i5-2500K or i7-2600K
 

I'm looking to replace my Phenom II x4 965 because it's unstable at the moment. I considered getting the Phenom II x4 980, but I'm looking to try Intel for the first time since my Pentium 233mhz.

I'm looking at either the i5-2500K vs i7-2600K, the biggest difference being the 2600K has Hyper-Threading. I know this doesn't make a difference for gaming, but I do some video encoding, compiling, and use VBox regularly. Does Linux really make use of Hyper-Threading to justify the extra $100 price over the 2500K?

Some benchmarking is available here; it doesn't include both of the processors that you are interested in, but you may be able to deduce some relevant information.

And why not consider finding out why your Phenom is unstable, and fixing it? For example, if it is power supply, you might carry the cause on to your next system.

I second what salasi said, it would be better and much cheaper to find out why your system is unstable instead of buying a new CPU and motherboard (and may be RAM, If you use your Phenom on an AM2+ boards) without knowing if that even will fix the issues.

I'm not expert to this, but I googled about it:
1. google
2. tom's hw <- mentioned video editing takes advantage of HT
3. BF3
4. steampower
5. guru3D
6. overclock.net

and a million more

so you just choose if you want spend 100$ more then go for it.

The core i7 is a great product. Hands down it rocks. I have both a i5 and i7 and there really is no reason to pick the i5 unless it is a cost issue. If I had to I might stay with the AMD before I went with the i5. The i5 does do pretty good though.

For the most part you get what you pay for. These companies are very keen on pricing them. Some of the AMD might be good performance per dollar but they can't compete with the Intel for top spots.

I've been looking into this for the last couple days, but most reviews I've read are done with Windows machines, and usually for gaming. I wanted to see what other Linux users experience with this.

My Phenom is unstable because I momentarily upped the voltage to 1.9v (+0.500 instead of +0.050 over stock.) I believe the northbridge was the beggining with my problems. I had to up the voltage on that for the CPU to run at stock speeds. It was overclocked to 3800mhz until I over-volted it. Now it barely runs at 3200mhz.

1.9V??? Are you serious? A wonder that this chip isn't exploded yet, this is far to much for a 45nm chip.
But when you now that only the chip is the culprit, why don't you simple replace it, instead of changing to Intel?
I have made good experiences with my Phenom II X6 1055T (overclocked to 3.5GHz on stock volatges) and a friend of mine is running the 1100T (stock), both are really fast.
May be you can get one of these (sadly EOL) CPUs.
But if you really need that much power and don't care about the money then I would get neither the i5-2500K nor the i7-2600K, but the i7-3770K, which should work after a BIOS update in LGA1155 boards.

I was trying to do 1.4v +0.050v, but for some reason I had a brain fart and set it +0.500v instead. Unfortunately I rebooted before I caught my mistake. It's my first overclocking casualty ever. My current mainboard, Biostar TA790GX A3+, doesn't support the 6 core Phenoms, the 980 is the highest I can go.

If I do switch to Intel LGA 1155, I should be able to reuse everything else in my setup. I see even the i5-2500K can easily clock up to 4.5Ghz air cooled. Reviews I've been reading say that the i5 can out perform the 980 at similar clock speeds. Right now I really wouldn't get anything more expensive than the 2600K.

I'm only a little hesitant because I've only used AMD since the socket 7. It would feel weird to go back to Intel after all these years.

In that case, only you can decide. Do you really need the extra power? Is it worth the money to you to change motherboard and CPU, or would a new CPU be sufficient?
I tend to buy the hardware that has the best price performance ratio, so I would think I would go for the Phenom 980 or, if I would really be willing to spend the money for a change, the i5-2500K, if I were in your position.

Ouch. It happens, thats part of the risk of overclocking...

1st real 'black mark' I have for biostar (they havent really been sold here since the Intel LGA 775 single core/AMD socket 754 boards). Even the POS MSI K9A2 CF I have here got updated for Phenom II X6.

BTW, this is one of the reasons why I always suggest getting boards without onbaord video...For various reasons, even 'cheaper' chipsets without onboard video can sometimes get updates the onbaord video models dont (example, your TA790GX A3+ goes to X4 only, the 'cheaper' biostar AMD 770 chipset boards all apear to have X6 support from what I can see)

Possibly not. In particular your DDR3 modules might not work with iX, and if they do, it might limit/stop overclocking (depends on the DDR3 voltage)

Can hit, yes, given a decent board and some voltage increases. But how long is the lifespan at a 35%+ overclock?

Yes, the i5 is faster than the Phenom IIs for any given clockspeed. That totally leaves out price/performance, total cost, and comptaibility with your current system (its nice to be able to switch CPUS from board to board for testing, etc.)

Difficult to impossible to deduce how a Phenom II XX will stack up against the iX series from that test. Do able, but it would take a LOT of checking other benchmarks.

BTW, IMO that phoronix test is useful, but its not as good as some they have done. The 2 'flaws' are the RAM speed (A8-3870 and FX-XXXX CPUs can use DDR3-1866, but the test only uses DDR3-1600) and the board they used for the FX series (Asus crosshair V formula, which after seeing some other tests on I'm not that impressed with).

Only minor quibbles really.

I was disappointed that Biostar didn't update my board for new 6-core Phenoms when most of their other boards did get bios updates. My older setup also used a Biostar board, with a Athlon X2 5000+ BE @ 3300mhz, both iGPU and RAM overclocked, and it was rock solid. I wasn't quite as happy with this one.

I decided to go with the i7-2600k. I was able to reuse everything else, only had to replace my CPU cooler. My DDR3 modules work fine. They support voltages of 1.55v-1.75v. I haven't attempted overclocking yet.

I guess I shall see. I've been overclocking since the socket 7. Since that Pentium 233 (I still have somewhere), I've only been using AMD. I find AMD chips take a fair amount of abuse. 1.9v and my 965 didn't completely die, it's just a little handicapped now. This is the first time I try Intel again in over 14 years. From what I've read, 4.5ghz on the 2600k seems to be the "sweet spot" for a good overclock. I'm not interested in pushing it to 5ghz like I've seen done.

I almost went with the FX-8150. It seems like a promising chip. I also considered the Phenom II x6 1100T, but it seems I couldn't find it for sale at the places I usually shop. I chose the i7-2600k because for me it seems like the best deal. Even the i5-2500k offered overall better performance and lower power consumption for slightly more cash than the FX-8150.

Oh, I don't think you'll bother overclocking. I've been using the i7 processor in my Toshiba laptop for well over a year now and I'm quite satisfied. Running Fedora 14 and now 16 it has always performed flawlessly. Linux recognizes all eight cores, hyperthreading works completely transparently. By far the best CPU I've ever used. Glad I went with it and you will be glad too.

Well, there is a difference between performing flawlessly and getting the maximum out of the system. For most people not needed, for some it is a hobby, some appreciate the extra power. Do a run through LFS with a system at stock and after that do the same with a good overclock, believe me, you will see the difference.

Well it would be a shame to get an unlocked chip, and not try to overclock it. I just don't plan on going extreme with it. Even at it's stock settings, it seems to be faster than my 965 that was overclocked to 3900mhz. I am enjoying the computer being less noisy, so when I overclock, I will have to try to see what I get without the need to turn up the fans.

Hmm..I perobgably should start this off by saying I'm not really against overclocking, I do it myself sometimes. My current overclock is to unlock cores on the Phenom II X2 to make it X4 sometimes.

I've just seen a lot of overclocked systems, and while a few of them are well setup, a lot of them have been setup by people who didnt know much about computers at all. Then they wonder why the system they have is 'running badly' when they were told that 'chip YXZ can hit X.XXGz', and that is what they are running, 'why is my system unstable/slow?'

*blinks* overclocked the IGP......what on earth for?

4.5GHz is what a lot of people aim for. IMO its still going to reduce the lifespan of the chip in most, if not all cases.

How much that matters is debatable. If the 'reduced lifespan' is from 10 years down to 9.75, who cares? Even if the reduced lifespan drops to 6 years but you can only expect 3-5 from the motherboard it wouldnt matter to many people.

I probably would have gone for a FX-8120/8150, maybe even a FX-6200 or Phenom II X6. But I'm a borderline AMD fanboy, and I like having maximum comptibility between the systems I have (I've got 1 x AM2+, and 2 x AM3 systems running here)

I wouldnt have gone for the i7-2600K over i5-2500K or i5-2550K (or maybe even i5-3570K) but what is the best value or deal will depend on what you are doing.

'Getting the most out the system' is one thing, overclocking is another. There is some connetion, but I dont see them as the same.

The number of times I've seen overclocked computers running brain-dead BIOS and memrory settings is incredible. Heres a typical 'brain dead' setup- CPU given a big overclock, DDR3-1600 being run at DDR3-1066 with big memory latencies (far bigger than stock), everything still turned on in the BIOS (like serial and parallel ports, firewire, floppy drive, extra SATA controllers, sound chip when there is a sound card, etc) even when they will never be used.

I've also seen system where the user has just tried to overclock without doing any benchmarking. Sometiems even if the system with run at 2.4GHz, it can be faster at 2.2GHz than 2.4GHz.

IMO the other big problem with some overclocks is that many users make 'grenades' (hot rodding term).

"Grenade- an engine or compenent built or used in such a way that as to be in danger of explosive mechanical failure"

I've seen systems overclocked so hard that even minor bugs cause a freeze/reset/BSOD when a normally clocked system would shrugg off the error.

BTW, I'm not suggesting that you do any of these things replica9000. ;)

Leave it stock for now, then ewhen you get bored/used to the curent speed, bump it up to a mild overclock.

I dont know what heatsink you got, but a lot of them use nasty, noisy fans. Getting good fans can cost as much as many aftermarket heatsink + fan setups do. You do get advantages from the better fans (provided you get good ones), either they are quieter, or move more air, or both. ;)