6600 to 2600k ?

[Deleted]

Hey Guys.

I have an i5 6600 non k in my PC right now.
But i am able to get my hands on a i7 2600k (with mobo and RAM) for like nothing.

Which CPU would you choose?
Would an overclocked 2600k beat the 6600 in games?

Thank you

[Jtbrig7390]

Do not swap the i5 for the i7.

The i5 cost more and base performance vs the i7 it beats it. Overclocking it will only bridge the gap a little bit. You could always just upgrade ur i5 to a newer same gen chip if u wanted. But the i5 is more then enough for gaming.

Also keep in mind if u did swap for it you would be getting weaker performance Ram.

[Slicer299]

The 2600K, while a great CPU still, is not worth downgrading to when you have a current generation i5. Unfortunately you can't overclock it like Jtbrig suggested, since you said it's just a 6600 and not a 6600K. But the IPC gains in the architecture will put the 6600 ahead in many games, just not all. Few games can leverage more than 4 cores/threads, and in those that do, a significant portion of the work load is tied to the performance of the primary core. It's the 7700K can still beat Ryzen chips many games that can use 6 or even 8 cores/threads.

If you were already running a 2600K, I wouldn't suggest paying to upgrade to a 6600. Anyone running a 2600K already would truly benefit more from spending the few extra dollars and going with a 7700K. But I absolutely would not go backwards to a 2600K from one of the current 14nm i5 or better chips. And I say that as someone still on a 2600K. I'm personally waiting for Coffee Lake to drop before I make my final decision, I have everything for the build ready to go.

And for the record, here is proof that the 2600K can beat the 6600 in games that can utilize the additional cores. I still don't recommend swapping to it, but other people have been giving you some bad information.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/28...00-more/page-3

[Deleted]

Thank you so much
I was really undecided and watched a lot of comparison videos on youtube (also the gamernexus ones).

You helped me a lot.

[Jtbrig7390]

Unfortunately you can't overclock it like Jtbrig suggested

I mite have worded it wrong, I mean overclocking the i7 would only bridge the gap between the i5 and the i7. There wouldn't be a massive gain at all.

Wasn't implying you could OC the i5.

[Thunderball]

If you play AAA games well OC'd 2600K (4.6-4.8 GHz) should comfortably beat any locked i5s, even most overclocked i5s (up to Skylake).

[Slicer299]

If you play AAA games well OC'd 2600K (4.6-4.8 GHz) should comfortably beat any locked i5s, even most overclocked i5s (up to Skylake).

Simply not true. It 100% depends on the game, and whether or not that game can leverage the additional cores/threads. Which is hit or miss with games these days. A quick look at the benchmark I linked shows that. The two games I specifically showed the benchmarks for in my previous post were those exceptions. Plenty of other games from the benchmark have current generation i5's beating the overclocked 2600K, because those games either don't benefit from the additional cores/threads or benefit more from the improved IPC on the primary CPU core that the current generation chips offer.

Totalwar: Warhammer The 2600K gets its ass kicked by modern i5's


For the most part GN chose games that are capable of benefiting from those additional cores/threads. Games like WoW, the game most people are likely playing if they are posting here, get zero benefit from a chip with more than 4 cores/threads. It's still bound primarily to the primary CPU core, making IPC the most important factor. Starting with Cata they added in some minor multi core/thread support, but it's something like 80% of the game load is still bound to that primary CPU core.

It's really obvious when you monitor your CPU usage while playing WoW, then monitor while playing a game that can properly utilize all your cores/threads. As stated before, I have a 2600K, and painfully obvious how much it's holding me back. I will see my CPU_0 core sit near and often surpass 90% usage while in WoW, with the rest of my cores not doing all that much. But then I can go and play FF XIV and see all 8 of my cores/threads sitting between 40-60% usage, because it properly uses them all equally.

So I'll say again OP, it's in no way an "upgrade" to ditch that 6600 and use that 2600K. If anything, save your pennies and get a 7700K when you can. Or at least a 7700 if you don't have a motherboard that supports overclocking. You're not doing yourself any favors going backwards 6+ years in terms of architecture, IPC and RAM support.

[Thunderball]

snip

Total War Warhammer is a shitty optimized game, which has 4c/8t CPU clocked 8.5% higher beating a 4c/4t CPU by 6% in the very chart you linked. I honestly have no idea why GN would choose that game, apart from it being one of the few relevant new games (which they most likely play themselves).

I've upgraded from my 2600K@4.8GHz about a year ago. I've been playing some Total War game at the time too, didnt notice any improvements.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

I wouldn't go backwards. I mean let us just say it happens to be the golden goose of an overclocker and your 6600 is a sub par proformer as far as the skew goes. Because we have to be honest none of these CPUs are the same even if the model numbers disagree with that. Then you might get some gains. Not a ton but sure, some gains. IPC on that 6600 is just a lot better than on that 2600k. Not to mention just better and more modern hardware options. Now if the roles were reversed and someone was asking "should I upgrade to a 6600 from this 2600k" I would likely so no, save your money and make a real move up because the gains wouldn't be that big and that processor in most games outside of say WoW isn't the biggest boat in the sea. But to go backwards, and even if all the stars align, than sure maybe you get a few frames but was a few frames really losing some modern conforts and such? Maybe if you play counter strike on the professional level. But considering everything being absolute golden perfect is unlikely and even more unlikely you are some first person shooter profession it just wouldn't be an awsome trade.

Any dime you would drop on that would just be better spent on getting a better video card. Hands down improves game play in 90% of games a million times over than a few 100 mhz of CPU.

[chazus]

But i am able to get my hands on a i7 2600k (with mobo and RAM) for like nothing.

Get it, sell it, sell the 6600, get a 6600K and cooler?

[Slicer299]

Total War Warhammer is a shitty optimized game, which has 4c/8t CPU clocked 8.5% higher beating a 4c/4t CPU by 6% in the very chart you linked. I honestly have no idea why GN would choose that game, apart from it being one of the few relevant new games (which they most likely play themselves).

I've upgraded from my 2600K@4.8GHz about a year ago. I've been playing some Total War game at the time too, didnt notice any improvements.

Numbers don't lie. You seem to just not want to accept numbers that don't support your position. Fact, a 2600K does not beat modern i5's in all or even most games. We are not yet at the point where all, or even most, games are leveraging more than 4 cores/threads. Even in the games that can, it's still a downgrade in terms of other technology, DDR3 instead of DDR4, no m.2 or modern USB 3.1 or USB Type C support. PCIe 2.0 instead of 3.0. And the list goes on from there.

He already has a 6600, which means he's at least on a H270 or better motherboard. It makes absolutely no sense to gut that system and put a 6+ year old 2600K, and all it's other technology limitations, into his system. Just for some possible FPS gains in the few select games that support more than 4 CPU cores. We don't even know what GPU he is running. For those games to see any benefit from those additional CPU cores he's going to first need a GPU that's not creating a bottleneck of it's own.

Oh, you upgraded from your 2600K about a year ago and didn't see any improvements? Upgraded to what exactly and what are the rest of you specs? Also, what about after the patch they put out for Ryzen, that also benefit Intel CPUs just as much that improved multi core/thread performance? Did you not see any performance gains then when the entire rest of the world saw them? GN chose Warhammer because like all the other games they tested, it's a very CPU bound title. You'd know that if you read my post or bothered to look at their review. They specifically tested CPU bound or CPU favored titles in their 2600K revisit as they were specifically looking to compare CPU performance.

[Thunderball]

Numbers don't lie. You seem to just not want to accept numbers that don't support your position. Fact, a 2600K does not beat modern i5's in all or even most games. We are not yet at the point where all, or even most, games are leveraging more than 4 cores/threads. Even in the games that can, it's still a downgrade in terms of other technology, DDR3 instead of DDR4, no m.2 or modern USB 3.1 or USB Type C support. PCIe 2.0 instead of 3.0. And the list goes on from there.

Those are paper arguments. And while valid they are just not practical. DDR4 doesnt have any real benefits over DDR3 except for power consumption (which is still miniscule compared to a CPU or GPU). M.2 slots are nice to have but you're not gonna use it unless you've built a PC with it. Same with USB Type-C, they are nice to have but realistically you're not gonna use it ever, especially ones on the motherboard I/O panel. I have both a 5.25 inch expansion panel and I/O panel USB 3.1 Type-C ports, and I've never used the rear I/O one, and you can get an expansion panel regardless of the motherboard. PCIe 2.0 argument is only valid for something like 1070/980 Ti or more powerful.

H270

Let's be real, noone buys that.

Oh, you upgraded from your 2600K about a year ago and didn't see any improvements? Upgraded to what exactly and what are the rest of you specs? Also, what about after the patch they put out for Ryzen, that also benefit Intel CPUs just as much that improved multi core/thread performance? Did you not see any performance gains then when the entire rest of the world saw them? GN chose Warhammer because like all the other games they tested, it's a very CPU bound title. You'd know that if you read my post or bothered to look at their review. They specifically tested CPU bound or CPU favored titles in their 2600K revisit as they were specifically looking to compare CPU performance.

My specs are in the signature. What about the Ryzen patch? It improves the performance of processors using HT/SMT, but the game engine is still old. Yes, it's a CPU bound game, but in the same way that WoW is a CPU bound game: the engine is simply not designed to be able to take full advantage of modern hardware.

[the boar]

Get it, sell it, sell the 6600, get a 6600K and cooler?

this one for sure