Vulcanproject
Posts: 1,698 +3,210
Definitely wait for Coffee Lake and the 6 core Intel i5 models if you are weighing up an option for another long term buy.
Is It Worth the Upgrade? Ryzen 3 vs. Core i5-2500K vs. FX-8370
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
Definitely wait for Coffee Lake and the 6 core Intel i5 models if you are weighing up an option for another long term buy.
OcelotRex
Posts: 558 +302
IF you can wait for Coffee Lake Cannon Lake is not that much further off. This is the dilemma of progress - great leaps in improvement can make one regret recent purchases.
Really no cooler with the 2500K? That was so six years ago and it did come with a cooler, and I do NOT love Intel, or their overpricing, nor do I love AMD when they are overpricing. BTW, I am just providing real data and looking for real help to improve the 1300x, without spending more money. If you do NOT like my posts, you are free to ignore them, but you do NOT get to tell me I can NOT compare the 2500K vs 1300x, because it won't make AMD look good.
Also I got my 1300x for effectively $100 because of the $30 mobo bundle discount, and it is not like Newegg, Amazon, or anyone else was selling the same B350 mobo for $30 less at this time. So that met my $100 price point.
What 1300x can do with 4 cores shows how far or much more AMD needs to do get on par with Intel. After 6 years, AMD has just got to Sandybridge level performance, which still plenty adequate for 1080p gaming although not at 144hz. This applicable to all Ryzen because they all share the same core.
BTW userbenchmark is not a joke site, it is real benches ran by many millions of people and this is crowd-sourced data, whether you like it or not. AMD being 6 years behind has opted to go more cores, but that can only mitigate the gaming performance gap so much, that is why they are the second option and must be priced much lower for them to provide unrivaled value.
It's impossible to talk to you. You refuse to use logic when forming arguments. You are comparing oranges with apples. You provided zero useful information to us and reached some really weird conclusions.
You are basically telling us that the cheapest AMD Ryzen CPU is on par with the most expensive Sandy Bridge i5 CPU and that you don't like that AMD put more cores to be able to beat Intel. Woopty doo.
Last edited:
Apples and oranges are both fruits BTW. Just because information is not useful for your marketing purposes or the conclusions are NOT as you wish, you call them weird. Go ahead make up fake statements for me, pretend to speak for me, everyone can see that those are lies that you've put out. The evidence is self-evident here.
BTW AMD with more cores have NOT beaten Intel's with less cores for gaming, nor have they beat the Intel's with more cores in performance. These are the facts. AMD needs to lower prices to provide a no risk option for customers, in order to encourage them to switch and go with AMD. There is nothing weird asking to save more money, what is weird is that it seems like you do NOT like saving money.
No real surprise here
The first worthwhile AND reasonable priced gaming upgrade for a Sandy-/Ivy-Bridge i5 will be a Coffe-Lake i5
And that is far from a bad thing as ~200$ for a CPU every 6 to 7 years should be very affordable for most gamers
The first worthwhile AND reasonable priced gaming upgrade for a Sandy-/Ivy-Bridge i5 will be a Coffe-Lake i5
And that is far from a bad thing as ~200$ for a CPU every 6 to 7 years should be very affordable for most gamers
With the exception of the i7 CPUs which can OC to high clocks, the Ryzen CPUs are just straight up a much better buy for both gaming and productivity. in the i5 range the 1600 is a better buy, in the i3 range the 1200/1400 are a better buy.
And what money should we save dude? I'm thinking that you are confused about something (again).
Are you telling me that it will be cheaper to buy a new i5 2500k PC? Or are you suggesting that for some weird reason ppl are wasting their money and upgrading to an R3 1200 from a 2500k? Nobody will do that, most will upgrade to an 200$+ CPU (1600/7600k or 1700/7700k).
You just can't seem to have any consistency in you arguments and I just seem to figure out why. You have benchmarks, you have prices, you have all of the facts, but you just stubbornly ignore them all.
Just like this article says, if you have a 2500k then at minimum you'll have to buy a 1600 to be worthwhile. Here's a proper comparison with the 1600, not just talks about what your opinion (which you call fact) is:
It is cheapest to stick with 2500K if you already have it. You can't beat zero dollars spent. The R5 is not compelling enough at their current price point for a pseudo upgrade. If you want to side grade your gaming experience and spend $800 on a build to do so with a R5 build, you can go ahead and make the donations to AMD. If you are already at $800 into build, why not got another $100 more for a 7700K and be sure not to have a real upgrade and not just a side grade.
Look it is really simple:
1. People are just jumping into PC gaming, keep the cost low, do $550 build, with a Ryzen 3 and GTX1050ti go GTX1060. That is really all that is needed for 1080P better than 60fps experience. And it is only $150 more than your top line console PS4/Xbox1 equivalents.
2. If you already got decent gaming machine like a 2500K or, there is no upgrade worth the money and effort short of 7700K. Faster higher performance intel exists, but they are extremely overpriced.
3. If you got a obsolete gaming machine like one using Core2 or FX pile-of-_expletive_-driver, then see option 1.
So really 2 simple choices. No need to complicated with Ryzen 5 of any flavor. If AMD released the Ryzen 3 first, nobody would be obsessing about the Ryzen 5. But AMD knew that and they wanted to milk the donations for whatever they can for as high as price as they can while the limited fanboy supply lasted.
Doing an R5 build does NOT let you beat the R3 build for FPS per dollar for best value, and it doesn't let you beat the 7700K for straight-up gaming performance. So you pay more for R5 just to be mediocre. Makes a lot sense to someone but not me.
But here is what AMD can do if they really want to push the R5. Since it impossible to get top performance with the R5, AMD can play with the price. Price the R5 1600x at $150 max. Then this will skew the FPS per dollar ratio more to the R5 than the R3. This will help AMD win the market and save everyone money.
Last edited:
And then another 30-50$ for the cooler (assuming you don't plan to oc heavily) and another 20-30$ for the cheapest z170. That's 160 to 190$. That's huge. It's the price that allows you to upgrade to a 1080 from a 1070. I'll take it
As I said before, and you agreed to it, every CPU has the potential to bottleneck any GPU. It entirely depends on the game. It's perfectly acceptable for a CPU to bottleneck a GPU in CPU bound games.
Not really. It's more cores / threads and a better performing chip overall.
R5 1600 is the best bang for the buck right now, every reviewer out there agrees with it. You are the only disagreeing cause you bought an R3 instead. Too bad
Because paying 160-190$ for an i7 to get barely 9 fps on average (according to techspot's 30 games benchmark) on a 1080ti at 1080p is kinda stupid. I'd much rather spend that money and get a better monitor with higher resolution. Now if you prefer 6% performance for 50% more money then go for it. If you have an i5 2500k and you don't feel like the R5 1600 is a compelling upgrade than the i7 is even less of a compelling upgrade. The numbers are there. You'll gain about 20 to 30 fps minimums from an i5 to an R5 (as shown in the benchmark posted above), and then you think spending 160-190$ more to gain 5-10 fps more is a deal worth taking. LOL
Of course they have. R3 destroyed the i3's and the R5 destroy the i5's. No but's and why's. A modern i5 bottlenecks a 1060 in a 4 years old game for crying out loud.
Exactly what I was thinking. Im kind of hoping this was the much needed kick Intel needed to produce another mid range gem that will last for a few years. I'll wait for reviews of Coffee Lake to see the gaming/productivity performances as I play games casually but also do photography as a hobby so a good balance there is important for me. Another thing is that im looking to build MiniITX and from what I can see manufactureres have always produced better boards in that form factor for the Intel platform in particular I really like the Asus Strix Z270 with two m.2 PCI-E slots..
Of course you would say that. You are how would you put it:
You come here to lie about anything and everything. The charts in this article clearly shows no such hyperbole as "destroy". See:
https://techspot-static-xjzaqowzxaoif5.stackpathdns.com/articles-info/1474/bench/F1.png
In what way is the Ryzen 5 in that chart even destroying the old 2500k? Come here and lie some more won't you.
Nobody is being destroyed. And you can NOT destroy spending zero, nada, zilch dollars on keeping a good enough 2500K from 6 years ago. Work harder at lying. Do your self a favor stop with the hyperbole, you'll have more credibility.
"Every reviewer" is one more of your lies. All it take is one review to refute that fact. It is not up you decide or speak for every reviewer. See one counter example:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-pc-builds,4390.html
For than a few builds listed here. Tom's got way more credibility than your nonsensical hyperboles ever will.
BTW I can return and exchange the R3 for the R5 anytime I want in the next 14 days, 30 return policy at Microcenter. But I won't because I am not easily fooled by AMD hype and lousy marketing, it only needs to drive a GTX970 for crying out loud. And beside like this article has written:
"Since we're already talking about it, let's start with the FX-8370's results, and again this information should really apply to anyone using the AM3+ platform. It is my opinion that Ryzen 3 offers a solid upgrade over the FX series, but how big of an upgrade will depend on the games you play and what kind of graphics card you're using."
The Ryzen 3 is a solid upgrade from my FX pile-of-@!#$%-driver 8320. So go one swear your love for your 1600, nobody is stopping you, but you are not fooling anything into thinking you got better FPS per dollar compared to R3 or better straight up gaming performance compared a 7700k. You are free to like being the mediocre middle, and having made your donations to AMD.
Where is on Techspot charts? You are just making up numbers. 20+ fps in your delusions maybe. It is not the same controlled test that Techspot has shown. Provide real data and show real results, no just some doctored video for your favorite lying site like DF.
All it takes is one review, I agree, yet you linked none. That's not a review dude. Also, if you actually bothered to read it, it says Ryzen cpus are not included cause they weren't released when the guide was made you brainiac. Once again, you are wrong, and Tom's agrees with me
Try harder
I got the best of both worlds! Better fps per dollar than the 7700k and better performance than the R3. I'm sorry but an R3 isn't enough to push a 1080ti and an i7 is too damn expensive for a benefit of 8-9 fps on average. Also, it is absolutely terrible at doing anything else other than gaming, and since I'm into video editing, that's tough.
You aren't fooling anyone though, you could have bought a g4560, but instead you made your donations to AMD thinking you got better FPS per dollar when you didn't. You are in the mediocre entry level.
Garbage video. Waste of time. And the 2500K was in no way being destroyed. It would be utterly embarassing for the R5 if didn't eek out at least a few in there. But the fact that it can't beat the 2500K in everything tells me that the R5 is not good enough. just like the R5 has trouble winning across the board with current gen NON-K R5 see here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244...x-vs-core-i5-review-twelve-threads-vs-four/14
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244...x-vs-core-i5-review-twelve-threads-vs-four/12
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244...vs-core-i5-review-twelve-threads-vs-four/13\\
Perfect example of self delusion. Fact is you paid way more than a Ryzen 3 and got less gaming chops than the 7700K. You are entitled to enjoy your mediocre middle, but will NOT get a free pass to leading other lemming over the cliff like you, and your lies and hyperboles is not helping you.
The i5 was completely annihilated. Up to 30 fps difference on bf1? LOL, thats' embarrassing. It wasn't destroyed in everything cause of the GPU obviously, it was bottlenecking the R5 in mass effect. But in all other games, oh boy that was painful.
Anandtech's benchmarks are garbage btw, waste of time. See what I did there? XD
Again, you are posting launch date benchmarks. Sorry, they are irrelevant. RotR got a Ryzen patch and now Ryzen 5 outperforms the i5. Also, there was nvidia drivers patch to fix the issue with the Nvidia gpus. If you actually SAW the benchmarks you linked instead of just glancing over them, the R5 performs identical to the i5 with an R9 fury. It only undeperformed with Nvidia back then.
Also, why didn't you link the Civ 6 benchmark from anandtech? I asked you before and you didn't ever answer. I wonder what that is. So, why didn't you link the Civ 6 benchmark? Is it because it completely contradicts the reality you are trying to portrait? Well then, don't let facts get in front of your beliefs.
If you keep selectively cherry picking irrelevant benchmarks as dishonestly as you are doing right now I'll start doing too. Do you see a point in doing that?
Anandtech's benchmarks are garbage btw, waste of time. See what I did there? XD
Again, you are posting launch date benchmarks. Sorry, they are irrelevant. RotR got a Ryzen patch and now Ryzen 5 outperforms the i5. Also, there was nvidia drivers patch to fix the issue with the Nvidia gpus. If you actually SAW the benchmarks you linked instead of just glancing over them, the R5 performs identical to the i5 with an R9 fury. It only undeperformed with Nvidia back then.
Also, why didn't you link the Civ 6 benchmark from anandtech? I asked you before and you didn't ever answer. I wonder what that is. So, why didn't you link the Civ 6 benchmark? Is it because it completely contradicts the reality you are trying to portrait? Well then, don't let facts get in front of your beliefs.
If you keep selectively cherry picking irrelevant benchmarks as dishonestly as you are doing right now I'll start doing too. Do you see a point in doing that?
Fact is I paid way less than the i7 and I lost barely 6% performance. On the other hand, you payed double of a g4560 and got barely 10% more performance. But you will NOT get a free pass to leading other lemmings over the cliff like you.
Plz, link me a bench between R3 1300 and an R5 1600 on a 1080ti @ 1080p to see that bad deal you are talking about. Go ahead, I'll be waiting
If it is really in your nonsensical extreme language "annihilated", why are you coming up with all these excuses about "launch date benchmarks", "irrelevant", "patches", "cherry picking". The fact is you are deliberately lying. There is nothing being annhilated or destroyed, because all it takes is a few cherry picked examples to show your claims to be false.
Unless you can show the R5 wins everything all the time, there is no annihilating or destroying, or any thing else in the extreme, that you might perceive. Your exaggerations and your lies are apparent to everyone to see. And the fact remains that the R5 is not providing better FPS per dollar compared to the R3, nor is it getting better performance than the 7700k.
Who in their right mind want to gimp their $700 GTX1080ti with Ryzen of any flavor is just being silly. But we've already seen even the R7 is gimping the GTX1080ti:
http://www.legitreviews.com/cpu-bot...-on-amd-ryzen-versus-intel-kaby-lake_192585/5
Last edited:
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
I'm happy for AMD they are now at least competing closer to Intel quality. AMD fans are rejoicing while they can, that is until Intel releases an answer to Ryzen. I can't wait for their silent disappointment. All this noise as if they expect Intel doesn't have a response. It is also a response, I've been waiting on for 5+ years. A response Intel didn't have to show until AMD came back into the competing game.
Similar threads
- Locked
Latest posts
-
How Sam Altman became a billionaire without equity in OpenAI
- anastrophe replied
