i7 2700k, is it worth an upgrade?

[gavinh87]

My 8350k is exactly 25% faster clock for clock in single thread than my 2600k.
Multithread it's 4% slower but only needs a 0.2Ghz increase in OC to beat the 2600k in multi.
My 2600k is only clocked to 4.3Ghz, 8350k at 4.8Ghz, although 4.9Ghz is stable.
Info should be good for single core comparison, so current i3 is good for me, current i7 multi performance is obviously another league altogether.

My 2600k is a severe bottle neck to my 1080Ti, I bought it when the prices were good, but some games FPS didn't move at all when I change from a GTX970, showing a complete CPU bottle neck.

My point exactly, that 1080ti isn't being utilised fully.

 

[Drollic]

When you say the latest i5 I take it you mean the new coffeelake 6 core i5's? I agree with what wedrum says above unless sat there monitoring fps with fraps etc you wouldn't notice a massive difference

It depends on the game, settings, your monitor and how picky you are.

 

[wedrum]

It’s as simple as want to compare 3dmark scores then go for the upgrade. If just for gaming you won’t notice any difference.

 

[HangTime]

So my cpu is 2700k, gpu is the watercooled msi 1080. My monitor is a 1080 ultrawide at 144hz

I would say there is benefit to be had from a CPU upgrade here given:
-Fast GPU
-Low-ish resolution
-High-ish refresh rate

The above three points all make a CPU bottleneck more likely.

 

[gavinh87]

I would say there is benefit to be had from a CPU upgrade here given:
-Fast GPU
-Low-ish resolution
-High-ish refresh rate

The above three points all make a CPU bottleneck more likely.

Completely agree. OP has a similar setup to mine. The 8700k helps massively at lower resolutions.
There are significant gains to be had over the 2700k in a lot of titles.

 

[southernorth]

Completely agree. OP has a similar setup to mine. The 8700k helps massively at lower resolutions.
There are significant gains to be had over the 2700k in a lot of titles.

I have an i5 3570k @ 4.2ghz/GTX 1070 and BF1 is basically unplayable for me, very inconsistent FPS and regularly below 60fps. My CPU is quite similar to the OP's and I definitely feel slowness in some games. Definitely worthy of an upgrade, particularly at 144hz 1080p.

 

[Pocah]

When PC's first came out, power usually doubled with each release of a CPU. That was noticeable. But as the relative power increases started to decline, 50% was about the lowest increase you would notice an overall increase in speed with your PC. 30% was definitely "not sure it's faster" and it was soon after that everyone started to rely on benchmarks to tell us whether the latest generation was faster or not. Today I think that generally it's a good idea to miss one generation, if you want it to be "noticeable" without using a benchmark. So yes, I think it's time to upgrade. The difference between a 2700 and 8700 should be tangible. Of course, as with everything, it depends what you use the CPU for ~ if you are trying to achieve crazy frame-rates, or you have a slowdown in a particular application, then yes, it will make a worthwhile difference, but if you are already happy then no, it's not worth it.

 

[McGraw]

Plenty of games are CPU limited.

If you regularly play any then it's worth upgrading

 

[DarrenM343]

Given that OP had top end mainstream in 2011 they probably would like the same now. 5-6 years is a long time and as they're posting on an enthusiasts forum I'm sure they are ready to upgrade so do it. I think now is a good time to upgrade. The 6 core 8700K with it's couple of extra cores will keep you going for along while and is sure to be more optimal than some 6 year old CPU and is at a fairly decent price point, probably thanks in part to renewed competition from AMD

 

[subbytna]

If you can afford the £500+ cost to buy the new stuff (cpu mobo and ram) then go ahead. If you think 500 quid is a bit steep then wait.

 

[~>Dg<~]

8700k stock is slightly faster than a 5820k at 4.5. 3770 is twice as slow as the 5820k at that speed so new cpu should be quite a bit faster than a 2700k.which clocked is still decent.see how you find performance. in games where cpu doesnt matter that much you wont notice much. in games which use the cpu it can be light night and day difference.

 

[Things change I've changed]

I have a 2500k @ 4.4 and playing at a resolution of 3440x1440p (G-SYNC) I really don't think I'm going to see a huge benefit upgrading, watching a few youtube videos of a 2500k vs a 7700k @ 4k it's amazing how close the FPS is.

 

[DarrenM343]

I have a 2500k @ 4.4 and playing at a resolution of 3440x1440p (G-SYNC) I really don't think I'm going to see a huge benefit upgrading, watching a few youtube videos of a 2500k vs a 7700k @ 4k it's amazing how close the FPS is.

That's only a few games although of course CPU seems to matter less at high resolution. I'd wager games play more smoothly on newer hardware regardless of any average FPS shown and I'd want to ensure I'm probably getting optimal performance - I wouldn't feel I'm getting that at 4k running on old 2500K.
Try this vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDo-j00vUtw&t=36s

Average, low and high FPS are only really useful if you can see a chart of the performance. What matters is how often and how far the deviation from average is. It's entirely possible that you can have the same ave, high an low FPS but the game feel entirely different.

 

[jigger]

My 8350k is exactly 25% faster clock for clock in single thread than my 2600k.
Multithread it's 4% slower but only needs a 0.2Ghz increase in OC to beat the 2600k in multi.
My 2600k is only clocked to 4.3Ghz, 8350k at 4.8Ghz, although 4.9Ghz is stable.
Info should be good for single core comparison, so current i3 is good for me, current i7 multi performance is obviously another league altogether.

My 2600k is a severe bottle neck to my 1080Ti, I bought it when the prices were good, but some games FPS didn't move at all when I change from a GTX970, showing a complete CPU bottle neck.

So as fast as a Sandybridge quad of around 5.3Ghz.

 

[Dr_Watson]

Something like that.

 

[TJM]

The 8700K is a solid upgrade for games that can use the extra cores. I was getting about 90-110fps in PUBG with my 2500K at 4.4GHz and a 1080Ti. An 8700K at 4.7Ghz on all cores is running at an almost constant 144fps.

The minimums are a lot better in BF1 as well - the game is so smooth that it's almost nauseating.

 

[~>Dg<~]

two of the best games to show are bf1 and pubg.

 

[jigger]

two of the best games to show are bf1 and pubg.

With a 6 core Coffee Lake and 1080Ti at 720P max settings. In more realistic tests with anything other that type of config then you will see very different results.

 

[southernorth]

With a 6 core Coffee Lake and 1080Ti at 720P max settings. In more realistic tests with anything other that type of config then you will see very different results.

Do you just like disagreeing with everyone out of principle?

 

[jigger]

Do you just like disagreeing with everyone out of principle?

Like to see things for what they are.