I5-2500k or i5-3750k

[1mon2gol1]

i'm building my first proper gaming computer and i was wondering which cpu people think i can buy, the i5-2500k or the i5-3750k.

i have been reading around and people are generally saying the 2500k, because it is better at overclocking, but i am not planning on overclocking until about 6 months in, and even then i probably won't overclock it that heavily.

What do people think?

thanks in advance

 

[obsama1]

Depends on the price. The 2500K is better at overclocking if you just look at clockspeeds. But, due to Ivy Bridge being more efficient, an IB at a lower clock is equivalent to a higher-clocked SB. So, an IB at 4.4 will equal a SB at 4.8.

If the 3570K is a few bucks more, get the 3570K. If the 2500K is more than $15 less, get the 2500K.

 

[1mon2gol1]

they are the same price, 170 pounds (live in england), so your saying 3750k

 

[InvalidError]

If the 3570K is a few bucks more, get the 3570K. If the 2500K is more than $15 less, get the 2500K.

But IB will use ~20W less power which can translate into a ~$10/year saving and ends up cheaper in the 2nd or 3rd year.

 

[wr6133]

If you look around you can find the 2500k at least £10 cheaper sometimes more. Saying that I would still go for Ivy theres no reason to buy the older model really.

 

[dwaight]

Sandy vs ivy = ivy.

 

[DJDeCiBeL]

But IB will use ~20W less power which can translate into a ~$10/year saving and ends up cheaper in the 2nd or 3rd year.

How many people truthfully care about that, though? If they do, they wouldn't buy an unlocked CPU in the first place, so they can overclock and "waste" more power (by my logic, anyway).

OP, The most interesting thing about Ivy is PCIe 3.0 (and that's pretty much the only thing that most gamers should care about). Nothing else about Ivy is so much better than Sandy that it makes much difference. Yes, Ivy is 5-7% faster at the same clocks, but that's not really a big deal.

 

[obsama1]

If they are the same price, then definitely go for the 3570K.

 

[InvalidError]

How many people truthfully care about that, though? If they do, they wouldn't buy an unlocked CPU in the first place, so they can overclock and "waste" more power (by my logic, anyway).

While not many people think about it at first, more probably should.

Between two similarly priced and similarly performing chips, I would say the long-term savings and superior IGP on IB become a nice tie-breaker.

 

[pezonator]

The simple question is, why would you go with older technology when Ivy is better in every single way. Granted it doesn't overclock as high but you answered your own question when you said you aren't going to enter OC competitions with it.

 

[DJDeCiBeL]

The simple question is, why would you go with older technology when Ivy is better in every single way.

I agree with that statement to an extent, and that's the general train of thought around here. In this case, they're the same price, so it doesn't even matter, but in cases where the 2500K is cheaper, there's no reason not to get the 2500K, either.

I just hate people saying "get (something) because it's newer". That's not a good rationale. Yes, the 3570K is better (although the iGPU is the only area where it's much better), but as I said earlier, the only thing about Ivy that should even mean anything to gamers is PCIe 3.0, and even that is debatable.

It's not enough faster to mean much in gaming and the iGPU doesn't mean anything for gamers, either. Both are great CPU's (the two best gaming CPU's for the money you can buy), and the 3570K shouldn't be hailed as the end-all be-all.

With all of that said, lol, in this case, the 3570K is the best choice (just because it's the same price as the 2500K).

 

[pezonator]

And I agree with all you said, hehe. But it comes down to your last statement which is what I was basing it off and the fact I'm an extremely fussy person