although the numbers in the benchmarks make it look impressive, theres actually very little difference only around 4% but you can bump the 760 while the 2400 is locked. get the 760 to 3.6 or more and you can punish the i5 2400 in pretty much every bench and the further you go the harder the beating...
totally wrong! sandy bridge series are faster than normanl i5 760 benchmark is the evidence it's not a joke he can't punish the 2400 with 760 how ever 2400 has 32nm lithography while 760 has 45nm i think. So impossible to beat the brother of 2500k .
The 2nd generation Intel® Core™ processors will outperform the 1st generation Intel Core processors with like speed and cores by 10% to 15%. Since the Intel Core i5-2400 runs 300MHz faster already you should see the Intel Core i5-2400 doing a good bit better then the Intel Core i5-760.
The only drawback to the Intel Core i5-2400 is that it's big brother is one of the best processors that we have ever released at its price point. If you can find the $30 more then go for the Intel Core i5-2500K because it simply can't be beat for the performance and value that it offers.
you cant tell sum1 there wrong when you completely misunderstood the answer. i compared the oc'760 to a stock 2400 the 760 may be older and bigger, but you can gain upwards of 19 percent performance increase with a good oc which puts it 10%ish above the 2400 in comparative benches.
you cant oc the 2400 past its turbo so when it boils down to it the 760 can potentially out perform a 2400 if you put a decent oc on it... the 2400 is pretty close to the runt of the litter, so getting older parts to match or beat its performance isnt that difficult.
this is true across the 1156-1155 and x58 sockets.
for instance, you take a 920 and oc it to 940.950.970 speeds and you will see the benches are pretty much exactly the same for the oc'd 920 as they are for the stock 940.950.970.
get a 920 to match a stock 2500 you need to oc the 920 to a minimum of 3.6ghz. which is a 20% performance increase oc and as you know the stock 2500 is 20% more powerful than the 920, so the end result should be very similar benchmarks/performance. again turn up the oc on the 920 to 4.2 (which a lot of samples can manage) and the 920 should start out performing the newer chip by a 5% margin. its just simple math.
The 760 overclocked will beat the 2400 stock but the 2400 with its limited overclock will beat the 760 overclocked. At stock the 2400 wins by a mile the 760 needs 15-30% more clock speed to keep up. The 760 is also on an old platform while the 2400 platform should be upgradeable to Ivy bridge. If its a new build get the 2400 (or 2500K even better) if you have a 760 or are getting a used one under half the price of a 2400 then keep/go for it.
i never said it wasnt any of that.. just putting the facts rite where people were saying i was wrong...
the 2400 is indeed a better cpu but if you can afford it or you can jiggle the numbers then getting a 2500k on a lesser spec motherboard would be a better option. and if he already has the 1156 then the 2400 isnt really worth the cost of the upgrade. not when you can oc the 760 and out perform it...
so the method behind my madness is. if he already has an 1156 socket its not really worth jumping platform unless he can muster the cash for a 2500k that way he will see real performance gains.
no dont buy old *** buy the new tech and i have told you earlier and the intel guy also says you bcz 2500k is not so much expensive then i5 2400 so buy that thing which is future proof and i5 2500k is very good i am saying this to you bcz a month back i was in the same problem 2500k vs 2400 then i plan to 2500k and not buy a gpu yet so i am not asking you do the same as make a fool mistake of not buying all parts at a time buy 2500k and gpu and you will se what is GAMING :-D