capable video card AND a raid controller. For high performance both are needed, but it is impossible on these platforms, due to the lack of PCI-e lanes. In addition only PCI-e 2.0 lanes are supported, not 3.0.The new platforms have the same shortcomings as the P55, making it unsuitable for serious editing. The H.264 test results with software MPE i thisn Tom's Hardware show 20:55 for the 2600K and 26:02 for the i7-950. 24% difference.
The best i7-950 in the PPBM5 benchmark has 93 s in the H.264 test and 127 s for the render test. An overclocked i7-920 has 65 and 73 s respectively. 43% and 74% respectiviely. These tests are incomparable, but the conclusion is clear Sandy Bridge is not faster than an OC'ed i7-920/930/950, still needs a nVidia card and still needs a raid controller, which is impossible. Sandy Bridge has no noticeable benefits over an OC'ed 920 and seriously suffers from the memory architecture for NLE work, combined with an intergrated graphics 'chip' that is unusable.


but most applications dont use multi-threading do they? When I said animations, I meant adobe cs5, and thats all. I dont know any other applications as I am busy with school and stuff,
if I play games (such as GTA4, cod etc), edit videos on adobe after effects, record gameplays and such, is i7-950 better than i7 2600K?
June 12, 2011 11:39:50 PM

and the second generation of intel i cores doesnt have triple channel memory? even the i7 2600k?
a b à CPUs
June 13, 2011 3:25:01 AM

yes absolutely, i7 950 much stable running cs5 and edit videos in after effects, adobe software or any animation software is a core and memory hungry, the more the better.
all sandy bridge only supports dual channel memory and less pcie lanes. Combining 8 PCI-e lanes with the 16 lanes in the Sandy Bridge processors gives a total of just 24 PCI-e lanes, far less than Intel’s X58 which is 40 lanes, its something to consider.
a b à CPUs
June 13, 2011 11:35:17 AM

The i7 9xx series are previous generation technology. Yes, they have triple channel RAM, but that's about their only advantage over the latest generation (Sandy Bridge).

For my latest build I bought the i7 2600 instead of the i5 2500 because the price difference wasn't enough to deter me :)  If you are on a tight budget, though, you should definitely get the 2500.

BTW: only get the K version if you plan to overclock (or you desperately want the higher version of the integrated video...)

a b à CPUs
June 13, 2011 12:29:12 PM

2310969,26,909773 said:
The i7 9xx series are previous generation technology. Yes, they have triple channel RAM, but that's about their only advantage over the latest generation (Sandy Bridge).

^i dont think so, besides triple channel memory, more pcie lanes makes it performs at a high level, 6 core support makes an upgrade worth in the future.
a faster clock is the only sandy bridge advantage because its a new architecture. its only faster in games and average use but it cannot perform better than an x58 in cpu intensive threaded task.

sandy bridge is only faster for an average user where games is the heaviest part you can do for your pc, its faster for people who just surf the net, email, photo viewing editing, and gaming. thats what you believe because its the only thing you do, but if you use your pc on a deeper task like people doing heavy animations and 3D renderings, that fast clock architecture of sandy bridge cant do much.

like i said the main problem with the Sandy Bridge is the CPU may be fast enough, but the rest is no more than mediocre at best.
June 13, 2011 5:20:09 PM

Quote:
but you should understand that processors that can have 6c/12t are not much better than the 2600K or not bbetter than the 2600K, even in encoding:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/287?vs=157

also the price difference, i7 970 vs i7 2600K, £120 beetween them. also the 1155 socket still has a lot coming for it, including ivy bridge, unlike X58, which is soon to be replaced with sandy bridge-e, and therefore a dead socket.


Isnt that in favour of the 950 cos its cheaper?
a c 188 à CPUs
June 13, 2011 5:46:38 PM

The problem with the Intel® Core™ i7-950 is that it is a 1st generation Intel Core processors on average the 2nd generation Intel Core processor are outperforming them by about 15% at the same clock speed. Also by going with the Intel Core i7-950 you are stuck with the old technology.
So to be clear the only time I would be going with a 1st generation Intel Core processor is if I was doing heavy video/audio work or some other multi-threaded job and I was getting the Intel Core i7-990X Extreme Edition processor. If I was going to be mainly gaming without question I would go with the Intel Core i5-2500K. Since almost no game takes advantage or more than 3 thread the value for the Intel Core i7 processors isn’t as valuable for gaming.

Christian Wood
Intel Enthusiast Team
June 13, 2011 6:21:58 PM

Thanks, i think imma add £50 and go for 2600K cos its better :p 
June 14, 2011 12:46:16 PM

oby20 said:
no, its not worth spending, i7 2600k is just like an i5 2500k with hyperthreading. you will be needing a triple channel memory for animations, also its new Turbo mode only works effectively with single threaded applications, or applications that use less than the available cores, so the impact of the Turbo mode in animations will be small. i see sandy bridge as turbo version of the old LGA 1156, a gaming cpu for an average user, but not definitely for an intensive user such as animator and video editing 3D renderers.
i7 950 or i7 960 would be a better choice for that usage.
the main problem with the Sandy Bridge is the CPU may be fast enough, the rest is no more than mediocre at best. the problem with its chipsets, P67, Q67 and H67, is identical to the P55 chipset The lack of PCI-e lanes. This prevents one to use a nVidia MPE capable video card AND a raid controller. For high performance both are needed, but it is impossible on these platforms, due to the lack of PCI-e lanes. In addition only PCI-e 2.0 lanes are supported, not 3.0.The new platforms have the same shortcomings as the P55, making it unsuitable for serious editing. The H.264 test results with software MPE i thisn Tom's Hardware show 20:55 for the 2600K and 26:02 for the i7-950. 24% difference.
The best i7-950 in the PPBM5 benchmark has 93 s in the H.264 test and 127 s for the render test. An overclocked i7-920 has 65 and 73 s respectively. 43% and 74% respectiviely. These tests are incomparable, but the conclusion is clear Sandy Bridge is not faster than an OC'ed i7-920/930/950, still needs a nVidia card and still needs a raid controller, which is impossible. Sandy Bridge has no noticeable benefits over an OC'ed 920 and seriously suffers from the memory architecture for NLE work, combined with an intergrated graphics 'chip' that is unusable.

I dont even know how to overclock! :( 
June 21, 2011 4:49:09 AM

Quote:
also the price difference, i7 970 vs i7 2600K, £120 beetween them. also the 1155 socket still has a lot coming for it, including ivy bridge, unlike X58, which is soon to be replaced with sandy bridge-e, and therefore a dead socket.


Aren't we moving to LGA 2011 for Ivy Bridge? I think the only reason I didn't upgrade to SB is because Intel is blowing through sockets like Nvidia is going through GFX cards right now. I am cool with them making new cores and such, but I don't want to replace motherboards every eleven months.
a b à CPUs
June 21, 2011 8:25:35 AM

SandyBridge-E (flagship, replacing X58/socket 1366) will be on the new socket 2011, and a new socket was inevitable if desiring quad channel mem access. (Ivy Bridge will be avail in the current 1155 format....)
!