i5 2500k vrs i7 2600k

[shaithis]

Not pointless, some games will definitely make use of the additional cores.

As said before, Battlefield uses upto 7 cores I believe.

This trend will only grow once programmers start getting to grips with programming in this way.

I'd save some cash and try to find a 2600K than stump up extra for the 2700K though.

Either way, I'd go for the i7 to better futureproof my purchase.

Your never going to see the difference between the i5 and i7 in BF3....your going to be limited by your gfx card.

How much extra performance do you think you can get out of a CPU by splitting it's cores in half?

i7 over i5 for gaming is completely pointless.

[scaryjim]

... This trend will only grow once programmers start getting to grips with programming in this way. ...

Frankly, and no offense meant here, that's nonsense. Even an undergrad CS student can program for multiple threads - it's really quite easy in most modern languages. The issue is that many tasks either can't be parallelised, or don't benefit from it. You reach a point where the overhead of handling more threads outweighs any gain you get by adding more threads.

Plus, some tasks are by their nature serial - you have to go through each step one at a time (usually because the next step depends on the outcome of the previous one) so there's no way to break that down and run segments a the same time. Trying to multithread those tasks would be utterly counter-productive.

So it's really not as simple as "more threads is better" - it depends on the task in hand. And given that quad-core desktop processors have been available for pushing five years (and multiprocessor workstations for a lot longer), if heavily threading game engines produced a significant benefit a lot more people would have developed heavily threaded games.

[eagle123]

you also get a small speed bump over the 2500k 100 mhz but you get hyperthreading so if you gonna use programs that uses the addtional cores go for the 2600k

[imbann]

2500k vs E-1230? I think those are more equal........the 2600k is obviously better than 2500k

[Lee H]

2500k vs E-1230? I think those are more equal........the 2600k is obviously better than 2500k

They are totally different items aimed at different segments of the market.

The Xeon has a lower TDP of 80W as opposed to 95W found on the 2500K.

Xeon has ECC support whereas the 2500K doesn't and the major difference is the the Xeons do not have any Intel HD graphics built into the CPU at all.

The xeon also has support for Intel vPro Technology, Intel Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d), Intel Trusted Execution Technology whereas the 2500K doesn't.

For more information I'd point you towards the ark system on intel for their easy to view compare ;

http://ark.intel.com/compare/52210,52271

[imbann]

They are totally different items aimed at different segments of the market.

The Xeon has a lower TDP of 80W as opposed to 95W found on the 2500K.

Xeon has ECC support whereas the 2500K doesn't and the major difference is the the Xeons do not have any Intel HD graphics built into the CPU at all.

The xeon also has support for Intel vPro Technology, Intel Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d), Intel Trusted Execution Technology whereas the 2500K doesn't.

For more information I'd point you towards the ark system on intel for their easy to view compare ;

http://ark.intel.com/compare/52210,52271

Thanks for correcting my mistake...that page was very helpful. A friend kept telling me E3-1230 is a great choice for gaming and equal to 2500k, I guess he was not quite right then.......

[ZaidSaleh]

I prefer the 2600k. they are a good price for what they are I guess and having the 2600k doesnt seem a bad option because of it.

[Chiefton]

Now that thats decided the question is whther its worth waiting for the Ivy Bridge processors. I heard the prices are suppose to be pretty similar to whats out there at the moment. Considering my old rig has lasted 4 years or more (probably more) whats a few more months.

Will the newer Ivy Bridge chips be any better for gaming? or is this yet to be analysed?

[Wam7]

As already stated, 2500K for games, 2600K is you're doing a lot of video work. For games I highly doubt Ivy is going to make much difference over a 2500k better you worry about your GPU.

[Spank]

Now that thats decided the question is whther its worth waiting for the Ivy Bridge processors. I heard the prices are suppose to be pretty similar to whats out there at the moment. Considering my old rig has lasted 4 years or more (probably more) whats a few more months.

Will the newer Ivy Bridge chips be any better for gaming? or is this yet to be analysed?

I'm in the same boat, IB's should be better, but as I see it the worst case is that the SB's will come down in price a bit.

[whobi]

I would wait for Ivybridge because either they will be better or sandybridge will be cheaper and isn't IB coming out in a few months?

[bigdaz84]

Totally agree