Is i5 2500k too old for gaming???or should I upgrade the CPU to Intel Haswell???

[darksmart]

Hi
I am about to upgrade the GPU to R9 270x (or possibly 280x). But I am using i5 2500k on Asus P8p67 m pro.
So I want to know that will the i5 2500k bottleneck the 280x in FPS gaming at maxx settings or shall i continue with my i5 2500k and save money for corsair h100i for summers.

 

[Someone Somewhere]

2500K is still a very good chip; it's only maybe 10-15% slower than a 4670K, and basically matches it when OCed (IIRC). CPUs haven't moved much over the past few years.

Spend the money on getting at least a 280X.

I wouldn't generally go with CLLCs, but it's up to you.

 

[Rationale]

The i5-2500k is still one of the faster CPUs for gaming. Replacing it would be 99% pointless.

 

[coolcole01]

absolutely still a good gaming chip

 

[nikoli707]

you will notice no appreciable gain in gaming performance by getting any newer cpu, even a 4960x. the 2500k is a beast and is the best overclocking cpu ever made. spend your money on a better cooler, like a phanteks ph-tc14pe, it performs very close to the h100i, its cheaper and you dont have to deal with water. then overclock the 2500k to the 4.6-4.8ghz range and call it a day.

try to get at least a 280x or a 760/770.

 

[TR0n_A]

the 2500k is a beast and is the best overclocking cpu ever made.

That's very debatable. I'd say the C2D E8400 and the AMD FX 8320 are better overclockers.

 

[coolcole01]

i would say price to performance the fx 8320 is the king i mean come on on the right day you can get one for less than a 100 bucks

 

[TR0n_A]

i would say price to performance the fx 8320 is the king i mean come on on the right day you can get one for less than a 100 bucks

I agree. The 8320 is a great chip for the price. I really don't like Intel's overpricing on the i3/i5/i7.

 

[Rationale]

i would say price to performance the fx 8320 is the king i mean come on on the right day you can get one for less than a 100 bucks

I agree. The 8320 is a great chip for the price. I really don't like Intel's overpricing on the i3/i5/i7.

They're not really overpriced as far as gaming is concerned.

 

[4Ryan6]

Most all the 2500Ks can be overclocked to 4.5ghz with a descent after market air cooler, most get that from a Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO and run rock solid as far as gaming is concerned.

I would suggest either acquiring better cooling for a higher stable overclock past 4.5ghz with the 2500K if that's what you would like to do.

In GPU dependent games, the GPUs performance you're running, is priority over the capability of the 2500Ks performance even stock clocked anyway.

 

[TR0n_A]

i would say price to performance the fx 8320 is the king i mean come on on the right day you can get one for less than a 100 bucks

I agree. The 8320 is a great chip for the price. I really don't like Intel's overpricing on the i3/i5/i7.

They're not really overpriced as far as gaming is concerned.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I find Intel's pricing of the i3/i5/i7 line OTT. If I was going to spend £200+ on just a CPU, I would want something that felt like I was getting my money's worth (something insane like the FX 9590 @ 220W). Intel is not value for money in my opinion, and that's why I generally choose AMD from now on. I don't feel like I'm being ripped off by them.

 

[Someone Somewhere]

The FX-9590 is as bad value IMHO as say an i7-4960X... not the example I'd choose for value.

If you want any kind of single threaded speed, Intel is currently the way to go.

 

[TR0n_A]

The FX-9590 is as bad value IMHO as say an i7-4960... not the example I'd choose for value.

If you want any kind of single threaded speed, Intel is currently the way to go.

I think you missed what I meant lol. And anyway, for gaming from the benchmarks I've seen, the FX 9590 was pretty much in a dead heat with an i7-4960X (http://www.extremetech.com/computing/170023-amd-vs-intel-the-ultimate-gaming-showdown-5ghz-fx-9590-vs-i7-4960x).

But yes, there is no denying that Intel's CPUs rule in single threaded. However, I find the premium they charge for that OTT for what it is. I'd rather get an AMD FX 8320 anyday, especially with the move to more than 4 cores in games (i.e. multi-plats from 8-core consoles).

 

[Mustafa K]

i just built my pc 8 months back with an i7 2600k . i bought it because i had a good deal and the second gen is still a beast . ocs better than any further gens. No need to replace it

 

[4Ryan6]

Hi
I am about to upgrade the GPU to R9 270x (or possibly 280x). But I am using i5 2500k on Asus P8p67 m pro.
So I want to know that will the i5 2500k bottleneck the 280x in FPS gaming at maxx settings or shall i continue with my i5 2500k and save money for corsair h100i for summers.

The 2500K will be just fine, you do not need to replace it!

 

[Rationale]

i would say price to performance the fx 8320 is the king i mean come on on the right day you can get one for less than a 100 bucks

I agree. The 8320 is a great chip for the price. I really don't like Intel's overpricing on the i3/i5/i7.

They're not really overpriced as far as gaming is concerned.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I find Intel's pricing of the i3/i5/i7 line OTT. If I was going to spend £200+ on just a CPU, I would want something that felt like I was getting my money's worth (something insane like the FX 9590 @ 220W). Intel is not value for money in my opinion, and that's why I generally choose AMD from now on. I don't feel like I'm being ripped off by them.

Most i5s perform almost the same as the 9590, and and run cooler for less power. Feeling ripped off for paying ~$200 for an Intel CPU but not for an AMD CPU is just in your head.

 

[jayadratha]

Hi
I am about to upgrade the GPU to R9 270x (or possibly 280x). But I am using i5 2500k on Asus P8p67 m pro.
So I want to know that will the i5 2500k bottleneck the 280x in FPS gaming at maxx settings or shall i continue with my i5 2500k and save money for corsair h100i for summers.

i5 2500K is a good gaming CPU, you can overclock it to match current. Though you can do one thing. Buy the graphics card. Check if the benchmarks are same as yours. Use 3dmark11, it also uses cpu for benchmarking so if you get too low marks then update your cpu, But I dont think it will give you too much difference, you will see a little low marks than normal.

 

[TR0n_A]

i would say price to performance the fx 8320 is the king i mean come on on the right day you can get one for less than a 100 bucks

I agree. The 8320 is a great chip for the price. I really don't like Intel's overpricing on the i3/i5/i7.

They're not really overpriced as far as gaming is concerned.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I find Intel's pricing of the i3/i5/i7 line OTT. If I was going to spend £200+ on just a CPU, I would want something that felt like I was getting my money's worth (something insane like the FX 9590 @ 220W). Intel is not value for money in my opinion, and that's why I generally choose AMD from now on. I don't feel like I'm being ripped off by them.

Most i5s perform almost the same as the 9590, and and run cooler for less power. Feeling ripped off for paying ~$200 for an Intel CPU but not for an AMD CPU is just in your head.

Links to backup that claim? And Intel's CPUs are undeniably higher priced than AMDs (highest end CPU for AMD((FX 9590)) = £233.25, highest end CPU for Intel that I can find available ((i74960x)) £649.99) the FX 9590. You seem to miss the point I was making about the 9590. I meant something that monstrous feels better value to me.

 

[Someone Somewhere]

That's because for gaming an i5-4440 will perform about as well as the FX-8350. At about the same price.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

 

[TR0n_A]

That's because for gaming an i5-4440 will perform about as well as the FX-8350. At about the same price.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

Yes, but that brings it back to the core count, and the direction developers are moving (i.e. more cores, You can read this stuff on most dev blogs lol). And yes, that's why I consider the 8320 the best value chip, which is currently available at £109.99. The cheapest i5 is about £139. The FX also tend to overclock like champs, and they're fully unlocked for the most part.

 

[Rationale]

i would say price to performance the fx 8320 is the king i mean come on on the right day you can get one for less than a 100 bucks

I agree. The 8320 is a great chip for the price. I really don't like Intel's overpricing on the i3/i5/i7.

They're not really overpriced as far as gaming is concerned.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I find Intel's pricing of the i3/i5/i7 line OTT. If I was going to spend £200+ on just a CPU, I would want something that felt like I was getting my money's worth (something insane like the FX 9590 @ 220W). Intel is not value for money in my opinion, and that's why I generally choose AMD from now on. I don't feel like I'm being ripped off by them.

Most i5s perform almost the same as the 9590, and and run cooler for less power. Feeling ripped off for paying ~$200 for an Intel CPU but not for an AMD CPU is just in your head.

Links to backup that claim? And Intel's CPUs are undeniably higher priced than AMDs (highest end CPU for AMD((FX 9590)) = £233.25, highest end CPU for Intel that I can find available ((i74960x)) £649.99) the FX 9590. You seem to miss the point I was making about the 9590. I meant something that monstrous feels better value to me.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4670K-vs-AMD-FX-9590

i5-4670k outscores an FX-9590, with additionally lower heat and power consumption.

 

[TR0n_A]

i would say price to performance the fx 8320 is the king i mean come on on the right day you can get one for less than a 100 bucks

I agree. The 8320 is a great chip for the price. I really don't like Intel's overpricing on the i3/i5/i7.

They're not really overpriced as far as gaming is concerned.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I find Intel's pricing of the i3/i5/i7 line OTT. If I was going to spend £200+ on just a CPU, I would want something that felt like I was getting my money's worth (something insane like the FX 9590 @ 220W). Intel is not value for money in my opinion, and that's why I generally choose AMD from now on. I don't feel like I'm being ripped off by them.

Most i5s perform almost the same as the 9590, and and run cooler for less power. Feeling ripped off for paying ~$200 for an Intel CPU but not for an AMD CPU is just in your head.

Links to backup that claim? And Intel's CPUs are undeniably higher priced than AMDs (highest end CPU for AMD((FX 9590)) = £233.25, highest end CPU for Intel that I can find available ((i74960x)) £649.99) the FX 9590. You seem to miss the point I was making about the 9590. I meant something that monstrous feels better value to me.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4670K-vs-AMD-FX-9590

i5-4670k outscores an FX-9590, with additionally lower heat and power consumption.

Those kind of sites are to give a rough guide, they have no detailed tests. Try again...

 

[Rationale]

i would say price to performance the fx 8320 is the king i mean come on on the right day you can get one for less than a 100 bucks

I agree. The 8320 is a great chip for the price. I really don't like Intel's overpricing on the i3/i5/i7.

They're not really overpriced as far as gaming is concerned.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I find Intel's pricing of the i3/i5/i7 line OTT. If I was going to spend £200+ on just a CPU, I would want something that felt like I was getting my money's worth (something insane like the FX 9590 @ 220W). Intel is not value for money in my opinion, and that's why I generally choose AMD from now on. I don't feel like I'm being ripped off by them.

Most i5s perform almost the same as the 9590, and and run cooler for less power. Feeling ripped off for paying ~$200 for an Intel CPU but not for an AMD CPU is just in your head.

Links to backup that claim? And Intel's CPUs are undeniably higher priced than AMDs (highest end CPU for AMD((FX 9590)) = £233.25, highest end CPU for Intel that I can find available ((i74960x)) £649.99) the FX 9590. You seem to miss the point I was making about the 9590. I meant something that monstrous feels better value to me.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4670K-vs-AMD-FX-9590

i5-4670k outscores an FX-9590, with additionally lower heat and power consumption.

Those kind of sites are to give a rough guide, they have no detailed tests. Try again...

No. List something better if you think it's inaccurate. It's not my job to have to prove anything to you. I don't have a vested interest in making sure you don't buy a crappy CPU.

 

[4Ryan6]

The point is the OP does not need to upgrade his CPU!

Your AMD and Intel arguments are totally irrelevant, the OP has not responded since the thread was opened and you guys are spraying the usual dribble, why should he buy a lesser performing AMD CPU anyway?

The OP asked if there would be a gaming problem and there won't be, there won't be any bottlenecks he cannot overclock to resolve in the near future either.

 

[jayadratha]

I think Rationale is correct. I dont think there is any game which uses more than 4core currently. May use in future. And intel have much better per core performance than AMD. yes using 8core cpus you may get better performance, cz OS can handle 8cores but you will not get so much difference. And in game also. you can say in future game also can use 8cores. but that a different issue.