This or that?

[BadHabitz]

I have an idea about what my next gaming rig is going to look like, but I have a choice to make as far as CPU goes and I was looking to get some opinions. Now, as some may or may not know/remember I am an Intel employee, so please make no references to inferior AMD slag.

At work we have a program where we can get free chips, but the limiter is that you don't have access to any chip, only the ones that are offered at the time you request one.

Right now it's looking like the best chip that's going to be available for me is the 2500k. I'm waiting for the list to finalize next week. I'm still crossing my fingers for a 990X.

But, one of the other benefits of being an employee of the best and largest semi-conductor company on the planet is we have access to an employee store where we can get CPUs for roughly 50% off retail. So looking at that site I can get the 2600k for about $160.

So what I was curious about was whether you rig builders out there would rather use a free 2500k or a 2600k for $160. I'm already looking at spending $1,000-$1,200, so the money isn't vital... I'm not trying to stay within a budget, but I'm also not trying to break the bank.

[Duke{CLR}]

I would go for the 2600k. I have found a performance difference with HT enabled on my 920 in BC2, if it makes a difference now it will make a difference down the road add in the cost savings you have it's a no brainer

[Donziboy2]

BC2?
my 2500k is half asleep when I play BC2.

Also there are no HT enabled games. They are either Multicore or not.

HT is basically a software based multicore system. For every core on the die it treats it as if its 2 cores.

5% is about the most you would ever see if that and it can also go the other way some games simply hate HT.

That being said the 2600k is 100 mhz faster stock and has more L3 cache.

Between the two most people would go for the cheaper one. For you well its free or half price. So either way your winning lol. Just make sure you build a solid system around the chip and you will be rocking.

[Duke{CLR}]

I was having a stutter in BC2 when flying the helicopter a few months back and it happened when I had turned HT off to improve my temps. I took screenshots, the top one you can see where the CPU graph topped out and caused that weird stutter, the bottom one you can see that all 8 threads are handling the load a bit better.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us




Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Infamous]

if you work at intel, and you do not want any AMD suggestions, why the hell are you asking here?
i mean, im sorry, but if you work for intel, i dare say you can find better info about your own product at your place of business. Both chips are good, so does it really matter?
go with the fre chip, unless you want to spend 160 on a different one. id imagine by the time your chip is no longer important, you'd have already upgraded.
didnt you just build a new 2600k rig just a few months ago? if not, we have some other intel employee who did. that or some intel employee just had one laying around.

[K PhaNTOM]

^irritating.

Anyways. Go for the free 2500K. You don't even need to overclock it. The cash you were going to spend on a 26K spend on getting a better graphics card or more RAM. MORE RAM!

[bobytt]

I would go for 2600K, i have 980X and its pretty good overclocker. But 2600K is very very good processor. Frostbite is heavy CPU demanding engine. And i believe in BF3 we going to see a lot more performance in CPUs with more cores. I wouldnt buy 990X at the moment. Unless you are doing heavy video editing or encoding. If your rig is primary for gaming go with 2600K. Just build one rig for a friend of mine overclock to 4.6GHz is super easy its cooled with pull push H50. Temps never go over 75'C on full load in Linx.

[BadHabitz]

if you work at intel, and you do not want any AMD suggestions, why the hell are you asking here?

That's an easy answer... because I was asking for comparisons between two Intel chips at two different price points.

[juneau]

If you're going to overclock, which you shoudld do, i suggest you go for the 2500k.

[BlackArrow]

i always thought i would go with the 2500k...but when it came time to pull the trigger, i went with the 2600k. I just couldn't help myself.

[bobytt]

i always thought i would go with the 2500k...but when it came time to pull the trigger, i went with the 2600k. I just couldn't help myself.

Excellent choice! I am sure you wont regret it Just pick up good after market heatsink and good memory 2x4GB G>Skill at newegg 1600MHz is like 65$ And which motherboard you planning to use? one of the best and somehow cheap is Asrock Extreme4 very stable board.

[Dead...Again]

For me it is a tossup. If the money isn't an issue, go with the 2600k. The 2500k is great, that is what I have. But I think the increased cache and HT could make a decent amount of difference.

[Caddys83]

i Have An Idea About What My Next Gaming Rig Is Going To Look Like, But I Have A Choice To Make As Far As Cpu Goes And I Was Looking To Get Some Opinions. Now, As Some May Or May Not Know/remember I Am An Intel Employee, So Please Make No References To inferior Amd Slag.

Snip*

Ha Ha Ha Gonna have to use that in a quote

[Donziboy2]

Sorry duke but HT is software multithreading. Its using the 4 physical cores as if they where 8.

If you were maxing out 4 cores then switching to HT would have a negative effect since HT has some overhead attached to it.

Looking at your first picture the thing that stands out to me is that it was running 200 fps and the second its running 90 fps......

[Duke{CLR}]

That is interesting, I don't now why the other one maxed out at 200, I don't remember all the details but I had changed a few things that morning, maybe I somehow set the precession graph to read a higher value or reduced the in game settings for some reason. The main thing I remember is that the CPU appeared to max out at the same time I would get this lag like pause in game. If i get a chance maybe I will try to create the same circumstances again.