Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

i5 2500 (non k) worth upgrading to 8400 today?

 Share

Go to solution Solved by dgsddfgdfhgs,
41 minutes ago, paprikman said:

nothing really cpu heavy,

then no need upgrade yet. lets wait & see ryzen 3000

time to start your research

Hi!

I have a little bit old i5 2500, which is not an unlocked cpu. Is there a big jump from upgrading to i5 8400?

Most of the time I spend working (nothing really cpu heavy, web development), the gpu is gtx 1060 (6gb).

I can't say that it's limiting me somehow, but I feel like I should replace it now, while it's still ok and can be sold to someone.

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, for the cost atm Ryzen 5 2600 makes more sense. Both will be big jumps in CPU performance, but not that noticeable for your use case.

CPU: i7-2600K 4751MHz 1.44V (software) --> 1.47V at the back of the socket Motherboard: Asrock Z77 Extreme4 (BCLK: 103.3MHz) CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 RAM: Adata XPG 2x8GB DDR3 (XMP: 2133MHz 10-11-11-30 CR2, custom: 2203MHz 10-11-10-26 CR1 tRFC:230 tREFI:14000) GPU: Asus GTX 1070 Dual (Super Jetstream vbios, +70(2025-2088MHz)/+400(8.8Gbps)) SSD: Samsung 840 Pro 256GB (main boot drive), Transcend SSD370 128GB PSU: Seasonic X-660 80+ Gold Case: Antec P110 Silent, 5 intakes 1 exhaust Monitor: AOC G2460PF 1080p 144Hz (150Hz max w/ DP, 121Hz max w/ HDMI) TN panel Keyboard: Logitech G610 Orion (Cherry MX Blue) with SteelSeries Apex M260 keycaps Mouse: BenQ Zowie FK1

 

Model: HP Omen 17 17-an110ca CPU: i7-8750H (0.125V core & cache, 50mV SA undervolt) GPU: GTX 1060 6GB Mobile (+80/+450, 1650MHz~1750MHz 0.78V~0.85V) RAM: 8+8GB DDR4-2400 18-17-17-39 2T Storage: 1TB HP EX920 PCIe x4 M.2 SSD + 1TB Seagate 7200RPM 2.5" HDD (ST1000LM049-2GH172), 128GB Toshiba PCIe x2 M.2 SSD (KBG30ZMV128G) gone cooking externally Monitor: 1080p 126Hz IPS G-sync

 

Desktop benching:

Cinebench R15 Single thread:168 Multi-thread: 833 

SuperPi (v1.5 from Techpowerup, PI value output) 16K: 0.100s 1M: 8.255s 32M: 7m 45.93s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

Eh, for the cost atm Ryzen 5 2600 makes more sense. Both will be big jumps in CPU performance, but not that noticeable for your use case.

Agreed. If you didn’t have to upgrade your mobo and ram I’d suggest the 8400 but because you do the r5 2600 is probably best

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree to what said before. Option 'C' is you wait a bit more until May-June and go for the ryzen 3600 which would be a really huge jump over your current cpu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, paprikman said:

nothing really cpu heavy,

then no need upgrade yet. lets wait & see ryzen 3000

time to start your research

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

Eh, for the cost atm Ryzen 5 2600 makes more sense. Both will be big jumps in CPU performance, but not that noticeable for your use case.

 

8 minutes ago, Mr alex said:

Agreed. If you didn’t have to upgrade your mobo and ram I’d suggest the 8400 but because you do the r5 2600 is probably best

Thanks for your responses. I'm also concerned about the need to buy a new mobo, ram and stuff. I feel like I should keep these money in case I need to replace my pc one day urgently. And get a proper 1440p panel now for work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, dgsddfgdfhgs said:

then no need upgrade yet. lets wait & see ryzen 3000

time to start your research

Yeah, but won't this cpu be a bottleneck for my gtx 1060 if I switch to 1440p? I know that this gpu is not enough for 1440p, but I don't play any AAA games, just some older stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, paprikman said:

Yeah, but won't this cpu be a bottleneck for my gtx 1060 if I switch to 1440p

I would say 1060 is still the bottleneck even at 1080p , it would be fine for old games.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, dgsddfgdfhgs said:

I would say 1060 is still the bottleneck even at 1080p , it would be fine for old games.

 

1060 for 1080p? it will do just fine. If you want to keep your ram, you could get an old z series mobo and something like a 4770k or 4790k, but zen 2 will probebly be a bigger leap for you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, paprikman said:

Thanks for your responses. I'm also concerned about the need to buy a new mobo, ram and stuff. I feel like I should keep these money in case I need to replace my pc one day urgently. And get a proper 1440p panel now for work.

You know that both options will need a new board and some new RAM right?

CPU: i7-2600K 4751MHz 1.44V (software) --> 1.47V at the back of the socket Motherboard: Asrock Z77 Extreme4 (BCLK: 103.3MHz) CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 RAM: Adata XPG 2x8GB DDR3 (XMP: 2133MHz 10-11-11-30 CR2, custom: 2203MHz 10-11-10-26 CR1 tRFC:230 tREFI:14000) GPU: Asus GTX 1070 Dual (Super Jetstream vbios, +70(2025-2088MHz)/+400(8.8Gbps)) SSD: Samsung 840 Pro 256GB (main boot drive), Transcend SSD370 128GB PSU: Seasonic X-660 80+ Gold Case: Antec P110 Silent, 5 intakes 1 exhaust Monitor: AOC G2460PF 1080p 144Hz (150Hz max w/ DP, 121Hz max w/ HDMI) TN panel Keyboard: Logitech G610 Orion (Cherry MX Blue) with SteelSeries Apex M260 keycaps Mouse: BenQ Zowie FK1

 

Model: HP Omen 17 17-an110ca CPU: i7-8750H (0.125V core & cache, 50mV SA undervolt) GPU: GTX 1060 6GB Mobile (+80/+450, 1650MHz~1750MHz 0.78V~0.85V) RAM: 8+8GB DDR4-2400 18-17-17-39 2T Storage: 1TB HP EX920 PCIe x4 M.2 SSD + 1TB Seagate 7200RPM 2.5" HDD (ST1000LM049-2GH172), 128GB Toshiba PCIe x2 M.2 SSD (KBG30ZMV128G) gone cooking externally Monitor: 1080p 126Hz IPS G-sync

 

Desktop benching:

Cinebench R15 Single thread:168 Multi-thread: 833 

SuperPi (v1.5 from Techpowerup, PI value output) 16K: 0.100s 1M: 8.255s 32M: 7m 45.93s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

You know that both options will need a new board and some new RAM right?

Sure, that's why it was not clear to me if I should go for it or not. I finally decided that I'll replace some noisy fans and will get a 1440p display for better work experience.

10 minutes ago, LukeSavenije said:

1060 for 1080p? it will do just fine. If you want to keep your ram, you could get an old z series mobo and something like a 4770k or 4790k, but zen 2 will probebly be a bigger leap for you

Yep, but I'm just about to get new 1440p ips panel. My current display is TN and some colour tints are missing here. And for 1440p it might not perform that good.

Though I'm not really concerned about this one, because I don't play any "AAA" and "modern" games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, paprikman said:

Yep, but I'm just about to get new 1440p ips panel. My current display is TN and some colour tints are missing here. And for 1440p it might not perform that good.

Though I'm not really concerned about this one, because I don't play any "AAA" and "modern" games.

you sure? that thing can handle a 1080 ti when overclocked. Of course you'll get better performence with newer hardware, but if you want a cheap big leap upgrade, those are pretty good. and there is less load on 1440p for the cpu compared to 1080p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LukeSavenije said:

you sure? that thing can handle a 1080 ti when overclocked. Of course you'll get better performence with newer hardware, but if you want a cheap big leap upgrade, those are pretty good. and there is less load on 1440p for the cpu compared to 1080p

You might be saying true, though I have a non-k version, which cannot be overclocked. I only get 3.6 GHz in turbo boost. And what is strange to me is that my score in synthetic test with new gtx 1060 is the same that I got with my old gtx 760.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, paprikman said:

You might be saying true, though I have a non-k version, which cannot be overclocked. I only get 3.6 GHz in turbo boost. And what is strange to me is that my score in synthetic test with new gtx 1060 is the same that I got with my old gtx 760.

synthatic benchmarks aren't performence benchmarks. Try userbenchmark or 3dmark for that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LukeSavenije said:

synthatic benchmarks aren't performence benchmarks. Try userbenchmark or 3dmark for that

Userbenchmark isn't a very reliable source either
Well, ok, it might be somewhat ok to use with locked CPUs :D

Ex-EX build: Liquidfy C+... R.I.P.

Ex-build:

Meshify C – sold

Ryzen 5 1600x @4.0 GHz/1.4V – sold

Gigabyte X370 Aorus Gaming K7 – sold

Corsair Vengeance LPX 2x8 GB @3200 Mhz – sold

Alpenfoehn Brocken 3 Black Edition – it's somewhere

Sapphire Vega 56 Pulse – ded

Intel SSD 660p 1TB – sold

be Quiet! Straight Power 11 750w – sold

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Quadriplegic said:

Userbenchmark isn't a very reliable source either

why not? it's a good assumation on how good your hardware performs against the same parts. It's great for some troubleshooting and a real life idea of how it performs imo. but I added 3dmark as a heavier gpu test

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, LukeSavenije said:

why not? it's a good assumation on how good your hardware performs against the same parts. It's great for some troubleshooting and a real life idea of how it performs imo. but I added 3dmark as a heavier gpu test

Because it takes 
a)a user running 8600k (just for example) at stock speeds, 8gb of slowest RAM and 5400 RPM HDD
b)a user running 8600k clocked at 5 GHz, 16GB B-die RAM, NVMe SSD

and gives you average of that score. 
It's not very representative way of displaying information

Ex-EX build: Liquidfy C+... R.I.P.

Ex-build:

Meshify C – sold

Ryzen 5 1600x @4.0 GHz/1.4V – sold

Gigabyte X370 Aorus Gaming K7 – sold

Corsair Vengeance LPX 2x8 GB @3200 Mhz – sold

Alpenfoehn Brocken 3 Black Edition – it's somewhere

Sapphire Vega 56 Pulse – ded

Intel SSD 660p 1TB – sold

be Quiet! Straight Power 11 750w – sold

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Quadriplegic said:

Because it takes 
a)a user running 8600k (just for example) at stock speeds, 8gb of slowest RAM and 5400 RPM HDD
b)a user running 8600k clocked at 5 GHz, 16GB B-die RAM, NVMe SSD

and gives you average of that score. 
It's not very representative way of displaying information

okay, true. but a good user can see where he should be (for example, with a 5 ghz overclock I shouldn't be 50th percentile)

Userbenchmark can recognise what ram it is and bases it on that, not on ANY 8 gb ram

It's a general nice tool for troubleshooting what's underperforming. That's  why I included 3dmark too. But let's say we include cinebench with it, It should be fine for a basic benchmark, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LukeSavenije said:

okay, true. but a good user can see where he should be (for example, with a 5 ghz overclock I shouldn't be 50th percentile)

Userbenchmark can recognise what ram it is and bases it on that, not on ANY 8 gb ram

It's a general nice tool for troubleshooting what's underperforming. That's  why I included 3dmark too. But let's say we include cinebench with it, It should be fine for a basic benchmark, right?

Right, the results I've reported above were made in cinebench. See the pic below.

blob.png.85d4e90dd87de2eedcc2e64e18f9062c.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

And how does it perform in 3dmark? Btw, have you used afterburner yet? Just slide up thermal and power limits, nothing else

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LukeSavenije said:

And how does it perform in 3dmark? Btw, have you used afterburner yet? Just slide up thermal and power limits, nothing else

I didn't have time to test it in 3dmark and launch the afterburner yet (got this gpu last weekend), gonna do this tomorrow, thx.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×