For a basic one, no you do not need to overclock and I would generally avoid it especially if you are inexperienced.
Advantages: maybe get a couple more years of life out of your processor once it starts to show age.
Disadvantages: Can break the CPU, shortens the lifespan of the CPU, can shorten the life span and damage the rest of the system if done incorrectly/pushed too far.
Notes: Some 2500ks can't even overclock very well. It depends on the chip. Some of them can get to 4.5-5Ghz stable no problem, some can barely handle the 3.7Ghz turbo boost.
Ghz does not equal performance, mind you. Overclocking will only give a minor performance increase and it is really not recommended to OC far if at all unless you know what you are doing and are actually going to use the extra power.
You also need an aftermarket cooler.
I would go with whichever is cheaper. In my case I was able to get the 2500k for $180USD (micro center in store pickup) whereas the 2500 was $210. However if you do get the 2500k, I would avoid overclocking if you are not experienced in the area, or a "power user" like myself, if you will.
The main difference is just that, one can be overclocked and one can't, depending on what you plan on doing overclocking can help with tasks like video editing / rendering, and it will squeeze some more power from it and you won't need an upgrade as soon, if the price difference is about $10 ish i would say go for the 2500k, because it would leave the option open down the line should you ever choose to overclock.
As for is it needed for a gaming rig, not really, but it is a very nice feature to have to make your system last a little bit longer
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/5odn How is this build, im not planning on overclocking. Is there anywhere i can cut costs at all?
Do you need a bluray drive?
You won't suffer a TERRIBLY large difference in performance if you swap the 560Ti 448 core to a 6850 or 560Ti non-448 core.
okay, well as it turns out the k is about 10 cheaper than the regular on newegg
Do you need a bluray drive?
You won't suffer a TERRIBLY large difference in performance if you swap the 560Ti 448 core to a 6850 or 560Ti non-448 core.
Would i still be able to play games on high settings (not maxed) if i drop to a non 448 core 560Ti?
Advantages: maybe get a couple more years of life out of your processor once it starts to show age.
Ehhh, that's not really the only reason, you definitely push more performance out of a CPU by overclocking, having a faster CPU always helps with tasks(unlike RAM or something.) It just flat out makes things run faster, programs open faster(unless something is bottlenecking it like the HD/RAM.) For game performance.. well, depends on the game, some games see an improvement even from an i7 over an i5. I wouldn't say there's a reason not to overclock besides the danger.
Disadvantages: Can break the CPU, shortens the lifespan of the CPU, can shorten the life span and damage the rest of the system if done incorrectly/pushed too far.
I think you're being a little harsh here, while it is quite possible to damage or even destroy the CPU entirely, that usually is only by making a very stupid mistake like ramping the voltage up a ton or running the temperature too high. Generally it's pretty hard to just like, insta gib a CPU or your motherboard trying to overclock. It doesn't neccesarily shorten the lifespan of the CPU either. Usually overclocking is always still within the specs the company puts forth as being safe to operate under.
Notes: Some 2500ks can't even overclock very well. It depends on the chip. Some of them can get to 4.5-5Ghz stable no problem, some can barely handle the 3.7Ghz turbo boost.
I honestly haven't seen this one, I've seen pretty much every k series being able to overclock quite a bit, even on stock cooling, benchmarks show them overclocking to pretty absurd speeds just with a better cooler.
Ghz does not equal performance, mind you. Overclocking will only give a minor performance increase and it is really not recommended to OC far if at all unless you know what you are doing and are actually going to use the extra power.
Not neccesarily true again. When we're talking generic, to usual people, like comparing one CPU to another based on GHZ, it is quite correct. GHZ is a bad comparison of ability. But when you're comparing a stock clocked CPU to a highly overclocked one the gains can be pretty enormous, I've seen benchmarks of even terrible bulldozers beating stock clocked i5's and even i7's just by overclocking.
I would go with whichever is cheaper. In my case I was able to get the 2500k for $180USD (micro center in store pickup) whereas the 2500 was $210. However if you do get the 2500k, I would avoid overclocking if you are not experienced in the area, or a "power user" like myself, if you will.
Oh please, a better thing to say would be, if you plan to overclock, get a k series. If you don't plan to overclock, don't, simple as that.
Would i still be able to play games on high settings (not maxed) if i drop to a non 448 core 560Ti?
Yes, easily maxed for most games, save for a select few.
I can run batman arkham asylum on max with AA and AF (the two framerate killers) at x8/x8 or x16/x4 or x4/x16 with vsync on and physx set to the GPU and get a constant 50-60FPS. Tone the AF and AA down to a realistic x2/x2 or x4/x4 and that is a constant 60FPS (realistically anything past x4 will not be noticeable on a monitor smaller than 2560x1600 resolution so you are fine in that respect).
Ehhh, that's not really the only reason, you definitely push more performance out of a CPU by overclocking, having a faster CPU always helps with tasks(unlike RAM or something.) It just flat out makes things run faster, programs open faster(unless something is bottlenecking it like the HD/RAM.) For game performance.. well, depends on the game, some games see an improvement even from an i7 over an i5. I wouldn't say there's a reason not to overclock besides the danger.
Thing is, without an SSD you really cannot take full advantage of the overclock, thus it is wasted in some respects.
I think you're being a little harsh here, while it is quite possible to damage or even destroy the CPU entirely, that usually is only by making a very stupid mistake like ramping the voltage up a ton or running the temperature too high. Generally it's pretty hard to just like, insta gib a CPU or your motherboard trying to overclock. It doesn't neccesarily shorten the lifespan of the CPU either. Usually overclocking is always still within the specs the company puts forth as being safe to operate under.
Yeah maybe I was a bit harsh, but it is a tough call since it REALLY depends on the quality of the CPU and the quality of the mobo. And as we all know, they can vary to ridiculous degrees.
I honestly haven't seen this one, I've seen pretty much every k series being able to overclock quite a bit, even on stock cooling, benchmarks show them overclocking to pretty absurd speeds just with a better cooler.
Some of the poorer bins run at 50C idle on an aftermarket cooler and 65-70C at 100% load at the 3.7GHz turbo boost.
Just IMO but I think their quality control needs to step up, those should have been 2400s or i3s, not 2500ks.
Not neccesarily true again. When we're talking generic, to usual people, like comparing one CPU to another based on GHZ, it is quite correct. GHZ is a bad comparison of ability. But when you're comparing a stock clocked CPU to a highly overclocked one the gains can be pretty enormous, I've seen benchmarks of even terrible bulldozers beating stock clocked i5's and even i7's just by overclocking.
The problem here is "highly overclocked" a mild overclock (say less than 4.6-ish) will not dramatically impact performance depending on the setup.
Again, this is a tough area because things can vary so wildly.
Not always, depends on the CPU, Sandy bridge is pretty well known for overclocking, for lack of better phrase, like a boss.
Yes but the stock coolers on newer SB chips have too much thermal paste and are pretty awful.
Here are my web browsing/idle temps on the stock cooler even after putting my own thermal paste on, while 35-40C isn't high as a comparison my core2duo on the stock heatsink with fresh paste at web browsing/idle temps was 20-30C. The older SB chips could easily OC on the stock cooler no problem but after having this new rig for a bit now, I would not recommend it on recent chips. You could maybe push 4.0 without getting too high of temps, but a 300MHz increase is.... well only 300MHz.
(Plus might I add that the fan is LOUD, by far the loudest fan in my case and I have 4 120mm fans at 100%)
Oh please, a better thing to say would be, if you plan to overclock, get a k series. If you don't plan to overclock, don't, simple as that.
Err, why?
If the 2500k is cheaper, why spend more for a 2500? The only difference is the IGP which no one uses save for extra monitors on some Z68 boards.
Thing is, without an SSD you really cannot take full advantage of the overclock, thus it is wasted in some respects.
Depends really, different applications take different times and such, some things take a long time to do CPU wise like archiving or breaking a cyper or something crazy like that. In real world usage it really depends on what you're doing, it's true the hard drive is usually the biggest bottleneck. But it's basically free speed, so, meh, why not?
Yeah maybe I was a bit harsh, but it is a tough call since it REALLY depends on the quality of the CPU and the quality of the mobo. And as we all know, they can vary to ridiculous degrees.
It's true, every CPU is unique, I just seem to notice a pretty good trend with sandy bridge CPU's at least, of all types.
The problem here is "highly overclocked" a mild overclock (say less than 4.6-ish) will not dramatically impact performance depending on the setup.
Eh, depends, more FPS can always be good, to me it doesn't really cost anything(except maybe more electricity.) So if you can do it, doesn't really hurt to. It's like tuning your car engine.
Here are my web browsing/idle temps on the stock cooler even after putting my own thermal paste on, while 35-40C isn't high as a comparison my core2duo on the stock heatsink with fresh paste at web browsing/idle temps was 20-30C. The older SB chips could easily OC on the stock cooler no problem but after having this new rig for a bit now, I would not recommend it on recent chips. You could maybe push 4.0 without getting too high of temps, but a 300MHz increase is.... well only 300MHz.
Still a third of a GHZ, on a stock cooler that isn't bad. Aftermarket coolers do make a big difference though, best 20 bucks you'll ever spend if you're gonna overclock.
If the 2500k is cheaper, why spend more for a 2500? The only difference is the IGP which no one uses save for extra monitors on some Z68 boards.
Well you know what I mean IN GENERAL they're cheaper, or should be. Usually they only drop below the k series prices when they get overstock or have some stupid sale. For the average person it's -usually- a money saver.
Depends really, different applications take different times and such, some things take a long time to do CPU wise like archiving or breaking a cyper or something crazy like that. In real world usage it really depends on what you're doing, it's true the hard drive is usually the biggest bottleneck. But it's basically free speed, so, meh, why not?
True enough I suppose. I still kind of have the early 00s mindset of overclocking.
It's true, every CPU is unique, I just seem to notice a pretty good trend with sandy bridge CPU's at least, of all types.
Definitely, it will just vary.
Boy that'd be some bad luck getting stuck with that.
The nice thing is Intel is offering free replacements for the REALLY BAD bins like the example I gave. But taking that into consideration that kind of makes my entire point invalid, haha.
Well you know why, they sell like hotcakes.
Indeed.
Eh, depends, more FPS can always be good, to me it doesn't really cost anything(except maybe more electricity.) So if you can do it, doesn't really hurt to. It's like tuning your car engine.
I suppose. Again, I still have the 00s mindset for overclocking.
Well, they make tens of thousands of them, I'm sure some batches are better than others.
If it matters it is from their Costa Rica place.
Still a third of a GHZ, on a stock cooler that isn't bad. Aftermarket coolers do make a big difference though, best 20 bucks you'll ever spend if you're gonna overclock.
Yeah when you put it that way I see where you are going. I keep constantly forgetting how ridiculously cheap even some of the best aftermarket coolers are.
You should hear my PSU fan, sounds like a boat motor.
Oddly enough my PSU fan is the quietest thing I've ever seen that has moving parts. Even when I did my cold out-of-box test boot to see if anything needed to be RMA'd I freaked out for a bit because I only heard the GPU fans (which are also extremely quiet even at 100%) and had to actually look at it to see that it was spinning.
Well you know what I mean IN GENERAL they're cheaper, or should be. Usually they only drop below the k series prices when they get overstock or have some stupid sale. For the average person it's -usually- a money saver.
Well yeah, in that case I agree. It's just a weird trend Intel has had in the past few months and it really doesn't make any sense. Especially after the holidays, you would think the 2500ks would go up in price, not down.
To be fair, you're kinda right, overclocking 10 years ago was not what it was today, it's much more openly supported today and given how much faster processors are it really is like a big car tune up. Then again thats why people charge crazy fees to overclock for you, because it's a specialty job.
To be fair, you're kinda right, overclocking 10 years ago was not what it was today, it's much more openly supported today and given how much faster processors are it really is like a big car tune up. Then again thats why people charge crazy fees to overclock for you, because it's a specialty job.
Indeed. It's only becoming easier with the new "auto-overclock" feature that has been popping up in a select few video card tools/mobos. Usually it works pretty well, pushing the CPU or GPU to just under what a manual overclock could possibly attain for a bit of a safeguard.
Advantages: maybe get a couple more years of life out of your processor once it starts to show age.
Disadvantages: Can break the CPU, shortens the lifespan of the CPU, can shorten the life span and damage the rest of the system if done incorrectly/pushed too far.
Notes: Some 2500ks can't even overclock very well. It depends on the chip. Some of them can get to 4.5-5Ghz stable no problem, some can barely handle the 3.7Ghz turbo boost.
Ghz does not equal performance, mind you. Overclocking will only give a minor performance increase and it is really not recommended to OC far if at all unless you know what you are doing and are actually going to use the extra power.
You also need an aftermarket cooler.
I would go with whichever is cheaper. In my case I was able to get the 2500k for $180USD (micro center in store pickup) whereas the 2500 was $210. However if you do get the 2500k, I would avoid overclocking if you are not experienced in the area, or a "power user" like myself, if you will.
As for is it needed for a gaming rig, not really, but it is a very nice feature to have to make your system last a little bit longer
i5-4690K @4.6GHz ~ ASRock Z97X Fatal1ty Killer ~ EKWB Supremacy MX ~ Watercooled SLI STRIX 970s
Project RedShift
$199.99 at NCIX http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=57962&vpn=BX80623I52500K&manufacture=Intel&promoid=1009
i5-4690K @4.6GHz ~ ASRock Z97X Fatal1ty Killer ~ EKWB Supremacy MX ~ Watercooled SLI STRIX 970s
Project RedShift
How is this build, im not planning on overclocking. Is there anywhere i can cut costs at all?
Do you need a bluray drive?
You won't suffer a TERRIBLY large difference in performance if you swap the 560Ti 448 core to a 6850 or 560Ti non-448 core.
Yeah, it's a bit odd really, but whatever works.
Would i still be able to play games on high settings (not maxed) if i drop to a non 448 core 560Ti?
Agreed
Ehhh, that's not really the only reason, you definitely push more performance out of a CPU by overclocking, having a faster CPU always helps with tasks(unlike RAM or something.) It just flat out makes things run faster, programs open faster(unless something is bottlenecking it like the HD/RAM.) For game performance.. well, depends on the game, some games see an improvement even from an i7 over an i5. I wouldn't say there's a reason not to overclock besides the danger.
I think you're being a little harsh here, while it is quite possible to damage or even destroy the CPU entirely, that usually is only by making a very stupid mistake like ramping the voltage up a ton or running the temperature too high. Generally it's pretty hard to just like, insta gib a CPU or your motherboard trying to overclock. It doesn't neccesarily shorten the lifespan of the CPU either. Usually overclocking is always still within the specs the company puts forth as being safe to operate under.
I honestly haven't seen this one, I've seen pretty much every k series being able to overclock quite a bit, even on stock cooling, benchmarks show them overclocking to pretty absurd speeds just with a better cooler.
Not neccesarily true again. When we're talking generic, to usual people, like comparing one CPU to another based on GHZ, it is quite correct. GHZ is a bad comparison of ability. But when you're comparing a stock clocked CPU to a highly overclocked one the gains can be pretty enormous, I've seen benchmarks of even terrible bulldozers beating stock clocked i5's and even i7's just by overclocking.
Not always, depends on the CPU, Sandy bridge is pretty well known for overclocking, for lack of better phrase, like a boss.
Oh please, a better thing to say would be, if you plan to overclock, get a k series. If you don't plan to overclock, don't, simple as that.
Do you really need the Blu-ray drive?
If you don't, then swap it out for a regular disk drive and swap the PSU to this. Better quality and reliability than the CX600.
I can run batman arkham asylum on max with AA and AF (the two framerate killers) at x8/x8 or x16/x4 or x4/x16 with vsync on and physx set to the GPU and get a constant 50-60FPS. Tone the AF and AA down to a realistic x2/x2 or x4/x4 and that is a constant 60FPS (realistically anything past x4 will not be noticeable on a monitor smaller than 2560x1600 resolution so you are fine in that respect).
Yeah maybe I was a bit harsh, but it is a tough call since it REALLY depends on the quality of the CPU and the quality of the mobo. And as we all know, they can vary to ridiculous degrees.
Some of the poorer bins run at 50C idle on an aftermarket cooler and 65-70C at 100% load at the 3.7GHz turbo boost.
Just IMO but I think their quality control needs to step up, those should have been 2400s or i3s, not 2500ks.
The problem here is "highly overclocked" a mild overclock (say less than 4.6-ish) will not dramatically impact performance depending on the setup.
Again, this is a tough area because things can vary so wildly.
Yes but the stock coolers on newer SB chips have too much thermal paste and are pretty awful.
Here are my web browsing/idle temps on the stock cooler even after putting my own thermal paste on, while 35-40C isn't high as a comparison my core2duo on the stock heatsink with fresh paste at web browsing/idle temps was 20-30C. The older SB chips could easily OC on the stock cooler no problem but after having this new rig for a bit now, I would not recommend it on recent chips. You could maybe push 4.0 without getting too high of temps, but a 300MHz increase is.... well only 300MHz.
(Plus might I add that the fan is LOUD, by far the loudest fan in my case and I have 4 120mm fans at 100%)
Err, why?
If the 2500k is cheaper, why spend more for a 2500? The only difference is the IGP which no one uses save for extra monitors on some Z68 boards.
Depends really, different applications take different times and such, some things take a long time to do CPU wise like archiving or breaking a cyper or something crazy like that. In real world usage it really depends on what you're doing, it's true the hard drive is usually the biggest bottleneck. But it's basically free speed, so, meh, why not?
It's true, every CPU is unique, I just seem to notice a pretty good trend with sandy bridge CPU's at least, of all types.
Boy that'd be some bad luck getting stuck with that.
Well you know why, they sell like hotcakes.
Eh, depends, more FPS can always be good, to me it doesn't really cost anything(except maybe more electricity.) So if you can do it, doesn't really hurt to. It's like tuning your car engine.
True enough.
Well, they make tens of thousands of them, I'm sure some batches are better than others.
Still a third of a GHZ, on a stock cooler that isn't bad. Aftermarket coolers do make a big difference though, best 20 bucks you'll ever spend if you're gonna overclock.
You should hear my PSU fan, sounds like a boat motor.
Well you know what I mean IN GENERAL they're cheaper, or should be. Usually they only drop below the k series prices when they get overstock or have some stupid sale. For the average person it's -usually- a money saver.
Definitely, it will just vary.
The nice thing is Intel is offering free replacements for the REALLY BAD bins like the example I gave. But taking that into consideration that kind of makes my entire point invalid, haha.
Indeed.
I suppose. Again, I still have the 00s mindset for overclocking.
If it matters it is from their Costa Rica place.
Yeah when you put it that way I see where you are going. I keep constantly forgetting how ridiculously cheap even some of the best aftermarket coolers are.
Oddly enough my PSU fan is the quietest thing I've ever seen that has moving parts. Even when I did my cold out-of-box test boot to see if anything needed to be RMA'd I freaked out for a bit because I only heard the GPU fans (which are also extremely quiet even at 100%) and had to actually look at it to see that it was spinning.
Well yeah, in that case I agree. It's just a weird trend Intel has had in the past few months and it really doesn't make any sense. Especially after the holidays, you would think the 2500ks would go up in price, not down.