Gpu temps.

[Akamii]

Locked CPUs will start bottlenecking your system in next years to come, with unlocked CPU you have chance to avoid that by overclocking. Theres barely anyone sitting on locked Sandry Bridge CPUs nowa days, but unlocked chips like 2500K and 2600K still rock on with no problem. But if you swap CPUs every year or two then sure go with locked CPU, it wont matter.

ye i believe this i5 4440 wont be a problem for me for the next 3~4years since u guys say it wont bottleneck titan X , and i may reach that titan in the next 2 ~ 3years and when it comes to bottleneck after 3years i wont bother myself ocing + risk, i will just replace it with stronger one . but i think after all these reviews that word bottlenecking (for me at least) with this i5 wont exist for like 4years., so i see no point to buy K series just to oc since im not oc fan, if it comes to oc, i will just buy new parts .

[Faceman]

Locked CPUs will start bottlenecking your system in next years to come, with unlocked CPU you have chance to avoid that by overclocking. Theres barely anyone sitting on locked Sandry Bridge CPUs nowa days, but unlocked chips like 2500K and 2600K still rock on with no problem. But if you swap CPUs every year or two then sure go with locked CPU, it wont matter.

Its still better than anything FX currently has to offer, no matter how far the FX is overclocked.  For Intel, yea, in a few years an i5-4440 might start to becoming slightly limiting, but no where near as bad as an FX, because the FX is already a limiting factor today.

 

The thing is, those locked Sandy Bridge i5's are still outperforming FX9s in the vast majority of games, see my posts I linked to you earlier. 

 

Before you were comparing an unlocked FX to a locked Intel.  You can't do that because one can't compare to the other.  If we are comparing locked Intel to unlocked Intel, then yes, unlocked is better because it gives you more longevity, but to say a locked processor is bad is nonsense.

[IateMApoo]

Its still better than anything FX currently has to offer, no matter how far the FX is overclocked.  For Intel, yea, in a few years an i5-4440 might start to becoming slightly limiting, but no where near as bad as an FX, because the FX is already a limiting factor today.

 

The thing is, those locked Sandy Bridge i5's are still outperforming FX9s in the vast majority of games, see my posts I linked to you earlier. 

 

Before you were comparing an unlocked FX to a locked Intel.  You can't do that because one can't compare to the other.  If we are comparing locked Intel to unlocked Intel, then yes, unlocked is better because it gives you more longevity, but to say a locked processor is bad is nonsense.

What has this to with AMD ? Im just saying you get so much more for getting unlocked i5.