Intel i5 2500k or Intel i7 2600k for Gaming?

[Atomic Playboy]

Just wanted to say, I recently built a new rig and went with the 2500K instead of the 2600K to save ~$100. It still runs everything at 60+ FPS with maxed visuals. The graphics card will be more important than an extra 100 MHz (since you aren't OCing) and hyperthreading (which games don't use). Use that extra $100 to invest in a better graphics card.

And OCing the 2500K is really, really easy. On the ASUS P8P67, I literally clicked a single button on the software utility running inside Windows 7, and the chip auto-OCed itself to ~4.3 GHz. I might go tinker with the settings later, but if you're going to invest in a Z68 board and an unlocked chip, there is no reason NOT to OC it. On the flip side, if you are dead-set against OCing, don't waste money on stuff designed specifically for OCing; you'll see more benefit in gaming from a beefy GFX card than a strong CPU and Motherboard.

 

[tweakboy]

Since nothing is going to radically change until the next generation of consoles run out, you can't possibly future-proof with all that much confidence with anything out right now.. I actually think the i5 and i7 are both overkill for gaming, but the i5 is definitely a better bang for your buck.

I also hate the WD Green drives.. which would be a miserable bottleneck and are really meant for storage purposes.. but even for storage, their failure rates are pretty frightening.. Samsungs 2TB offering is far more dependable.

Maybe make room for a cheap SSD by not blowing money on a 700w power supply. This is literally between 300 and 400 watts more than your system will EVER need.. Most people with killawat report their systems browse the web at less than 50 watts, and unless you have multiple video cards, intensive games don't even exceed 350-400w.

You dont wanna lose your data, get a good SSD from Intel or Corshair

My dad got a cheap SSD like you say in his rig CyberPower that he bought... ,, we didnt feel like making system... Anyhow its a A-DATA 120GB SATA 6mbps crystal hows 375mbps when good SATA 3 SSD should get is 550mbps higher. Its simply a cheap SSD that cant do 500mbps also gets W7 index score of 7.5 when I heard in sata 2 ,, people get 7.7 or more..... so that is why dont go cheap listen to the gurus and get a good one spend that extra money it will be worth it,,,,,,

 

[TheRyuu]

You buy what you can afford.
If you can outright afford the 2600k then just get it.

If you're looking for justifications for the higher price tag then you're getting two things with the 2600k, SMT (Hyperthreading) and a larger L3 cache because of it.

SMT increases performance of heavily threaded applications by roughly 25%. I wouldn't classify games as being that heavily threaded as to make use of those 8 logical threads. I don't know what else you do on that computer so I can't say if you'd be missing much with the absence of SMT on the 2500k.

Which brings me back to my original point, you simply buy what you can afford. It's not like you're losing anything by getting the 2600k (you are in fact gaining SMT support and a larger L3 cache, both are good things). That's the way I look at it anyway so YMMV I suppose.