i7 2600k, i5 2500k & 2300 1155 Sandy Bridge Review
Conclusion
Published: 3rd January 2011 | Source: Intel | Price: £170 & £260 |

Conclusion
So we have the replacement for the LGA1156 series of processors that just seemed to be finding their feet. With them coming it at three differing price points but not really for three different markets, we have to split this conclusion into three parts.
Core i5-2300
The pricing difference between the two Core i5 chips is around £20 but the performance difference is comprehensive.
The Core i5-2300 definitely suffers from being the "middle" child in the SandyBridge range as it's neither so cheap as to be a bargain for the value market, nor is the performance so great that it's a genuine challenger for the top range models. The reason why we felt the need to include it is this would be perfect for a workstation machine or even a low power HTPC, the onboard GPU is perfectly powerfull enough to run HD videos with out hardly touching the main CPU itself.
Whilst gaming performance is about on a par with most things as we'd expect because we know that games are far more dependant upon the GPU than CPU alone, the 'every day' performance is sufficiently beneath the Core i5-2500K that it's incredibly tough to recommend either as a first foray into the PC owning world, and definitely not as an upgrade option.
![]()
Core i5-2500K
Moving on to the Core i5-2500K we find a definite diamond. Coming in just shy of £170 at retail it's a long way below previous top end Intel releases such as the i7-920 or i7-860, but the performance is up there with the very best. At stock it's around the speed level of the i7-950 and when overclocked it regularly takes third place in our graphs below the i7-2600K.
Although we would never recommend a 1.6v overclock, once the main vendors sort their bios out we would say this CPU is easily capable of 4.5GHz and with a bit of know how, and hopefully a decent motherboard going past this point may well be attainable with a safe 24/7 Voltage as our Intel board did droop quite badly. Id like to think a well made board with a solid power delivery would help coax more from this at much lower volts.
If you absolutely must upgrade at all times or are looking at owning an entire new PC, this is definitely the chip to have. If you've got something below the i7-950 or i7-860 then it is seriously worth a long hard look at for an upgrade.
![]()
Core i7-2600K
As we would expect from a range-topping chip the Core i7-2600K takes all the plaudits in performance terms. At stock it rocks all of our graphs, and the performance when overclocked at 5GHz is as mind-blowing as you'd expect a Quad-Core hyper-threaded 5GHz CPU to be.
Of all the things you have to consider the Hyper-threading is the most vital thing. At just short of £250 the price gap between the i7-2600K and the i5-2500K is large, especially for the normally small gap in performance. So if your tasks are largely based upon needing to make an enormous amounts of calculations in the tiniest timescale, then the extra £80 is a worthy expenditure. Otherwise, unless you must have the best at any price, we'd advise the Core i5-2500K as the best of the new breed.
![]()
Thanks to Intel for providing the CPUs for todays review. Discuss in our forums.
Most Recent Comments
Bulldozer is going to have to be really good for AMD to stay in the market.
Great review btw, but any chance you can chuck in the charts of a i7 970 or 980x so we can see how they do against the king of the hill?
Typo in 1st page? Should be i5?
Still reading the review
Edit:
Great review, do you think a Gigabyte would fair even better?
Glad I've been waiting for the i5-2500k
mm lovely tech. replacing 1156 gives budget builders/core 2 users(the majority) a better opportunity. gauranteed this makes Intels market bigger/popular. is AMD gona sell CPU's now? maby 1 or 2
thx
Top review though as usual
This means though that if Bulldozer is as good as claimed, it might have a fair chance against Sandy Bridge. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Just a layman's question. If turbo kicks and increases the core speed according to usage, does that mean the chip uses a lot less energy/power when it is idle?
As a point of personal interest, and just to look up some comparisons on a gaming pov. The purely gaming pc I have based on 775, real decent quad, el crappo memory, 480 and a physx card and a mobo I need to swap out for a spare cos it's stopped liking overclocks (needs a new psu also, but that's besides the point). I quickly installed the benches in the video to see:
3D Vant: P21489, G:19238, P:33107
3D 11: P5114
Heaven: 52.9 fps / Score 1333
Plays all the games on 1920x1200 without issues and massive quality settings, physx and so on.
Gaming wize, I still don't think there's a requirement to upgrade this generation. Of course, if you have to buy new, you have plenty of reasons. Luckily I have spares and sources.
EDIT: looks like its either changed or something, or maybe I was seeing things
|
I think this is a mistake, in the technical specification page http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/i7_2600k_i5_2500k_2300_1155_sandy_bridge_review/1 EDIT: looks like its either changed or something, or maybe I was seeing things |
My sig image keeps going
So overall I'm not that impressed yet
Will people be able to trade in there i3's etc..will they heck.
Any ideas Tom?
Very exciting year for PC gamers
|
I'm probably just being blind but when are these available to buy? |
Not a clue about how much are going to be in stock though.
Anyone found some reviews on 1155 mobo's?
Only found two (MSI GD65 and Asus P8P67.)
Reviewers are probably working very hard on the reviews, I'm just very, very impatient on this one haha
I would be impressed if Sandy Bridge technology were put on 4-6 core current I5, I7, 1366 CPU's. Seems like all they did was update (correct short comings) the previous 1156 CPU / socket so they could say TADA...it's a new CPU, but I'm not an engineer.
It just leaves me scratching my head
Those prices have to drop. An i7-870 costs only €260, the i7-860 €230, and the i7-2600 replaces the i7-860/870 now doesn't it
i5-760 is €180, i5-2500k is €230? *sigh*
Just a thought.
I'm interested in seeing Bulldozer.....
|
TTL, I"d be interested to see if you could give a small idea over the time you use it, of any raise in your electric bill with that monster. hehe. Friend of mine has a 1000 Watt and I"ve heard its a socket hog from heck. |
People forget that when they buy these overkill 1000w PSU's that they are actually going to end up paying higher leccy bills as a result. Well over £200 more a year
A psu will only draw the power it needs. because its 1000w doesnt mean it draws 1000w constant its capable of it ...
hell my dads 400w psu in his quad draws more power than my 700w in my c2d ...
that being a x264 bench ?
if you compile x264 from git
a simple
make checkasm;./checkasm
checkasm –bench
would probably be a good start to 2011, you Probably want to disable SpeedStep though in the Bios to get consistent numbers OC.
if you get problems or want more help with making real life testing scripts etc then you can ask in http://doom10.org/index.php?topic=717.0 for instance or the IRC #x264 and #x264dev channel's where C/Assembly development happens (x86/64 and ARM etc) OC
Finally going to be back with the Intel boys.
|
Correct, but a 1000w is more efficient stressed than when only 100-300w is being used. A 650w, for example, is usually more efficient at those loads. Therefore a 1000w psu would indeed use more power, simply because it's less efficient at those loads. |
Most systems actually use only 200-300w or so even under load. Therefore a 600w PSU is most efficient in most cases.
I purchased my 700W as it was only a few quid more and gives a little more overhead
cheers.
The Sandybridge releases have thrown a spanner in my plans to build a new PC .. my first.
I'm not a gamer ... I need a multi-monitor (4x23") workstation for financial trading ... so only 2D graphics.
I was planning on using an i7-950 ... should I now consider the i5 2500K instead?
Many thanks in advance.
P.S. http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html Accord to this website the 2600k for 330$ almost out preforms the i7 970. Is that website correct or did they ramp up the multiplier to get those results.
If I'm misinformed or you can shed some light on all the overhype, I'd appreciate it.
EDIT...Just saw that the I5's don't have hyperthreading and the I7's do have it, but other problems still exist
Be aware that putting anything more than 1.4v through the chip will most likely kill it as the 32nm chips simply cannot handle that voltage and the IMC will fry. Numerous reports are beginning to surface of sandys dying because people are treating them like their 45nm counterparts. The new chips do look very nice though but sadly, as stated above, there is little point in switching (note I didn't say upgrading) from i7 to Sandybridge because clock for clock, the performance is still with bloomfield/gulftown. The fact that these can clock to 5ghz is great, however I dare say if you put silly amounts of voltage through most cpu's, they will clock well. How long they will last though is an entirely different question. Nobody knows for sure at present what voltage is deemed safe. Intel say 1.35, overclocking forums suggest 1.4v as an absolute max. I have just read about one of these cpu's dying with 1.4 so in reality, nobody can say for sure!
Also getting 5ghz from a cpu is great (congrats Tom). However, Asus claim (so I have read) that only 10% of the cpu's they have had reached this. 30-40% would do 4.5ghz with the remaining 50 being 4-4.5ghz. All this is presumebly with excessive voltage which as stated above, 32nm archs don't like at all and will die as a result. I dare say the chips you have tom are on their last legs already, maybe dead?
Sorry gents, but I aint getting all excited over a cpu that:
1. Is not as fast as 1366 i7.
2. Suceptable to failure with mild (0.2) voltage increases
3. No HT on the entry level models
Great for someone looking for a new build, upgrade from 1156 perhaps but a sidestep for 3 year old bloomfield. I really hope bulldozer offers more than this. Disappointing.
|
Iirc the 2600 has HT. ... Sorry gents, but I aint getting all excited over a cpu that: 1. Is not as fast as 1366 i7. 2. Suceptable to failure with mild (0.2) voltage increases 3. No HT on the entry level models Great for someone looking for a new build, upgrade from 1156 perhaps but a sidestep for 3 year old bloomfield. I really hope bulldozer offers more than this. Disappointing. |
that's the main reason Why im asking for this simple x264 C/assembly code test
make checkasm;./checkasm
checkasm –bench
its the only real life benchmark that will show You if things have changed, plus OC i cant seem to find any SB standard clocked and over clocked pastebin results to date to compare to older CPU's never mind setting a baseline for future products and that's a shame.
|
It's refreshing to see that Intel are pricing their processors more sensibly...Bang for buck is of utmost importance to the average Joe, and they are finally seeing sense. Just hope that AMD's cat-out-of-the-bag that is Bulldozer is at least a close contender to this...Forcing both of them to price even more competitively! Mwuha. |

