Can't decide between two Intel i5 processors... Worth the diff in price or not?

[DownloadFailed]

So I'm in the process of building a new computer, and I've chosen to use a quad core intel i5 processor as my CPU: lots of power for a decent price. But I'm stuck on choosing between two i5s. Both are very similar.

The first costs (on Newegg) $189.99. The second costs $219.99. All of their specs are the same, save for one: The $189.99 processor has an operating frequency of 3.1 GHz (3.4GHz Turbo Boost) and the $219.99 processor operates at 3.3 GHz (3.7 GHz Turbo-Boost).

So, is .2 GHz in processing power really worth the extra $30?

Here are the processor's store pages:
$189.99 : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115074
$219.99 : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115072

[Bags]

The 2500k has a $20 promo code, so it's $200, only $10 more. Go with that imo.

$20 off w/ promo code EMCNBNC23, ends 8/13

[DownloadFailed]

I doubt that I'll be purchasing it before the 13th. If the deal went on for a bit longer, then I certainly would.
By the way, I read somewhere that it's bad to mix RAMs of different makes. Is this correct?

[Bags]

Originally Posted by DownloadFailed

I doubt that I'll be purchasing it before the 13th. If the deal went on for a bit longer, then I certainly would.
By the way, I read somewhere that it's bad to mix RAMs of different makes. Is this correct?

Yeah, you don't want like a 1600mhz 9-9-9-24 kit and then like a 133 mhz 8-8-8-19 kit.

BTW, the $30 increase in cost for the CPU also allows you to over clock it. The k means it's "unlocked". So you get the faster basic clock, and a much higher potential clock; however, to oc you need after market cooling so that's another $30 or so to realize the total value. But that's a future proof upgrade, you could get the 2500k, use a stock heatsink fro a while, and a year or two down the line get a $30 cooler and OC it and get some more relevancy out of it.

[Rbstr]

How about an i5-3550 (3.3ghz) @ $210 or the 3450 (3.1ghz) @ $200?

If you don't want the 'k' for overclocking I'd go with the new gen...Especially consider the 3450, it's a good bit better all around than the 2400, even at the same speed, for $10.

As far as RAM: You can mix/match speeds, but it will run at the slowest of the two and may cause instability. Buy 1333 for the old i5s and 1600 for the new ones. Going faster just isn't worth the money.

[DownloadFailed]

Originally Posted by Rbstr

How about an i5-3550 (3.3ghz) @ $210 or the 3450 (3.1ghz) @ $200?

If you don't want the 'k' for overclocking I'd go with the new gen...Especially consider the 3450, it's a good bit better all around than the 2400, even at the same speed, for $10.

As far as RAM: You can mix/match speeds, but it will run at the slowest of the two and may cause instability. Buy 1333 for the old i5s and 1600 for the new ones. Going faster just isn't worth the money.

Ah I didn't realize that the K meant it could be overclocked. I'm inexperienced when it comes to OCing. I imagine I would need a pretty good heatsink separate from the stock one. How noticeable is the change when OCing? I imagine the better your cooling system the longer one can OC before something bad happens, eh?

[Bags]

*cough*

[DownloadFailed]

Originally Posted by Bags

*cough*

Yes, Bags? Can I help you with something?

[Pancake]

Originally Posted by DownloadFailed

Yes, Bags? Can I help you with something?

As Bags said, you will likely want a better cooler if you do OC. A $30 Coolermaster will do the trick.

I was able to jump straight to 4 GHz on my i5 2500K. That is a 10% performance increase with no effort on my part.

[fb III IX ca IV]

The older gen is better for overclocking, the new gen runs much hotter.

[Boone]

Originally Posted by fb III IX ca IV

The older gen is better for overclocking, the new gen runs much hotter.

True, but as far as I know an IB at 4.0 is just as good as an SB at 4.3 or so.

[Rbstr]

We've sort of been over this before but "hotter" is sort of missleading. The chip puts out less heat because of the process used to make it, it's just more dense so temps are higher.

I'd think a good heatsink would show more improvement in temps on Ivy than Sandy. Less heat at higher temp is quite often a preferable situation, thermodynamically.

[Vancha]

Originally Posted by Rbstr

We've sort of been over this before but "hotter" is sort of missleading. The chip puts out less heat because of the process used to make it, it's just more dense so temps are higher.

I'd think a good heatsink would show more improvement in temps on Ivy than Sandy. Less heat at higher temp is quite often a preferable situation, thermodynamically.

I'm not so sure. If the bottleneck is the heat being transferred rather than the heat being dispersed, then beyond a certain point a better cooler will just result in a cooler cooler. I'm wondering if a better TIM wouldn't make a more significant impact for Ivy Bridge...?

That aside, I'm pretty sure Ivy Bridge's overclock potential is high enough that it's still a better choice than Sandy Bridge.

[NumbaOneStunna]

Originally Posted by Vancha

I'm not so sure. If the bottleneck is the heat being transferred rather than the heat being dispersed, then beyond a certain point a better cooler will just result in a cooler cooler. I'm wondering if a better TIM wouldn't make a more significant impact for Ivy Bridge...?

That aside, I'm pretty sure Ivy Bridge's overclock potential is high enough that it's still a better choice than Sandy Bridge.

IB's problem with core temp is related to the crappy application of TIM under the heatspreader. People who have removed the IHS and put in a good quality TIM have noticed vastly improved core temps.

SB's IHS is actually Soldered on, which is why SB doesn't have this problem.

If I were to buy a CPU right now, I would go with IB and replace the TIM under then IHS.

IB with better TIM > SB > IB with stock TIM.

[Vancha]

Originally Posted by NumbaOneStunna

SB > IB with stock TIM.

Source?