Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,585
That's a great setup and hard to better for the money with the performance you're getting. Are you gaming at 1080p or 1440p?
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Upgrading from my trusty i5-2500k
- Thread starter daresso
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2010
- Posts
- 174
Currently using a old Nividia 3D ASUS 1080p 120hz. But when playing games like Metro , resident evil 2 etc i use a Projector. Even though projector is 1080p as well, games look fantastic on max on 120" screen, Metro was amazing. When playing games like PUBG, Blops etc i use the monitor.
Will update to 1440p at some point but not in a rush to be honest.
My R5 1600 is mainly for games, and a bit of work here and there, and it was provided a very decent upgrade from an i5 2500K. Runs all the games I've played very well (not just Candy Crush
) @1440 with a GTX1070.Simply saying "Intel for games, AMD for work (and a bit of gaming)" implies that Ryzen CPUs are not suitable for gaming. I think that's poor advice. If you want absolute maximum FPS, Intel. If you want better value for money, AMD.
To honest any up to date cpu will run games, but intel will run them better, but once games start to use the extra more cores amd will pull a head.... but intel will probably have more cores by then anyway......
That kind of make sense, intel 6core cpu and more speed for the gamer as few or non games use 6+cores yet, and amd mainly for office type people, who have loads of things going on at once and needs more cores and less raw speed. Or Im I just talking rubbish?
That kind of make sense, intel 6core cpu and more speed for the gamer as few or non games use 6+cores yet, and amd mainly for office type people, who have loads of things going on at once and needs more cores and less raw speed. Or Im I just talking rubbish?
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 895
In a few weeks we might be saying . . . AMD for pure gaming, Intel for here and there. lol
Well at the end of the day you just buy whatevers best at the time... Thats what I do and as I like raw speed, it had to be the the i7 8086K. I upgraded in July last year when the 8086 cpu had only just been released and apparntly it was the fastest mainstream gaming cpu released, and still might be today, ahhh but I think its the i9 now that is the best mainstream gaming cpu.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,585
Now that would be funny! I've been Intel for more years than I care to remember but it would be nice to see AMD rule the roost for while.
Absolutely - but you also have to consider the 500quid budget. You are not getting a top of the line Intel CPU at that price.
The 2600 is on special at 150, 16gb of Corsair Vengeance 3200mhz DDR4 is 110. You could then go for an X470 Aurus for 125. You could then get a kick ass cooler in the budget like a Noctua D15 AND still have money left for an m.2 SSD as a boot drive, or save the extra 115 and look to swap out the 2600 for a 3000 series AMD... or obviously just profit.
On intel you could get a decent i5 and 8gigs of ram with a decent board or possibly 16 gigs and a cheaper board? You would get very improved gaming performance right now, but with the low thread count and consoles going 8 core next year you could find that you don't get the same life out of it that you have from your 2500k
Personally I would turn a couple of settings down and wait 6 weeks.
The 2600 is on special at 150, 16gb of Corsair Vengeance 3200mhz DDR4 is 110. You could then go for an X470 Aurus for 125. You could then get a kick ass cooler in the budget like a Noctua D15 AND still have money left for an m.2 SSD as a boot drive, or save the extra 115 and look to swap out the 2600 for a 3000 series AMD... or obviously just profit.
On intel you could get a decent i5 and 8gigs of ram with a decent board or possibly 16 gigs and a cheaper board? You would get very improved gaming performance right now, but with the low thread count and consoles going 8 core next year you could find that you don't get the same life out of it that you have from your 2500k
Personally I would turn a couple of settings down and wait 6 weeks.
No, you aren't talking rubbish. You are generalising a lot though.
If someone is asking for advice on which CPU to buy, a few questions should be asked. The main ones being how much do you want to spend, and what are you using it for.
Here are my answers for gaming -
1) High end gaming (absolute max fps), plenty to spend - Intel.
2) High end gaming, not so much to spend - AMD.
3) "Normal" gaming, plenty to spend - Intel or AMD.
4) "Normal" gaming, not so much to spend - AMD.
I think that's reasonable. It is not just a case of "if you are gaming, buy Intel". There are plenty of people like myself who knew the pros and cons when we chose AMD. I went for a £200 CPU for gaming two years ago. I could easily have bought a high end Intel CPU for a lot more, but I just didn't want or need the extra FPS, and the money saved will be spent on a future upgrade (which I knew would be very likely cheaper with an AMD motherboard). Anything above 60fps is fine by me. In fact, a bit less than 60fps is OK due to G-Sync.
The vast majority of office use doesn't require much processing power, even if there are quite a few applications open at once. A decent Intel or AMD CPU will do the job just fine. For video editing, content creation, large spreadsheets, programming etc, the choice might be very specific to customer requirements.
OMG,, It wont mean games will suddenly use 8cores and even when they do, games will perform perfectly well enough with less cores for ages.... look at the 2600k cpu for instant.
OMG, your right. That's why I was comparing a 6 core 12 thread part from AMD to a 6 core part from intel. I was pointing out the increased movement to highly threaded tasks and that it is only going to increase. I would not recommend a 6core 6 thread CPU today expecting the same lifespan as his 2500k.
That is the biggest issue with recommending a 2xxx series ryzen as well though. In probably 2 months you are going to be a process node behind if you upgrade now.
I expect a 3700x is a chip that will still be relevant and perform great throughout the next couple of generations of cpu.
That is the biggest issue with recommending a 2xxx series ryzen as well though. In probably 2 months you are going to be a process node behind if you upgrade now.
I expect a 3700x is a chip that will still be relevant and perform great throughout the next couple of generations of cpu.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,049
- Location
- La France
My 2500K has been running at 4.4GHz under a Corsair H60 for 5 years. Never gone above 55°C in normal use.
Anandtech just released an article of the 2600K, on both stock and overclocked to 4.7GHz, and compared it to both a 7700K and 9700K: https://www.anandtech.com/show/1404...el-core-i7-2600k-testing-sandy-bridge-in-2019
Surprisingly quite a big difference but the overclock really helps the SB chip and is close to the 7700K most of the time. 9700K has the advantage but that's most likely due to more cores. However, AVX based workloads really do see a significant jump as SB doesn't have AVX2 support.
Surprisingly quite a big difference but the overclock really helps the SB chip and is close to the 7700K most of the time. 9700K has the advantage but that's most likely due to more cores. However, AVX based workloads really do see a significant jump as SB doesn't have AVX2 support.
Bloody 3770K still keeps plodding on. I want to build a new PC, but still get good FPS at 1440P with my 2080, even BFV runs fine with only the odd hitch. Was planning on jumping to Xen2/9900K depending on reviews, but will now wait till next generation. Cyberpunk 2077 might force an upgrade.
Thanks for that, interesting article.