Is the I7 2600K the most Future proof CPU?

[wrxerik]

So I have been debating what CPU to buy and want a CPU that will last me at least 4-6 years. (I have a 939 Athlon 3800+ X2 that I bought when it was first released for $325. I am running it at 3.0Ghz and it still works great except for games that need at least 4 cores)

I have waited for the Bulldozer thinking that 8 cores is the future but that may not be the case it seems.

The CPU will be for a pure gaming PC. I am upgrading specifically for BF3. Are price differences justified?

So what will last longer, 1100T, FX 8150P, I5 2500K, or I7 2600k.

 

[davcon]

2500K is regarded as the best gaming cpu.
No such thing as future proofing imo.

 

[amirp]

Go for the i5-2500k hands down is the best performing CPU for games and all round. I don't think anybody on this forum will disagree or recommend you to buy anything else.

Lol how are you still holding onto that 3800x2... the difference between that and ANY modern cpu is enormous... I have the 2500k now and a old computer with a 939 4400+x2, believe me it's a huge difference.

And even though you think it works great for games requiring dual cores ... even the cheapest dual core out now would smoke it im pretty sure.

 

[wrxerik]

Go for the i5-2500k hands down is the best performing CPU for games and all round. I don't think anybody on this forum will disagree or recommend you to buy anything else.

Lol how are you still holding onto that 3800x2... the difference between that and ANY modern cpu is enormous... I have the 2500k now and a old computer with a 939 4400+x2, believe me it's a huge difference.

And even though you think it works great for games requiring dual cores ... even the cheapest dual core out now would smoke it im pretty sure.

Oh I know it will smoke it, but my point is it still works and still works quite well, except for games optimized for quad core cpus. Like BF3. My point is a low end quad core is going to drop off in performance much faster than an I7. Will a 2500k still be as useful as a 2600K 4 years from now, or even compared to a 8150p?

 

[amirp]

All I can say for certain is that now the 2500k has 99% of the 2600k's gaming performance, and the AMD 8150 is useless for gaming. If you buy it thinking it might be better than intel one day when games use more cores then you've made a mistake because a) that may never happen and b) your gaming performance will suffer while you wait.

Also why do you give it a 4-6 year timeline? PCs don't cost nearly as much anymore, so it's not the end of the world if the 2500k suddenly becomes really old...You hung on to a 3800x2 this long youll be fine using a 2500k for the next 4 years. If you read toms article on AMD's 8150 you will see that the i7-920 a processor thats over 2 (almost 3?) years old is still performing amazingly.

You can get the 2600k if you really want to, but spending that $100 difference on a higher tier graphic card would make more sense in making a GAMING computer last longer.


The only part you will upgrade for sure within the 4-6 year you want to keep your computer will be the GPU

 

[BlacKHawK3]

All I can say for certain is that now the 2500k has 99% of the 2600k's gaming performance, and the AMD 8150 is useless for gaming. If you buy it thinking it might be better than intel one day when games use more cores then you've made a mistake because a) that may never happen and b) your gaming performance will suffer while you wait.

Also why do you give it a 4-6 year timeline? PCs don't cost nearly as much anymore, so it's not the end of the world if the 2500k suddenly becomes really old...You hung on to a 3800x2 this long youll be fine using a 2500k for the next 4 years. If you read toms article on AMD's 8150 you will see that the i7-920 a processor thats over 2 (almost 3?) years old is still performing amazingly.

You can get the 2600k if you really want to, but spending that $100 difference on a higher tier graphic card would make more sense in making a GAMING computer last longer.


The only part you will upgrade for sure within the 4-6 year you want to keep your computer will be the GPU

Any current high end CPU has similar performance to the 2500K in gaming; its like asking if the 3800+ will bottleneck a Geforce 6800.

If you want the gaming computer to last 4+ years you will at some point have to upgrade the GPU; in my opinion get the top CPU (still the 2600K, games will be optimized for HT) and as good a GPU as your budget allows (at least a 560 or 6950) and upgrade the GPU when you can afford it or can no longer run new games at high res.

BTW BD has the raw computational potential to blow away SB-E and Ivy; AMD failed to implement the architecture in a way currently usable; whether the next iteration will be to Zambezi what Deneb was to Barcelona remains to be seen, but EBD will be more than a stepping and significant IPC, clocking, and scaling improvements are feasible.
But, at any rate the 8150 did not take down the 2600K and IMO will not be as future proof.

 

[wolfram23]

If the budget allows, no reason not to get the 2600k. It probably won't perform any better than a 2500k the vast majority of the time, but then again who knows how games will be programed in the future? Either way it is able to crunch more data.

More importantly is that whatever GPU you get will probably not be viable in 4-5 years. I guess it depends on what you're willing to call "acceptable" though. No reason a high end card now won't be able to play games in a few years, just as games get more demanding the settings will need to be lowered.

 

[ScrewySqrl]

IMHO the 2600K is not more future-proof than the 2500K. Both will be smoked by any mid-2013 chip.

 

[mayankleoboy1]

SB will reign supreme till IB releases.
IB or rather 22nm would smoke 32nm tech.
but if buying NOW, nothing like a 2600k, if budget is not a problem. if it is, get the 2500k.

your GPU will have to be upgraded by this time next year, so get something in higher middle range that would be an easy purchade and easier to sell later.
buy something like a 6950 or gtx570.

 

[phatbuddha79]

NO chip is future-proof. Software changes with different and new optimization codes all the time. Although with the flop that is BD, 2600k will live a little bit longer.

 

[IntelEnthusiast]

Future proof means that it will allow you to run the software that you want in a time frame that you are willing to spend waiting for it. If you are willing to use that then you will have a long life with the Intel® Core™ i7-2600K.

If on the other hand you are looking for the fastest processor on the market then you will be upgrading every 6 months.

Christian Wood
Intel Enthusiast Team

 

[Delirious788]

I think wolfram23 and amirp pretty much nailed it.

I, too, upgrade my pc every 4-5 yrs. Right now, I am sporting Intel Q6600(OC@3.2), 4(2x2) GB DDR2 1066, ATI HD5770. My pc still kicks butt for being ~4.5 years old. My upgrades over the past years have been ATI HD2600XT to ATI HD5770 and 2(2x1)GB RAM to 4(2x2) GB RAM (was aiming for 6GB but never was stable). Roughly $700 total cost pc over the 5 years (I'm going to upgrade when Ivy comes out, giving my current pc a long 5 yr life).

As a fellow "a-pc-should-be-able-to-last-4-yrs" guy, the real trick is being able to allow for future minor upgrades to stay on top of the game, I would say stick with the i5-2500K, just like everybody else is saying, for gaming it is roughly the same and save that $100 for a future minor upgrade or better gpu. In a year, yes the i5-2500K will be old, but stilling kicking butt, while whatever gpu you choose will be alive and just trying to survive.

Possible Future Minor Upgrades to think about:
SB oc's easily on air, just need $40 for a new "big air" cooler
Add more RAM
Upgrade to a new gpu or add a second one for crossfire or sli
SSD, enough said?

With those upgrades over the next 4-5years I think you will be pretty well set for future games

 

[wolfram23]

I'd recommend - and this of course depends on budget because you could always just "buy all the best" with enough money - but anyway considering a reasonable budget, I'd probably put that $100 saved on getting a 2500k and get an SSD. Until you use one, an SSD probably doesn't seem all that great but honestly, I'll never have a computer without one. I'm using a (now) old Intel X25M 80gb and yet it's still super fast compared to my RAID 0 HDDs. Everything just happens so much faster with an SSD. I'd only recommend getting ~120gb so you have headroom to store a few games on it. I'm using 50gb of mine without games, and I've done tweaks and used several mklinks to move as much crap off it as I can (like random *** getting stored in AppData folder by programs).

 

[nexus_nexion]

In 4 yours time there's no doubt that gaming will use HT as well. I personally would recommend 2600k and it shouldn't bottleneck any graphics cards until the early 2014's graphics cards. If your budget is low, 2500k is my recommendation, but be aware good PSU is crucial for your rig to last long.

 

[sivalimy]

So I have been debating what CPU to buy and want a CPU that will last me at least 4-6 years. (I have a 939 Athlon 3800+ X2 that I bought when it was first released for $325. I am running it at 3.0Ghz and it still works great except for games that need at least 4 cores)

I have waited for the Bulldozer thinking that 8 cores is the future but that may not be the case it seems.

The CPU will be for a pure gaming PC. I am upgrading specifically for BF3. Are price differences justified?

So what will last longer, 1100T, FX 8150P, I5 2500K, or I7 2600k.

for performance and long lasting if price doesn't matter then go with i7, or if u want best bang for buck only for gaming and a little bit of windows apps go with i5-2500k. if u have limitation on budget then buy a 1100t with sabertooth board or any 990fx board. don't forget to overclock amd cpus cause they need to be oc.

 

[compulsivebuilder]

Go for the i5-2500k hands down is the best performing CPU for games and all round. I don't think anybody on this forum will disagree or recommend you to buy anything else.

Lol how are you still holding onto that 3800x2... the difference between that and ANY modern cpu is enormous... I have the 2500k now and a old computer with a 939 4400+x2, believe me it's a huge difference.

And even though you think it works great for games requiring dual cores ... even the cheapest dual core out now would smoke it im pretty sure.

You phrased that wrongly. The i5 2500K is NOT the best performing CPU. It's often mentioned as the most cost-effective choice, or best value for money, but there is a big difference between most cost-effective and best performing.

The argument can also be phrased that the additional cost of the i7 2600K is unjustified for the sake of a minor increase in clock speed and hyper-threading. Nonetheless, the i7 2600K is best performing CPU for games. I chose to use the 2600K, because I don't mind spending the extra money, and when I'm not playing games I get a performance gain from hyper-threading.

I forget whether the Sandy Bridge E CPUs are better still (I don't remember the benchmarks), but they weren't available when I built my game machine.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

the 2600k is not better than the 2500k for gaming. the 2500k actually beats it, for whatever reason, in quite a few tests, but its within margin of error. the 2600k is probably slightly more "future proof" if/when future games take advantage of more than 4 threads, which they currently do not. If you want future proof, get the 2500k and a hyper212+ cooler. that way you can get it to 4.5 ghz which will be enough for at least the next 2 years and get a z68 motherboard capable of supporting newer Ivy bridge CPU's for an upgrade path.

 

[jdwii]

yes, that's all i need to say.

 

[mayankleoboy1]

if u have limitation on budget then buy a 1100t with sabertooth board or any 990fx board. don't forget to overclock amd cpus cause they need to be oc.

i wont recommend a thuban cpu to anyone if he is building a new build, specially for gaming.

+1 to getting a SSD.

 

[ghnader hsmithot]

Future proof means that it will allow you to run the software that you want in a time frame that you are willing to spend waiting for it. If you are willing to use that then you will have a long life with the Intel® Core™ i7-2600K.

If on the other hand you are looking for the fastest processor on the market then you will be upgrading every 6 months.

Christian Wood
Intel Enthusiast Team

Hey.I do that!

 

[TinuxLechTips]

Hello I am from the future. I7 2600k is only good for hyperthreading other than that

fx6300 rekts it