Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

2600k vs 1100t vs 2500k

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 8, 2011 4:12:32 AM

So im throwing a new build together this month so i decided to see what you guys think about the following processors.

i7 2600k
X6 1100t
i5 2500k

I already know that most of you will bash the AMD and tell me to get the i5 or i7. I know the benches r better on both in most cases. My specific need is a split between everyday computing, gaming, multitasking different apps(Photoshop, aperture, CAD, lots of internet tabs at all times approx 30-40 min, and very little vid editing)

I do have a budget of around $800-$1100 US Dollars. I also am looking at high quality cases, but low profile. So if its possible to cut back on certain parts of the build where should i cut back and which CPU should i get with that budget size?

Sorry for the confusing questions.

More about : 2600k 1100t 2500k

a c 218 à CPUs
November 8, 2011 4:41:14 AM

i5 2500k would be the choice and at $219.99 (Newegg) it is low enough the have a low impact on your budget and you can get some high quality ram for the work part of using your computer.
m
0
l
a c 478 à CPUs
November 8, 2011 6:17:11 AM

Get the Phenom II X6 1100T if you want to save $30 at the cost of performance.

Get the Core i7-2600k if you are will to pay for Hyper Threading and the programs you will be using can take advantage of it.

Get the Core i5-2500k for best overall price and performance; ~$100 less than the i7-2600k. It can easily trump the Phenom II X6 in nearly all benchmarks and has nearly all the performance capabilities of the i7-2600k, but at a much lower price.
m
0
l
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
November 8, 2011 7:11:53 AM

With all the multitasking you are going to be doing (30-40 internet tabs open at once, Photoshop, CAD programs, etc.) I would definitely go with the 2600K and probably 16gb of ram (especially since it is so cheap right now!).

Definitely 2600k!
m
0
l
November 9, 2011 6:27:15 PM

easymoney9 said:
With all the multitasking you are going to be doing (30-40 internet tabs open at once, Photoshop, CAD programs, etc.) I would definitely go with the 2600K and probably 16gb of ram (especially since it is so cheap right now!).

Definitely 2600k!


i actually have 8gb of 1600 g. skill ram and it seems sufficient. i bet 16gb would be a bit overkill. Looks like everyone roots either i5 or i7. Where should i cut back from if i choose i7? because it seems that the thing is like 100-120 more then i5.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 10, 2011 2:41:45 AM

for all round usage the 2500k
Just for gaming cheap x4 and spend more on your gpu
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 10, 2011 5:32:40 AM

consider the i7 2600 without overclocking. It is $250 at microcenter, and still has great performance.
m
0
l
November 10, 2011 5:26:25 PM

I have the 1100t and it does pretty much anything i want. But there's one thing i have figured out since i've been computer building. Intel always has better cache - this makes a huge improvement in performance. The faster and larger cache will always beat amd. All AMD looks at is speed - which is not the end all. Yes it helps, but there's way more to a good CPU. I would go with Intel, but that's just me being biased. :kaola: 
m
0
l
a c 190 à CPUs
November 10, 2011 5:58:14 PM

Right now I dont think that there is a better overall performance value in a cpu then the Intel® Core™ i5-2500K. Running at stock it is close to the top of the line preformance and if I overclock it there are few things that can even come close. The Intel Core i7-2600K is nice if you are going to be doing a lot of heavy multi-threaded work but it is $100 more.

Christian Wood
Intel Enthusiast Team
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 10, 2011 6:18:47 PM

It's not just about the CPU performance, but the system overall.
A fact of life; Intel has about 70->75% market share compared to AMDs 20 %. When hardware/software is developed, things: (1) it's perform ance will be the same, or (2) it will perform beter on one or the other. 3rd party developers will shoot for the best performance based on who has the largest Market share.

Who has the larger workforce to work on improving system performance, and who has the larger R&D budget.

just two examples
If you have not included an SSD in your build, you will most likely in the future. An SSD will probably overshadow the diff in 1100T vs Core i5/i7. SSD performance is better on Intel chipsets (at least up to a few monthes ago). It took AMD considerable time to get a ahci driver out that whould allow trim to be passed.

Applies to laptops, but illustrates amds manpower problems. The new SB laptops using both IGP and a Dedicated GPU. AMD has not been able to develop a driver/software that comes close to matching Nvidia for allowing switching between IGP and GPU when swithing between 2D and 3D graphics.

Bottom line, go with the Intel I5/I7, or go the 1100 AMD route hoping that AMD will improve.
m
0
l
November 11, 2011 7:31:32 AM

RetiredChief said:
It's not just about the CPU performance, but the system overall.
A fact of life; Intel has about 70->75% market share compared to AMDs 20 %. When hardware/software is developed, things: (1) it's perform ance will be the same, or (2) it will perform beter on one or the other. 3rd party developers will shoot for the best performance based on who has the largest Market share.

Who has the larger workforce to work on improving system performance, and who has the larger R&D budget.

just two examples
If you have not included an SSD in your build, you will most likely in the future. An SSD will probably overshadow the diff in 1100T vs Core i5/i7. SSD performance is better on Intel chipsets (at least up to a few monthes ago). It took AMD considerable time to get a ahci driver out that whould allow trim to be passed.

Applies to laptops, but illustrates amds manpower problems. The new SB laptops using both IGP and a Dedicated GPU. AMD has not been able to develop a driver/software that comes close to matching Nvidia for allowing switching between IGP and GPU when swithing between 2D and 3D graphics.

Bottom line, go with the Intel I5/I7, or go the 1100 AMD route hoping that AMD will improve.


Thats a good point. But really AMD has gone up considerably in the past few years with lots of their really good cpu's like x4's and x6 processors(bulldozer was a dissapointment) but i think im gunna go for that 2500k. all the reviews, benches, and feedback just keeps point it as a winner with both high end performance with a not TOO high of a price point. What type of mb should i be looking at? any suggestions ? I like asus p67 and p68 mboards. but since im spending the extra buck on the cpu ide like to have a not too expensive mb but save some money on a ssd. :bounce: 
m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
November 11, 2011 6:50:45 PM

I prefer the Z68 series. There is not a large cost differencial between Identically configured P67 and Z68 MBs (ie Nr of USB2/3 ports, Nr of Sata II/III ports and the Nr Of pci-e X16/4/1 slots).

My rational is based on:
(1) When you build the system you do not have to install a GPU. In the hopefully small possibilty that the system does bot boot, you have eliminated the GPU as a source - simplifing troubleshooting. Down stream if the GPU develops a problem you can always revert to the IGP and use the computer while waiting on a replacement.
(2) If you do any video encoding, The Z68 platform is better. If you do not well then depends on your crystal ball on future use.
(3) Then there is SRT, using a small SSD to cache a large HDD. This typically speeds up the HDD performance by 1.5 ->4 X. For me this is a questionable Plus as I I'm not a lover of SRT.

My MB's of choice is Gygabyte, Asus and Asrock. You can probably get one for $150 give or take.
JUST make sure ir has the features that you need, and Add future requirements. Ie make sure it has dual PCI-e X16 slots if you think that you may want to xfire/SLI downstream (Note they will both only run at x8 - bot NOT a big performance hit) when 2 cards are used. Most will have enough USB2/USB3 ports. For Sata Ports, look for 4 Intel Sata II and 2 Intel Sata III ports (some have an additional 2 Sata III ports using the marvel Controller - OK, but not needed for SATA III HDDs. Do not use for a SATA III SSD, Use the Intel Sata III port for that.
Share
November 16, 2011 6:13:09 AM

Best answer selected by andrey64.
m
0
l
!