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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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