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.

 

[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...

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.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz-15.html

There you go. Actual results.

 

[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.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz-15.html

There you go. Actual results.

You posted a link of the 9590 losing to the 4770k?
They didn't compare it to an i5, and the i5s also have much lower heat and energy consumption, which few people seem to address. AMD makes good CPUs, but Intel CPUs are not overpriced. The higher prices directly translate into higher performance, and your own link proved that.

 

[TR0n_A]

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.

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.

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.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz-15.html

There you go. Actual results.

You posted a link of the 9590 losing to the 4770k?
They didn't compare it to an i5, and the i5s also have much lower heat and energy consumption, which few people seem to address. AMD makes good CPUs, but Intel CPUs are not overpriced. The higher prices directly translate into higher performance, and your own link proved that.

Actually the difference is mostly very small on most games (I doubt most people could tell), and the 9590 beats the 4770K on a few of them too. The i5 is only worth it at the higher end of the i5 range, and that's nearly within i7 territory price wise. AMD don't keep there unlocked CPUs horribly overpriced either. If you actually look at broad range of results from different results sites, the FX 83xx are a great match for the i5, and have a better chance at future multi-threading. Who actually cares about energy consumption when buying a CPU (unless you're talking insane TDP like the FX 9590). Intel's stock coolers are undeniably better than AMDs currently.

 

[Rationale]

Actually the difference is mostly very small on most games (I doubt most people could tell), and the 9590 beats the 4770K on a few of them too. The i5 is only worth it at the higher end of the i5 range, and that's nearly within i7 territory price wise. AMD don't keep there unlocked CPUs horribly overpriced either. If you actually look at broad range of results from different results sites, the FX 83xx are a great match for the i5, and have a better chance at future multi-threading. Who actually cares about energy consumption when buying a CPU (unless you're talking insane TDP like the FX 9590). Intel's stock coolers are undeniably better than AMDs currently.

I care about higher energy consumption. It's the second most important factor in choosing a CPU for me, right behind cost/game performance ratio. Ahead of overclocking, heat, instruction sets, number of cores, or whether it has integrated graphics.

My current PC draws 325w. Getting an Intel CPU with the same performance in a sort of hodgepodge sidegrade will decrease that to 250w, which is a large change as far as green technology is concerned.

 

[TR0n_A]

Actually the difference is mostly very small on most games (I doubt most people could tell), and the 9590 beats the 4770K on a few of them too. The i5 is only worth it at the higher end of the i5 range, and that's nearly within i7 territory price wise. AMD don't keep there unlocked CPUs horribly overpriced either. If you actually look at broad range of results from different results sites, the FX 83xx are a great match for the i5, and have a better chance at future multi-threading. Who actually cares about energy consumption when buying a CPU (unless you're talking insane TDP like the FX 9590). Intel's stock coolers are undeniably better than AMDs currently.

I care about higher energy consumption. It's the second most important factor in choosing a CPU for me, right behind cost/game performance ratio. Ahead of overclocking, heat, instruction sets, number of cores, or whether it has integrated graphics.

My current PC draws 325w. Getting an Intel CPU with the same performance in a sort of hodgepodge sidegrade will decrease that to 250w, which is a large change as far as green technology is concerned.

You might, but do you think the average consumer does?

 

[Rationale]

Actually the difference is mostly very small on most games (I doubt most people could tell), and the 9590 beats the 4770K on a few of them too. The i5 is only worth it at the higher end of the i5 range, and that's nearly within i7 territory price wise. AMD don't keep there unlocked CPUs horribly overpriced either. If you actually look at broad range of results from different results sites, the FX 83xx are a great match for the i5, and have a better chance at future multi-threading. Who actually cares about energy consumption when buying a CPU (unless you're talking insane TDP like the FX 9590). Intel's stock coolers are undeniably better than AMDs currently.

I care about higher energy consumption. It's the second most important factor in choosing a CPU for me, right behind cost/game performance ratio. Ahead of overclocking, heat, instruction sets, number of cores, or whether it has integrated graphics.

My current PC draws 325w. Getting an Intel CPU with the same performance in a sort of hodgepodge sidegrade will decrease that to 250w, which is a large change as far as green technology is concerned.

You might, but do you think the average consumer does?

I don't think the average consumer would notice a difference from an FX-4300 to an FX-8350. That doesn't mean the 8350 isn't better.

 

[TR0n_A]

Actually the difference is mostly very small on most games (I doubt most people could tell), and the 9590 beats the 4770K on a few of them too. The i5 is only worth it at the higher end of the i5 range, and that's nearly within i7 territory price wise. AMD don't keep there unlocked CPUs horribly overpriced either. If you actually look at broad range of results from different results sites, the FX 83xx are a great match for the i5, and have a better chance at future multi-threading. Who actually cares about energy consumption when buying a CPU (unless you're talking insane TDP like the FX 9590). Intel's stock coolers are undeniably better than AMDs currently.

I care about higher energy consumption. It's the second most important factor in choosing a CPU for me, right behind cost/game performance ratio. Ahead of overclocking, heat, instruction sets, number of cores, or whether it has integrated graphics.

My current PC draws 325w. Getting an Intel CPU with the same performance in a sort of hodgepodge sidegrade will decrease that to 250w, which is a large change as far as green technology is concerned.

You might, but do you think the average consumer does?

I don't think the average consumer would notice a difference from an FX-4300 to an FX-8350. That doesn't mean the 8350 isn't better.

The FX 4300 is also around half the price of the 8350, and with that, I think it's time to end this rather pointless argument.

 

[Someone Somewhere]

If you want to give me a good reason to re-open this, PM me.