Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

I5 2500k alternative for bf3?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 22, 2012 3:21:54 PM

looking this bench, there is no cpu that compites directly to i5 2500k.



but if we wait for AM3+ Piledriver cpus (FX-8350, X-8320, FX-6300, FX-4320), could change the story?

More about : 2500k alternative bf3

June 22, 2012 3:48:48 PM



Score
0
a c 283 à CPUs
June 22, 2012 11:26:45 PM

I'm pretty sure you're taking those out of context. The second pic in your first post is a cost per performance comparison on laptop CPU's using integrated graphics for the i5 (you'll notice that when paired with a discreet GPU, the i7's are better in that chart), and the first pic in your second post is almost definitely once a again only using integrated graphics.

Pair the i7 in that bench with a decent GPU and it wouldn't be so rosey for the A10.

Piledriver will be a good step in the right direction, but that's about it. It'll close the gap, but it certainly won't overtake a 2500K (not to mention a 3570K).
Score
0
Related resources
a c 78 à CPUs
June 22, 2012 11:45:00 PM

You did happen to notice the resolution of that first picture? What is the full link to the article you're pulling it from?

Single player BF according to these sites, it doesnt care what CPU you use really:

In this test they used a GTX 580
http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-perfor...
In this test they used a 7970 (the same card the first bench you gave "claims" to be using
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...

For multiplayer, actually indications seem to be the FX-8 cores actually perform as well if not better than 2500Ks for BF 3 since multiplayer can actually use all 8 cores.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer...
Score
0
a c 78 à CPUs
June 22, 2012 11:48:00 PM

DJDeCiBeL said:

Pair the i7 in that bench with a decent GPU and it wouldn't be so rosey for the A10.

Piledriver will be a good step in the right direction, but that's about it. It'll close the gap, but it certainly won't overtake a 2500K (not to mention a 3570K).


But on the other hand, I'm not convinced the 3570K even "overtakes" the 2500K. I'd still like to see more articles about how the heat (if it does) limits the Ivy's final overclock. Link me if you have any info on it, I seriously would like to know.
Score
0
a c 283 à CPUs
June 22, 2012 11:54:34 PM

nekulturny said:
But on the other hand, I'm not convinced the 3570K even "overtakes" the 2500K. I'd still like to see more articles about how the heat (if it does) limits the Ivy's final overclock. Link me if you have any info on it, I seriously would like to know.


I actually don't know of any links on that, just that from what I've read, a "safe" max OC on the 3570K is 4.3-4.5 without some high dollar cooling, when you can go 4.6+ on the same cooling with a 2500K and 5.0+ with the high dollar stuff.

I'd say Ivy would max out at 5.0 or so on "normal" cooling (custom water being loosely defined as normal) when Sandy would probably go 5.3 or so, if you could keep the voltage low enough.

Beyond that would require sub-ambient solutions unless you're really lucky. Talking about 24/7 OC's here, of course.

At those speeds, it basically equalizes the performance since 4.5 on Ivy equals around 4.8, performance wise, on Sandy.
Score
0

Best solution

a c 78 à CPUs
June 23, 2012 1:48:59 AM

It actually is yes based on what I've seen... Although the 2500K still edges it for most other games, although this is not to say the FX-8s cannot game.

I've been thinking about dropping a PileDriver on my Sabertooth board when they come out, but honestly theres no need. There is nothing I need to do that my Phenom II cannot do. So we'll see.

I think that if you were going to get a Bulldozer, just get the 8120 and clock it up, the 8150 is the same CPU, theres no real reason to pay more for it.
Share
June 30, 2012 12:49:52 AM

Best answer selected by tinnitus.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2012 8:34:58 AM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!