# i5 2500k or i7 2600 (non K) - Debate! [resolved: the 2500k wins!]



## Mussels (Jan 12, 2016)

So as an interesting dilemma, i'm being given for free, an i5 2500k when i already own the 2600.
I've got two systems, so the 'loser' will end up in my secondary PC.


Which would you choose for your primary *gaming* PC, and why?


----------



## Kanan (Jan 12, 2016)

i5 2500K, because most games don't like or don't use HTT and you can overclock the i5 2500K higher to have much more performance than a i7 without HTT being used. But in the end I would try both and decide upon the games I play. So it comes up to you.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 12, 2016)

That is a tough one.  I'd say stick the 2500K in your main rig first and see what you can get it up to.  If it can do 4.4GHz or better I say go with the i5.


----------



## Kursah (Jan 12, 2016)

I agree if you want to OC, otherwise it might not matter. If you're gaming and doing a lot of stuff I'd stick with the 2600, but we're in the middle of an era that still benefits from fewer faster cores than more threads...so an OC'd 2500K might suit you best. I vote you just test them both in your primary machine and let us know what you decide on!

I'm sure your secondary PC can wait until you have.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 12, 2016)

I don't overclock so naturally I'd say the 2600.  If memory serves, 2600 has some features that the 2500K lacks like hardware virtualization.
http://ark.intel.com/compare/52213,52210


			
				Intel said:
			
		

> Intel® vPro™ Technology is a set of security and manageability capabilities built into the processor aimed at addressing four critical areas of IT security: 1) Threat management, including protection from rootkits, viruses, and malware 2) Identity and web site access point protection 3) Confidential personal and business data protection 4) Remote and local monitoring, remediation, and repair of PCs and workstations.





			
				Intel said:
			
		

> Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d) continues from the existing support for IA-32 (VT-x) and Itanium® processor (VT-i) virtualization adding new support for I/O-device virtualization. Intel VT-d can help end users improve security and reliability of the systems and also improve performance of I/O devices in virtualized environments.





			
				Intel said:
			
		

> Intel® Trusted Execution Technology for safer computing is a versatile set of hardware extensions to Intel® processors and chipsets that enhance the digital office platform with security capabilities such as measured launch and protected execution. It enables an environment where applications can run within their own space, protected from all other software on the system.


----------



## manofthem (Jan 12, 2016)

Mussels said:


> Which would you choose for your current gaming PC, and why?



Going by your system specs, your 2600 is @4ghz.  Any 2500k will hit that and more so throw the 2500k in your main rig for some OC fun and good gaming; the 2600 will be great for a 2nd pc. 

BTW congrats on the free cpu gift, that's a pretty epic "attaboy"


----------



## Mussels (Jan 12, 2016)

manofthem said:


> Going by your system specs, your 2600 is @4ghz.  Any 2500k will hit that and more so throw the 2500k in your main rig for some OC fun and good gaming; the 2600 will be great for a 2nd pc.
> 
> BTW congrats on the free cpu gift, that's a pretty epic "attaboy"



i also put the clock speeds in the survey question too 
A friends work dumped a bunch of 'dead' office machines out, and had to be strippped. Being their last 1155 boards he salvaged the CPU's - he scored about 10 CPU's, mostly i5 2500's and i7 2600's with just the one random K chip he donated to me.


At this stage i'm leaning towards OCing the 2500K as high as i can, leaving the 2600 at 4GHz in the secondary PC. if i need virtualisation or anything, i can simply run it on there i guess.


----------



## manofthem (Jan 12, 2016)

Mussels said:


> i also put the clock speeds in the survey question too
> A friends work dumped a bunch of 'dead' office machines out, and had to be strippped. Being their last 1155 boards he salvaged the CPU's - he scored about 10 CPU's, mostly i5 2500's and i7 2600's with just the one random K chip he donated to me.
> 
> 
> At this stage i'm leaning towards OCing the 2500K as high as i can, leaving the 2600 at 4GHz in the secondary PC. if i need virtualisation or anything, i can simply run it on there i guess.




Didn't even notice the poll...  Been a loooong night  But congrats at the awesome score!


----------



## oinkypig (Jan 12, 2016)

HOW CLOSE CAN YOU GET TO 5 GHZ REALLY. holics


----------



## Jetster (Jan 12, 2016)

I don't think it matters


----------



## oinkypig (Jan 12, 2016)

i wouldnt waste one more second thinking how i cuda got so lucky...2500k hands down


----------



## hat (Jan 12, 2016)

For strictly gaming, 2500k. I suppose any thread intensive tasks you could delegate to the 2600 system, but at higher clockspeeds the 2500k would probably beat it anyway.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jan 12, 2016)

OC the last crap of the i5 . Let him burn...


----------



## FireFox (Jan 12, 2016)

Definitely i5.


----------



## xfia (Jan 12, 2016)

I think i would have to go with the i7 here unless i really wanted to try for 5ghz and still the i5 may not be as useful.. at least to me. 
I play modern games mostly that have no trouble using more threads but some I use to play the i5 with a overclock would be more useful. 
Both are older and of the same gen but the i7 still shines pretty bright when put to the test with all 8 threads loaded down.


----------



## st2000 (Jan 12, 2016)

I'd say better go 2600 cause modern games dont got any boost from ocing cpu(most of them) if this cpu dont bottleneck gpu.
both cpus wont bottleneck your 290 even at stock, dont think you'll get significant boost from ocing in games.
thats why 2600


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 12, 2016)

i get fairly decent jumps in performance from oc'ing my 2500k. gta5, bf3/bf4 , farcry games...and many others. i've had both, and the i5 all the way. why use pretend threads, when all you need is the real ones 

but the extra threads would be nice when they are needed. if ever. id go for the chip You KNOW is better in your heart


----------



## xfia (Jan 12, 2016)

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/491/Intel_Core_i5_i5-2500K_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-2600.html
Seems like overclocking the i5 to try match the ability of the i7 in threaded and memory intensive tasks is kind of a dead end since the i5 is just going to get a ass kicking especially with the i7 at 4ghz plus if we are talking more than one monitor any contest that might have been is non existent imo.


----------



## AsRock (Jan 12, 2016)

.4Ghz aint going make much if any difference unless in benchmarks, so it depends on what you run on your main rig.  Personally i would use the 2600k as at least one of my games use those threads.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jan 12, 2016)

I had a 2500k@4.9ghz. HT or not at that speed it totally smokes the 2600


----------



## vega22 (Jan 12, 2016)

until we know the unknown any debate is moot.

what clocks the 25 will do on the same volts as the 26@4ghz is what counts


----------



## Mussels (Jan 12, 2016)

xfia said:


> http://www.cpu-
> world.com/Compare/491/Intel_Core_i5_i5-2500K_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-2600.html
> Seems like overclocking the i5 to try match the ability of the i7 in threaded and memory intensive tasks is kind of a dead end since the i5 is just going to get a ass kicking especially with the i7 at 4ghz plus if we are talking more than one monitor any contest that might have been is non existent imo.



that article itself contradicts what you're saying. at stock, the i7 is only 20% faster in multi threaded - despite a 50% thread advantage.

So if i got a 20% overclock on the i5 than the i7, would i not have equal 4+ multi threading performance AND faster <4 thread performance?

I guess i'll update the thread once its in and see how high i can OC it.


----------



## hat (Jan 12, 2016)

Well, you'd have to reach 4.8GHz to make that happen... not sure how sustainable that's gonna be.


----------



## xfia (Jan 12, 2016)

Mussels said:


> that article itself contradicts what you're saying. at stock, the i7 is only 20% faster in multi threaded - despite a 50% thread advantage.
> 
> So if i got a 20% overclock on the i5 than the i7, would i not have equal 4+ multi threading performance AND faster <4 thread performance?
> 
> I guess i'll update the thread once its in and see how high i can OC it.


I was just doing the math on that after reading a few of the most recent posts and the overclock of the i5 would be like your saying. It could be a close race and even down to voltage like @vega22 mentioned. 
It would be nice to see some before and after benchmarks on your overclocks especially since the cpu world ones are looking a bit outdated. 
The i7 does show higher than 23% performance advantage in some cases per cpu world.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 12, 2016)

hat said:


> Well, you'd have to reach 4.8GHz to make that happen... not sure how sustainable that's gonna be.



lets say 4.6Ghz which is definitely possible - i'd get 15% faster performance for anything using four threads of less, and a 5% loss for anything using all 8 threads*.




*Going by the linked benchmark above, HT performance really can vary between programs.


----------



## Jetster (Jan 12, 2016)

I just broke the tie


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jan 12, 2016)

Mussels said:


> *Going by the linked benchmark above, HT performance really can vary between programs.



Just do some lazy FINAL FANTASY XIV: HEAVENSWARD it reacts to multiple cores... we have a TPU thread for it. Many GTX970ties with different CPU's.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 12, 2016)

Mussels said:


> Going by the linked benchmark above, HT performance really can vary between programs.



Yes, for almost all games, HT won't help at all.

Even in times when HT does best, it only gives about 25% boost in performance.  HT is just a really super efficient way of switching cores between two different pieces of work.  So it uses clock cycles to do work that would otherwise be wasted.


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 12, 2016)

Mussels said:


> i also put the clock speeds in the survey question too
> A friends work dumped a bunch of 'dead' office machines out, and had to be strippped. Being their last 1155 boards he salvaged the CPU's - he scored about 10 CPU's, mostly i5 2500's and i7 2600's with just the one random K chip he donated to me.
> 
> 
> At this stage i'm leaning towards OCing the 2500K as high as i can, leaving the 2600 at 4GHz in the secondary PC. if i need virtualisation or anything, i can simply run it on there i guess.




Nice, lucky you!  8 threads vs. 4 ...and more cache, vs.  Getting 4.5 Ghz out of the i5 vs. 3.8 on the i7.  I choose clock speed!  Some applications will prefer the i7, with 8 cores but I'm guessing not much.


----------



## trog100 (Jan 12, 2016)

its a win some lose some situation whichever way you look at it.. i dont think the average gpu limited game will care which option is chosen.. other things might though.. 

trog


----------



## GhostRyder (Jan 12, 2016)

I would say i5 2500K.  I say this because HyperThreading does not add much in games and unless you do a ton of video editing or similar you won't see the benefit (Or run a lot of VM's).  The i5 2500K with decent cooling can reach 4.8-5.0ghz (Like the 2600K/2700K) so you should get more benefit off pushing that to its limit.


----------



## peche (Jan 12, 2016)

Primary rig for working, videos, internet stuff and whatever you will have to do, 
intel i7 2600, 8Gb ram and also if possible a 64/120GB SSD for OS and a HDD for info... 

Secondary / Gaming Rig:
intel i5 2500K 16GB ram and also SSD for OS and HDD for games, also you could get a 256GB SSD and stay with just one drive, for gaming only,  you can make this a the little preferred toy! all the details, upgrades and cute stuff comes to this one 1st! 

Regards,


----------



## Mussels (Jan 12, 2016)

If i was doing video editing, the i7 would be in the secondary system anyway and i'd just throw the task over to that - the top system in my sig.

So far everyone agrees with my original suspicions which is basically go the i5 for gaming and OC the tits off it, and run any heavy crunching tasks on the i7 in the secondary machine if needed.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 12, 2016)

Yep, since you aren't completely getting rid of the 2600, I agree with that.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jan 12, 2016)

This is a no-brainer for me. I'd go with the i7. Then, if not happy, I'd put back in the i5.


----------



## Kursah (Jan 12, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> This is a no-brainer for me. I'd go with the i7. Then, if not happy, I'd put back in the i5.



The power user in me agrees, the overclocker disagrees. 

As I said before, I'd run them both in the main machine, do some tasks and play some games that are normally used/played, compare performance metrics/results...go with the one that provides the best results. /thread


----------



## jsfitz54 (Jan 12, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> This is a no-brainer for me. I'd go with the i7. Then, if not happy, I'd put back in the i5.



If I read this post correctly, you have it backwards.


----------



## theJesus (Jan 12, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I don't overclock so naturally I'd say the 2600.  If memory serves, 2600 has some features that the 2500K lacks like hardware virtualization.
> http://ark.intel.com/compare/52213,52210


They both support VT-x, which is what actually enables hardware virtualization.  The three items you pointed out are enterprise features that I doubt Mussels would use anyways.

The only missing feature that might actually mean something for Mussels is hyper-threading.


----------



## Frick (Jan 12, 2016)

vt-d 4 lyfe. Not necessary unless you want access the hardware directly, but there's rarely reason for that for home users afaik. Maybe disk controllers would be interesting.

Me I'd stick with the i7, but if gaming's your thang I'd go i5. Basically what everyone else is saying.


----------



## theJesus (Jan 12, 2016)

Frick said:


> vt-d 4 lyfe. Not necessary unless you want access the hardware directly, but there's rarely reason for that for home users afaik. Maybe disk controllers would be interesting.
> 
> Me I'd stick with the i7, but if gaming's your thang I'd go i5. Basically what everyone else is saying.


Like I said, an enterprise feature.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jan 12, 2016)

jsfitz54 said:


> If I read this post correctly, you have it backwards.


The point is still the same. I would try both, see which I like best and use that.


----------



## Flow (Jan 12, 2016)

People should do what they like.
But I played my games with my cpu default and oc'ed, and quite frankly, fps was more or less the same.
Gaming difference between i7 4Ghz and 4,5Ghz isn't very big. The extra threads however can become handy for games that do utilize them.
And nowadays more and more games do benefit from multiple threads.


----------



## BiggieShady (Jan 12, 2016)

Overclock the i5 to the limits, sandy bridge should go fairly high because of the soldered IHS


----------



## revin (Jan 12, 2016)

I'd have to pick the *i7 * primarily that it has 16-way  associative access to the larger L3 cache, and a larger L2  cache.
What I found from in Pentium days was the P@1Ghz vs. the Celery @928 was huge jump in performance due to having double the access to it's cache [which was both the same size,4 vs 8 way]

Edit: I rarely see much over 4.19 when it's just 1 core gaming


----------



## hat (Jan 14, 2016)

Well, that sort of thing is probably a lot less important today than it was back in those days.


----------



## qubit (Jan 14, 2016)

I went i5 as a near 5GHz overclock really makes a difference in games.

Besides this the i7 has a larger cache and HT which might just make a difference in some edge cases so it's not totally cut and dry.


----------



## EntropyZ (Jan 14, 2016)

I voted for the i5 to use for gaming, any general purpose/computing and what not should be with the i7. This isn't a simple choice by any means, I have never owned an i7 grade CPU, so I have no personal experience on what they are capable of, worst case scenario comparison would be the FX-8350 which I do know how it runs, and the i5 leaves the FX-8350 in the dust any day for single thread gaming tasks, on the other hand newer DX11 titles do like extra cores so the FX-8350 comes a lot closer, but still just doesn't cut it. The i7 could run better than the i5 in some games though.

IMHO gaming wise i5>i7 and for whatever else you want to use extra threads i7>i5 since we're still stuck with DX9/DX11 games. This will change in the near future so, yeah. There ain't no safe bet at this point. Gotta stop repeating myself. 

My analysis here has gone like this: Personal experience>People's experience>Review sites>Random forum

Reading 5 years worth of tech material when unregistered does pay off sometimes, but I am unable to throw ideas back and forth, *anyway*.

If memory serves, you shouldn't have any problems gaming on both processors right now. If you want to try and "future proof" and with CPU's that's easily doable. Using the i7 does seem like the better option. I am conflicted between the two because of the DX12 hype. Curses.

Personally I am sticking with playing DX9 titles, which usually have abysmal multi-thread/HT support.

At the end of the day, it all depends on what you're going to do. Planning ahead might help.

Your last post seems to indicate that you have already chosen what the systems configurations will be. And I believe that might be the best course of action.

Edit: I'm going to follow this, hopefully you'll throw in some real world gaming comparisons because that is what I am interested in. Benchmarks are way too controlled and don't reflect typical scenarios right.

I'm trying to keep my friend off buying an i7 3770 when he really doesn't need one. I would just sell him my MB/CPU combo, if I had enough money to upgrade to something better.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 14, 2016)

Well i've got the K in my hands at last, so i'll swap for the i7 2600 now and do some comparisons.


----------



## Artas1984 (Jan 14, 2016)

Mussels said:


> So as an interesting dilemma, i'm being given for free, an i5 2500k when i already own the 2600.
> I've got two systems, so the 'loser' will end up in my secondary PC.
> 
> 
> Which would you choose for your primary *gaming* PC, and why?



Well, as i have shown in my previous test hyper-threading not only does not help, but literally hurts gaming performance:

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...ing-test-20-games-tested.216466/#post-3351915

This is surely an Ivy Bridge test, but i suppose it should fit to Sandy Bridge as well.

Also that K overclocking factor.. It has been proven that overclocking Core i5 2500K from 3.7 GHz to 4.5 GHz adds additional 2 % gaming performance on high settings and 12 % on low settings:

http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1158

Wooppy dudu! That's a lot?! I am sure for 3k resolutions with SLI GTX980 overclocking Core i5 to 4.5 GHz would be a must, but for 1920x1080 2 % is nothing.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 14, 2016)

Well i've finished a very basic synthetic test, comparing at 4Ghz with the same voltage (stock)

i7 (auto/stock volts):
Desktop Idle: 61w

CPU-Z Single threaded: 89W (1510)
CPU-Z Multi Threaded: 147W (6348)



i5 2500k 4Ghz (auto/stock volts):
Desktop Idle: 59w

CPU-Z Single threaded: 90W (1243)
CPU-Z Multi Threaded: 144W (3619W)

Gaming tests could show very different results, but it shows how close they are at the same clocks with the i7 leading as expected.


----------



## Artas1984 (Jan 14, 2016)

Core i5 2500K is the best gaming CPU of all time.

In high end gaming it's only 2 % slower than Core i5 4670K and smashes AMD FX-8350.

http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1158&page=13

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/288?vs=697

2500K = EPIC WIN! YES!


----------



## Mussels (Jan 14, 2016)

apparently OCing these is rather easy.

(1.25v set in BIOS reads as ~1.3V in windows, and i've read 1.35V is recommended max for these)


----------



## EntropyZ (Jan 14, 2016)

Mussels said:


> apparently OCing these is rather easy.
> 
> (1.25v set in BIOS reads as ~1.3V in windows, and i've read 1.35V is recommended max for these)


Great, now I'm jelly. At least I get a look.


----------



## hat (Jan 14, 2016)

Try running the cpu-z bench at that speed. I'm surprised the i7 is leading like that in the single threaded benchmark...


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jan 14, 2016)

Derpy kitty needs to do FINAL FANTASY XIV: Heavensward, I am curious about the results too.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 14, 2016)

hat said:


> Try running the cpu-z bench at that speed. I'm surprised the i7 is leading like that in the single threaded benchmark...



totally stable for the CPU-Z bench/stress test so far.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 14, 2016)

ok did much more googles, i was getting sandy bridge and ivy bridge confused.

So umm...


----------



## hat (Jan 14, 2016)

lol fuck it, as long as temps are good and it's stable


----------



## Mussels (Jan 14, 2016)

I just cant even right now


----------



## SnakeDoctor (Jan 14, 2016)

> i5 2500k 4Ghz (auto/stock volts):
> Desktop Idle: 59w
> 
> CPU-Z Single threaded: 90W (1243)
> ...



I seem to get higher results compared to yours at stock speeds ,just for matter of interest.

My
i5 2500k Stock @ 3.3 (turbo on)
Desktop Idle:  25w
CPU-Z - Single Thread - 1284
CPU-Z Multi Thread - 4992 ( quite higher )

i5 2500k 4ghz (auto/stock voltages) just increased multiplier. (turbo boost off)
Desktop Idle: 36w
CPU-Z - Single Thread -1514
CPU-Z - Multi Thread -5900

All Power saving off except for msi APS is on


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Jan 14, 2016)

How in the hell is a 5 GHz 2500k barely beating a 4 GHz 2600, and getting beat pretty good at 4 GHz in single thread performance? Something isn't right there. The two CPUs at the same clock speed should be equal in single thread performance


----------



## hat (Jan 14, 2016)

Well, you've handily beat your 2600 even in multithreaded so... just work on getting it stable and try to tweak the voltage down, if possible.


----------



## qubit (Jan 14, 2016)

Mussels said:


> apparently OCing these is rather easy.


Yeah, you don't say.   Sandy Bridge is Intel's best enthusiast generation for sure.

When I first got my 2600K, I did a quickie overclock test where it reached 5.5GHz and had even more to give. It wasn't realistic keeping it at that overclock though, especially with the feeble air cooling I had at the time, but boy was it fast! It was really obvious even on the desktop let alone a game.

It's not overclocked now, but I'm thinking of doing this again. 4.7GHz should be comfortable.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 14, 2016)

this makes me wanna start running bench's with You im Still rocking my i5 2500k in the machine im on now 

let me know if you need comparisons of another i5 for ANY reason......>stuck home with sick kids<


----------



## Mussels (Jan 14, 2016)

BarbaricSoul said:


> How in the hell is a 5 GHz 2500k barely beating a 4 GHz 2600, and getting beat pretty good at 4 GHz in single thread performance? Something isn't right there. The two CPUs at the same clock speed should be equal in single thread performance




i do not have full faith in CPU-Z's benchmark, I can try other tests for comparison.


Heres CineBench saying my 4 thread CPU matches an 8 thread i7


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 14, 2016)

Try Passmark, that runs a variety of CPU processes/tests and can be quite demanding.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 14, 2016)

Tatty_One said:


> Try Passmark, that runs a variety of CPU processes/tests and can be quite demanding.



got a link?


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jan 14, 2016)

Mussels said:


> i do not have full faith in CPU-Z's benchmark, I can try other tests for comparison.
> 
> 
> Heres CineBench saying my 4 thread CPU matches an 8 thread i7



Well if you are running that Cinebench overclocked, it's easy to see it matching a 3770.  Despite the 3770 being able to do 8 photo sections at a time (r threads full speed and 4 threads at more or less half speed), an overclocked I5 can easily make up the time difference by completing sections faster, equaling the two out.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 14, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> Well if you are running that Cinebench overclocked, it's easy to see it matching a 3770.  Despite the 3770 being able to do 8 photo sections at a time (r threads full speed and 4 threads at more or less half speed), an overclocked I5 can easily make up the time difference by completing sections faster, equaling the two out.



I'm not saying its a surprise or anything, but it WAS my goal. I've got a 4 thread CPU matching an 8 thread in a scenario the 8 thread should dominate.



Tatty_One said:


> Try Passmark, that runs a variety of CPU processes/tests and can be quite demanding.



as requested by the old man:


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 14, 2016)

Mussels said:


> got a link?


Have a read here about the different tests, download link to the right of the page.........

http://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm


----------



## Mussels (Jan 14, 2016)

Tatty_One said:


> Have a read here about the different tests, download link to the right of the page.........
> 
> http://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm



see the post above you, i edited in some results. 22% faster single threaded than an i7 5820k has me a little smug (we dont look at the 8 threaded results)


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 14, 2016)

Mussels said:


> Heres CineBench saying my 4 thread CPU matches an 8 thread i7



what clocks is the i5 on in that bench? if you dont mind me asking. id like to run it  @ the same speeds as well for comparison since we have the same chip


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 14, 2016)

keep the K processor for Gaming, You hamper performance possibility with a non K Model.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 14, 2016)

i got TERRIBLE results on cinebench just now. I used to score 6xx-7xx , but that was when i was on win 7   the only differnce to these new scores is Win10, and a 5xx cinebench score  ... i HOPE this doesnt translate into other Real life situations, otherwise ill be heading back to Win 7 REAL fast.

im gonna try a restart

yup its gotta be win10 , my score is 576' ish +or- 15 points @ 4.3Ghz .....on win7 @ the same clocks it used to be 650'ish + or - 20 points


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jan 14, 2016)

Gaming tests! Synthetics are not that vital.


----------



## qubit (Jan 14, 2016)

Mussels said:


> i do not have full faith in CPU-Z's benchmark


tsk, someone's gonna incur the wrath of W1zzard!


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jan 14, 2016)

qubit said:


> tsk, someone's gonna incur the wrath of W1zzard!



Why? He maintains GPU-Z not cpu?


----------



## qubit (Jan 14, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> Why? He maintains GPU-Z not cpu?


lol, I saw a "G". Guess he gets a pass on this one.


----------



## Ithanul (Jan 14, 2016)

If you can water cool a 2500k, those things are beast.  Was my first intel chip.  Think I manage to get it up to 4.8GHz stable.  Probably could of gone 5GHz, but was pretty darn happy with the 4.8.  Really for gaming the i5 is good, unless you do some encoding or video editing then the 2600 is better for that.


----------



## hat (Jan 14, 2016)

Well, I don't see a 4GHz i7 beating a 4.8 (or 5.0 for that matter) i5. HT is good, but it only does so much. Now if he had a 2600k then sure...

-ed wow not even the 6700k overclocks as well as the 2500k, unless Mussels got a golden chip or something...


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 14, 2016)

i like the resident evil oness here on TPU, but im not sure if they are a good CPU bench....anyone have a recommendation for a good CPU based Game bench?


----------



## Mussels (Jan 14, 2016)

hat said:


> Well, I don't see a 4GHz i7 beating a 4.8 (or 5.0 for that matter) i5. HT is good, but it only does so much. Now if he had a 2600k then sure...
> 
> -ed wow not even the 6700k overclocks as well as the 2500k, unless Mussels got a golden chip or something...




you'll get a laugh out of this, but theres another thread on this forum i regularly post in and make people die a little inside, that could use a new title "free shit i got at the tip"


at 1.40V everything is stable, at 1.375v its stable at load but not at idle. I can tweak LLC to fix that, or i'm even pondering a 'normal' 4Ghz and turboing to 5Ghz, depending on the freedom the BIOS gives me.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 14, 2016)

Mussels said:


> you'll get a laugh out of this, but theres another thread on this forum i regularly post in and make people die a little inside, that could use a new title "free shit i got at the tip"
> 
> 
> at 1.40V everything is stable, at 1.375v its stable at load but not at idle. I can tweak LLC to fix that, or i'm even pondering a 'normal' 4Ghz and turboing to 5Ghz, depending on the freedom the BIOS gives me.



im gonna need to pick your brain regarding OC'ing that chip. all ive ever done is increased the multiplier, but im CERTAIN my chip has more to offer. it holds around 4.7-4.8 with just changing the multiplier..

and my board had all of the OC features that where around @ Sandy Bridges release, so setting bios options shouldnt be an issue.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 14, 2016)

jboydgolfer said:


> im gonna need to pick your brain regarding OC'ing that chip. all ive ever done is increased the multiplier, but im CERTAIN my chip has more to offer. it holds around 4.7-4.8 with just changing the multiplier..
> 
> and my board had all of the OC features that where around @ Sandy Bridges release, so setting bios options shouldnt be an issue.




I've only changed three settings: CPU voltage, multi, and PLL voltage. There is a seperate "PLL overvoltage" setting that must be left enabled for high OC's like this.

The oddity is that lower PLL voltages can actually be more stable instead of higher, and they lower CPU temps. Mines at 1.75v, i think auto was 1.8v

edit: 1.83v for the PLL voltage seems to be what i randomly chose, and it worked at.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Jan 14, 2016)

hat said:


> -ed wow not even the 6700k overclocks as well as the 2500k, unless Mussels got a golden chip or something...



No other CPU line up has been as good or easy at OC'ing as Sandy Bridge is/was. It was quite common for 2500k and 2600k CPUs to hit 5 GHz with a decent motherboard. My 2600k could do 5 GHz with 1.37 volts (in BIOs, 1.36 in CPU-Z) IIRC. I ran it 24/7 crunching at 4.5 GHz/1.35 volts under a Corsair H60/ Noctua D14. That was with an MSI Z68 GD80 board.


----------



## hat (Jan 14, 2016)

Mussels said:


> you'll get a laugh out of this, but theres another thread on this forum i regularly post in and make people die a little inside, that could use a new title "free shit i got at the tip"
> 
> 
> at 1.40V everything is stable, at 1.375v its stable at load but not at idle. I can tweak LLC to fix that, or i'm even pondering a 'normal' 4Ghz and turboing to 5Ghz, depending on the freedom the BIOS gives me.


Well, by simply adjusting the turbo multi you can idle all the way down to whatever it normally would with the power saving features enabled, and still boost to 5GHz under load.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 14, 2016)

hat said:


> Well, by simply adjusting the turbo multi you can idle all the way down to whatever it normally would with the power saving features enabled, and still boost to 5GHz under load.



Once i get it stable 110% at 5Ghz, i think i'll do that. I've had two crashes at idle, but none at load - so i'm messing with Vdroop correction and such to stabilise that, then i'll save this as a BIOS profile and work on turbo OCing. IIRC i can set a multi for however many active cores there are, so i could do 5Ghz single core, and add an extra core for every 100Mhz it drops or whatever.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Jan 14, 2016)

Mussels said:


> IIRC i can set a multi for however many active cores there are, so i could do 5Ghz single core, and add an extra core for every 100Mhz it drops or whatever.



you are correct. SB is such a pleasure to OC


----------



## hat (Jan 14, 2016)

Mussels said:


> Once i get it stable 110% at 5Ghz, i think i'll do that. I've had two crashes at idle, but none at load - so i'm messing with Vdroop correction and such to stabilise that, then i'll save this as a BIOS profile and work on turbo OCing. IIRC i can set a multi for however many active cores there are, so i could do 5Ghz single core, and add an extra core for every 100Mhz it drops or whatever.


You could do that, but I would want 5GHz across all 4 cores myself... though 4.7GHz wouldn't be bad either.

What I would _really_ want would be a 5GHz 10 core Broadwell-E... encoding be damned!


----------



## SnakeDoctor (Jan 14, 2016)

My stock 2500k speeds still beat your 5ghz cpu-z result , if checked my post above


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 14, 2016)

SnakeDoctor said:


> My stock 2500k speeds still beat your 5ghz cpu-z result , if checked my post above



gotta love that spirit


----------



## SnakeDoctor (Jan 14, 2016)

jboydgolfer said:


> gotta love that spirit



Should'nt they be higher comparing apples to apples ?


----------



## vega22 (Jan 14, 2016)

Mussels said:


> Once i get it stable 110% at 5Ghz, i think i'll do that. I've had two crashes at idle, but none at load - so i'm messing with Vdroop correction and such to stabilise that, then i'll save this as a BIOS profile and work on turbo OCing. IIRC i can set a multi for however many active cores there are, so i could do 5Ghz single core, and add an extra core for every 100Mhz it drops or whatever.



i found i could never get a turbo profile to push past much 4.6 with much stability when i used sandy so i opted for a 24/7 profile that had turbo/power savings and would reboot into a flat out profile just for some games (arma tbh).

i think the higher i went the lower my pll went too. 1.65v iirc on one of them.


----------



## Kanan (Jan 14, 2016)

SnakeDoctor said:


> My stock 2500k speeds still beat your 5ghz cpu-z result , if checked my post above


Maybe you didn't use the same CPU-Z version as him, they changed it a lot after introduction.

@OP: nice numbers


----------



## Mussels (Jan 15, 2016)

SnakeDoctor said:


> My stock 2500k speeds still beat your 5ghz cpu-z result , if checked my post above



i'm not sure the CPU-Z results are accurate. when left on stress test mode i saw it fluctuating a lot, with upto 20% CPU power being eaten by random windows 10 background maintenance tasks.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 15, 2016)

4.8Ghz is rock solid stable, 5Ghz has occasional crashes at idle-low load. watching videos seems to trigger it fastest.


Turbo OCing is limited as i have no voltage control for turbo, and this board seems to lack an offset option.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 15, 2016)

Next challenge: two mismatched sticks of ram.

8GB, 1.65v. Both post and boot windows on their own at 1.65v, 2133Mhz 11-11-11-31






Both together, no boot.

Any tips?


----------



## EntropyZ (Jan 15, 2016)

Mussels said:


> Next challenge: two mismatched sticks of ram.
> 
> 8GB, 1.65v. Both post and boot windows on their own at 1.65v, 2133Mhz 11-11-11-31
> 
> ...


I doubt you can get both running in dual channel, maybe both in single would work but not dual.

I'm using 2x2GB Corsair Vengeance 1.5v, 1600MHz 9-9-9-24 and 1x4GB Kingston Savage, same clock, voltage and timings even though the Corsair ones are supposed to run at 10-10-10-27 with 1600MHz I think.

My system specs don't reflect the different RAM modules, but that is what I am running.

Final setting 1.5v, 1600MHz, 9-9-9-24, CMD Rate 1T

I put the lower capacity dual channel sticks at 0, 3 channel slots, and put the higher capacity single Kingston in what seemed to be the number 1 slot. That seemed to let me boot and use XMP. Not sure why it's not starting for you.

Maybe the MB you use has a specific way of registering RAM. The board probably doesn't even officially support what you are putting in I assume, since I don't see the make. If you're not familiar with your board, I think you know what to do, but real men don't need instructions.

I'm probably making this up but, I think RAM modules that have any version of XMP seem to be more compatible with the Intel Core series starting from the 1st generation i3/i5/i7 CPU's, I haven't extensively tested this though, so pardon me if I am dropping my tongue where it doesn't belong, I am free to be proved wrong.

Edit: Forgot that probably anything over 1333MHz is most likely to have XMP anyway. I guess I can disregard what I posted above.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 15, 2016)

I think i'll make a second thread specific to the OCing of the ram, since this one has served its purpose - the i5 rocks.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jan 15, 2016)

Mussels said:


> I think i'll make a second thread specific to the OCing of the ram, since this one has served its purpose - the i5 rocks.



Vcssa voltage up around 1.15V. Vtt a bit up. Set the first Cl to 12.

If you have options to set vccsa boot voltage to 1.2V(trick that lets me post at 2400MHz).


----------



## Mussels (Jan 15, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> Vcssa voltage up around 1.15V. Vtt a bit up. Set the first Cl to 12.
> 
> If you have options to set vccsa boot voltage to 1.2V(trick that lets me post at 2400MHz).




http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...s-a-fun-challenge-awaits.219248/#post-3402053

post there for me so its all in one thread


----------



## BiggieShady (Jan 15, 2016)

SnakeDoctor said:


> Should'nt they be higher comparing apples to apples ?


Check if you have the latest version of the cpu z.


Mussels said:


> I've got a 4 thread CPU matching an 8 thread in a scenario the 8 thread should dominate.






This one looks promising for gaming scenarios


----------



## Mussels (Jan 16, 2016)

BiggieShady said:


> Check if you have the latest version of the cpu z.
> 
> View attachment 71091
> This one looks promising for gaming scenarios



that result is whats convinced me to stick with the 2500K for the immediate future - and seeing the cache results go way up in aida64. If i can get faster ram happening, it'll be quite a kick for performance.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 17, 2016)

my CPUz is displaying my Voltage when OC'd to 4.7Ghz (just by increasing multiplier) as what looks to me (layman) as low. I saw mussells set pll, and Vcore, and one other setting, and was able to reach 5Ghz...i need to get these adjustments down , and understand them, but everytime i try to read a "how to" i feel either overwjelmed or like TOO much ifo is being thrown @ me. not that you can know too much b4 OC;ing, but if i can keep it simply id SURE liek to.

quite  a ehile ago, i had a tpu user look @ my OC settings and say it looked fucked, like the voltages where WAYYY off, i have no knowledge either way, and i dont remember who that memeber was, but if someone knows please enlighten me if you dont mind. what i got from that person though, was that i had a bad chip, or somthing of the likes. i disagree with that opinion, but maybe the "numbers " are wrong? 

also ever since a bios update, apparently my memory is stuck Default to 1600, but they are 4 1333Mhz RAM sticks, no amount of clear CMOS, or setting the CPU back to stock will change it. I know i can go in and change it, but i shouldnt have to, right?


----------



## Mussels (Jan 17, 2016)

jboydgolfer said:


> my CPUz is displaying my Voltage when OC'd to 4.7Ghz (just by increasing multiplier) as what looks to me (layman) as low. I saw mussells set pll, and Vcore, and one other setting, and was able to reach 5Ghz...i need to get these adjustments down , and understand them, but everytime i try to read a "how to" i feel either overwjelmed or like TOO much ifo is being thrown @ me. not that you can know too much b4 OC;ing, but if i can keep it simply id SURE liek to.
> 
> quite  a ehile ago, i had a tpu user look @ my OC settings and say it looked fucked, like the voltages where WAYYY off, i have no knowledge either way, and i dont remember who that memeber was, but if someone knows please enlighten me if you dont mind. what i got from that person though, was that i had a bad chip, or somthing of the likes. i disagree with that opinion, but maybe the "numbers " are wrong?
> 
> also ever since a bios update, apparently my memory is stuck Default to 1600, but they are 4 1333Mhz RAM sticks, no amount of clear CMOS, or setting the CPU back to stock will change it. I know i can go in and change it, but i shouldnt have to, right?




check the other tabs in CPU-Z, you might actually have 1600Mhz ram and just never knew  (SPD tab shows what its rated for, check each stick)


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 17, 2016)

i actually too kit out and looked , since my memory isnt what it used to be  (no pun intended) and it is 1333Mhz.but nothing i do  short of manually setting all of the timings, returns it to its original, and all ive ever done , was set it in XMP.

MY motherboard has IMO WAYY too many goddamn options for overclocking. i just get lost in there.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 17, 2016)

well if it says 1333 and runs at 1600, enjoy the 1600 XD


----------



## Mussels (Jan 17, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> Vcssa voltage up around 1.15V. Vtt a bit up. Set the first Cl to 12.
> 
> If you have options to set vccsa boot voltage to 1.2V(trick that lets me post at 2400MHz).



finding this post actually helped me out - vccsa to 1.15v lets me run 4 sticks at 1866 now that i have faster/different ram.


----------



## Folterknecht (Jan 17, 2016)

jboydgolfer said:


> i like the resident evil oness here on TPU, but im not sure if they are a good CPU bench....anyone have a recommendation for a good CPU based Game bench?



WoT (World of Tanks) is a single threaded PoS, where i3s blow all AMD chips out of the water.
Dying Light



Mussels said:


> Next challenge: two mismatched sticks of ram.
> 
> 8GB, 1.65v. Both post and boot windows on their own at 1.65v, 2133Mhz 11-11-11-31
> 
> ...



Run both sticks alone at your desired speed and note the secondary/tertiary timings. Dial in the more relaxed ones when running both sticks together.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 17, 2016)

Final results from the i7-i5 transition. From here its slowly lowering the voltages, but its memtest + benchmark stable with some improvements all around.
Ram is down from 1.61V to 1.55V as well
(i mean seriously, look at those cache numbers. cant tell me gaming wont appreciate that)


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 17, 2016)

finally got my RAM to register @ the Stock speeds, dont know what did it, but i digress, im getting BSOD on start-up with 4.8Ghz +, but im only setting the multipier, so its to be expected.
@Mussels did u set a custom PLL voltage? if so what did u go with? as well as vssca, or whatever that one is.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 18, 2016)

vccsa is 1.15v/1.2v for testing, not sure about PLL


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 18, 2016)

Drop to 1866


Mussels said:


> Next challenge: two mismatched sticks of ram.
> 
> 8GB, 1.65v. Both post and boot windows on their own at 1.65v, 2133Mhz 11-11-11-31
> 
> ...


----------



## Mussels (Feb 4, 2016)

I'll have to post screenshots later, but IntelBurnTest's little Gflops benchmark showed the OC'd i5 dominating the OC'd i7, contrary to what some people thought would happen. Seems like there is a threshold for the extra threads simply not helping, and i want to try and figure out where that limit is when i have more time.


----------



## jellowiggler (Mar 17, 2016)

I am facing much the same issue.

I have a 2500k running @ 4.5Ghz and have a 2600 chip available to me.  The question is should I put it my system and use the i7 @ ~4Ghz or keep the i5 @ 4.5Ghz?
I know that the dif between 4 and 4.5 Ghz is pretty small.  But is there a case where 8 threads in a game make a difference.  Presumably in a modern game that could take advantage.  dx12 title maybe?

This is more of a future facing issue for me.  On older titles the difference won't be more that 5%, but on upcoming titles could 4 vs 8 threads on the CPU make the needle move 10-20%?  It would be worth it then.

Have you run 3D Mark, BF4, or any other in game benchmarks on it that demonstrate the difference in gaming?

Especially in a modern game that can take advantage of multi-threaded processors.

From Tech Tested on multi-core and Ashes of the Singularity (the only DX12 title currently available?)










At the same clock speed 4/4 to 4/8 is a pretty big bump.

So if you pick up 20% performance by going 4/4 to 4/8, you could assume that a 4/4 with a ~5% clock boost would get you about 10% of that back for the i5.

Perhaps the i7-2600 @ 4Ghz would be about 10% faster than the i5-2500k @ 4.5 at that speed in AotS.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 17, 2016)

in my case, once i passed 4.5-4.6Ghz (not even close to the max it can do) the i5 came out better than the i7 @4ghz (max it can do), even in purely synthetic benchmarks.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Mar 17, 2016)

that 2500k was the BEST purchase as far as PC components go hands down, in the last 10 years or more...I bought it @ launch, and once i swapped it for a 4690k, i couldnt even tell the difference, unless i looked @ bench numbers, and in some I/O intensive operations, that were likely as much the i5, as they were the chipset. i miss my baby  but she has a good home now, for a good cause...


----------



## Orion7 (Mar 22, 2016)

i5 2500K for sure. Good single thread performance is crucial for DX11 performance which based on what 'they say' uses several threads for multithread rendering but only ONE thread from multiple rendering threads that actually heavily 'overused' right there.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 22, 2016)

Orion7 said:


> i5 2500K for sure. Good single thread performance is crucial for DX11 performance which based on what 'they say' uses several threads for multithread rendering but only ONE thread from multiple rendering threads that actually heavily 'overused' right there.



i chose the 2500k months ago.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 22, 2016)

You can't mark threads as "solved" with Xenforo?


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Mar 22, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> You can't mark threads as "solved" with Xenforo?



yeah - its called 'getting a mod to lock the thread'


----------



## Mussels (Mar 22, 2016)

updated the title instead - people are clearly interested in continuing the discussion.


----------



## ERazer (Mar 22, 2016)

jboydgolfer said:


> that 2500k was the BEST purchase as far as PC components go hands down, in the last 10 years or more...I bought it @ launch, and once i swapped it for a 4690k, i couldnt even tell the difference, unless i looked @ bench numbers, and in some I/O intensive operations, that were likely as much the i5, as they were the chipset. i miss my baby  but she has a good home now, for a good cause...



now if you had picked 2600k you didnt have to upgrade, jk

2600k is my best purchase ever and still kicking it.


----------



## Flow (Mar 22, 2016)

Never regretted paying more for my 2600k at the time for the extra threads.
However, the bare 2600 can't be overclocked much, thus a 2500k will be the better choice in this scenario.
As for the 4690k, we have a pc with the non k version, and besides the fact it runs cool, it has no problem running games either.
The non k was a misstake of my eldest son, he was too hasty when ordering it, but he isn't into overclocking anyways.


----------



## peche (Mar 22, 2016)

well i have a locked i7 and no regrets at all... that dude has served me pretty much i bet he would a couple of years more ....


----------



## jellowiggler (Mar 29, 2016)

I ended up using my i7 2600 over the i5 2500k.

I am in the unique position of being able to run traditional BIOS, or EFI BIOS on my GA-Z68XP-UD4 motherboard.  So I was doing some compares.

My 2500k on BIOS OC'd to 4.5Ghz @ 1.285V with no issues. Super cool.
2500k on EFI also OC'd to 4.5Ghz with an offset.  I did this in the past and don't have any more details.  Under BIOS I had access to LLC levels 1-10.  Under EFI I didn't have access, but ended up with the same result using offset method.

My 2600 on BIOS OC'd via turbo table to 3.8, 4.2, 4.2, 4.2.  No Bclk OC.
My 2600 on EFI OC'd via turbo table to 3.9, 4.0, 4.1, 42. No Bclk OC.  Faster boot with modern EFI.

Very interesting that different revisions of BIOS and different BIOS programing completely treated the chip differently.

Anyways.  I picked the slower speed 4core/8thread option for modern game engines and other compute tasks. I can't really tell the difference between 3.9 and 4.5Ghz in gaming where it matters and most things are GPU dependent.  I opted for cooler temps, more parallel compute power.

I can tell you that Firestrike went from ~9000 to ~9450.
Also Valve VIVE readiness tool went from yellow to green.

I game at 1080p with an R9 290 DCU (tuned for quiet and temp vs speed) card with a target of 60fps.  So this should work perfectly for me.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Mar 29, 2016)

My 2500k@4.9 would have walked all over your 2600  sadly i no longer have it in my possession no more


----------



## Mussels (Apr 17, 2016)

as a thread necro - System Agent voltage (SA) was the key to 5GHz. Now that i have 2133Mhz 1.5v ram i could rule out a bunch of ram related settigns and found that 1.15V SA was fine for 4.7Ghz, but failed to log into windows at 5Ghz - and 1.21V SA booted windows succesfully and i'm typing this now while running IBT.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 17, 2016)

Weird... since that has to do with memory...


----------



## Mussels (Apr 17, 2016)

it is weird, but i guess since the RAM changed so do the relevant settigns. what got me 5Ghz (mostly) stable on the old ram, is no longer stable...

i'll post back one day when i finally get 5Ghz rock solid on the new ram.


----------



## silkstone (Apr 18, 2016)

I've gotta say I still love my 2500K. Even after 4 years, it can handle anything I throw at it.

I'm sure I will retire it in to my HTPC and buy something a little more snazzy eventually, but thus far, I have found no real reason to


----------



## Mussels (Apr 18, 2016)

silkstone said:


> I've gotta say I still love my 2500K. Even after 4 years, it can handle anything I throw at it.
> 
> I'm sure I will retire it in to my HTPC and buy something a little more snazzy eventually, but thus far, I have found no real reason to



i was about to ask you for OCing advice, but yours is clocked lower than mine, not higher XD

dropped SA voltage back to stock and its perfectly stable... i think it needed to be higher when the ram was 1.65v, but now at 1.5v that is no longer neccesary. The rest will be figuring out CPU voltages, droops, etc.


----------



## silkstone (Apr 18, 2016)

Ha! Yeah. I could likely get mine higher, but I am lazy also (and lack the time). Going anywhere past 4.6 using regular bios OC settings results in random bluescreens, especially when the average temperature has been 39C here for the past week.

In the summer, I will likely lap my 2500k to push for a few extra Mhz, when I'm not using my PC for work so much. Random crashes are annoying if autosave doesn't kick in.


----------



## jaggerwild (Apr 18, 2016)

Mussels said:


> So as an interesting dilemma, i'm being given for free, an i5 2500k when i already own the 2600.
> I've got two systems, so the 'loser' will end up in my secondary PC.
> 
> 
> Which would you choose for your primary *gaming* PC, and why?



I always miss these good threads when they start? 2500K in any of the Asus Top Board the chip need no voltage bump to do 4500Mhz(of course it auto volts)and you'll need to adjust, but if done correctly chip should last a long time.



SnakeDoctor said:


> Should'nt they be higher comparing apples to apples ?



Your not, do you have the same board, memory, video card, Bios, etc.........


----------



## SnakeDoctor (Apr 18, 2016)

> Your not, do you have the same board, memory, video card, Bios, etc.........



But a +20% difference ? on stock compared to the OP's 4ghz , not all overclocking means better results if not setup correctly with certain features disabled/enabled.Sometime my bios reset and have to reconfigure it and test with cinebench
and sometimes the result is way slower and have to check whay have i left on or off in bios to get to optimal speeds again
Don't have the same specs at all, but my specs are way way lower...so that's why i was wondering why such a difference on cpu score on the multithread[/QUOTE]


----------



## jaggerwild (Apr 18, 2016)

Like you said not all overclocking is stable for benches like Cinnebench, you can over clock a chip and it runs where as mine might not(depending on the over clock and settins) temps, etc. Usually its not hard to find(a few settings changes), read back and it says only three adjustments needed to overcclock a SandBridge..................Googled it VVV
https://www.google.com/search?q=San...-8&oe=utf-8#q=Sandy+Bridge+overclocking+guide


----------



## jellowiggler (Apr 19, 2016)

jellowiggler said:


> I ended up using my i7 2600 over the i5 2500k.
> 
> I am in the unique position of being able to run traditional BIOS, or EFI BIOS on my GA-Z68XP-UD4 motherboard.  So I was doing some compares.
> 
> ...




Just to add.

I ended up dropping in a 3770 non-k that came my way for free.

On the same MB with UEFI it will run at 4.1, 4.1, 4.1, 4.1 all day long, plus the ~5-10% faster for the sandy to ivy change.
It wasn't stable at all with the normal BIOS, even at stock.  Even though the F6 BIOS was certified to run the CPU.  It just shows that you don't know how a MB will treat a chip until you try it.

Funny how things are a bit different depending on how the MB is going to honour the rules set out by Intel.  The 2600 and the 3770 should be identical in the turbo chart.  But BIOS and CPU changes on the same MB will change the behaviour drastically.

Firestrike is up to 9750.
Valve VR is at 6.4 green.

Ended up super!


----------

