Is the i5 2500k more "overclockable" than the i7 2600k?

[tutstuts]

And also, is it true that the hyper threading slows down the cpu on some games?

Thanks!

 

[rolli59]

They are equally clock able but really based on each individual CPU. No the hyper threading does not slow down games since most games do not utilize all the 4 available cores.

 

[sephirothmk]

Theoretically yes, because since 2600K utilizes hyperthreading and is 100mhz faster on stock settings, it spends a little bit more energy.

I doubt you'll be able to see the difference. Both will overclock to a beastly 5Ghz tact.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

well half truths ......

from what I been following on all the OC forums, the 2600k's usually hit higher OC's than the 2500k's....they often turn off HT tho.

If you are limited by heat, then having HT "on" will mean about 7C. If ya have a good cooler.....this is going to be less of a concern.

On the 2600k's, I usually set them up for everyday boots at 4.6 Ghz w/ HT ON under one BIOS profile 4.8 GHz to 5.0 Ghz w/ HT OFF

On 2500k's I get mostly 4.6 to 4.8's unless i start turning stuff off. If ya use offset method, you will downclock when load drops....but ya can get higher OC's using fixed numbers.

 

[tutstuts]

sorry guys I'm kind of a beginner to this whole overclocking thing, what do you mean clockable based on individual cpu? each core or each actual chip? like one can be by chance better than another?

and.. theoretically the 2500k is better?

thanks

 

[kajabla]

Each chip, by chance. The 2600K's better, but probably not worth the price unless you have a crazy budget or do media work.
The two use essentially the same processor (correct me if I'm wrong), but the 2600K's binned a little higher. This means that they test all the CPUs coming off the line, and they take the ones that perform better and make them 2600Ks. That's why really high-end gaming builds often use the 2600K: they want a higher probability of a good overclock.

 

[Wamphryi]

My personal opinion is that over clocking is a waste of time. In the days of the first Celeron CPU running at a mighty 233 MHZ over clocking had its place. CPU technology was very expensive and every MHZ counted back in the day.

As single threaded applications go the way of Win 9x clock speed is less and less relevant as the multi threaded applications have around 13 GHZ to play with. It is a rare day indeed that my 2600 K comes close to using half its capacity. Over clocking raises voltage and higher voltage equates to a shorter CPU life. The amount of money spent on cooling generally could be spent on a faster stock CPU anyway.

We did some tests on Battlefield 3 and found that it plays perfectly well on a i3 CPU. Many games are throwing more and more into GPU intensive programming.

I guess before pondering on the how it may pay to look at the why. I run my Rigs at stock speed and even my Lynnfield i7 is barely pushed. It is only due to the improvements on CPU latency that I get any benefit out of my 2600 K over my Lynnfield Rigs.

 

[kajabla]

Some games are undeniably CPU-limited, and they will run better with a good processor. I'm looking at SC2 and Skyrim. Also, very high-end gaming builds will run into CPU bottlenecks, and they'll do so less with better CPUs.
Tom's Skyrim benchmarks on different CPUs:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-benchmark,3074-9.html

 

[bwrlane]

My personal opinion is that over clocking is a waste of time. In the days of the first Celeron CPU running at a mighty 233 MHZ over clocking had its place. CPU technology was very expensive and every MHZ counted back in the day.

As single threaded applications go the way of Win 9x clock speed is less and less relevant as the multi threaded applications have around 13 GHZ to play with. It is a rare day indeed that my 2600 K comes close to using half its capacity. Over clocking raises voltage and higher voltage equates to a shorter CPU life. The amount of money spent on cooling generally could be spent on a faster stock CPU anyway.

We did some tests on Battlefield 3 and found that it plays perfectly well on a i3 CPU. Many games are throwing more and more into GPU intensive programming.

I guess before pondering on the how it may pay to look at the why. I run my Rigs at stock speed and even my Lynnfield i7 is barely pushed. It is only due to the improvements on CPU latency that I get any benefit out of my 2600 K over my Lynnfield Rigs.

I mostly agree with this. Very few games are CPU limited on a high end sb i5 or i7, even if you have very powerful gpu hardware. There are exceptions eg skyrim

Video editing however can make full use of an i7 2600k, overclocking, hyperthreading and all.

My CPU is an exception to this rule. As an i7 920 it runs 2.66 GHz stock, at which point most games are CPU limited. However, fortunately it runs rock stable at 4GHz, at which point the performance I get is determined by my gpu hardware.

 

[intel4eva]

You can't go wrong with either one. No matter which you buy, you won't regret it.

 

[kajabla]

...so save your cash and go 2500K.

 

[amuffin]

2500k for gaming, 2600k for gaming and desktop applications.

 

[Deftonerdad]

Ive owned both on water cooling and I give the edge to the 2600k. Run both at 5 ghz and load times are faster, high performance games run smoother at ultra settings, and rendering is noticeably quicker. Spent the same money 4 weeks ago for a 2600k that i did for the 2500k 3 years ago. Just my take...