Intel Core i5-2500K Processor - $199.99 + Free Shipping @ TigerDirect

Quote from Divr : Overclocking however doesnt tell the whole story with the IVB procs. Benchmark reviews mostly show the 3 vs 2 series outpacing even the OC Series 2.

This just isn't true
http://www.tomshardware.com/revie...198-7.html

Sandy bridge can overclock to 5Ghz with relative ease and floor anything ivy bridge can do.

EDIT: this article is a good read:
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1924/

I bought one from amazon, it was just $192...

Quote from nolf66 : I passed on IB and went with another SB i5 2500k. I like my 4.8ghz 24/7 cool running OC. Most people why buy a K chip OC and wont run integrated graphics.

I could believe that but ib does have newer quick sync that could matter to some. I also know that k chips are the way to go if you want a hackintosh because of integrated video.

Either way sb or ib can not go wrong with the i5k series.

[QUOTE=nullstring;51438352]This just isn't true
http://www.tomshardware.com/revie...198-7.html

Sandy bridge can overclock to 5Ghz with relative ease and floor anything ivy bridge can do.

Thank you for Tom's report. Where it states

If scalability isn't as big of a worry for you, Ivy Bridge is the more natural choice. Its performance per clock is a few percent higher, so long as you're looking at the same frequency from both architectures. After all, a 4.5 GHz Ivy Bridge-based CPU wins benchmarks against a Sandy Bridge processor at slightly higher clock rates.

This was my initial comment, that IVB doesnt have to clock as high to match a SB.

Quote from Divr : Over clocked Series 2 CPU

never heard of it. I guess you mean the K series.

[QUOTE=Divr;51438834]

Quote from nullstring : This just isn't true http://www.tomshardware.com/revie...198-7.html Sandy bridge can overclock to 5Ghz with relative ease and floor anything ivy bridge can do. Thank you for Tom's report. Where it states If scalability isn't as big of a worry for you, Ivy Bridge is the more natural choice. Its performance per clock is a few percent higher, so long as you're looking at the same frequency from both architectures. After all, a 4.5 GHz Ivy Bridge-based CPU wins benchmarks against a Sandy Bridge processor at slightly higher clock rates. This was my initial comment, that IVB doesnt have to clock as high to match a SB.

You seem to be missing the point,
An IB may outperform a SB that has "slightly" higher clocks, but an IB at say 4.5GHz will not outperform a SB @5.0GHz and the SB will be running cooler and live longer due to bigger die and better heat transfer.

Quote from igorvin : yes but the smaller 22nm die and new material used for bonding(no more solder) creates more heat which does not transfer/dissapate as well as Sandy...so the Sandy will overclock higher while staying much cooler, while the Ivy will require more expensive cooling solution and high overclock will definitely shorten the life of Ivy since heat is not being transferred well.

This is completely false. A smaller die means LESS heat, every time. The wattage for the 2500k is 95W while the 3570k is 77W. This is the direct result of the die shrink. Pretty much the opposite of everything you posted is the actual truth.

Quote from Divr : True, but the Ivy will perform better without being as highly overclocked.

No it's not true.

Quote from The Llama : This is completely false. A smaller die means LESS heat, every time. The wattage for the 2500k is 95W while the 3570k is 77W. This is the direct result of the die shrink. Pretty much the opposite of everything you posted is the actual truth. No it's not true.

Not an expert on this topic, but I thought I saw somewhere that the Ivy Bridge processors outputs more heat when overclocked because Intel decided to use thermal grease inside the CPU to move the heat to the surface instead of using metal since its cheaper? This causes the heat to congest within the CPU and the heat is moved out of the die slower than the Sandy Bridge processors.

Sorry if not all this information is correct. Just thought I saw an article somewhere about this.

Quote from MightyAzn : Not an expert on this topic, but I thought I saw somewhere that the Ivy Bridge processors outputs more heat when overclocked because Intel decided to use thermal grease inside the CPU to move the heat to the surface instead of using metal since its cheaper? This causes the heat to congest within the CPU and the heat is moved out of the die slower than the Sandy Bridge processors. Sorry if not all this information is correct. Just thought I saw an article somewhere about this.

Yeah, that was a major criticism and there are a lot of people who are removing the IHS and putting coolers directly on the chip as a result. (Before it was soldered.) However, that doesn't change the fact that saying a die shrink causes MORE heat is very, very wrong.

Quote from The Llama : Yeah, that was a major criticism and there are a lot of people who are removing the IHS and putting coolers directly on the chip as a result. (Before it was soldered.) However, that doesn't change the fact that saying a die shrink causes MORE heat is very, very wrong.

Do your research before spouting off at the mouth...
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/...15512.html

Its common knowledge by now.. everybody but you I guess?

Quote from The Llama : Yeah, that was a major criticism and there are a lot of people who are removing the IHS and putting coolers directly on the chip as a result. (Before it was soldered.) However, that doesn't change the fact that saying a die shrink causes MORE heat is very, very wrong.

You're right, it doesn't cause more heat. I think the person who said that didn't do thorough research on what was causing the heat. It was not because of the die, but instead the thermal conductivety was lowered because thermal grease was used instead of some sort of metal used in Sandy Bridge processors. Looking at the Newegg feedbacks, you can see that a lot of people just says things such as "Ivy Bridge processors heat up WAY more than Sandy Bridge when both are overclocked."

You seem to know A LOT about technology.

Quote from The Llama : This is completely false. A smaller die means LESS heat, every time. The wattage for the 2500k is 95W while the 3570k is 77W. This is the direct result of the die shrink. Pretty much the opposite of everything you posted is the actual truth

In normal situations, you'd be entirely correct. However, there is something VERY wrong with Intel's 22nm process right now.

2011 Sandy EP has half the transistor count of 1155 Sandy on the same process while keeping per-core performance identical. Moving to a 22nm process with the same base arch would normally mean that 1155 Ivy should have a similar transistor count per-core to Sandy EP --BUT transistor count was significantly increased.

That's a step backwards --a carnal sin in chip fabrication.

Quote from HOO-MAN? : Do your research before spouting off at the mouth... http://www.tomshardware.com/news/...15512.html Its common knowledge by now.. everybody but you I guess?

Common knowledge is that most in the overclocking community never believed that the die shrink caused the extra heat since that kinda goes against physics. Most believe that this was a BS coverup since they used the thermal paste instead of soldering the IHS.

http://www.techpowerup.com/165882...r-All.html

But hey, if you can explain how lower TDP means higher temps, I'd sure love to hear it. What do I know, though, I'm just spouting off.

Quote from Dillweed : In normal situations, you'd be entirely correct. However, there is something VERY wrong with Intel's 22nm process right now. 2011 Sandy EP has half the transistor count of 1155 Sandy on the same process while keeping per-core performance identical. Moving to a 22nm process with the same base arch would normally mean that 1155 Ivy should have a similar transistor count per-core to Sandy EP --BUT transistor count was significantly increased. That's a step backwards --a carnal sin in chip fabrication.

I didn't know about the transistor increase. How would this add to the temperature increases when the wattage was lowered?

Quote from HOO-MAN? : Do your research before spouting off at the mouth... http://www.tomshardware.com/news/...15512.html Its common knowledge by now.. everybody but you I guess?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_shrink
Die shrinking actually decreases heat production because your transistors are much smaller. Smaller transistors means there's less resistance overall. R = resistivity*length/area. Therefore decreasing the overall length should decrease heat production. However it will increase your heat density and with poor heat spreading it will increase your temperatures overall.