[Test] Is It Time To Upgrade Your Core i5 2500K?

I thought the same. If this video should convice people to upgrade it didnt do a good job. I was surprised that in ME Andromenda 2500k actually beat Ryzen 5, lol.

BF1 being most cpu intensive i expected bigger difference.

 

That's 50%, at least. CPU isn't supposed to do anything but stay out of the way of the GPU
As long as the GPU runs at its fullest potential, it's doing its job.

 

Another thing is, ever since I switched to a g-sync monitor, upgrading my system now feels less important. The thing that would annoy me the most in the past, which is the stutter from FPS dropping below refresh rate, doesn't exist anymore.

Every platform upgrade I ever did in the past was because performance has at least doubled:

486 DX2 66MHz -> Pentium 133MHz -> Pentium 2 400MHz -> Pentium 3 933MHz -> P4 Celeron D 2.4GHz -> Core 2 Q6600 2.4GHz -> i5 2500K 3.3GHz

It was simply not worth upgrading to something that doesn't double your performance. Lower performance is perfectly acceptable when it's not too much lower.

 

Even "just" a high refresh rate monitor does a lot for that. I haven't seen any tearing since I've upgraded to a 120Hz monitor.
I can only imagine that one's perfectly fine if G-Sync is being added to that, even with rather low performance in places.

 

Sorry, but benching at 1080p? right.

i would like to see the users that buy 6 or 8 core cpus and play at 1080p (or below).
as soon as the games are running at 1440p there is virtually no difference between intel and amd.
and unless min-frames etc are an issue, who buys a cpu/board/ram for 500$/more, when i can upgrade to a 1080/ti (or similar) for same amount which WILL improve overall fps much more..


reminds me when guru was testing cards only in Performance-mode (3Dmark 11) which is cpu bound, and not with "extreme" settings.

its like testing the newest porsche/ferrari/chevy/ford on a road with a 35mph speed limit.



@Radical_53
high refresh might make it smoother and less visible, but doesn't really eliminate tearing...

couple of friends have 120/144Hz screens, and unless they turn on gsync, i can see it (tearing).

 

Here is big review done not long ago title is " Sandy Bridge forever alive".

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_intel_core_i5_2500k_i_core_i7_2600k_sandy_bridge

Article is in Polish but you can read graphs This is very extensive and deep test.
Sadly this was done before Ryzen release but summing up....

i7 2500K @ 4.5Ghz = i5 7600k @ 5.0 Ghz , almost exacly the same speed.

 

Looking at it its more like 2500k 4.5ghz = 7500/7600 stock.

Still, thats more than adequate for today's gaming.

 

People are better off buying high end gpu than replacing CPU and playing higher res ... I wonder how my old i5 750 would look like vs i5 7600k .

 

Yeah from those charts the only reason for upgrading if your motherboard died and getting a replacement board was close to the price of a new motherboard.

 

I only had to change my 2600K because of my motherboard dying on me (my 3rd actually of the same brand and model) and me not being able to find a good enough replacement.

 

Same for me. I had replaced it numerous times already so it was time for a change.
As there were no gains to be had right away, I opted for the better chance to see them in the near future, aka more cores.

 

I am pretty sure there will be difference if GPU is not fully utilized.
Problem I see with statement "This CPU runs better on higher resolution", is that we simply load GPU, so CPU having more breating space.

I am pretty sure if we lower video setting on higher resolution, CPU will be once again limiting factor.

Games engines just suck at utilizing CPU power. Probably cause it's like rocket science or something.

Good thing going for Ryzen is that it can do more things at the same time without chocking.

 

High performance low latency concurrency is not easy In non-game multi-threaded software applications, if your throughput is high, you're good. In games, you need to maintain both high throughput and high near-real-time interactivity at a steady pace. Those two things are fighting each other by their very nature. So it's actually quite difficult to do correctly.

 

IF you guys would allow me to hijack this thread for a little moment.
I'm in the same situation but with a stock 3930k.
I don't overclock, because my room is pretty warm. In winter, my PC warms my room with this stock 3930k and slight factory OC 780ti.

So. I'm playing at a 1440p res, would you guys think I can get another 1 or maybe 2 years out of this CPU?
I ask this because I'm on a tighter budget than ever due to construction en renovation and I was wondering if I should prioritise on upgrading the GPU, yet I have G-sync and FPS lag is less noticeable than it was before G-sync.
However, wouldn't my CPU bottleneck my future GPU ( probably next gen flagship )

Thanks in advance

 

I would recommend you get a good cooler and OC. A closed-loop water cooler is going to work very well, and it's dead-easy to install. In fact, it's easier to install than an air cooler (since there's no fan on the CPU.) I'm using one.

I live on a Greek island. It's WARM in summer. No issues keeping my 2500K cool at 4.2GHz. Sure, it might run at 65c in summer compared to 55c in winter, but that's completely fine.

Buying a cooler is the best investment you can make when using a K CPU.

 

I've already invested in the 150mm Noctua tower heatsink NH-D15S and tried the OC function of my MSI motherboard ( 4.0Ghz ). I just don't like the 60°C Idle :/.
But, hey, thanks for the reply. I might just suck it up and OC anyway then^^.

 

You need manual OCing. Automatic OCing is using too much voltage, meaning too high temps.

(60c idle is very high. I meant I get 65c in summer with full load, not idle.)

 

Mine's been running at 4.5GHz since day 1 at 1.25v. Maximum temp depends on the game in question. GTA V is CPU based so temps hit around 65 degrees. BF4 on the other hand is more GPU based so temps hit 60 degrees. This is with a sealed Corsair H100 kit which itself is over 3 years old now.

Whilst bored a few months ago when we had several of these types of threads I done some testing and I was able to hit 4.8GHz but with a serious increase in voltage to 1.36v which is pretty average for that speed to be fair.

This is still a very capable processor for 1080p gaming. Since the Windows 10 Creators Update GTA V, BF4 and CSGO run much smoother with gaming mode enabled in each game. Also I have a G-Sync monitor.

 

I don't think resolution is CPU dependent. In fact, the 2500K is better for 1440p and 4K, since the GPU gets most of the load there.

(I'm on 1440p, and I'm almost always GPU-limited.)

 

1.36v isnt bad for 4.8ghz, you actually have little better chip then me. Did you try going higher? Getting to 1.4v+ maybe you should be able to hit 5ghz. I needed a 1.44v to reach that magic number.