i5 2500k vs i7 2600k

Kadongy

The i5 2500k seems to be recommended/used in the large majority of builds described on this forum, and it appears to be very much established as the best option here.

I am surprised that the i7 is not advocated or used usually even in higher budget/higher spec builds. From what I have read there is a very significant increase in performance between the two, while the i5 is only slightly better value.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-2600K+%40+3.40GHz

On the other hand, I have the impression that people suggest spending more for a smaller increase in performance between graphics cards without really a second thought, once the budget allows it.

Why is the i5 almost always advocated ahead of the i7?

Tea_Bag

because most people need a gaming pc and not a mini super computer. HT does f all for gaming.

/thread

oh and throwing the saved €100 into a better GPU or SSD makes a world of difference.

Monotype

The 2600K is coming down in price, so it's a bit more worth it than it used to be. It's still an extra €75-100 and it's hard to justify that much money for minimal difference - especially when most people come asking for gaming machines.

CPU mark is not the real world, but if you were doing a lot of video work with compression and encoding software that used it, of course it would be worth it.
Unless people specifically point out their needs, it is generally assumed that the marginal cost would be best spread elsewhere.

heid

For just gaming the 2500k will do. I got the 2600k for other things besides gaming like CAD etc.

Leman

As pointed out, unless you are going tto be doing huge amounts of Video Editing and whatnot, the extra 4 "threads" will do nothing for you, while an extra 100€ on a GPU will mean the world.

cyburger

+1 on the argument that it's as good for gaming... if that's what your machine's primary use is, then why spend extra? if you're editing video etc, then maybe... I'm going to build a new system soon and I'll be going for the 2500k

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=287

srsly78

It's even worse than that. The HT can actually give a penalty to performance. Standard procedure in many places doing high performance stuff (like investment bank quant computations) is to disable HT in bios.

You do NOT get "4 extra threads". You get at best 15% theoretical bonus performance (ie never), and at worst a small penalty due to extra overhead.

Leman

Pretty much. Hyper Threading is a massive con as far as I am concerned.

Unregistered.

Leman wrote: »

Pretty much. Hyper Threading is a massive con as far as I am concerned.

Technically it's not though. But as has been said / reviewed millions of times over the web, it's of no benefit to gaming.