According to pretty much everyone, Intel K and non-K CPUs are physically identical with a single difference that the K CPUs are unlocked. Some will also add that K CPUs are those that achieve the top testing results. So why is there a noticeable benchmark result difference (on Passmark charts) between non-K and K CPUs that both run at the same clock speeds? One example is i7-2600 vs i7-2600k. Single Thread Rating: 1919 vs 1943. CPU Mark: 8239 vs 8496. There is a 3.1% increase in CPU Mark score from 2600 to 2600k. Some might say that this increase is negligible but then again when comparing 2600k to 2700k (which actually is an upgrade) there is a 3.5% increase in performance. Similarly, Single Thread Rating increase from i5-3570 to i5-3570k: 0.8% and from i5-3570k to i7-3770: 2%
So how is this performance difference between K and non-K CPUs explained? Are the K CPUs really performing better? Is it worth the extra money to buy a used K when not intending to overclock just because they perform better on benchmarks, or better to be sure that I'll get a CPU that has never been overclocked?
So how is this performance difference between K and non-K CPUs explained? Are the K CPUs really performing better? Is it worth the extra money to buy a used K when not intending to overclock just because they perform better on benchmarks, or better to be sure that I'll get a CPU that has never been overclocked?
Comment