bit-tech.net

Intel Core i5-655K Review

Comments 1 to 24 of 24

Reply
Jipa 2nd July 2010, 09:58 Quote
As-is, I can't really see the 655K serving any other purpose than being a funny little something for the overclocking people to try just for shts'n'giggles. Anyway I'd like to see Intel come out with some higher end unlocked CPUs. An unlocked quad core might prove a huge hit.. Then again that might hurt the sales of i7-setups.

Still it seems like a weird thing to try just on a single dual core model.
Pete J 2nd July 2010, 10:32 Quote
The 655K is just too overpriced - it'd be more reasonable to charge, say, <£100. As Jipa says, this chip willonly appeal to those who are into extreme overclocking.

Also, a request to the Bit-Tech team: could you include SuperPi 32M tests? Thi would give an indication of the raw power of single thread performance.
crazyceo 2nd July 2010, 10:34 Quote
I feel the main reason for these K series chips is due to poor sales. The i3 series sales fall heavily on the 530, the i5 on the 750 and the i7 on the 920/930 and those with deep pockets 980X. Everything else in between gets swallowed by OEMs and gather dust on shelves.

Will they sell more? based on this review, I see nothing to tempt anyone to be honest.
yakyb 2nd July 2010, 10:36 Quote
Just a little constructive criticism,

If i wanted to compare this to a i7 860 i have to open up two reviews and cross compare

Likewise if i was unsure between this and a 955, or even if it was a worthy upgrade to a Q6600

i have mentioned this before but it would be really helpful if you had a League table charting system
memeroot 2nd July 2010, 10:41 Quote
i5 750 slowed for crysis when overclocked?
shoxicwaste 2nd July 2010, 11:10 Quote
Why do Intel have to put a high price on all their products, I've always been a Intel fan-boy but the prices just get tiring, it's just upsetting to see that a high-end AMD processor gets trashed by mid-range processor from the competitor..
Material 2nd July 2010, 11:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by memeroot
i5 750 slowed for crysis when overclocked?

bah, typo, should be 54.

Thanks for the catch (+rep)
Aterius Gmork 2nd July 2010, 11:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bit-tech
Even if video encoding and multitasking aren’t important to you, you would still be better served by buying the i5-650 over the i5-655, as any reasonable board will be able to overclock the chip to its limit thanks to its high multiplier.

Surely you mean the i5-750 right?
Jack_Pepsi 2nd July 2010, 11:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Goodhead
The strength of this argument is further eroded by the fact that rather than buying the £179 i5-655K and a cheap motherboard, you could but an i5-750 and use the £20 saved to buy a better motherboard. The i5-750 is also a true quad-core, which helps in multithreaded tasks and when multitasking.

^^
Material 2nd July 2010, 11:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack_Pepsi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Goodhead
The strength of this argument is further eroded by the fact that rather than buying the £179 i5-655K and a cheap motherboard, you could but an i5-750 and use the £20 saved to buy a better motherboard. The i5-750 is also a true quad-core, which helps in multithreaded tasks and when multitasking.

^^

ugh, sorted
rollo 2nd July 2010, 11:55 Quote
Waste of money part 2 intel fail

Who would put 4.6ghz through there chip on a daytonday basis on air it's just asking for something to fail, most of the forum posts have people mentioning 3.5ghz as the max they would push a chip
Claave 2nd July 2010, 12:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
Waste of money part 2 intel fail

Who would put 4.6ghz through there chip on a daytonday basis on air it's just asking for something to fail, most of the forum posts have people mentioning 3.5ghz as the max they would push a chip

We test for the maximum overclock of a CPU we're testing, as this is a guide as to its quality - we're not recommending people run this overclock everyday. Besides, the point of the K-series is surely that their fully unlocked multiplier makes them more overclockable, and we've proved with this review that this isn't the case.
Bloody_Pete 2nd July 2010, 13:00 Quote
I'm interested to see this mounted with a water chiller or just watercooling and see how high yuo can push it then... Seeing as the only people why this works for are watercoolers who can't afford an i7 setup...
isaac12345 2nd July 2010, 15:01 Quote
Another useless and pricey gimmick by Intel.
Neversoft 3rd July 2010, 05:46 Quote
Not sure why this chip exists. The i5-750 is so close to price with way better performance.
Kudos to Intel for making more affordable chips though! Of coarse, this will really piss someone off if they buy this under the assumption its a Quad.

Wait! I think I found out why they made it.
Elton 3rd July 2010, 07:15 Quote
It's more gimmicky than anything else. Makes me scratch my head though, why a 655K and not a 755K?

The 875 is way too much, the 655k is still too much but is shadowed by the 750. Why no middle ground?
PopcornMachine 3rd July 2010, 20:46 Quote
I agree with your conclusion. Why not just get a 750.

In addition to getting a better overall CPU, you're also not paying for an embedded GPU that you're never going to use in a gaming system.
Teh C 3rd July 2010, 23:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elton
why a 655K and not a 755K?

I assume Intel used the i5 650 and i7 860 because they are not as popular as others, such as the i5 750 or i7 930
Cupboard 4th July 2010, 12:45 Quote
If you see this as a product launch in its own right, it is distinctly underwhelming. As a pointer of things to come, it is rather more promising.

Given less of a price premium and more choice of chips, 5K would be far more interesting.
knuck 4th July 2010, 21:10 Quote
For the record, some P55 boards have to be flashed before you can use this cpu. Don't do the same mistake we (friend and I) did...

Oh and despite reading the article and everyone's comments, I still don't get the hate towards this cpu. It's not that expensive and even with a slight overclock it becomes a good performance for money CPU. It's nothing spectacular, but at least it's easier to overclock than regular locked Core i5/i7s. You also get to save money by buying cheap, regular ram instead of high performance one.

With that said though I still haven't overclocked his CPU, which would make him one of the lunatics that you mentioned ;)
Elton 4th July 2010, 23:26 Quote
Well, the hate for this is that it's quite a bit more than the standard version, but there really isn't a real compelling reason to buy it.

Couple it with the fact that it isn't exactly a marathon runner in terms overclocking doesn't help either.
knuck 4th July 2010, 23:32 Quote
Have overclocking standards change or am I the only one who thinks 4.6Ghz is pretty damn good ?
isaac12345 5th July 2010, 10:34 Quote
4.6Ghz is pretty good, but its a dual core competing with a highly overclockable quad core. For CPU intensive tasks, its poor value for money. AMD have it right by having an unlocked multiplier for their more affordable CPUs.
isaac12345 5th July 2010, 10:38 Quote
@Bit-tech - Can you please include graphs for performance per watt as well?
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums