Upgrading from i5 2500k

[codyray10]

Upgrading from the 2500k is tough. AMD doesnt offer anything faster, especially with your CPU being OC'd. Moving to the new Intel platform will likely run you over your $300 budget, unless you plan on sticking with an i5 setup, you could keep it close.

If you want something to hold you over for another year or so, I'd have to agree with others and say find yourself a used i7 2600k/2700k/3700k. Once overclocked, I doubt you'd notice any performance increases with the newest gen 6600k.

 

[Headfoot]

I'd say either go 6700k or 5820k, or stay on 2500k until something more compelling comes out. 2600k and 3770k have maintained their value quite well so I didnt find that upgrade very compelling given how little performance you get for the money. At least with a new platform you can move to fast ddr4 and get other new motherboard features to boot

 

[Insomniator]

I know its probably been 5-6 years since you got the 2500k (i got mine in 2011) but I just... don't know if its time to upgrade yet. It still performs well overclocked with the newest cards and an entire platform upgrade requires new memory, board, cpu...

I want to upgrade too, been perusing all over but I just can't justify it yet. One more release round, or maybe if a smoking deal on a 6700k/5820 comes along i'd jump on it..

But really $350 for a cpu, $150 for decent board, $100 for memory = $600 for an upgrade that is probably not night and day depending on what you are playing.

 

[piasabird]

You could up the RAM to 16 or 32. But if you go to DDR4 just buy good RAM that can be overclocked.

 

[repoman0]

I just went from 2600k to 6700k. Literally no performance difference at all that I noticed, but I got a nicer board in a smaller form factor and it uses significantly less power and stays cooler at the same clocks, which is nice. I can almost passively cool it at 4.2GHz, and the max I could reasonably do with my 2600k was also 4.2GHz.

I went with the upgrade because I got the CPU for about $310, board for $100, and 16GB memory for $55, so a total of ~$460. I already sold my 2600k for $200 after fees/shipping and am hoping to sell the board and RAM for another $130ish combined, so it was a good time to upgrade for minimal cost. Probably would have been smarter to go with X99 and a 6 core Haswell-E since at least I might notice the increased core count (at least task manager would show me something) but I only found the upgrade worthwhile because it was net just over $100.

It's a tougher sell with a 2500k because somehow that's worth about $100 less than the 2600.

 

[2is]

You could up the RAM to 16 or 32. But if you go to DDR4 just buy good RAM that can be overclocked.

Why? Skylake is only rated to 2133 and has a hard time going much past that anyway.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I'd say either go 6700k or 5820k, or stay on 2500k until something more compelling comes out. 2600k and 3770k have maintained their value quite well so I didnt find that upgrade very compelling given how little performance you get for the money. At least with a new platform you can move to fast ddr4 and get other new motherboard features to boot

Yea, I dont understand that upgrade either. A few games will show a decent benefit, others very little or nothing. But you are also, at least for the op, giving up a known very good overclocking chip for an unknown chip that may be a poor overclocker or even have been abused.

 

[AgentUnknown]

I still have my 2500k. I am worried about my Win 10 upgrade and not being able to keep it if I do decide to upgrade later. What are other people doing if they plan to upgrade later? That means we have to buy win 10?

 

[Spicedaddy]

I still have my 2500k. I am worried about my Win 10 upgrade and not being able to keep it if I do decide to upgrade later. What are other people doing if they plan to upgrade later? That means we have to buy win 10?

Same for me, I have a 2500K with Windows 7 Pro and I'd like to upgrade to Windows 10. Problem is Windows 10 locks the license to the hardware, so I might as well upgrade the hardware before upgrading the OS.

I'm waiting to see if MS extends the upgrade period, if not, I'll get a 6700 or 5820 in july.

 

[TemjinGold]

I'm considering upgrading as well but not because I expect much better CPU performance. I actually want to upgrade because I'd like to move to a platform that supports bootable PCIe SSDs. (Want to finally ditch the spindle (which I've had for almost 10 years and am afraid it might croak one day), use my current SSD as storage and get a new PCIe for boot.) Has anyone used one of those? Or is that not worth spending money on and I should just get another "normal" SSD?

 

[nerp]

Why? Skylake is only rated to 2133 and has a hard time going much past that anyway.

Yes. Not only that, even the fastest memory on a decent setup shows that the gains are slight, if that. A couple FPS. Not worth the strain/power usage/heat, IMHO.

 

[PingSpike]

I'm considering upgrading as well but not because I expect much better CPU performance. I actually want to upgrade because I'd like to move to a platform that supports bootable PCIe SSDs. (Want to finally ditch the spindle (which I've had for almost 10 years and am afraid it might croak one day), use my current SSD as storage and get a new PCIe for boot.) Has anyone used one of those? Or is that not worth spending money on and I should just get another "normal" SSD?

I don't understand why you'd need a new platform for PCIe SSDs. Is that true? I thought they had their own controller which most motherboards have the option to boot from a HBA last I remember.

I'm not really a fan of the PCIe SSDs. They take longer to boot because the onboard controller has to initialize. They cost twice as much. They are less compatible than SATA since many chipsets/motherboards have so few PCIe lanes/slots, none on laptops. And I believe the additional throughput isn't that noticeable 90% of the time.

What we need is SATA4, not PCIe SSDs IMO.

 

[repoman0]

Same for me, I have a 2500K with Windows 7 Pro and I'd like to upgrade to Windows 10. Problem is Windows 10 locks the license to the hardware, so I might as well upgrade the hardware before upgrading the OS.

I'm waiting to see if MS extends the upgrade period, if not, I'll get a 6700 or 5820 in july.

I moved my Windows 10 install from my 2600k setup to my 6700k and it detected new hardware, booted right up and stayed activated. I think it depends on what kind of key you used for the upgrade (retail vs OEM ... mine was a free student key from my college)

 

[monkeydelmagico]

All the noticeable gains are in GPU's and storage right now. If your rig runs well put the money in a big fast SSD. Wait a couple months to see what happens with the GPU new releases. Both SSD and GPU transfer to new rig if you decide it still isn't enough.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Interesting that I would find such a thread as this . . . again . . .

It has been -- and continues to be -- a lot of fun to build your own rig, and the fun supports the logic behind upgrading.

But with two of these -- a 2600K and 2700K Oc'd to 4.7, I keep admiring my work for two essentially perfect systems.

If you're going to overclock, and I do -- there will be a learning curve and the uncertainties that certain bugs will slowly become apparent, so you'll keep tweaking them over time until they are -- well -- perfect.

On the "need for speed," it depends on your appetite for games, gaming and other features. I have a couple of Steam games or simulators to which I'm actually quite addicted.

I bought two GTX 970 cards, and the x8 limitation for each slot doesn't much matter.

So for the third year in a row, I have plans to build another system, and I think I'll stick with the Skylake K chips as opposed to a 5820K system. There's just no hurry.

I suppose the storage features are attractive for PCIe or m.2 SATA. But there is no single critical factor affecting performance for me on these dated Gen2 or Gen3 processors and motherboard hardware (we have an IB 3570K in the house).

Not the latest, greatest and fastest, but I'm still pleased with myself and the work I put in to build these systems.

 

[j03h4gLund]

Interesting that I would find such a thread as this . . . again . . .

It has been -- and continues to be -- a lot of fun to build your own rig, and the fun supports the logic behind upgrading.

But with two of these -- a 2600K and 2700K Oc'd to 4.7, I keep admiring my work for two essentially perfect systems.

If you're going to overclock, and I do -- there will be a learning curve and the uncertainties that certain bugs will slowly become apparent, so you'll keep tweaking them over time until they are -- well -- perfect.

On the "need for speed," it depends on your appetite for games, gaming and other features. I have a couple of Steam games or simulators to which I'm actually quite addicted.

I bought two GTX 970 cards, and the x8 limitation for each slot doesn't much matter.

So for the third year in a row, I have plans to build another system, and I think I'll stick with the Skylake K chips as opposed to a 5820K system. There's just no hurry.

I suppose the storage features are attractive for PCIe or m.2 SATA. But there is no single critical factor affecting performance for me on these dated Gen2 or Gen3 processors and motherboard hardware (we have an IB 3570K in the house).

Not the latest, greatest and fastest, but I'm still pleased with myself and the work I put in to build these systems.

I do enjoy putting a new rig together once in a while, and its been a very long time. So pairing that with this little stutter issue I'm having in CS:GO and not being able to run new games like Ark Survival Evolved on Ultra and knowingly won't be able to crank up graphic settings in new games like No Man Sky or other Direct 12 games, I'm really getting the urge to part out my stuff now before prices drop.

 

[TemjinGold]

I don't understand why you'd need a new platform for PCIe SSDs. Is that true? I thought they had their own controller which most motherboards have the option to boot from a HBA last I remember.

I'm not really a fan of the PCIe SSDs. They take longer to boot because the onboard controller has to initialize. They cost twice as much. They are less compatible than SATA since many chipsets/motherboards have so few PCIe lanes/slots, none on laptops. And I believe the additional throughput isn't that noticeable 90% of the time.

What we need is SATA4, not PCIe SSDs IMO.

Yes, it's true. My mobo is old enough that it does not have NVMe support, so I cannot grab a PCIe SSD and have it be bootable. I would need a platform upgrade to get this.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I do enjoy putting a new rig together once in a while, and its been a very long time.

Then go for it. Building computers is fun. As long as you know how much benefit or not you will get then it's all good.

Personally I was faced with the same question last year and I realized that thanks to Intel hitting a physics wall, slow CPUs in consoles, and Directx 12 that good ole Sandy had a lot of life in it. I traded my 2500k for a 2600k and took the rest of what would have been spent on a platform upgrade and shoved it into my GPU budget (I went from being a max $200 GPU guy to a max $00 GPU guy) because that is where I am limited currently in games.

But I get the urge to want to build a new machine, that is why we are all here really. I scratched that itch last year by building a new Mini ITX gaming HTPC on the side because Mini ITX is a fun challenge.

 

[Unoid]

Going from 300 FPS to 100 is something you are not able to see with your eyes so you shouldn't be bothered by it, or disable NET_graph altogether.

if the monitor is 300hz, a human WILL see 300 fps down to 100fps. Be careful with your potato like comments

 

[Insomniator]

You know one reason I could think of upgrading now is if Zen doesn't do much performance wise. Its not like prices will magically fall - and there would also be nothing much better than a 6700k/5820k on the horizon for a WHILE then.

So in that case, either sit tight for... years... or get what you can for the Sandy bridge stuff before its 10 years old and... laughable to sell (even if performance is still good).

 

[Sheep221]

if the monitor is 300hz, a human WILL see 300 fps down to 100fps. Be careful with your potato like comments

As I mentioned before, scene is fully smooth at 100FPS, you may see more, or your screen can display more, but the practical difference will be zero.
Going to upgrade machine that drops FPS to 30 or less would be desirable worthy upgrade but going to buy expensive hardware to not have drops to 100 FPS is definitely bad idea, not to mention that might not fix the problem(if there even is one), because OP already mentioned it started happening since he replaced his video card and it is very likely this is caused by software - either game, the OS or the drivers, or the combo of these(different cards use different drivers). So even if he would buy brand new mobo and CPU, the same problem could still be there.
In any case, I recommend trying card in different rig first and see if it happens there(to satisfy his upgrade consideration, preferably in one with faster hardware), if it will be doing this in other computers, then OP just has to replace the card and it should be gone.

 

[lopri]

I still rock a 2500K as well alongside a 1045T. I see no reason to "upgrade" (ever?) unless something radical happens on the software front. It will take a lot of convincing for me to upgrade. (such as x2 speed-up, x2 core counts for the same price, cooking breakfast and doing the dishes, etc.)

 

[isekii]

I was on a 2500k , now on a 2600k

only did the change because I picked up a 2600k mobo/cpu/ram combo for like $125 or something.

I don't notice much of a difference at all. But I'm also not doing too much either.

 

[2is]

As I mentioned before, scene is fully smooth at 100FPS, you may see more, or your screen can display more, but the practical difference will be zero.
Going to upgrade machine that drops FPS to 30 or less would be desirable worthy upgrade but going to buy expensive hardware to not have drops to 100 FPS is definitely bad idea, not to mention that might not fix the problem(if there even is one), because OP already mentioned it started happening since he replaced his video card and it is very likely this is caused by software - either game, the OS or the drivers, or the combo of these(different cards use different drivers). So even if he would buy brand new mobo and CPU, the same problem could still be there.
In any case, I recommend trying card in different rig first and see if it happens there(to satisfy his upgrade consideration, preferably in one with faster hardware), if it will be doing this in other computers, then OP just has to replace the card and it should be gone.

100 fps is certainly smooth, sudden frame rate drops are not. Even if the frame rate drop is from a very high fps down to merely a high fps. A steady 100fps is a lot better then fluctuating between 300 and 100

 

[kaesden]

I upgraded from a 2500 to a 6700k, mainly because my sata3 ports had died on my old motherboard. my 2500 was running at 3.8ghz turbo, and the 6700k is currently at 4.5ghz. There is definitely a noticable difference, mostly in minimum framerates, though average/max didnt change a ton. The biggest change is the platform upgrade, now having all sata3 ports, M.2 for a future upgrade, usb 3.1 type-A and C ports, better onboard sound, etc...

In the end it all depends on the games you play. Some are more dependent on CPU, some on GPU. I think a lot of the performance increases i got were going from a non-K to a K processor and overclocking it gaining an extra 700mhz raw speed. Throw in the 4 generations of 5-10% IPC improvement and to me, it was a worthwhile investment.