# 2500K vs 1100T



## Okedokey

Linus shows the difference here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUkvhOhrDVk


----------



## Benny Boy

Apples and Oranges?


----------



## Okedokey

why?  they're both cpus, both used for gaming.  not sure what you mean.  what comparison would be apples and apples then?


----------



## spynoodle

Maybe AMD should _Bulldozer_ over Intel's factory. Get it, Bulldozer? I crack myself up.


----------



## StrangleHold

What is it with you continually hitting on AMD. I'm gad you got a 2600k, but you can get over yourself by now.

You do know when AMD released the Athlon/Athlon 64 it took intel with all the money in research and development (over) 6 years to release a processor that could beat it clock for clock.

The Core 2 came out in 2006. AMD has had what, 5 years now to counter it, and Zambezi it coming out in a month or two. Pretty good for a company with 10% the amount of money.

If you compare the amount of money Intel has vs. AMD. Intel is the fat woman that cant even get through the door to the dance floor.


----------



## Aastii

StrangleHold said:


> What is it with you continually hitting on AMD. I'm gad you got a 2600k, but you can get over yourself by now.
> 
> You do know when AMD released the Athlon/Athlon 64 it took intel with all the money in research and development (over) 6 years to release a processor that could beat it clock for clock.
> 
> The Core 2 came out in 2006. AMD has had what, 5 years now to counter it, and Zambezi it coming out in a month or two. Pretty good for a company with 10% the amount of money.
> 
> If you compare the amount of money Intel has vs. AMD. Intel is the fat woman that cant even get through the door to the dance floor.



QFT. I don't favour either, but you have to admire what AMD are able to accomplish with what they have, and you have to remember that your AMD chips are still more than able to perform every single task you throw at it and are by no means bad chips, as much as certain members on the forum try to make out


----------



## Okedokey

Not sure where the sensitivity came from strangle.  I'm not even talking about a 2600k, but even if i was, i don't think i need to ask your permission   I also have AMD systems, and an ATi graphics cards.  In fact, i have always provide opinions and facts from others.  My opinion is that i hope AMD come up with something great, which is what i have said over and over again.

The point of this post is that I simply thought it was interesting since he is a very good presenter, and is presenting somewhat of an answer to what is generally speculation, particularly when he is basically taking out the gpu as a limiting factor.  We have had this discussion before, and if i wish i will continue to have it in the future.  It is good to be able to see real world comparisons, not sure why that is a bad thing.


----------



## jonnyp11

darn fanbows and their fanboyishness, we get that you take you 2600k out and make love to it every night, no need to tell us more about it, and no need to kick amd while they're down either, especially while your doing that to your cpu at the same time, that's just nasty and mean.


----------



## Okedokey

lol whatever, i couldn't careless about the brand, im interested in the technology and the product.  i really don't have any emotional connections as some members of the forum seem to have.   

Now can i get on with having a discussion with other members of the forum about the chips?  Would that be too much to ask?


----------



## jonnyp11

i didn't here any denial


----------



## spynoodle

StrangleHold said:


> What is it with you continually hitting on AMD. I'm gad you got a 2600k, but you can get over yourself by now.
> 
> You do know when AMD released the Athlon/Athlon 64 it took intel with all the money in research and development (over) 6 years to release a processor that could beat it clock for clock.
> 
> The Core 2 came out in 2006. AMD has had what, 5 years now to counter it, and Zambezi it coming out in a month or two. Pretty good for a company with 10% the amount of money.
> 
> If you compare the amount of money Intel has vs. AMD. Intel is the fat woman that cant even get through the door to the dance floor.


Teehee.


----------



## jonnyp11

what's up with people, cats, and the internet.


----------



## StrangleHold

bigfellla said:


> Not sure where the sensitivity came from strangle.


 
Not any sensitivity. Its called sensibility.  




bigfellla said:


> I'm not even talking about a 2600k.


 
I said, I knew you had one.




bigfellla said:


> I also have AMD systems, and an ATi graphics cards.


 
So do I. Have two Intels and two AMD. Probably own more Nvidia cards then ATI.



bigfellla said:


> In fact, i have always provide opinions and facts from others. My opinion is that i hope AMD come up with something great, which is what i have said over and over again.


 
Only in situations like this.



bigfellla said:


> The point of this post is that I simply thought it was interesting since he is a very good presenter.


 
Debatable




bigfellla said:


> presenting somewhat of an answer to what is generally speculation.


 
Intel has had AMD beat clock for clock since 2006. You think it is still generally speculation?




bigfellla said:


> We have had this discussion before, and if i wish i will continue to have it in the future. It is good to be able to see real world comparisons, not sure why that is a bad thing.


 
Whats not real world, unless your looking at synthetic benchmark? Like I have said many times, Intel has had AMD beat clock for clock for 5 years. Then start a thread throwing up a link comparing a three year old architecture to Intel Sandybridge. Like this hasnt been been known for a long time. 

If you just now got into computers and just realized Sandybridge was faster then Phenom II. Thought you would give everybody the news. This thread woud make perfect sense (alittle late) but would make sense. But we know this is not your case.

So what is this thread really about?


----------



## jonnyp11

StrangleHold said:


> So what is this thread really about?



him being a fanboy how makes love to his 2600k every night, i already said this on the last page, and he just loves to kick 'em while they're down ('em being amd) while doing his cpu at the same time.


----------



## spynoodle

Guys, you might kinda be overreacting a bit. Maybe bigfella is just subscribed to this dude on youtube. I find it to be a pretty interesting comparison, actually. You don't notice much of a difference between CPUs when using a mid-range GPU, but with a GTX 590 the difference really  shows. It's food for thought.


----------



## jonnyp11

actually i just watched it and it was interesting, love at 7:4/55 (somewhere around there) you can here his ipod/phone go off.


----------



## chatmasterhhe

spynoodle said:


> Teehee.



LOL nice picture. That is Intel EXACTLY. I guess a picture does mean a thousand words. haha.


----------



## Perkomate

but the thing that i want to know is: how much difference is there between the 2500K and the 2600K? like, i get that the 2600K has hyper-threading, but is that enough to justify the extra price?


----------



## spynoodle

Perkomate said:


> but the thing that i want to know is: how much difference is there between the 2500K and the 2600K? like, i get that the 2600K has hyper-threading, but is that enough to justify the extra price?



It's debatable. There's a pretty noticiable performance improvement in highly threaded programs between the 2500k and 2600k, but the 2500k actually OCs better because it lacks HT (of course you could always disable it on the 2600k, but then you'd be wasting money). I'm sure Intel will release one of those stupid "upgrade" cards for it at some point anyway. :angry:


----------



## Okedokey

Wow talk about thread hijacking and trolling.  If it were me, i probably wouldve had three infractions  

There are plenty of posts about 2600K vs 2500K, and I believe the 2600K is a better wafer, has its benefits and I can afford it, so i went with it.



spynoodle said:


> Guys, you might kinda be overreacting a bit. Maybe bigfella is just subscribed to this dude on youtube. I find it to be a pretty interesting comparison, actually. You don't notice much of a difference between CPUs when using a mid-range GPU, but with a GTX 590 the difference really  shows. It's food for thought.



Exactly, thank you.

Back on topic, I am interested in talking about the architectural differences between AMD's K10 and SB.  The 1100T is the flagship product for AMD currently, and arguably the 2500K is the same for Intel in terms of gaming.  So this imho is a valid topic.


----------



## Perkomate

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/692/1309413074044.jpg/

related to my post.

but to be honest it's sort of hard to compare the two processors. One of them overclocks to a silly amount of ghz, but the other has more cores.


----------



## Okedokey

This is true mate, however we do it all the time with graphics cards.  Different number of cores, memory bandwidth and overclock ability and we make a decision between two products, be it nvidia, amd or intracompany.  Also its not that hard to compare, the video does that.

The point here is that they would be the two i would imagine that would be considered if a current person was building a gaming rig no?

I think what is important here is that yes, using mid range cards there will be little difference in gamin, but in a couple of years, the person that doesn't want to spend money on a new computer every couple of years, can upgrade the GPU without bottling the CPU, the 1100T is being bottled on what may be a mid range gpu in a few years.  The Intel system wont be as much, plus you have an upgrade path - and we haven't even discussed overclocking yet .  Happy to discuss this  as I think it should factor in peoples minds.


----------



## linkin

I hate the word bottleneck.

In games that rely heavily on CPU power (ie GTA IV, ARMA series, etc) you will have overall lower performance if the program or game in question is not coded for more than 2/3/4 cores. That's not a CPU bottlenecking a GPU, it's a CPU bottleneck. The GPU has nothing to do with it. In games that aren't as intensive on the CPU you should have near equal performance.

PS How do you like your G500? Do you use the weights?


----------



## Okedokey

Well the GPUs are so powerful to remove that as the bottleneck to get closer to properly testing and isolating the CPU.

Yeah the 500 is good, i use light weights.


----------



## mihir

I liked that video.It was a good idea to remove the GPU bottleneck by using 2 GTX 590.
And as spynoodle said that with a mid range GPU with Fear 3 the difference was pretty low.
But I would have *also*(not instead) liked to see other Games benchmarked using a mid-range GPU thus simulating a practical computer.

On a side note Fear 3 is poorly coded. 



PS:I never got this saying "Food for thought" shouldnt it be "Food for mind(or something)".


----------



## Aastii

spynoodle said:


> Guys, you might kinda be overreacting a bit. Maybe bigfella is just subscribed to this dude on youtube. I find it to be a pretty interesting comparison, actually. You don't notice much of a difference between CPUs when using a mid-range GPU, but with a GTX 590 the difference really  shows. It's food for thought.



The video card made 0 difference, he managed to muck up the drivers on the AMD system, as he mentioned in the video and the description. There is no way a single HD6950 should be beating SLIed 590's



bigfellla said:


> Wow talk about thread hijacking and trolling.  If it were me, i probably wouldve had three infractions
> 
> There are plenty of posts about 2600K vs 2500K, and I believe the 2600K is a better wafer, has its benefits and I can afford it, so i went with it
> 
> 
> Exactly, thank you.
> 
> Back on topic, I am interested in talking about the architectural differences between AMD's K10 and SB.  The 1100T is the flagship product for AMD currently, and arguably the 2500K is the same for Intel in terms of gaming.  So this imho is a valid topic.



Because the mod/admin team are so hard on you, right 

I disagree that the 1100T is the flagship for gaming. As has been stated to you several times before, games do not utilise all of the cores, mainly because they are either ported from consoles or also designed for consoles, so rather than fully rewrite to be completely multi-threaded for either quad core processors or up to 8 threads (quad + hyperthreading) they only utilise 3, because of the Xbox having a tri-core CPU.

All that the video and any other comparison using games shows is a comparison of clock-for-clock performance, not the chip when you are comparing a current gen quad to a 3 generation old hex and only 3 cores are used on each.

Go and find some true multi-threaded tests with both chips and then look at the results. I am not saying that the Thuban will beat SB in all of the tests, but you won't see what are extremely skewed results that don't show the true performance of the CPU's.

I see 0 reason for any mainstream user, as in one that doesn't perform specialist tasks regularly that will utilise all of the cores, to get a hex core CPU, so that makes the Thuban chips there for a very niche market, for the gimmick of 6 cores and for marketing.

I would, if I had the same amount of money for a Thuban chip, take an Intel of the same price, because as someone that doesn't sit with multi-threaded apps all of the time, the Intel would give better performance, there isn't any more comparison to be made until developers stop being lazy


----------



## zainuintel

Ive noticed somthing, Intel and ATi go REALLY well together. which is kind of weird


----------



## Aastii

zainuintel said:


> Ive noticed somthing, Intel and ATi go REALLY well together. which is kind of weird



The video cards perform the same regardless of which manufacturer of CPU you have. AMD/AMD, Intel/AMD, Intel/Nvidia, Intel/AMD, all the same


----------



## Okedokey

Ok Aastii, which two cpus would be apples and apples?   As both CPUs have 2 cores available (with 2 - 4 spare) for the game.  The 1100T is the flagship product as it is the best available right?  Why not compare it.  

Secondly, we are comparing games in their current state.  Regardless of limitations.  Also, many people are interested in how the CPU will perform in future when the GPU is less of the limiting factor.  This is clearly the interest in this topic.  

If not, please provide a AMD chip we can compare it with.  You're point that there cannot be a comparison may be techincally valid, but in the real world when people are buying a set up, they want to know what will be faster.  If you are an enthusiast then clearly this is a valid argument, even with the threading limitations.  The funny thing is that even in multithreaded applications (video editing, etc) the 1100T still doesn't shine.  http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/01/03/intel-sandy-bridge-review/8  Why is that?

But this is not what this thread is about.  Its about the differences in real world comparisons in gaming where you (as much as possible) test the cpu.  Thats the interesting bit for me at least.  But yeah, Aastii, your points are (as usual) valid and interesting.


----------



## Aastii

I would compare it to a 955 or 965. Same clock, same number of cores (even if 1 or 2 may be redundant), but as with this test, there would be 0 surprises, clearly the Intel would win because of the newer architecture.

The only people that would find the results of the video surprising are those that don't know much at all about current technology, and those that don't and do a little searching will find in a relatively short amount of time that a hex core is completely pointless if gaming is the primary purpose.

I understand that it was done to try and create similar price points from each retailer and compare their "top of the line" CPUs, but it would have been easy to guess before even seeing the results what the outcome would be


----------



## Okedokey

Yeah, you're probably right, but at the end of the day, thats true about almost everything technical.


----------



## paulcheung

The whole point is AMD need to wakeup and make a CPU can beats Intel SB or even IVY when it comes out. 
Amd is $6.50 and Intel is $21. that is the whole point. Should have bought more that fat cat instead the loussy AMD.
Cheers.


----------



## Troncoso

Aastii said:


> The video cards perform the same regardless of which manufacturer of CPU you have. AMD/AMD, Intel/AMD, Intel/Nvidia, Intel/AMD, all the same



AMD/Nvidia...Sorry, not the kind to just let typos go. Haha.

To be fair, yeah the phenom ii x4 is a lot closer to the actual infrastructure of the i5, but still, it kind of goes to show how fair intel has come compared to AMD (granted, AMD is always a few months behind intel, but I like it that way). I wouldn't see how comparing it to the 965 would make any sort of difference. The clock speed is hardly different, and even though the 1100T has more cores, in the bench tests that linus is running, it's not like those extra cores are even being utilized, so he might as well have used a 955/965.


----------



## linkin

paulcheung said:


> The whole point is AMD need to wakeup and make a CPU can beats Intel SB or even IVY when it comes out.
> Amd is $6.50 and Intel is $21. that is the whole point. Should have bought more that fat cat instead the loussy AMD.
> Cheers.



That's not their strategy at the moment.

They seem to be hung up on being better value for money and not being the performance kings. We'll see how that changes with Bulldozer.


----------



## Okedokey

Their strategy is being the cheap guys.  Its not necessarily value for money.


----------



## Aastii

Troncoso said:


> AMD/Nvidia...Sorry, not the kind to just let typos go. Haha.
> 
> To be fair, yeah the phenom ii x4 is a lot closer to the actual infrastructure of the i5, but still, it kind of goes to show how fair intel has come compared to AMD (granted, AMD is always a few months behind intel, but I like it that way). I wouldn't see how comparing it to the 965 would make any sort of difference. The clock speed is hardly different, and even though the 1100T has more cores, in the bench tests that linus is running, it's not like those extra cores are even being utilized, so he might as well have used a 955/965.



AMD aren't a few months behind, they are a few years behind. Phenom II is essentially a tweaked Athlon 64, they haven't brought out a brand new architecture for years.

and what you said is exactly the point - it wouldn't make any difference because you aren't using the full potential of the Thuban CPU. It is all well and good saying let's look at gaming performance, but when the chip isn't really designed with gaming in mind because games aren't truely completely mult-threaded, who cares, it proves absolutely nothing and is a completely stupid and pointless test


----------



## Okedokey

Its not pointless.  It just doesn't agree with your point of view.

The point is, where a GPU isn't the limiting factor.  Essentially what you are saying until games can use 6 cores we cant compare.  thats ridiculous.  Its totally a fair comparison.  If i want a new cpu and motherboard, my choices are 2500K or 1100T being the best for gaming. And the comparison is clear.


----------



## Aastii

bigfellla said:


> Its not pointless.  It just doesn't agree with your point of view.
> 
> The point is, where a GPU isn't the limiting factor.  Essentially what you are saying until games can use 6 cores we cant compare.  thats ridiculous.  Its totally a fair comparison.  If i want a new cpu and motherboard, my choices are 2500K or 1100T being the best for gaming. And the comparison is clear.



I am not saying to compare for gaming is stupid, I am saying it is a completely pointless test to pit a hex core, which only has 3 cores being used, against a quad and say 2 extra cores and it is still not beating it. Well go for full multi-threaded apps, which the Thuban is designed for, then go and look. It is common knowledge games won't use 6 cores or even 4 (for the most part), it is common knowledge it is the same core as all other Phenom II's, therefore same performance per core, so you may as well just look at the results you already have for your 955/965.

It isn't my point of view, it is a test that serves 0 purpose. If you didn't know what the outcome would be before watching the video, you haven't been keeping up with technology. It isn't a suprise, it isn't "omg, look how great the Intel chips are, even with 2 extra cores the AMD is getting destroyed!!" because the extra cores aren't getting touched.

If you are getting the hex core for gaming, you are buying into the gimmick and spending more just because it says "extra cores, therefore better". The information is there to explain why, the information is there to predict the results before even doing the benches so is a useless test


----------



## spynoodle

I will agree that it's kinda stupid that the guy was pairing dual GTX 590s with two mid-range CPUs. I'm sure the difference between the CPUs would've proved to be much smaller if he had used, say a single GTX 570. Granted, the video proves that, in theory, the 2500k provides a better upgrade path GPU-wise before you start to see a bottleneck.

...of course, if you buy a bulldozer-upgradable motherboard, then you won't have that problem. There's a decent debate on both sides of this argument IMO.


----------



## Perkomate

just for your interest:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/203?vs=288&i=2.5.3.4.6.25.26.27.28.29.30.31.32.33.34.35.36.37.38.39.40.41.42.43.45.46.53.54.55.56.57.60.61.62.129.63.64

This is a slightly extended link to AnandTech bench test between the 2500K and the 1100T. Basically, the test compares numbers between a lot of different real-world scenarios. Enjoy.


----------



## Okedokey

Perkomate said:


> just for your interest:
> http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/203?vs=288&i=2.5.3.4.6.25.26.27.28.29.30.31.32.33.34.35.36.37.38.39.40.41.42.43.45.46.53.54.55.56.57.60.61.62.129.63.64
> 
> This is a slightly extended link to AnandTech bench test between the 2500K and the 1100T. Basically, the test compares numbers between a lot of different real-world scenarios. Enjoy.



Yeah ive posted that a few times.


----------



## Perkomate

sorry bout that


----------



## Okedokey

No worries mate, no matter which way you look at it the 2500K is a better deal.


----------



## jonnyp11

what about en/decoding with the 2 extra cores? and with the 1100T you can use a 8150P or 8170 next year, but 2500K is I7 2600K and whatever the Ivy version is, like 3960K/X which will be powerfull but still


----------



## Aastii

jonnyp11 said:


> what about en/decoding with the 2 extra cores? and with the 1100T you can use a 8150P or 8170 next year, but 2500K is I7 2600K and whatever the Ivy version is, like 3960K/X which will be powerfull but still



Can't use Ivy Bridge on socket 1155, it will be using socket 2011, it's own, new (again) socket. It will basically be taking over from 1366


----------



## jonnyp11

so is sb-e using 1155, i thought it was ivy used 1155 and to make us of the extra cores sb-e needed the new socket, well i will never be able to afford either so doesn't really matter


----------



## Okedokey

Aastii said:


> Can't use Ivy Bridge on socket 1155, it will be using socket 2011, it's own, new (again) socket. It will basically be taking over from 1366



Thats not correct.  Ivy bridge is the upgrade to Sandybridge which will use 1155 socket, and Sandybridge-e, will be socket 2011.  So current sandy bridge boards will also get to use Ivybridge chips with a bios update.  Sandybridge is the tick, ivy the tock and then sandybridge-e another tick.  It is all a bit confusing though.. 



> Ivy Bridge is pin compatible with Sandy Bridge, and it will work on current LGA1155 motherboards with the appropriate chipset and a firmware and BIOS update (H61, H67, P67, and Z68 are capable of support IB).


 http://www.anandtech.com/show/4318/intel-roadmap-ivy-bridge-panther-point-ssds

So the intel option is even more attractive because you can upgrade to Ivy bridge, bringing PCIe 3, tri-gate transistors, dx 11 on die and in all likelyhood even more overclock-ability with its smaller 22nm lithography.  Win.


----------



## Aastii

hmm I am working off old info then that was that Ivy bridge will be 2011


----------



## jonnyp11

Yay, i knew something Aastii didn't


----------



## spynoodle

bigfellla said:


> Thats not correct.  Ivy bridge is the upgrade to Sandybridge which will use 1155 socket, and Sandybridge-e, will be socket 2011.  So current sandy bridge boards will also get to use Ivybridge chips with a bios update.  Sandybridge is the tick, ivy the tock and then sandybridge-e another tick.  It is all a bit confusing though..
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/4318/intel-roadmap-ivy-bridge-panther-point-ssds
> 
> So the intel option is even more attractive because you can upgrade to Ivy bridge, bringing PCIe 3, tri-gate transistors, dx 11 on die and in all likelyhood even more overclock-ability with its smaller 22nm lithography.  Win.



Aren't Sandy Bridge and Sandy Bridge-E both the same tick (technicaly tock)? Intel just likes to be confusing and separate everything out too much. Here's a chart for all the tick-tocks on wikipedia:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki?search=intel+tick-tock
So yeah, Ivy bridge should work on 1155. The enthusiast version of Ivy Bridge will work on socket 2011.


----------



## Okedokey

My understanding is the tick is an architecture change e.g. Sandybridge and a tock is a die shrink e.g. Ivybridge.  So sandybridge-e will be a tick due to it being an architectural change.

*edit*, yeah, i got it the wrong way around regarding tocks and ticks bah


----------



## jonnyp11

Well i don't use any analog clocks or metronomes so i couldn't give a crap about your silly ticks and tocks, just give me one and i'll be happy


----------



## Okedokey

Something that ticks or tocks would be digitial


----------



## spynoodle

bigfellla said:


> My understanding is the tick is an architecture change e.g. Sandybridge and a tock is a die shrink e.g. Ivybridge.  So sandybridge-e will be a tick due to it being an architectural change.
> 
> *edit*, yeah, i got it the wrong way around regarding tocks and ticks bah



Intel's weird like that. You would think, naturally, that a tick would be a new architecture.

....but no.


----------

