Core i5 2500K or Core i7 2600k

[Bolt 0]

Hi all, I'm building a new PC that will hopefully last me for a few years to come & i'm thinking about two processors the Core i5 2500k or the Core i7 2600k. The main reason for my new PC, being a Windows7 64bit by the way will be to run the PMDG 737 NGX. Now my question is can i get away with using the Core i5 2500k without having to fork out for the Core i7 2600k & have max frame rates in FSX?

[Glynn 403]

HelloYes, save the money for a better GPU

[Bolt 0]

Hi Mad Dog, Funny you should come along as i was also wondering about Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit rather that Pro & i notice you also have that, so i take it Home Premium will also be adequate. As for the GPU i'm using a XFX GTX280 at the moment which will be in my new PC for a while & i've been advised to go for a DX11 card instead. Can you run on max settings in FSX with your setup? Thanks very much for your reply by the way.

[MarkW 648]

Buy the i2500K and use the $100 you saved for something else in your system like a better video card or power supply. Fact is that FSX cannot make use of the i2600K's hyperthreading technology. Mark.

[Bolt 0]

Thanks Mark, I need to get the i5 2500k & hard drive this month then the Operating system, Heatsink & Motherboard. What i have so far is an Antek 900 V1 case, GTX280 Card, Razer Ac1 sound card, Corsair HX1000w PSU & i shall use a couple of cd/dvd drives from an old XP PC i have so come next payday i should be ready to roll. Thanks for your reply it is very much appreciated.

[Kosta 122]

There are:1) people who get 2500K cuz its cheaper and are happy with it2) people who like the BOTB (best-of-the-best) without price- or usage- consideration I belong to the latter.

[Guest 747-fan]

I've got a 2500k at 4.5GHz with noctua n14 fan, GTX560i in a Antec 902 cab. Can run the NGX very very well indeed.

[Bolt 0]

Thanks all, i've decided on the i5 2500k. Word Not Allowed i notice you use FS Passengers, i used that program a heck of alot with FS9 & gave up flying after buying FSX because of the lack of the PMDG 737. Now finally they have released the new version (albeit 64bit recommended, hence the thread.) So i'm also looking forward to using FS passengers again. By the way, this new forum format is hard work!!!

[pilotextwo 0]

Don't mean to hijack the thread or anything, but will the larger cache on the 2600K make any difference on FSX performance?

[Kosta 122]

Don't mean to hijack the thread or anything, but will the larger cache on the 2600K make any difference on FSX performance?

Little bit, yes.

[dazz 69]

Little bit, yes.

How do you know that? just asking. I'd like to be able to make a side by side comparison some day

[Kosta 122]

How do you know that? just asking. I'd like to be able to make a side by side comparison some day

I just though since when you compare the FSXMark11, you can find some results that point to such difference if clocks are same, specifically HLJames and FunknNasty. Different RAM-Speed yes, but I think that cache maybe also plays a small role. Maybe I am wrong. Side by side would be the best comparison of course.

[VirginAus737 0]

to test such a little aspect you would need to have identical systems right down to the software and how everything was installed.

[clum 2]

I never got around to doing that side by side benchmark on the two processors unfortunately. Still have some 2500s in the house so hopefully I'll get the time to sort something out now the summer is drawing to a close. Beer and sunshine have to take priority while it lasts I'm afraid!

[Bolt 0]

Don't mean to hijack the thread or anything, but will the larger cache on the 2600K make any difference on FSX performance?

No problem pilotextwo, the Core i5 2500K & the Core i7 2600K's similarities are being debated across the boards so anyone please feel free to use this thread if they wish.

[777flyer101 1]

I have been telling this everywhere that if you can afford the i7 2600k, then get it, on stock settings you will definitely have better performance.2600k is an i7 and 2500k is an i5, now that sums it up all well. 2600k has larger cache, it helps in loading large amount of autogen in small time as compared to i5, some tweaks in fsx make you use hyperthreading technology of i7 2600k, it has better HD 3000 graphics, which can help you a lot if you have a Z68 motherboard, the $100 gap is not for just for name of i7. If you are going to make videos with fraps, the 2600k will give you significantly better performance and it would be miles faster than 2500k in applications which use hyperthreading or are multi-core optimized, in future microsoft will release MS Flight, in which I think the 2600k would be at benefit. It is better to spend 300$ now rather than to spend 200 + 300 = 500$ later. (lol, new CPUs would be there but I am talking about the present)

[Gem 0]

Unless you need video editing, get the I5 2500K and clock it to 4.5ghz. FSX will not make use of the extra $100 to give you more FPS period!. This is very clear by others reporting in the forum. Save the money and get a nice cooler and asus mobo. I saved the $100 and got a Corsair H60 cooler. My system stays at 48c at 4.5ghz with this cooler. My FPS at ORBX YMML is 30 to 35 with X-Traffic. My friend has the i7 2600k and runs the same FPS oc to 4.5ghz. He spent $100 more, I save it. Good luck.

[VirginAus737 0]

I have been telling this everywhere that if you can afford the i7 2600k, then get it, on stock settings you will definitely have better performance.2600k is an i7 and 2500k is an i5, now that sums it up all well. 2600k has larger cache, it helps in loading large amount of autogen in small time as compared to i5, some tweaks in fsx make you use hyperthreading technology of i7 2600k, it has better HD 3000 graphics, which can help you a lot if you have a Z68 motherboard, the $100 gap is not for just for name of i7. If you are going to make videos with fraps, the 2600k will give you significantly better performance and it would be miles faster than 2500k in applications which use hyperthreading or are multi-core optimized, in future microsoft will release MS Flight, in which I think the 2600k would be at benefit. It is better to spend 300$ now rather than to spend 200 + 300 = 500$ later. (lol, new CPUs would be there but I am talking about the present)

Did you know that the i5 2500k also has HD 3000? Anyway, it doesn't matter if your not gonna use it. $100 for 2mb of cache and HT which nothing can fully utilize. I have testes with a 2600 and with HT on and affinity mask at 255 <5 FPS. Trust me, if you had $100 you could get an SSD which would be better than 2mb of cache for load times. even if you can afford it, there are better things you can do with your money.

[777flyer101 1]

Did you know that the i5 2500k also has HD 3000? Anyway, it doesn't matter if your not gonna use it. $100 for 2mb of cache and HT which nothing can fully utilize. I have testes with a 2600 and with HT on and affinity mask at 255 <5 FPS. Trust me, if you had $100 you could get an SSD which would be better than 2mb of cache for load times. even if you can afford it, there are better things you can do with your money.

Did you know that the i5 2500k also has HD 3000? Anyway, it doesn't matter if your not gonna use it. $100 for 2mb of cache and HT which nothing can fully utilize. I have testes with a 2600 and with HT on and affinity mask at 255 <5 FPS. Trust me, if you had $100 you could get an SSD which would be better than 2mb of cache for load times. even if you can afford it, there are better things you can do with your money.

If 2500K would be of 300$ and 2600K would be 400$, then also you would say 100$ gap, just think about it. The i7 2600K is a future proof CPU.

[ZachLW 36]

I have been telling this everywhere that if you can afford the i7 2600k, then get it, on stock settings you will definitely have better performance.2600k is an i7 and 2500k is an i5, now that sums it up all well.

So since the "7" is a higher number than the "5", and the "2600" higher than "2500", it's faster? Clock for clock? *facepalm* 2MB more in cache and HT is not going to help in practical situations ie FSX. Pure and simple. Trying to justify your $100 splurge isn't a good reason to tell folks it performs better... I'll let you in on a secret. I originally used a 2600k but sold it off for a 2500k. No difference what so ever in FSX, and the only program (that I use) I could see any difference in was Cinebench with HT on. If it's FSX one is trying to purchase for, get the 2500k and use that $100 on a nicer GPU or hard drive.

[VirginAus737 0]

So just cos you pay more, your future-proof. it doesn't matter how much they are, the 2600k is always gonna be an extra $100. You should have got a 2500k and a P67 or Z68. Much better off. Any 4.5GHz is better than 3.4GHz regardless of HT or cache.

[dazz 69]

The i7 2600K is a future proof CPU.

My crystal ball has hyperthreading and just told me MS Flight won't use HT because it will be properly coded: won't need a octo core CPU and will be GPU bound anyway

[VirginAus737 0]

HT is just more work for each core. Just doesn't work.