i3-2100 VS. i5-2500k OC - GAMING QUESTION (FPS)

I can not speak to those games.
But, in general, the graphics card is more important than the cpu for most games. Here is an article on <$200 gaming cpu's with benchmarks using a GTX480. The 2100 aquits itself quite well, and the 2120(3.3) is now selling at the same price as the 2100:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-cor...

The article was nice, but it only showed non-OCable CPU's. From reading it, its made me feel more comfortable buying the i3-2100, but i don't know how to compare that with the potential achievable FPS of an OCed i5-2400k.

Does anyone have experience between the two CPU's i3-2100/2120 and and an overclocked i5-2500k in terms of gaming performance? I'm desperate to find an accurate FPS difference between them, preferably on 1900x1200 resolution on a newer game such as BF3 and SWTOR.

Since those two games have not been released yet it is hard to tell if you'll need more CPU power or not. I'd say, if you plan on overclocking then just go with the 2500k, however, if you do not then just go with the 2400. That way, you will know that you have more than enough power to handle those two games.

Maybe just go with the 2400 to be safe? And if you're going to overclock then go with the 2500k, if you're not going to overclock then there is no use in getting the 2500k. Or, just wait till those two games actually get released and get benchmarked. Talking about Guild Wars 2 and Dialo 3 btw.

Here are the scaling benchmarks from Toms about CPUs.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graph...

As you can see, the 2105 did just as well as any other CPU. I'd like to think Battlefield 3 is more GPU intensive than it is CPU, but don't take my word for it since I have no source. I am probably going to get the game tomorrow, since I am getting close to beating Skyrim.

The i3-2100 is a dual core CPU that supports hyperthreading. In most gaming scenarios it will be adequate for any single GPU configuration, because -again- CPUs just don't matter that much gaming-wise. As a point of analogy, I'm still running an intel core 2 duo E8400 OC'd to 3.6 Ghz, and this legacy chip still runs all the new games perfectly once I upgraded my video card to a GTX 560.

Unless you plan on (1) using some very high end GPUs like the GTX 580 or HD 7970, or (2) plan on running multi-GPU configurations, I would recommend you sticking with an i3-2100. It is about $100 cheaper, and that $100 can easily go towards other parts such as a better GPU.

You will know difference by yourself if you have 2 PC's with i5 CPU and i3 CPU in a similar motherboard, PSU, memory, with a similar video card, then download and install FRAPS(utility that show the FPS while you are playing any games and that game you mention), you must be running the FRAPS while playing because the FPS is simultaneously shown on the screen while you are playing. Then you will see the difference by yourself.

here are SWOTR and DIII system requirements:
http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=363&gam...
http://us.battle.net/support/en/article/diablo-iii-syst...
seems they are still getting info from the beta stage before it is know about GW2

the i3 would be able to run either no sweat. to compare in games the difference of the i3 2100 and i5 2500k@3.3 (stock):
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-rev...

to find the difference of an overclocked i5 2500k seems to be problematic ATM. surprisingly i haven't seen any benchmarks.

if you are looking to make a choice of processors, then what you can is the know i5 2500k will give me "at least" this much better performance at stock speed and more when overclocked. though i think i can safely assume an i5 2500k oc'd to 4Ghz would leave my beloved i3 2120 in the dust.