Closed Solved

I5 2500k with 7850 or i3 3220 with 7870

will the i3 be a bottleneck in the future???which combo will give better performance in gaming?
75 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about 2500k 7850 3220 7870
  1. will be gaming at 1600x900 at max/ultra settings with 7850 and 1920x1080 with the 7870
  2. i5 2500k/hd7850
  3. Will you play Multiplayer? Do you do anything other than gaming, like Photoshop etc?
  4. i3 3220 has 2 cores. Hence it will get a little slow in Multiplayer or Photoshop.
    But it will still rock!

    So get i3 3220 with 7870. Because games depend more on GPU than CPU.
  5. The i5-2500k/7850 will be more future-proof (assuming a GPU upgrade at some point). The i3-3220/7870 will give better performance in most games today.
  6. This question sure gets asked a lot. Quad cores is the future. So, for gaming, it's safer to buy a i5.

    Shop for deals. You can find i5s for $50 more then i3s. i5 is future proof.
  7. I say 965 BE + Hyper 212 EVO + 7870.

    Overclock the 965 to 4GHz, then you have the performance of the i5 2500k at stock. And you have the 7870.
  8. MajinCry said:
    I say 965 BE + Hyper 212 EVO + 7870.

    Overclock the 965 to 4GHz, then you have the performance of the i5 2500k at stock. And you have the 7870.



    No, at 4ghz the 965 trades blows with a i3 2100.


    The i3 3220 is just about equal to a stock fx 8350 in non online games.
  9. agreed with maxalge
  10. Intel 2500k is a great card I have one with my 6870 and am planning to upgrade to a 7870 in the foreseeable future.
  11. well yeah 4 cores seem to be more futureproof.
    but that largely depends on next gen consoles too.
    and i dont get y people say if u want multi-player in general for all games
    BF3 is the only one with a noticeable change.
    to come back to the orignal topic
    U should always put GPU before CPU in gaming pc!!
    this is a fact.
    as for which one will give u more performance NOW?
    i3 + 7870 will beat an i5 + 7850
    most games today give gaming performance in quad very close to a dual core.
    and u r getting a k model, with a quality mobo and aftermarket cooler.
    i say u do this
    GPU - 180$ http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500270
    cpu - 190$ http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116781
    mobo 55$
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157335
    no aftermarket cooler for this build.
    i say THIS will give u great performance right NOW and is futureproof too.
    :)
  12. nope dude i wont be playing multiplayer...photoshop is not my priority....and so can anyone tell me what's the performance difference[in fps] between i5 and i3 on an avg in cpu bound games?
  13. My vote goes for i3 3220 and hd 7870. Most games are gpu dependent.
  14. no multiplayer, no photoshop,
    then 4 cores will only come in handy for cpu dependent games like,
    skyrim and arma and BF3's multiplayer(which u dont use)
    skyrim, minimum FPS is just 3more
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-benchmark,3074-9.html
    arma 2 is another CPU bound game
    http://www.hardware.fr/articles/778-11/arma-2.html
    there are a few differences, but not HUGE,
    it also greatly depends on the optimisation, most games are badly optimised.
    if u want a quad go with my previous option, that way u can upgrade GPU in the future, or just go with an i3 with 7870.
    u've got the benchmarks its your choice...
    i say just go with the i3 option for the best option right now.
    it will last a few years too.
  15. arnoldlouie said:
    My vote goes for i3 3220 and hd 7870. Most games are gpu dependent.

    Sure, but upgrading the GPU is much easier than upgrading the CPU.
  16. Sakkura said:
    Sure, but upgrading the GPU is much easier than upgrading the CPU.

    people keep saying upgrading GPU is easier than upgrading to a quad i5.
    ofcourse it is \.
    but that is not he question :bounce:
    the question is weather a quad core is a lot better than a dual core, even so that u hav to sacrifice a GPU for that.
    let me tell u something
    when quad cores came out a few years ago (2006) with the core2quad series,
    even then people said THIS is the future of gaming.(quads)
    here we are after almost 6 years and STILL dual and quad are almost the same in gaming.
    and trust me it will be even more few years before dual core cpu's will be BAD for gaming.
    then again there is optimisation question, not all games are optimised for quads, so sometimes your cores are just sitting idle(u can't tell me u havn't seen cases)
    but games are at-least optimized for dual core's so ur money is being used all the time!!
    rather than just sitting and waiting for commands :lol:
    maybe a quad would have been a better option in a world without consoles or where PC gaming was very dominant.
    but it's not the case... is it?
    and also if u get a 7870 u will be playing in 1080p. can't say u dont like that ;)
  17. dheeraj9933 said:
    people keep saying upgrading GPU is easier than upgrading to a quad i5.
    ofcourse it is \.
    but that is not he question :bounce:
    the question is weather a quad core is a lot better than a dual core, even so that u hav to sacrifice a GPU for that.
    let me tell u something
    when quad cores came out a few years ago (2006) with the core2quad series,
    even then people said THIS is the future of gaming.(quads)
    here we are after almost 6 years and STILL dual and quad are almost the same in gaming.
    and trust me it will be even more few years before dual core cpu's will be BAD for gaming.
    then again there is optimisation question, not all games are optimised for quads, so sometimes your cores are just sitting idle(u can't tell me u havn't seen cases)
    but games are at-least optimized for dual core's so ur money is being used all the time!!
    rather than just sitting and waiting for commands :lol:
    maybe a quad would have been a better option in a world without consoles or where PC gaming was very dominant.
    but it's not the case... is it?
    and also if u get a 7870 u will be playing in 1080p. can't say u dont like that ;)

    Dual cores and quad cores are NOT "almost the same in gaming". And besides, the clock rate can go much higher with the Core i5-2500k, yielding substantially better per-core performance than the Core i3-3220.

    As for the 1080p comment, that's just stupid. A 7850 can run 1080p too.
  18. Sakkura said:
    Dual cores and quad cores are NOT "almost the same in gaming". And besides, the clock rate can go much higher with the Core i5-2500k, yielding substantially better per-core performance than the Core i3-3220.

    As for the 1080p comment, that's just stupid. A 7850 can run 1080p too.

    so thats your point? more FPS?
    well quad core will give more FPS
    but a 7870 will give a LOT more FPS.

    also i know the 7850 can run 1080p but the guy said if he gets 7850 he will run at 1600x900.
    i dont expect u to read the whole thread, but atleast read the first few and the last few :kaola:

    PS: with this one i agree the even if u get 7850 u should still run at 1080p
  19. The answer depends on the motherboard you're getting. For some reason nobody thought about asking it. If you're getting B75 board, get i3 combo. If you're getting P67/Z68/Z77 board, definitely get i5-2500k. HD 7850 isn't a weak card, contrary what SOME people on this thread say.
  20. i actually said that he will have to get a "quality" mobo, i meant expenive
    plus a aftermarket cooler on my first reply
    and i never said 7850 is a weak card, i wish i had a 7850!!
    but a 7870 is so much better.
    by the way sunius, what do u think?
    a 7850 will definately give more 30+ FPS in 1080p easily
    a 7870 will give a lot more, and therefore last longer too!
  21. Depends on game. Though the only game I think that HD 7850 will be reduced to 30 fps is Metro 2033. On other demanding titles, it should at least have 40. It will max out less demanding titles with 60 fps without any problems. HD 7870 would be around 15% faster.
  22. dheeraj9933 said:
    so thats your point? more FPS?
    well quad core will give more FPS
    but a 7870 will give a LOT more FPS.

    And a Core i5-2500k with a Radeon HD 9870 will get a lot more FPS than a Core i3-3220 with a Radeon HD 9870.
  23. Sakkura said:
    And a Core i5-2500k with a Radeon HD 9870 will get a lot more FPS than a Core i3-3220 with a Radeon HD 9870.

    wat is a 9870?
  24. dheeraj9933 said:
    wat is a 9870?

    Just an example of a graphics card from the future. A couple years from now, graphics cards will be more powerful than today, and then the Core i3-3220 will hold back performance a lot more than it does today, compared to the Core i5-2500k.
  25. now THAT is a lot in the future, i mean core 2 duo's are STILL used in gaming,
    and they are not below the minimum requirements.
    and the 9000 series is probably 2 more years.
    by then i3 would still not be a huge bottleneck.
    look the thing is simple, if he gets an i3 he will have to upgrade to a better cpu later.
    and if he gets an i5 he will have to get a better GPU later.
    but a GPU upgrage will be more than 200$ and a cpu+mobo upgrade will be ~250$
    it's not as good as u think.
    if he gets an i3 the GPU will last longer
    if he gets an i5 the CPU will last longer
    what we choose is our desicion,
    I ALWAYS put gpu before cpu in a gaming pc.
    both options are great, now lets just leave it at him wat he wants.
    if he really wants to OC the i5 2500k for it to last longer, it is his choice.
    i would still go for an i3 with a 7870,
    coz ur next upgrade will be a cpu. and 7870 will still last!
    on a side note DDR4 might be out next year so it might be a good idea to upgrade the mobo+cpu first
    and by the time he will have to upgrade the gpu GDDR6 will definately be out too
  26. dheeraj9933 said:
    now THAT is a lot in the future, i mean core 2 duo's are STILL used in gaming,
    and they are not below the minimum requirements.

    They may not be below the minimum requirements, but they can sure as heck hold back the framerate.
  27. Get a 7870 with an FX-6300. It's better than the I3 at the same price and a beast of a chip for the money.

    It's better than both the options you listed.
  28. No it's not. FX 6300 loses big time comparing to i3-3220. It's more expensive too.

  29. http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/57615-amd-vishera-fx-6300-fx-4300-review-12.html

    Slightest OC and Fx beats it in everything not to mention outside of gaming. And its $10 more.

    Plus 3 fps is not a big difference at all.
  30. Mild OC? They overclocked to 5 GHz man! That isn't mild OC. Hell, nobody is guaranteed to be able to overclock that high.

    There's no reason going FX whatsoever. Look at Far Cry 3 benchmarks.



    Even the last generation i3 beats FX-8320, which is stronger than FX-6300. Your comment about FPS difference is silly at the very least: so you would PAY MORE to GET LESS?

    So yea, unless you want to waste your money, i3 is the way to go.
  31. You realize your post shows the Fx-6300 at stock 3.5Ghz not 5.0Ghz and at medium settings right? He's gaming at 1920 x 1080 on high/ultra. Fx beats the I3 in higher resolutions/settings. Check the link I posted it shows both ultra and medium setting benchmarks so you can compare. And that's at stock speeds.

    With an overclock the Fx destroys the I3. You get way more for $10 more. Plus the Fx destroys the I3 outside of gaming.

    Also I'm not saying to OC to 5Ghz. I'm saying with the slightest OC the Fx6300 will beat it. (4ghz) look at the stock benchmark http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/57615-amd-vishera-fx-6300-fx-4300-review-12.html
  32. Best answer
    Higher resolutions? Higher settings? You realize that at those, the bottleneck shifts over to the GPU, so it's harder to see differences CPU makes? Your link clearly shows that i3 wins to FX-6300.



    As for outside of gaming, it's irrelevant. The OP will not be using intensively photoshop or other program that's hard on CPU.
  33. Sunius said:
    Higher resolutions? Higher settings? You realize that at those, the bottleneck shifts over to the GPU, so it's harder to see differences CPU makes? Your link clearly shows that i3 wins to FX-6300.

    http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-6300-FX-4300/FX-6300-FX-4300-67.jpg

    As for outside of gaming, it's irrelevant. The OP will not be using intensively photoshop or other program that's hard on CPU.


    How is it irrelevant if that's what he's using? And yes the I3 wins in skyrim. It also beat it in dirt and is evenly matched in deus ex. With a slight overclock it would (at worst) match the I3 in gaming (more likely surpass it.)

    http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-6300-FX-4300/FX-6300-FX-4300-63.jpg
    http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-6300-FX-4300/FX-6300-FX-4300-65.jpg
  34. Other games aren't really relevant to this topic: Skyrim is the most CPU intensive game and that's the reason it's the best one to test. You shouldn't take overclocking into account, because the OP would need to buy a cooler as well - that's extra money. For that extra money, i5 would be much better choice. And thus, i3 is a better choice.
  35. Sunius said:
    Other games aren't really relevant to this topic: Skyrim is the most CPU intensive game and that's the reason it's the best one to test. You shouldn't take overclocking into account, because the OP would need to buy a cooler as well - that's extra money. For that extra money, i5 would be much better choice. And thus, i3 is a better choice.


    How is the I5 even near the same price range? It's $100 more and don't forget the motherboard if he wants to OC. He can get a FX-6300 with an aftermarket heatsink and decent motherboard for the same price range as an I3 setup.

    The Fx-6300 shadows the I5 in tasks and shadows the I3 in gaming. With an overclock he's getting way more for the money than the I3 plus the 7870. But I can see you're dead set on that extra 0-6 fps at STOCK levels to even look at anything else. If you could get the same (if not better) performance as the I3 in gaming plus close to the performance of an I5 in other tasks at the price range of an I3 build then whats the argument?
  36. GhostFaceKilla said:
    How is the I5 even near the same price range? It's $100 more and don't forget the motherboard if he wants to OC. He can get a FX-6300 with an aftermarket heatsink and decent motherboard for the same price range as an I3 setup.

    The cooler makes it more expensive than a Core i3 build. Still should be cheaper than a Core i5 build though.
  37. You don't get same performance. And i5 isn't $100 more expensive. FX 6300 is $140. Cooler is $35-40. And i5 will work in B75 motherboard just fine.

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0087EVHVW/?tag=pcpapi-20

    So yea, it's either worth getting i3 for stock settings BECAUSE IT'S FASTER, or i5 if the budget allows. FX 6300 is a gimmick.
  38. If he bought the I5 he would have to get the 7850. He could actually get a 3570k for $170 and a Z77 for for $70 with a 7850 http://microcenter.com/product/388577/Core_i5_3570K_34GHz_LGA_1155_Processor

    Or for $50 less he can get FX-6300 and a 7870. It's just options with a price on top. But my point is the FX-6300 is better than the I3-3220. But obviously arguing with a fanboy is an endless uphill battle.
  39. That CPU is available as in-store pick up only.

    I wonder about your math, really. If it was indeed the price of the CPU, it wouldn't be any more expensive than FX 6300. Then going with HD 7850 or HD 7870 wouldn't differ on either CPU.

    Or, for $50 less than the i5, he can get an i3, which blows THE MORE EXPENSIVE FX 6300 out of the water. I think you're the fanboy here, you ignore facts and benchmarks just to make AMD look good.
  40. Lol.. I have an I5 and I'm an AMD fanboy? I'm just stating facts how the I3 is less of a processor than the FX6300. The I3 barely beats the Fx6300 in gaming and gets destroyed outside of gaming at stock levels. And that's "blowing it out the water?"

    Also would you like me to do the math for you?
    I5 3470 - 185+200=385
    I3-3220 - 120+250=370
    FX-6300 - 130+250=380 *oh plus a $20 hyper212 plus heatsink so don't eat out this week and you have yourself $20*
  41. "Gets destroyed outside of gaming". How is that relevant? That's totally useless feature for the OP. And i3 not barely beats FX 6300. The difference is big in Skyrim.

    Your math is flawed. Graphics card doesn't need to be counted in. It will be decided after the CPU is decided. The $20 comment about eating out is retarded. And i3 today is $110.

    i3-3220 option: $110
    FX-6300 without cooler: $130
    FX-6300 with a cooler: $155
    i5-3470 option: $185

    i3 is $20 cheaper than FX 6300 on stock. It's faster in games too, that's the only thing the OP is concerned about.

    FX-6300 with a cooler is 40% more expensive than the i3 and it only then starts to compete with it. I think paying 40% extra for similar performance is waste of money. That sum of money can be invested in a graphics card. The OP clearly said that he can get HD 7870 with i3. That means he will have to get $40 cheaper card if he gets FX 6300 with a cooler. Definitely not a good choice.

    If there is a need for a faster CPU - 20% more and there's i5. Definitely much better performance/price ratio.
  42. ghostfacekilla
    i hav a request to u.
    can u show a benchmark or any kind of proof of the fx-6300 noticably beating the i3?
    by noticably i mean more than just 4-5FPS?
    if yes then can u show it to us?
  43. Ok ill put aside everything outside of gaming and focus JUST on gaming. One thig though the GPU is part of the question. It doesn't matter the difference in prices between the CPUs because its the budget that matters.

    A 7870 with I3 (or FX-6300)will get better fps than the I5 with a 7850. That's where speeds come in between the I3 and the Fx-6300. You can easily achieve better performance than the I3 with the FX-6300. Now the I3 will be less, $40 with a heatsink, but will give you more options and accessible Beyer performance. In skyrim the difference in performance is 5 fps. FX-6300 overclocked to 4.0Ghz will surpass that (at least match it)
  44. dheeraj9933 said:
    ghostfacekilla
    i hav a request to u.
    can u show a benchmark or any kind of proof of the fx-6300 noticably beating the i3?
    by noticably i mean more than just 4-5FPS?
    if yes then can u show it to us?


    Yes I can but I have to find it since I don't have it on my phone. Give me a few minutes.
  45. do u benchmarks to prove that,
    bcoz if u dont, then there is not point arguing right?
  46. $40 more for matching performance. Great deal. NOT.

    You seemed to miss one thing, though.

    Sunius said:
    The OP clearly said that he can get HD 7870 with i3. That means he will have to get $40 cheaper card if he gets FX 6300 with a cooler.
  47. Sunius said:
    $40 more for matching performance. Great deal. NOT.

    You seemed to miss one thing, though.

    No not necessarily. Since he's wondering between and I5 with 7850 and an I3 with 7880 you have to realize the I5 with a good 7850 is $385 using your 3470. More with his preferred 2500k. Just because the I3 got cheaper doesn't mean he has less money to spend.

    Also to the benchmarks. There's a benchmark with the Fx6300 overclocked, just have to find it on my damn phone. But just think the mere 3-7 advantage the I3 has, the Fx can beat with a small OC. And it overclocks really well. I'll have it after work for sure.
  48. http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/57615-amd-vishera-fx-6300-fx-4300-review-17.html

    OC results. Sorry I can't copy direct links on my phone. But everything's there. And it benches skyrim for you. That with a 7870 and you got a nice gaming rig.

    Not to mention a GPU OC ;D
  49. Do you realize that overclock in no way resembles what clock speed the OP can reach, do you not? I wouldn't advice NOBODY to run a CPU at 5 GHz, at least not on a $20 cooler. The review says that the overclocked CPU reached 76°C, and they used a $70 cooler. You'd be lucky to reach half that overclock. Not to mention it uses very much power.

    At the very best case scenario, I would expect FX 6300 to match i3-3220. However, do you think it's wise to pay 40% more for a six cores and new architecture? That's just names, as they have no gains in real world scenarios.
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards Performance Bottleneck Intel i5 Graphics