2500K Sandy Bridge PC/Which GPU?

sirsaechao

Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
592
I have a old Sandy Bridge 2500K OC to 4.0GHz with 8GB DDR2, P67 board and 750w XFX PSU and wanting to upgrade the video card from a 560TI to?

I was leaning towards a GTX 1600 (non TI) but open for suggestions. Thank you.
 
I have a old Sandy Bridge 2500K OC to 4.0GHz with 8GB DDR2, P67 board and 750w XFX PSU and wanting to upgrade the video card from a 560TI to?

I was leaning towards a GTX 1600 (non TI) but open for suggestions. Thank you.
Really depends on the kinds of games you play and/or work you do with your GPU.
 
The 2500k is still quite capable.

I had to move from a i7 4770 to a core i5 3330 after the mobo died. Its coupled to a GTX1070Ti and it runs great, really can't tell the difference in gaming vs the core i7

So I'd say you could go as high as a RTX2070/RX 5700XT for 1440p gaming.
 
The 2500k is still quite capable.

I had to move from a i7 4770 to a core i5 3330 after the mobo died. Its coupled to a GTX1070Ti and it runs great, really can't tell the difference in gaming vs the core i7

So I'd say you could go as high as a RTX2070/RX 5700XT for 1440p gaming.
Right now just to upgrade my 560Ti. I have about sub $250 funds. I get the 560Ti will play Classic WoW but again, just looking for something with a little more performance but doesn't get bogged down by my current specs. My monitor is only 1080p as well. Thank you.
 
If you don't mind used there are a ton of sub $100 options that would be a big upgrade. It looks like you can pick up an r9 280 (7970ghz) for ~$50. Far from cutting edge but a pretty solid upgrade for dirt cheap.
 
So there are many cards between $100-150 to choose from, including gtx 980, 1060, rx580. They will all run 1080p high in most games no problem. Since you have a 560ti, it might be less hassle to go with a nv card as you would only need a couple reboots with a driver less than a year old and be done. The 980 and rx580 will trade blows and have similar pricing in the used market, however alot of rx cards were used for mining so its something to look out for.
 
Since Classic WoW wasn't optimized as much for AMD as for nVidia cards you'd probably get more bang for the buck staying in the nVidia camp. However, Classic also ran just fine on my 4890 back in the day (as did Burning Crusade and Wrath).
 
So 1660 Non Ti is overkill and a waste of money its within my budget and I can also add a couple more sticks of RAM to get 16GB and be okay?
 
I hate to throw a dagger in your plan. But I would buy a B350 mobo and Ryzen 1600 with 16gb RAM. Sell intel platform for around $110 and then buy GPU. You will have a computer that has an upgrade path and more cores and threads and faster performance. That's what I did with my 2500k combo and do not regret it. R5 1600s can be found for $85. Motherboards for $60 ish.


I just have been seeing the sandybridges starting to die from long term use lately.
 
Buy a used 980Ti IMO. You can find them all over the place for $200 or less, and you will get GTX1070 performance from it, which is very similar to 1660Ti performance. The 980ti is better than a non-Ti 1660 in basically every scenario.

Since Classic WoW wasn't optimized as much for AMD as for nVidia cards you'd probably get more bang for the buck staying in the nVidia camp. However, Classic also ran just fine on my 4890 back in the day (as did Burning Crusade and Wrath).

The original Wow could run on a Voodoo3 or a TNT2. But the thing is, Wow "Classic" is actually now using the very same game engine that the modern version of WoW uses, with DirectX 12 support and everything. You can turn the graphics settings up higher than what was available during the original game. On the graphics slider "3" represents graphics comparable to the original game, but it goes up to "10". It's only the content that is "classic". Of course with so many fewer polygons in most of the textures, etc, it should still run faster than modern WoW on the same hardware but it's NOT going to be the same as running WoW from 2004-2006, it will have more similarities with the modern game.
 
So 1660 Non Ti is overkill and a waste of money its within my budget and I can also add a couple more sticks of RAM to get 16GB and be okay?

Maybe for your needs. I am still running a [email protected] with a 1070 FE. It really depends what kind of games you're playing, thought. You should be ok if you skip whatever Ubisoft, Activision, or EA are selling
 
The original Wow could run on a Voodoo3 or a TNT2. But the thing is, Wow "Classic" is actually now using the very same game engine that the modern version of WoW uses, with DirectX 12 support and everything. You can turn the graphics settings up higher than what was available during the original game. On the graphics slider "3" represents graphics comparable to the original game, but it goes up to "10". It's only the content that is "classic". Of course with so many fewer polygons in most of the textures, etc, it should still run faster than modern WoW on the same hardware but it's NOT going to be the same as running WoW from 2004-2006, it will have more similarities with the modern game.

Thank you for the correction. My wife and I reserved our three names for launch but we didn't play around with the settings and neither of us played on PTR.
 
I agree with others, what you need is a strong mid-range card less than 5 years old to compliment the i5-2500k. Best options are GTX 970/RX570/GTX 1060 for $100-120. For $50 more, you can get an RX580/GTX 980. Any of these would be a significant upgrade from you current card. Stay away from the 1660/1070, too expensive for what you want.

Also if you're buying AMD, be sure to verify if it was mined on.
 
The 2500k is still quite capable.

I had to move from a i7 4770 to a core i5 3330 after the mobo died. Its coupled to a GTX1070Ti and it runs great, really can't tell the difference in gaming vs the core i7

So I'd say you could go as high as a RTX2070/RX 5700XT for 1440p gaming.
Those cards would be a laughable waste of money in many games with that old CPU. Four old cores are going to be pegged pretty much the whole time in nearly every modern game so even if the average frame rate seems okay there's going to be stuttering and hitching. For instance Mafia 3 was a choppy stuttering mess just trying to pan the mouse around if I disabled hyper-threading on my 4770k. Even my overclocked 4770k had all eight threads pegged at times in most newer games and could not even maintain 60fps in some cases. In Watch Dogs 2 my minimum frame rates literally doubled from below 50 fps to 100 fps going from on overclocked 4770k to a stock 9900k. I can't even imagine running just four cores and trying to push those levels of gpus.
 
Last edited:
Maybe for your needs. I am still running a [email protected] with a 1070 FE. It really depends what kind of games you're playing, thought. You should be ok if you skip whatever Ubisoft, Activision, or EA are selling
Yes those companies make us upgrade to more cores just to run their DRM antipiracy crap lol
 
I hate to throw a dagger in your plan. But I would buy a B350 mobo and Ryzen 1600 with 16gb RAM. Sell intel platform for around $110 and then buy GPU. You will have a computer that has an upgrade path and more cores and threads and faster performance. That's what I did with my 2500k combo and do not regret it. R5 1600s can be found for $85. Motherboards for $60 ish.


I just have been seeing the sandybridges starting to die from long term use lately.

Just be careful as not all b350 boards have a good enough VRM for Ryzen 3xxx
https://i.redd.it/58am663beh931.png
 
My HTPC has a 2500K in it. I use it to play emulators. It has a GTX 980 in it.
 
The 2500k is still quite capable.

I had to move from a i7 4770 to a core i5 3330 after the mobo died. Its coupled to a GTX1070Ti and it runs great, really can't tell the difference in gaming vs the core i7

So I'd say you could go as high as a RTX2070/RX 5700XT for 1440p gaming.

I'm sorry, but a 4/4 cpu with 8gb ram paired to RTX2070 is a terrible idea.

I know you guys like to romanticize over Sandy Bridge, but the 2500k DOES have its limits. Hell, even a 2600k can be a bottleneck on a similar gpu at 1440p:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1546-intel-2nd-gen-core-i7-vs-8th-gen/

You guys blow my mind sometimes.
 
you could always go ebay ... and get 580 for ~$100
fx or rx? I think I know but we have gotten to that level. I brought up the forthcoming 5900XT and had a laugh when a user said he had one and posted a pic of the fx-5900xt.
 
250$ is money for a Vega 56 or GeForce 1070... 1070Ti if you get lucky, 1080 or Vega 64 if you get really lucky.

or the better bargain as others said is RX x70-80 or maybe a GTX 1060 6GB?
 
I am still running a 2500K @ 4.5ghz... my old videocard died after several years.. put in an ASUS STRIX Vega 56 8GB. Running great! I can tell a huge difference.
 
A rather misleading statement. That chart indicates that about half of the B350 boards may not be strong enough for an overclocked 12 or 16 core 3rd gen. Gee, ya dont say.

How is it misleading?
1. I stated "not all" which would mean "most are fine," and there are SOME which are completely inadequate for a stock 8 core.

2. This is [H] where stock is never good enough, duh

3. The mobo makers in general put out absolute dog crap for low end AM4 boards at launch and some can still be found for sale new. If they didnt bother with a vrm that can support a stock 8 core, do you really think it will last the same as that 2500k setup?

Next time keep the personal snipe to yourself please
 
anything more powerful than a 1060/580 will show a bottleneck, even a 2700k will show a bottlebeck (at stock) if you play wow and UE4 games get a 1060 6gb used else if you plan to update a 1070Ti or Vega 56
 
How is it misleading?
1. I stated "not all" which would mean "most are fine," and there are SOME which are completely inadequate for a stock 8 core.

2. This is [H] where stock is never good enough, duh

3. The mobo makers in general put out absolute dog crap for low end AM4 boards at launch and some can still be found for sale new. If they didnt bother with a vrm that can support a stock 8 core, do you really think it will last the same as that 2500k setup?

Next time keep the personal snipe to yourself please

Thicken your skin. No snipes were made. And he was also correct in his assessment. I'm not sure why you posted the chart. Nearly every garbage bin B350 will handle up to 8-core Ryzen 3000 without question.
 
How is it misleading?
1. I stated "not all" which would mean "most are fine," and there are SOME which are completely inadequate for a stock 8 core.

2. This is [H] where stock is never good enough, duh

3. The mobo makers in general put out absolute dog crap for low end AM4 boards at launch and some can still be found for sale new. If they didnt bother with a vrm that can support a stock 8 core, do you really think it will last the same as that 2500k setup?

Next time keep the personal snipe to yourself please

1. Well your original post was in response to a R5 1600 suggestion so your B350 remarks were pretty pointless. And yes, all B350s will do fine with 8 core Zen 2 despite what that waste of time chart shows as the previous poster suggested.

2. Nothing really [H] about overclocking Zen 2 for daily use. Performance is often lower the PBO. In any case, even 6 core Zen 1 would be an improvement, especially to frame times

3. Um yes?? B350s were designed with at least the 1800x in mind, so yeah, should last a long time.
 
Back
Top