Who's still running i5-2500K?

[NoOther]

I didn't say higher total FPS. I said higher minimum FPS. A newer CPU will raise your FPS floor and result in more stable FPS. OCed Sandy CPUs have more dramatic FPS spikes and lower FPS floors.

And it's not "a few". Stop making up your own counter-arguments.

So you are saying that I am having issues with my games. I am glad you know more about my system than I do. Stop making up shit yourself. I clearly said compared to my setup and the games I play, its not enough of an improvement for the cost.

 

[Iching]

So you are saying that I am having issues with my games. I am glad you know more about my system than I do. Stop making up shit yourself. I clearly said compared to my setup and the games I play, its not enough of an improvement for the cost.

People believe in all the shit they read online. I think the most retarded comparison 2600k vs 6700k was done by this annoying guy from pcper. That was one of the worst reviews I've read.

@ Terpfen Are you really playing on Dell U2413?

 

[NoOther]

People believe in all the shit they read online. I think the most retarded comparison 2600k vs 6700k was done by this annoying guy from pcper. That was one of the worst reviews I've read.

@ Terpfen Are you really playing on Dell U2413?

I usually just chalk it up to them having to justify the purchase of all their gear. They need to have some reason why they absolutely had to buy the latest thing. Me, I never needed a justification other than I just wanted to get the latest thing and see how fast I could make it go. But now, I usually care more about does what I have run the things I want it to run? Then I am good. Seeing as this thread was about who is still running old processors and the reasons for it, I thought I provided a fairly reasonable comment.

 

[xorbe]

Higher. In some games. Depends on the speed of RAM you have installed and how much you've overclocked.

This right here. There's a difference between standard 1600 and low latency 2400 for my 4790k system. It would be interesting to see 7700k+crap ram versus 4790k+good ram gaming benchmark.

 

[Iching]

I usually just chalk it up to them having to justify the purchase of all their gear. They need to have some reason why they absolutely had to buy the latest thing. Me, I never needed a justification other than I just wanted to get the latest thing and see how fast I could make it go. But now, I usually care more about does what I have run the things I want it to run? Then I am good. Seeing as this thread was about who is still running old processors and the reasons for it, I thought I provided a fairly reasonable comment.

I used to be like that. I've been eyeing skylake but I see no reason to upgrade. My 3770k @ 4.5Ghz works great.

 

[Spoonie_G]

I would be still rocking my i5 2500k if my motherboard didn't fry and I couldn't find another new motherboard.

 

[TheSmJ]

So you are saying that I am having issues with my games. I am glad you know more about my system than I do. Stop making up shit yourself. I clearly said compared to my setup and the games I play, its not enough of an improvement for the cost.

He's right, though. Faster RAM is able to supply textures to the GPU quickly, which in turn increases minimum FPS in games. A lot of people who are still running Sandy/Ivy Bridge built their machines with RAM speeds of 1066 or 1600 MHz because the faster stuff just wasn't worth the price increase that it was in 2011, but now it isn't hard to find a 16GB DDR3 kit that runs at 2400MHz for ~$70. If you're still running one of these platforms you should go ahead and get the fastest RAM with the lowest latency that your motherboard can handle now before DDR3 supplies start to dwindle and prices begin to creep back up due to scarcity (I've seen it before). It's really the only upgrade worth paying for specific to the 1155 platform, assuming you plan on keeping it around for another year or more.

3GHz DDR4 is always going to be faster on the newer platforms along with the CPU itself. I personally don't feel like it's worth dropping ~$400 on a new core system yet, but you should close the gap in memory speed just to squeeze out as much performance as you possibly can while the cost to do so is reasonable.

 

[ReaperX22]

Well I finally updated my I2500k system. My system was built on a Gigabyte Z68 motherboard with 16gigs of DDR3 memory and a Coolermaster HF212 heatsink, the only upgrade was a recently installed ASUS 6gb 1060 Strix video card which I transfered to the new system. My new system was built with a I7-6700K and 16gb of DDR4 3000 G-skill memory installed on a Asus Z170-A motherboard and cooled with a Corsair HV100I-V2 AIO cooler. Here is my assessment. I play World or Warcraft at 1080p with all the setting maxed , surf the internet, edit photos in ACDSEE and edit 108P videos in Cyberlink 14. The new system loads slightly faster into Windows 10 but honestly the only real difference I can see without actual benchmarking is in video editing, The I6700K is about 30 percent or so faster. My point I guess is the I2500K is still a very valid package for real world performance needs for most users, I'm going to take my old I2500K and put in in a new case and find a use for it as it'll be good for most uses besideds high level gaming for years to come

Assuming your apps are optimised for multi-threads, your workstation style stuff should see a good gain. Sorry but WoW is not a good game to compare for performance increase. :\. Despite all the updates/improvements, it's still a 2004 game.

Also the 6700k vs 2500k is i7 + 4 generations. So you're doubling threads and IPC is up around 25-30% as well.

2500k is a great chip, but it's aging.. I think those who went with the 2600k/2700k though are still fine for a little while to come. (In certain games now, we still see the 2600k > 4690k for example)

 

[NoOther]

He's right, though. Faster RAM is able to supply textures to the GPU quickly, which in turn increases minimum FPS in games. A lot of people who are still running Sandy/Ivy Bridge built their machines with RAM speeds of 1066 or 1600 MHz because the faster stuff just wasn't worth the price increase that it was in 2011, but now it isn't hard to find a 16GB DDR3 kit that runs at 2400MHz for ~$70. If you're still running one of these platforms you should go ahead and get the fastest RAM with the lowest latency that your motherboard can handle now before DDR3 supplies start to dwindle and prices begin to creep back up due to scarcity (I've seen it before). It's really the only upgrade worth paying for specific to the 1155 platform, assuming you plan on keeping it around for another year or more.

3GHz DDR4 is always going to be faster on the newer platforms along with the CPU itself. I personally don't feel like it's worth dropping ~$400 on a new core system yet, but you should close the gap in memory speed just to squeeze out as much performance as you possibly can while the cost to do so is reasonable.

No, he is not right. In the context of my post, he was incorrect. I also never mentioned max or min FPS. I was talking about FPS in general. In the games I play with the system I have, my FPS never drops low enough to be a problem. He was wrong to make assumptions, period.