| 1 |
Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Am 2011-11-16 16:22, schrieb masterprometheus: |
| 4 |
>> Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> I ask myself if I need the K-version at all, I don't want to |
| 9 |
>>> overclock |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> No, if you're not going to overclock the K version is not needed. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> But as far as I read reviews online it is easy and rather safe to do so |
| 14 |
> w/ the matching motherboard. So why not ... go for it. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Oh I would definitly do that (overclock it I mean). But if there isn't |
| 17 |
someone with the same name, you've said : |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
>I ask myself if I need the K-version at all, I don't want to overclock |
| 20 |
> ... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Change of heart ? Understandable as these CPUs are easy to overclock. If |
| 23 |
you don't need the hyperthreading just get the 2500K and a good HSF. You |
| 24 |
can easily run it @4.5GHz 7/24 and safely. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
>>> Did you also consider the newer i7-2700k? Maybe too expensive |
| 28 |
>>> because it's so new. And I assume it's not that much faster. |
| 29 |
>>> |
| 30 |
>>> Although I only assume that, I have to research it ... |
| 31 |
>> |
| 32 |
>> The 2700K is nothing different than the 2600K. The only plus is a 100 |
| 33 |
>> MHz frequency boost. Not worth the extra $70 over a 2600/2600K. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Yep. So Intel noticed "wow, we get a few of them which run stable even |
| 36 |
> at 100MHz more, let's sell them for some more money" ;-) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
True but Intel's MSRP was just $10-15 more than a 2600K. Vendors decided |
| 39 |
to up the price a bit. Not uncommon with new products. |
Archives