2500k @ 4.5GHz (Any need to upgrade?)

[ibex333]

Just curious, how well does my CPU stack up against modern CPUs in terms of gaming performance for an average joe?

Right now, I wasn't able to find a single game that would be in any way bottlenecked by my CPU, but I am wondering if there may be any worthy titles coming up very soon that would literally tax this CPU 100%.

Again, I am well aware of the age old motto "If it's good enough for your needs, don't upgrade" - I am merely curious to know how competitive my rig is overall pure gaming wise.
I saw some you-tube videos where some people claim an i3 Haswell or Broadwell will outperform an overclocked 2500k in some titles which I think is pure madness.. But I may be very, very wrong.

I think it's more relevant for GPUs, but I game mostly at 1080p with some titles at 1440p whenever my GPU can handle.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

It is pretty outdated. For some modern games a 3770k could be 20-40% faster, clock for clock, especially for minimum FPS. A 6700k/5820k would be faster still.

Again, there may be games where there is little difference and others where it is huge.

I recommend you go for a used 2600k/2700k/3770k.

If you have the budget, buy 5820k/6700k.

Stay away from i5s.

And yes in some games modern i3s may match your CPU.

HT itself can boost performance by 20-25% in some games.

 

[bystander36]

The FPS you run at highly determine how well your CPU ages. If you play at settings that keep you from going past 60 FPS, you will not have many moments that the CPU holds you back, but if you play at 100+ FPS, you may find a lot more cases of bottlenecking. But even that is game dependent.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

The FPS you run at highly determine how well your CPU ages. If you play at settings that keep you from going past 60 FPS, you will not have many moments that the CPU holds you back, but if you play at 100+ FPS, you may find a lot more cases of bottlenecking. But even that is game dependent.

This is wrong. A slow CPU may find it hard to get 30 FPS while a fast one may cross 60 FPS.

Depends on the game and situation.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

It seems like a couple months or more since I've posted here or any of the other forums.

I have an OC'd 2600K @ 4.6 and an OC'd 2700K @ 4.7. I built these rigs as much to just "stay current" as I did to experiment with gaming.

I prefer "simulators" -- stock-car racing, flight simulators. I find the problem with gaming derives from a remark I heard from a retired secondary-school teacher: "Those are 'splinter skills'!"

In other words, you can do more constructive things with a two-by-four than with a splinter. Each new game requires learning more splinter skills, and there's a limit to one's enthusiasm, especially as one gets older (I'm waiting for an update on my SS payments and Medicare).

I had plans -- first, to build an IB-E, then a Haswell-E system, but these rigs seem to fill all needs at the "front-end" and will eventually replace my server-box as a "back-end." I'm not in a hurry.

I could tell the story about how a tenant at my rental-property was terrorized by a neighbor and understandably broke the lease two months early to move out, but these are otherwise part of expectations for that business -- whether a tenant renews or chooses to leave. For the time being, the belt has been tightened and the computers are great, so I'm holding back on a new project and use of my Newegg card.

 

[Zodiark1593]

You should be fine with a 4.5 GHz Sandy, even if it bottlenecks, you should still he hitting at least 60 fps in most, if not all current titles. Once we get some DX12 titles in, the strain on the cpu should certainly be eased a bit. The only other gaming scenario I can think where the 2500K will get stomped by a Haswell (or later) dual core will be in emulation where Haswell actually exhibited a 25%-35% jump over Ivy per clock.

Since most emulation is limited to two or three threads, it isn't infeasible that a 4.5 GHz Pentium ($65-$75) will outpace your Sandy by quite a lot.

 

[tweakboy]

You got SSD and I suggest 8GB ram , and baaam, your not bottlenecking. Load times will be very fast and no hickupos while lplaying the map. gl

 

[aaksheytalwar]

The FPS you run at highly determine how well your CPU ages. If you play at settings that keep you from going past 60 FPS, you will not have many moments that the CPU holds you back, but if you play at 100+ FPS, you may find a lot more cases of bottlenecking. But even that is game dependent.

This is wrong. A slow CPU may find it hard to get 30 FPS while a fast one may cross 60 FPS.

Depends on the game and situation.

 

[bystander36]

This is wrong. A slow CPU may find it hard to get 30 FPS while a fast one may cross 60 FPS.

Depends on the game and situation.

I did not say otherwise. What I did say is that someone who plays at high FPS will run into more bottlenecking from the CPU, because the CPU will be stressed a lot more. Don't forget that the GPU and game settings play a huge role on whether you are CPU bound. Someone that shoots for high FPS will have a faster GPU or use lower settings, which places demand square on the CPU, while someone who turns ever setting up, uses a high resolution or has a slow GPU will never see the high FPS needed to be bottlenecked by the CPU.

How the gamer plays and the game used is a huge determination of whether the CPU is good enough or not.

There are few cases where an 2500K at 4.5Ghz is going to have a difficult time getting to 30 FPS.

Did you misread my post? And you have a double post issue going on.

 

[Charlie98]

There are few cases where an 2500K at 4.5Ghz is going to have a difficult time getting to 30 FPS...

...but, in general OP, I think the 2500K is fine for now. Personally, I'm still running mine and will do so until I get to a game that the 2500K has problems with (not likely in my case, at least any time soon.) I DO think we are at the point where the viability of Sandy/Ivy will fall off as a serious gamer CPU, going forward with new mainstream titles. When that day comes, I'll pull the 2500K, put it in the HTPC, and break out the credit card for an entirely new system.

 

[Insomniator]

No reason to upgrade, you'd be way better off with a GPU upgrade.

At 4.5ghz, an 2500k is not going to be a problem for your situation.

 

[toyota]

why do people have to ask others if they need to upgrade? I will never understand that.

that said a 2500k sure as hell would not cut it for me. I run games at 60 fps with vsync and a 2500k cant do that in some cases even if oced. some people seem to think a 2500k cant be a bottleneck even with a high end gpu but they are very wrong.

 

[krumme]

Numbers pls- bm

 

[RussianSensation]

why do people have to ask others if they need to upgrade? I will never understand that.

that said a 2500k sure as hell would not cut it for me. I run games at 60 fps with vsync and a 2500k cant do that in some cases even if oced. some people seem to think a 2500k cant be a bottleneck even with a high end gpu but they are very wrong.

I don't think that's it. I think some people will rather spend the extra $ on a new monitor, and/or a new GPU. Think about it, how many games are out there where an i5 2500K @ 4.5Ghz dips below 60 fps on a GTX980Ti SLI? If an i7 6700K @ 4.8Ghz gives you 90-100 fps minimums and i5 2500K is hovering at 50-60 fps but you need a 980Ti to hit those FPS and your GPU right now is just a GTX670/680/770/7970Ghz, what makes more sense a new CPU platform or an upgrade to a GTX980Ti?

It's not that a 2500K OC cannot be a bottleneck but rather for a lot of gamers with 60Hz monitors, it's not an important enough bottleneck when chances are they are way more GPU bottlenecked.

Think about it, what would win in games at 1440P? an i7 6700K @ 4.8Ghz + 980Ti or 2500K @ 4.5Ghz + GTX980Ti SLI? Is 2500K @ 4.5Ghz a limiting components vs. an i7 6700K OC? Yes, it absolutely is but what's the context?

Also not all games need 60 fps locked to feel smooth. There are certain gamers who feel fatigue and choppy frame rate at 60 fps locked --> They are gaming on 100-144Hz monitors. To them 60 fps is an 'unplayable' gaming experience and they refuse to run FPS games at 60 fps. Then there are gamers who play other games, not just FPS and may be playing single player FPS campaigns and are less sensitive to FPS.

The only person who can genuinely answer the question if it's time for an upgrade for a 2500K @ 4.5Ghz is the OP himself. He should know what his requirements are. I mean some console gamers are fine with 30 fps and you can find a PC gamer on here who would be claiming that 144-165Hz or not worth gaming on it. Remember, every PC has a bottleneck but which one matters more for your usage pattern?

Since the OP has HD6950 CF, he would benefit more from selling his 6950s and getting say a single 980Ti or a $380 EVGA B-stock 980 or even a $205 R9 290. The OP could also try to sell the 2500K and get a 2600K as a stop-gap.

 

[bystander36]

There is no information in this thread provided by the OP on his GPU, his overall upgrade budget (can he afford a 980TI + an i7 6700K/5820K), and what games he plays so how can we automatically claim that his i5 2500K is what's causing the bottleneck? For all we know the OP might have a 770/780 or a 290 and people here are telling him to get a new CPU. That would make no sense.

Good point, but even that information doesn't tell us enough, because he may be one of those people who need 85+ FPS to not feel sick when playing, so they could be using lower settings, yet the CPU simply prevents them from hitting their target FPS.

That's why I asked him to test if he is bottlenecked to find out if it is worth an upgrade.

 

[toyota]

I don't think that's it. I think some people will rather spend the extra $ on a new monitor, and/or a new GPU. Think about it, how many games are out there where an i5 2500K @ 4.5Ghz dips below 60 fps on a GTX980Ti SLI? If an i7 6700K @ 4.8Ghz gives you 90-100 fps minimums and i5 2500K is hovering at 50-60 fps but you need a 980Ti to hit those FPS and your GPU right now is just a GTX670/680/770/7970Ghz, what makes more sense a new CPU platform or an upgrade to a GTX980Ti?

It's not that a 2500K OC cannot be a bottleneck but rather for a lot of gamers with 60Hz monitors, it's not an important enough bottleneck when chances are they are way more GPU bottlenecked.

Think about it, what would win in games at 1440P? an i7 6700K @ 4.8Ghz + 980Ti or 2500K @ 4.5Ghz + GTX980Ti SLI? Is 2500K @ 4.5Ghz a limiting components vs. an i7 6700K OC? Yes, it absolutely is but what's the context?

Also not all games need 60 fps locked to feel smooth. There are certain gamers who feel fatigue and choppy frame rate at 60 fps locked --> They are gaming on 100-144Hz monitors. To them 60 fps is an 'unplayable' gaming experience and they refuse to run FPS games at 60 fps. Then there are gamers who play other games, not just FPS and may be playing single player FPS campaigns and are less sensitive to FPS.

The only person who can genuinely answer the question if it's time for an upgrade for a 2500K @ 4.5Ghz is the OP himself. He should know what his requirements are. I mean some console gamers are fine with 30 fps and you can find a PC gamer on here who would be claiming that 144-165Hz or not worth gaming on it. Remember, every PC has a bottleneck but which one matters more for your usage pattern?

Since the OP has HD6950 CF, he would benefit more from selling his 6950s and getting say a single 980Ti or a $350 EVGA B-stock 980 or even a $205 R9 290.

I said for MY needs a 2500k would not cut it as again I need 60 fps at ALL times in EVERY game since I use vsync.

and no there are actually people that flat out claim a 2500k is not a bottleneck at all for any setup. that of course is BS. heck a 2500k will stutter like hell in Watch Dogs where as the 4770k is perfectly smooth.

 

[RussianSensation]

I said for MY needs a 2500k would not cut it as again I need 60 fps at ALL times in EVERY game since I use vsync.

and no there are actually people that flat out claim a 2500k is not a bottleneck at all for any setup. that of course is BS. heck a 2500k will stutter like hell in Watch Dogs where as the 4770k is perfectly smooth.

1. Good thing Watch Dogs isn't anything special and turning down some settings produces 98% identical IQ.

2. Even with a modern high-end card, nevermind HD6950s, I somehow doubt it's possible to run Watch Dogs at 1440P @ 60fps stable without at least a 980TI OC.

I get that for YOU 2500K OC isn't good enough but in the context of OP and his combination of 1080P/1440P gaming, 6950 CF is the first thing he should sell if he should upgrade if he needs more performance.

 

[bystander36]

Don't forget that people don't always play at maxed settings.

 

[toyota]

1. Good thing Watch Dogs isn't anything special and turning down some settings produces 98% identical IQ.

2. Even with a modern high-end card, nevermind HD6950s, I somehow doubt it's possible to run Watch Dogs at 1440P @ 60fps stable without at least a 980TI OC.

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_380X_Strix/images/watchdogs_2560_1440.png

I get that for YOU 2500K OC isn't good enough but in the context of OP and his combination of 1080P/1440P gaming, 6950 CF is the first thing he should sell if he should upgrade if he needs more performance.

lol AGAIN I am NOT talking about the OP. I said for ME. and you clearly dont have the game as it runs perfectly smooth at 1440 on a 980 Ti. if I turn off HT then it hitches and stutters while running or driving and is not playable to me.

EDIT: in fact I even posted about this in another thread and will just copy and paste it here.

Watch Dogs at 2560x1440 on max settings and temporal SMAA.

HT ON
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
5809, 70938, 74, 91, 81.888

HT OFF
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
5116, 67937, 55, 89, 75.305

not only is there an actual FPS difference in this particular case here but the difference was night and day in how smooth the game felt. with HT off it felt choppy several times during this short run and you could clearly see the character animation hitch several times while running. the framerate had huge fluctuations with HT off and went below 60 fps several times. and this simple test involved no real heavy action and was just me running down the street and then up some stairs with not very many people around.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Just curious, how well does my CPU stack up against modern CPUs in terms of gaming performance for an average joe?

Right now, I wasn't able to find a single game that would be in any way bottlenecked by my CPU, but I am wondering if there may be any worthy titles coming up very soon that would literally tax this CPU 100%.

It is still a good time to sell your CPU (while a lot of people think 2500K w/ its solder is still king) and make room for 6700K/5820K CPU.

(Any need to upgrade?)

You decide.

 

[Head1985]

2500K 4.5Ghz is not that good.I upgraded from 2500k 4.5ght to 6700k and difference is huge in some games even with crap GTX970.
Skylake have 30-40% better ipc than sandy and that means:
4500mhz Skylake = +- 5800-6300Mhz sandy bridge(this didnt include HT.With HT difference is in some games like 60-100%) so like 8ghz Sandy bridge..

 

[Majcric]

@Head1985

What resolution are you playing at?

 

[dark zero]

You should be fine with a 4.5 GHz Sandy, even if it bottlenecks, you should still he hitting at least 60 fps in most, if not all current titles. Once we get some DX12 titles in, the strain on the cpu should certainly be eased a bit. The only other gaming scenario I can think where the 2500K will get stomped by a Haswell (or later) dual core will be in emulation where Haswell actually exhibited a 25%-35% jump over Ivy per clock.

Since most emulation is limited to two or three threads, it isn't infeasible that a 4.5 GHz Pentium ($65-$75) will outpace your Sandy by quite a lot.

Actually in emulation, that Pentium defeats even any Skylake around the price (except the OC ones) brutally since is only ST mode.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

2500K 4.5Ghz is not that good.I upgraded from 2500k 4.5ght to 6700k and difference is huge in some games even with crap GTX970.
Skylake have 30-40% better ipc than sandy and that means:
4500mhz Skylake = +- 5800-6300Mhz sandy bridge(this didnt include HT.With HT difference is in some games like 60-100%) so like 8ghz Sandy bridge..

I hope more people start getting this. I'd rather have a stock 6700k than a 6GHz fully stable 2500k/3570k.

 

[Head1985]

@Head1985

What resolution are you playing at?

1080p