How much percentage does the Intel i7 2600K utilizes for gaming?

[Efrosini]

If you have the chance, would you mind posting percent of its maximum 2600K i7 CPU usage when playing games known to push CPU (for example, "Metro 2033", BC2, others?). I have curiosity because my current CPU (Q9650@3.9GHz) is beginning to reach 100% in the 4 cores in some games, and I'm likely to upgrade this year. I thought I would wait until the base of 2011 came out, but since I mainly use my PC for gaming and Internet surfing, I'm beginning to think 2600K is the way forward. But if the CPU is already challenged by the games, maybe I have to re-examine.

[Terrextre]

The Intel Core i7 processor 2600K is an excellent and very probably the best overall value for performance that can be found in a CPU. As to what makes Hyper-Threading, allows a second thread running on a single core to the left of the resources. In other words, get the performance of smaller nuclei extra power without the cost, energy and heat from the additional cores. However, if the cost of the Core i7 2600K is a little out of your budget you may want to look into the Intel Core I5 2500K, is one of four cores with a great performance on their own.

[AmdUser]

I had not thought of a CPU six as the i7-970. I have to look into that a little more, but I am worried about end of life for the socket 1366. I'm not familiar with AMD CPU, so I have no basis for an opinion there. Although I am not looking to launch "mad money" on a CPU, I am fortunate to have a good enough budget that I can consider anything that makes sense for a gaming platform. As just noted, beyond 4 cores (and 8 virtual) may be overkill for a gaming machine, but I have to make the task a little more on that.

[Logan.M]

I like to use, and that's why I'm looking for the update. My use of the windows usually bounces around the low single-digit percentages (1% to 3%), with peaks much higher than that. The use of 100% I'm seeing is the maximum during the game, but I admit I have not paid much attention to the use through a game session, only the maximum. That's something to look for in a little more.

[Abhibhava]

Unless you need 6 cores now, there's really no reason to pay premium prices on all things new (4 cores faster, cheaper cores 6 and 8 cores available to the public) right on the horizon. There are times in a cycle of when to wait before launching fork load money on expensive hardware, and unless someone wants a 990x best of the best, now may be the time. Next thing we know, we may be seeing 6 5.5 GHz CPU hit in the air.

[Balamani]

Who cares if you're not getting the results you want, what I said. If you are getting the results you want, no matter what the CPU usage is at. If you're not, then it is the May to determine where the bottleneck, and yet the task manager will not do for you most of the time. A game that uses only two topics can only show the use of approximately 50% in a quad-core CPU bottleneck. Remain the best way to determine the bottleneck is to reduce or increase its clock speed. If you decrease the clock by 10% and 10% performance drops, then you are being CPU limited. This is a much more accurate than the task manager.

[Sn0w-Le0p@rD]

BC2 is CPU intensive. A humble registered quad suffers. But the question is a set composed by a large number of prints. Why the CPU has to do the work that the GPU is supposed to do? This can only mean one thing. Bad Code. They are good benchmarks and bragging rights in forums such as the case was with GTA IV. But it is fair that the users of PC ports of console throws wrong and those we should be happy with him? I think the bad ports should not be supported.