Is It Worth the Upgrade? Ryzen 3 vs. Core i5-2500K vs. FX-8370

[Julio Franco]

At this point we know that Ryzen 3 makes a strong case for budget gaming. What we've yet to learn however, is whether that scenario changes for folks wanting to upgrade, with overclocking, and if you're coming from older high-end chips such as the Core i5-2500K and FX-8370 have anything to see here.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1474-ryzen-vs-older-budget-cpus/

 

[pawel04]

Thanks for this comparison! I'm in that i5 2500K boat looking to upgrade sometime this year and am firmly set on the R5 1600 however I tihnk I may wait for pricing/reviews/comparisons of the i5 8600k when it comes out.

 

[penn919]

The FX 8370 test bench lists a Asrock Fatal1ty AB350 Gaming K4 as the motherboard. I'm pretty sure B350 only supports AM4.

 

[Arris]

Still no decent performance improvements in terms of gaming to give me reason to upgrade my now ancient i7 2600K. In fact I foresee it having a longer life for me than even the Q6600 C2Q!

 

[Blakey]

Still Rocking the 2600k, looked at lots of benchmarks for this recently, at 4.5ghz it still keeps up with everything that has come out this year in terms of gaming performance. When Ryzen came out so many people slamming intel, but their 6 year old CPU's are still keeping up with a little overclock, unlike AMD's old CPU's that are not even close would

2600k vs everything benchmarks -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUOtTEMn-RU

 

[Puiu]

Still Rocking the 2600k, looked at lots of benchmarks for this recently, at 4.5ghz it still keeps up with everything that has come out this year in terms of gaming performance. When Ryzen came out so many people slamming intel, but their 6 year old CPU's are still keeping up with a little overclock, unlike AMD's old CPU's that are not even close would

2600k vs everything benchmarks -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUOtTEMn-RU

pretty sure they didn't slam intel for the gaming performance
it was for other things like artificially limiting higher core counts to HEDT platforms, offering only small upgrades with every new CPU, not soldering the TIM, changing the socket and/or compatible chipset too often, etc
just how much things have changed in 2017 compare to 2016.

 

[Begone]

Problem with this comparison; i5-2500K _easily_ reaches 4.8 or better. But not all Ryzen will hit 4 GHz 100% stable.

 

[Steve]

Problem with this comparison; i5-2500K _easily_ reaches 4.8 or better. But not all Ryzen will hit 4 GHz 100% stable.

This 2500K chip doesn't exceed 4.5 GHz and my previous chip was stuck at 4.7 GHz. Plenty of 2500K owners have reported a cap of around 4.6 - 4.7 GHz. I'm not sure what the complaint it all about anyway, the 2500K maxed out the GTX 1060 and 1070.

 

[andy06shake]

Thanks for this comparison! I'm in that i5 2500K boat looking to upgrade sometime this year and am firmly set on the R5 1600 however I tihnk I may wait for pricing/reviews/comparisons of the i5 8600k when it comes out.

Get the AMD Ryzen 1600X or even the 1600 which comes with an included fan and you wont be disappointed.

 

[andy06shake]

Problem with this comparison; i5-2500K _easily_ reaches 4.8 or better. But not all Ryzen will hit 4 GHz 100% stable.

This 2500K chip doesn't exceed 4.5 GHz and my previous chip was stuck at 4.7 GHz. Plenty of 2500K owners have reported a cap of around 4.6 - 4.7 GHz. I'm not sure what the complaint it all about anyway, the 2500K maxed out the GTX 1060 and 1070.

I used to, probobly still could but shes getting on a bit in years, take my i52500K to around 4.5/4.6Ghz, and that's only with air cooling. Loved that CPU, still do but the kids use that rig these days.

 

[Cycloid Torus]

I think Steve Walton nailed the sense of this analysis, "how big of an upgrade will depend on the games you play and what kind of graphics card you're using". A very good article.

And here I am playing Stalker at 240 FPS on a GTX1050Ti and a Xeon w3550 (which cost me $15)...

Perhaps we should be looking more from the perspective of perceivable differences rather than a handful of delta FPS beyond the range of normal perception. Is it the 88 FPS vs 93 FPS that matters? Or is it the breakdown in smoothness - when a drop in frame rate is noticeable? Isn't it like the issues of 'jitter' and 'bufferbloat' which can be so annoying even while the gross capacity (like my 60Mbps connection) is more than sufficient? And how often is the issue poor programming of the game rather than the equipment, the OS and the drivers?

 

[nnguy2]

The legendary i5-2500k!!! Along with the legendary Q6600, those two processors powered my gaming for a decade!

my 2500k was OC'd to 4.6 I was able to get it to 4.8 but I had to push Vcore up to where I felt uncomfortable. The mobo died so I decided to upgrade the core components( cpu,mobo, ram). Went with i7-6700k because this was a year before Ryzen 7.

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

Thanks for this comparison! I'm in that i5 2500K boat looking to upgrade sometime this year and am firmly set on the R5 1600 however I tihnk I may wait for pricing/reviews/comparisons of the i5 8600k when it comes out.

The 2500K is still a viable proposition today as far as Intel chips go because up till now they've just been feeding us the scraps from their table for an arm and a leg. Now that Ryzen has blustered onto the scene and started cleaning up a bit, I'm not too sure a 8600K (which is just around the corner) is going to be that viable simply because they've been resting on their laurels until now Or not). Maybe the 9000 series will be a better bet but by time that comes around the current Ryzen chips will have been replaced. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation but we've all gotta replace our hardware sooner or later. It's a tough one to call.

 

[Guillermo Belli]

I think the most compelling reason to upgrade from Sandy Bridge is to get newer platform features such as USB3, more than 2 SATA 3 ports and PCI-E 3 (along with m.2 connectors and support for NVME)

 

[nnguy2]

I think the most compelling reason to upgrade from Sandy Bridge is to get newer platform features such as USB3, more than 2 SATA 3 ports and PCI-E 3 (along with m.2 connectors and support for NVME)

yup that's the only reason I upgraded my cpu/mobo/ram instead of replacing just the mobo for my 2500k build.

 

[OcelotRex]

I can't tell if this is more an indictment or endorsement of either processor. With the Ryzen 5 and 7's you get the extra threads. Ryzen 3 not significantly outperforming a 5 year old i5 (to me) speaks more to value i5's have offered during these past years.

Unless you're jumping to a modern Core i7 or maybe the Ryzen 5 1600, the gains simply aren't there.

When looking at gaming that seems to be the best advice - get the 1600 for value or the unlocked i7 for performance. Ryzen's commitment to AM4 makes Ryzen 3 tempting but would be wasteful to buy today instead of saving the max $100 for the 1600.

 

[dirtyferret]

I'm still rocking my i5-2500k @ 4ghz

Recently I picked up the i5-7600k for $160 for a new build, picked up a Z270 mobo & 8 GB DDR4 2400 for another $130 combined. I hooked everything up to a spare PSU and it all runs fine but I've yet to get around to swamping out my i5-2500k build (plan to re-use my case, PSU, and GPU) since it still runs great.

 

[Matt Mutch]

Looove these older tech articles. This is a great look at the low end Ryzen vs older machines some of us are still clinging to. Also love those 32 and 40 thread monster articles. This is great stuff. Great info. Thanks.

 

[HardReset]

It's 2017 and you are using single threaded game like World of Tanks on benchmarking. What a shame. Anyone who plays that kind of crap, deserves bad FPS.

To be more precise, WoT does nof avour single thread performance because it's single threaded game and so single thread performance is everything.

 

[Vrmithrax]

I can't tell if this is more an indictment or endorsement of either processor. With the Ryzen 5 and 7's you get the extra threads. Ryzen 3 not significantly outperforming a 5 year old i5 (to me) speaks more to value i5's have offered during these past years.

I see it as more of a "pro/pro" report. It definitely shines a light on the fact that Intel's mid-range offering back 5 years ago was an efficient beast that is aging well. But it also shows that AMD's bottom entry is close to the mid-range performance of previous CPU generations, which you would sort of expect I think. If the Ryzen 3 was showing performance more like a 5 year old i3, it would definitely be an indictment!

 

[AntiShill]

...just how much things have changed in 2017 compare to 2016.

Nah how much things have changed in a week or less. Recall you telling me this:

Because you have no idea how to compare products. What you are saying is that something old can't outperform something that is sold as low end today which is clearly true no matter how you try to slice it and you have so many examples.
Your highly OCed 2500K outperforms even the Intel i3 CPUs at that price point.

Yet we are here with this article. This so very relevant and so very helpful. I suppose the Ryzen 3 is just going to be a bit slower like 4-6% on some games and some benches. In particular I was really trying to figure out why is this:

FINAL FANTASY XIV: Stormblood Benchmark
Tested on: 8/16/2017 11:39:57 PM
Score: 10010
Average Frame Rate: 67.841
Performance: Extremely High
-Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.
Loading Times by Scene
Scene #1 2.770 sec
Scene #2 3.596 sec
Scene #3 2.954 sec
Scene #4 3.844 sec
Scene #5 7.158 sec
Scene #6 1.710 sec
Total Loading Time 22.034 sec

DAT:s20170816233957.dat

Screen Size: 1920x1080
Screen Mode: Full Screen
DirectX Version: 11

System
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit (6.2, Build 9200) (15063.rs2_release.170317-1834)
Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2500K CPU @ 3.30GHz
8175.059MB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (VRAM 4058 MB)

-------------------------------------------

FINAL FANTASY XIV: Stormblood Benchmark
Tested on: 8/16/2017 11:39:52 PM
Score: 9533
Average Frame Rate: 65.725
Performance: Extremely High
-Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.
Loading Times by Scene
Scene #1 3.663 sec
Scene #2 4.256 sec
Scene #3 3.632 sec
Scene #4 4.780 sec
Scene #5 9.121 sec
Scene #6 2.023 sec
Total Loading Time 27.476 sec

DAT:s20170816233952.dat

Screen Size: 1920x1080
Screen Mode: Full Screen
DirectX Version: 11
Graphics Presets: Maximum

System
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit (6.2, Build 9200) (15063.rs2_release.170317-1834)
AMD Ryzen 3 1300X Quad-Core Processor
8145.195MB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (VRAM 4058 MB)

I overclocked the 1300x to 3.9 Ghz, and I get maybee 100 point improvement. I tried enabling and disabling the SMT in the bios and that didn't do a lick of difference for the 1300x. BTW my 2500K is only at mild overclock of 4.0Ghz for the turbo clock and no voltage bumps. I rather keep things cool and quiet.

The two platforms perform similar enough anyways see:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-2500K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-3-1300X/619vs3930

And here are the corresponding benches for the systems on userbenchmark:
The 1300x: http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/4603369
The old 2500K: http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/4681505

I don't want to spend more money on more expensive ram for the 1300x, because that would defeat the purpose of being low cost bang-for-the-buck. The DDR4-2400 should be adequate. The GTX970 should NOT be beyond the capability of a 1300x correct? So what is going on with AMD cpu? Is there rational root cause explanation for this?

Guess the answer is that it is what it is. AMD has to be the second option, lower priced for a reason. And this is just another example.

If anyone have any insights on how to improve the 1300x performance, please so share.

 

[AntiShill]

When looking at gaming that seems to be the best advice - get the 1600 for value or the unlocked i7 for performance. Ryzen's commitment to AM4 makes Ryzen 3 tempting but would be wasteful to buy today instead of saving the max $100 for the 1600.

The Ryzen 3 is much better value than $80 to $110 you need to pay for the 6 core Ryzen 5. The reason is simple. If you are going to go for gaming performance you would be looking at GTX1070 or equivalent or better at minimum. So that is roughly $400 into the GPU right now under current market situations. The price difference between the 7700K and 1600 is aroud $110 yes or $80 for the 1600x. See:
http://www.microcenter.com/search/s...6995&NTX=&NTT=&NTK=all&page=1&sortby=pricelow

So you are looking at around $900 system build minimum and trying to save $70-$110 just to gimp your $400 GPU or gimp your future GPU upgrade path, that is really what people would say "penny wise and pound foolish". This situation gets worse with the GTX1080 to GTX1080tis.

So if people are happy with 1080p (not 144hz referesh) gaming, that is trying to save money and trying to get the build into the $550 range. You'd booking at GTX1050ti, or GTX1060. And the Ryzen 3 being $170-$190 less than the 7700k, that is the price of the GPU, so either GTX1060 3GB (prior to the crypto miner hype) and definitely a GTX1050ti.

AMD's primary advantage is price. And second, flexibility, because of the longer term socket support. That value calculation is messed up when AMD overprices their stuff right now like they do with Ryzen and Vega. You don't want your money all tied up into the current Ryzen pricing scheme. The R3 being at $100 allows it to be easily replaced in a couple years when you have more definitive performance gains from Ryzen. By then the Ryzen architecture, and the follow-on new Ryzens will have proven to either perform better than Intel, or their prices will have to reflect the reality, in which case the prices of the Ryzen will be lower. So the possibility exists where you get a Ryzen 3 now for $100 and the newer 6 core Ryzen later $150, which should out perform the current 1600/1600x for a total of $250 which is not all that much more from where a 1600x market price is now. And you have the flexibility to bail on AMD (simple mobo/cpu bundle/combo drop in replacement, likely be able to reuse memory) should you choose to do so because you have NOT overcommitted to the AMD. I really don't see why you'd want to caught in the middle in no man's land.

 

[evolucion8]

Well, not bad considering that the 2500K was the second fastest processor in the high end mainstream market (Not HDET) competing with the bottom low end processors like the Ryzen 3 and Ryzen 5.

 

[AntiShill]

Well, not bad considering that the 2500K was the second fastest processor in the high end mainstream market (Not HDET) competing with the bottom low end processors like the Ryzen 3 and Ryzen 5.

From the charts it seems, even the i5-2500K, although not ideal, and still limp some more, and is adequate for even the GTX1080ti to a certain level, doing not that much worse than even the R5 1600x or R7 1800x.

It seems the cheapest CPU to not gimp, in any substantial way, the GTX1080ti would have to be the 7700K, beyond that you have to go the extremely overpriced Intels HEDT stuff.

 

[Puiu]

Nah how much things have changed in a week or less. Recall you telling me this:

Yet we are here with this article. This so very relevant and so very helpful. I suppose the Ryzen 3 is just going to be a bit slower like 4-6% on some games and some benches. In particular I was really trying to figure out why is this: (...)

Dude, what the hell are you trying to tell me? You want advice or are you just here to tell us how much you love Intel? And stop posting super long copy-paste benchmark results. It's annoying.

If you bought the 1300x then you are getting what you paid for. Your 2500k was double the price of what the 1300x is at launch and you also didn't get a cooler with it. If you want to compare then use the R5 1600 which is recommended over any i5 CPU intel is currently offering and has a similar MSRP to the i5 2500k. You should have also just went for the 1200 which everybody is recommending over the 1300x, the same perf for a 20$ lower price.

Your whole argument about AMD being the second choice falls flat on it's nose when you look at the benchmarks. the R3 CPUs offer better multithreading results than any i3 CPU (close to i5) and also better gaming results (with a few games favoring an heavily OCed 150$ 7350K - but this is R5 1400 territory). The fact that the flagship i5 2500k CPU from several years ago is equal or slightly better in some games is irrelevant.

And for the love of god stop using userbenchmark to get your "results". That website is a joke.