Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

More cores, or higher clocked speeds?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 25, 2011 9:36:58 PM

Right now I'm deciding between the 2500k, the 2600k, the 1100T, and the 975(AMD).

In case you don't know, the 2500k has 4 cores, and has a clocked speed of 3.3ghz. It's capable of overclocking to 4.5ghz and beyond. Some people have got it past 5ghz.

The 2600k is the same deal as the 2500k, except the stock speed is .1ghz higher, and it has hyperthreading, meaning it has 8 threads, versus the 2500k's 4 threads. I'm not sure about this, but some people have said that 8 threads= 8 virtual cores? Is this correct?

Next up, the 1100T. It has 6 cores, and features a 3.3ghz stock clocked speed. Can turbo with 3 active cores up to 3.7ghz. It has very limited OCing ability, compared to the Intel CPUs.

The 975 has 4 cores, and has a stock speed of 3.6ghz. Can overclock to about 4ghz.

Keep in mind I'll probably not be doing much OCing. If anything, I'll overclock the 2500k or 2600k to maybe 4.3ghz or 4.4, but not the AMD CPUs.

So, which one is better for gaming, editing, and rendering? From what I understand, the 2600k should be the pick here, but is the hyperthreading really worth the extra $100? And how does the L2/L3 cache affect performance? I'm fairly new to PC building, as I'm building my first PC in a month or two, so I'm not too informed. I've done a fair bit of research, but I'm still caught up with the decision of AMD or Intel.

Thanks for your time. :) 
August 25, 2011 9:43:25 PM

The i5 2500k is an equal oppnent to the it 2600k
[after overclocking] they are virtually the same.
and 8 threads is not 8 cores
its 4 cores running 2 threads each, which doesnt help much
considerign most applications wont use more than 4 threads
http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-2500k-and-core-i7...
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=287
You decide if the 100$ is worth it, I would say no.


also here is 2500k vs 1100T
more cores does not equal more performance
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=203
August 25, 2011 9:47:04 PM

thatwasonce said:
The i5 2500k is an equal oppnent to the it 2600k
[after overclocking] they are virtually the same.
and 8 threads is not 8 cores
its 4 cores running 2 threads each, which doesnt help much
considerign most applications wont use more than 4 threads
http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-2500k-and-core-i7...
You decide if the 100$ is worth it, I would say no.


also here is 2500k vs 1100T
more cores does not equal more performance
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=203


Right now I'm really leaning towards the 2500k, it seems like the right choice. The price to performance ratio seems perfect.

But like I said in the OP, how does L2/L3 cache affect performance?
Related resources
August 25, 2011 9:50:15 PM

SoupWithSauce said:
Right now I'm really leaning towards the 2500k, it seems like the right choice. The price to performance ratio seems perfect.

But like I said in the OP, how does L2/L3 cache affect performance?


Not by much, I run an old wolfdale with 2mb cache and it defeats phenom x2's with 4mb hands down

What most affects speed is architecture
32nm = fast and cool
August 25, 2011 9:54:12 PM

thatwasonce said:
Not by much, I run an old wolfdale with 2mb cache and it defeats phenom x2's with 4mb hands down

What most affects speed is architecture
32nm = fast and cool


Thanks for the help. :) 

Based off of reviews and the info you just gave me, I think I'm going to go with the 2500k.
August 25, 2011 10:27:17 PM

SoupWithSauce said:
Thanks for the help. :) 

Based off of reviews and the info you just gave me, I think I'm going to go with the 2500k.


No problem
and if you dont have a cooler selected yet [and if you will oc]
I would suggest a cosair water cooler
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
if you have a case with a 120mm rear fan, or top fan
It cools my old e6700 idle 37c and on load 50c
when with stock it ran 80c on load :s
!