In response to #9.
“... it is tempting ...”
“If you ...”
Thanks, you explained nicely.
“... and you still need a large drive for your files.”
Mmm, and one for backup.
“... they are getting there.”
I decided now that just as Mickliq wrote in #1, “I'm going to wait until the technology has matured.”
In response to #7.
"...is reasonably close in price to the i5-2500...consider..."
The price difference here between the K and the 2500 is so slight that if I can benefit from the K, I can do without a few cool drinks for the sake of it.
“..., if ... you care not currently thinking about overclocking, then it may not matter to you much. ..., if you are looking for a little extra performance then you just up the multiplier a point or two, check the temperature you are running at, and you are done. ..."
As an amateur, both in computer systems and Adobe Creative Suite, I have no real indication how the system I need to build within my budget, is going to serve my needs in real life once I get going with productions.
Therefore I cannot foresee at this stage whether or not I will come to a point in future where I may need to overclock for better performance.
So, to help make up my mind between the two, please clarify if I understood the energy usage between the two correctly:
If the higher energy usage of the K is for overclocking and using on-chip graphics, will the energy usage of the 2500K act the same as that of the 2500 if I do not overclock and do not use on-chip GPU? (In other words, during the time that I wont need overclocking and on-chip graphics, will the K use more energy than if I had the 2500?)
On a side note, I'm just curious, were they both released at the same time or is one newer than the other?
Nothing helps man to overcome troubles and to survive like the knowledge of a task to complete.