i5-2500k or i7-2600k... Can someone convince me?

[o_mega05]

About to begin my second CustoMac build and can't decide between the i5-2500k or i7-2600k. If I'm lucky enough to get the $149 deal at Microcenter for the i5, that'll be my obvious choice, but can someone justify paying $150+ for an i7.

BTW, I plan on overclocking.

Thanks in advance.

 

[VeganHipster]

If you don't use programs that take use of hyperthreading, I wouldn't bother.

 

[o_mega05]

Thanks for the clarification. My usage will mostly be running CS Suite with multiple apps at one time, i.e.Photshop, Illustrator, etc.

 

[chrisbloemker]

I would go with the i5-2500k That's what I am getting and its great for overclocking with an essential aftermarket cooler. When you are using HT (HyperThreading) i believe intel claims it's a 30% increase on average, but there are only certain programs that can support/allocate HT

 

[VeganHipster]

I would go with the i5-2500k That's what I am getting and its great for overclocking with an essential aftermarket cooler. When you are using HT (HyperThreading) i believe intel claims it's a 30% increase on average, but there are only certain programs that can support/allocate HT

Exactly. Only some programs will benefit from Hyper Threading, but all programs will benefit from an overclocked i5!

 

[frkino]

About to begin my second CustoMac build and can't decide between the i5-2500k or i7-2600k. If I'm lucky enough to get the $149 deal at Microcenter for the i5, that'll be my obvious choice, but can someone justify paying $150+ for an i7.

BTW, I plan on overclocking.

Thanks in advance.

Depending on perspectives and your OC goal, the extra $150+ an be easily justified by the quality of the chip itself. You probably have heard of the Core i7-2600k reaching 5GHz+ operating frequency, but I bet it is less often to be achieved on a Core i5-2500k.
The i7-2600k has extra L3 cache, this is favourable when compared to the i5-2500k especially I anticipate you will come to a crossroad contemplating whether you should switch off Hyper-threading to squeeze the final little bits out of the chip. L3 cache is there and always will be there.

I'm drooling just thinking of running the i7-2600k in my hackintosh

 

[Gordo74]

Depending on perspectives and your OC goal, the extra $150+ an be easily justified by the quality of the chip itself. You probably have heard of the Core i7-2600k reaching 5GHz+ operating frequency, but I bet it is less often to be achieved on a Core i5-2500k.

I guess I'm differing on perspective because they are both of the same quality - Material wise.

The 2500k's actually hit over 5Ghz more consistently BECAUSE of the lack of hyper threading.

That being said, I find my 2500k PERFECTLY fast when combined with a SATA3 SSD and the RAM to do anything I want. Now if I was rendering movies a good bit more, or playing around where even more CPU power is needed (my 2500k has only hit 100% once when doing day to day things and that was encoding a 1080p movie), I may go for the 2600k, HOWEVER, you have to weigh if it's really worth DOUBLE for no noticeable day to day gains, unless you're doing heavy working.

Your software suite is more RAM dependent.

 

[frkino]

Depending on perspectives and your OC goal, the extra $150+ an be easily justified by the quality of the chip itself. You probably have heard of the Core i7-2600k reaching 5GHz+ operating frequency, but I bet it is less often to be achieved on a Core i5-2500k.

I guess I'm differing on perspective because they are both of the same quality - Material wise.

The 2500k's actually hit over 5Ghz more consistently BECAUSE of the lack of hyper threading.

That being said, I find my 2500k PERFECTLY fast when combined with a SATA3 SSD and the RAM to do anything I want. Now if I was rendering movies a good bit more, or playing around where even more CPU power is needed (my 2500k has only hit 100% once when doing day to day things and that was encoding a 1080p movie), I may go for the 2600k, HOWEVER, you have to weigh if it's really worth DOUBLE for no noticeable day to day gains, unless you're doing heavy working.

Your software suite is more RAM dependent.

Hey Gordo74
I am perfectly fine that you have a different perspective. I can totally live with that.
And I agree, throw in another SATA3 SSD w/ synchronous NAND chips is also a good idea. This beast is gonna smoke

 

[Orangezorki]

As others have said, the 2500k is better value, but the 2600k is a faster chip. The extra money probably is better spent on SSD/RAM/Cooler/better graphics etc. I say this even though I shelled out for the 2700k. My perspective is that I don't upgrade that often, but when I do, I try to get the best that I can. Hopefully the extra speed and possibly better use of hyper threading in the future will allow my setup to last a while longer.

David

 

[perkabrod]

Agree with most people here. Get the 2500k and get loads of RAM. Absolutely minimum of 8GB. I work full time at a post production facility with VFX and want to have a few intense softwares open at the same time. We have 8GB RAM at work (genuine 2008 mac pro's).

For example, if I have after effects open and have made a ram preview, then swap to photoshop and open a huge document, the computer goes nuts, EVERYTHING goes slowmo, even the mouse cursor doesn't update on movements sometimes. Now and then I loose literally 20 minutes of waiting to force quit a software. So definately 12 or 16GB of RAM if you will have memory intense softwares open at the same time (not talking vlc and firefox here lol).

And by the way, I'd rather buy 16GB 1066MHz memory than 4GB 2000MHz.