worth upgrading 7950 while still keeping a 2500k? (for 1440p)

[brianmanahan]

i've got a 2500k @ 4.3ghz and a 7950, running on a 1440p screen. i'll be getting a couple newer games soon and i don't think the 7950 will handle them that well at 1440p.

is it worth going to something like a 480 or 1060 while still staying on the 2500k? might even be able to swing a 1070.

 

[psolord]

1440p is a resolution that tends to shift the load of the running game to the gpu.

A 4.3 ghz 2500k will be able to run most games at 60fps so if that is your framerate target you will be fine.

I did a lot of testing on my 970 last year, in the cpu comparison of my signature and I found out that even these cpus did well with the 970.

Now if a i7 860 can drive a 970 so well at 1080p, I am pretty sure a 2500k can drive even a 1070 at 1440p.

 

[SPBHM]

4.3GHz 2500K is not to slow, it's no ideal, but it would not stop me recommending the 1070 because of it, specially for 1440P.

 

[.vodka]

Get the 1070 if you can. Although bottlenecked it will perform admirably. 1440p tilts the scales to the GPU here, so it won't be as noticeable as with say, 1080p. Later upgrade to a newer platform and enjoy the rest of your 1070's potential.

In the meantime get that 2500k as high as you're comfortable with. There's still room for more above 4.3GHz.

 

[will889]

Yes we have finally reach the place where older I5's and I7's from the Ivy Bridge era will start to show some bottlenecking but it's nothing major. I mean it's not like an FX 8350, FX 6300, X4 965 you have. So yes there is now a sliding scale for bottlenecking for that chip but when "you" feel that you need to upgrade you can reach for something like a mid tier Z170 and a 6600k/6700k. There are a lot of folks still using the 2500k/3570k and a lot of them are forgoing upgrading and if they have the proper board just OC'ing to around 4.5'ish with the plans of possibly upgrading later on.

 

[brianmanahan]

sweet thanks, i just picked me up a 1070. will just hold out on a new CPU/mobo/RAM for another year or two

 

[AtenRa]

I have an Ivy Core i7 3770K @ 4.44GHz with R9 390 and im mostly GPU limited in latest 2015-2016 games even at 1080p.
You will be more than fine with the Core i5 2500K @ 4.3GHz and the GTX 1070.

 

[raasco]

My 2500K @ 4.5ghz is finally showing its age on 1920x1080(trying to maintain 144 fps in CS). Time for an upgrade when Kaby Lake is released.

 

[.vodka]

You will be more than fine with the Core i5 2500K @ 4.3GHz and the GTX 1070.

Of course he will! There's just a hint of bottlenecking that's starting to become evident on some cases with Sandy and ∼980Ti/1070 amounts of GPU power... It's starting to noticeably get behind Haswell and Skylake in that regard, in minimum FPS.. at 1080p. 1440p and higher shifts the bottleneck to the GPU, hiding the effect.

RS made a few posts showing this a little while ago, loads of evidence. Average FPS are still up there, and of course Sandy and Ivy are still quite the performers for most games! But yeah, an upgrade is due sometime in the future.

 

[Sonikku]

I wish to god I could overclock my i5 2500 on my H77M motherboard but I can't. Running it at stock speeds sucks because I'm limited to 45fps in WoW at 1080p whether I set it to medium or super ultra. My new 1060's potential is barely even being tapped into. No doubt there would be a huge difference running a sandy at 4.5ghz compared to my 3.5ghz under turbo, but no dice. I'll have to jettison my entire motherboard, cpu and ram just to play this damn game at the same frequency as my 60hz monitor.

 

[richiegore]

I'm most interested how the cpu affects minimums', I have an 2500k @ 4.5 and am planning on getting a vega gpu when they come out, sold my 780ti about 6 months ago thank god!

 

[DamZe]

I wish to god I could overclock my i5 2500 on my H77M motherboard but I can't. Running it at stock speeds sucks because I'm limited to 45fps in WoW at 1080p whether I set it to medium or super ultra. My new 1060's potential is barely even being tapped into. No doubt there would be a huge difference running a sandy at 4.5ghz compared to my 3.5ghz under turbo, but no dice. I'll have to jettison my entire motherboard, cpu and ram just to play this damn game at the same frequency as my 60hz monitor.

Don't be so sure of that, the Sandy Bridge part @3.5Ghz shouldn’t bottleneck a 1060(980). MMOs are heavily CPU dependent so it is not your GPU that is choking or not being fed fast enough by the CPU, it's just the majority of what is happening on screen is really CPU dependent. GW2 has this issue as well, you can put in the best CPU possible in there and GPU, and it will start to choke the moment there are a lot of characters/effects on screen, the amount of draw calls made is bringing the CPU to its knees. An overclock would help, but not necessarily in every game title.

 

[Headfoot]

4.3GHz 2500K is not to slow, it's no ideal, but it would not stop me recommending the 1070 because of it, specially for 1440P.

I second this