# 2500k @4.4Ghz worth upgrading?



## MemQ (Oct 11, 2016)

Hi,

While playing Mafia 3 tonight I started to wonder why my fps drop while cruising through the city. I know the game is poorly optimized but still.. So I did a log of CPU usage and GPU usage and here's how it looks like. The questino is: is my cpu bottlenecking my GPU ? And if not can I switch 970 to 1070?

My current rig:

CPU: i5-2500K @4,4Ghz
Mobo: Asrock P67 Pro3 B3
GPU: MSI GTX970 Gaming 4Gb @1279mhz/1925mhz
Ram: Kingston HyperX 8Gb (2x4096) @1866mhz
SSD: 120Gb SVP200S3
HDD: Seagate 500Gb ST3500418AS
PSU: 650W rp-650-pcap wentylator Roxio Ultra Silent
Obudowa: SilentiumPC Regnum L50


*CPU*

 

*GPU*


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 11, 2016)

what resolution do you game at? Your CPU should be fine. but if you can get 4.9Ghz out of the 2500k (like i could mine) then i dont think there would be much of a bottleneck at all. Bottleneck will be a problem if you go with a 1080 though but for the 1070 it will be fine.


----------



## MemQ (Oct 11, 2016)

The resolution is 1680x1050. I think I could go higher with OC though now I reached 4,4ghz with even lower voltage than stock and I kinda like it


----------



## D007 (Oct 11, 2016)

I think it's time to upgrade that cpu.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...it-finally-time-to-upgrade-your-core-i5-2500k


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 11, 2016)

Either push that CPU further, or get a new one. 1680x1050 is pretty CPU bound in a lot of titles.


----------



## MemQ (Oct 11, 2016)

Lower resolution = higher cpu usage? So maybe i should get a new 1920x1080 screen?


----------



## peche (Oct 11, 2016)

MemQ said:


> Lower resolution = higher cpu usage? So maybe i should get a new 1920x1080 screen?


+1


----------



## r9 (Oct 11, 2016)

MemQ said:


> Lower resolution = higher cpu usage? So maybe i should get a new 1920x1080 screen?


So whats the best way to fix the CPU bottleneck, upgrading the monitor.
It totally makes sense. 
lol


----------



## D007 (Oct 11, 2016)

MemQ said:


> Lower resolution = higher cpu usage? So maybe i should get a new 1920x1080 screen?



Absolutely. Try to get at least a 3k (1440p) capable one, if you want my opinion.


----------



## MemQ (Oct 11, 2016)

Ok so I'll try to oc my cpu to 4,9ghz and if it doesn't help I'll just get 6600k.


----------



## qubit (Oct 12, 2016)

@MemQ I know your current resolution isn't especially high, but it still won't hurt to drop it to 1024x768 (or as close as possible) for testing. If those dips lift significantly, then your GPU is the bottleneck.

Note that it can still the case that if you put in something like a GTX 1080 you won't get the full performance out of it with that CPU. I've got the 2700K and am thinking of upgrading to Kaby Lake in the next 6 months or so, depending on how much it lifts those framerates compared to mine.


----------



## peche (Oct 12, 2016)

r9 said:


> So whats the best way to fix the CPU bottleneck, upgrading the monitor.
> It totally makes sense.
> lol


HD monitors are quite affordable also... so making the upgrade of a great display its like $130 i guess,
Contrary to upgrade CPU + Mobo + Ram  + cooler....



MemQ said:


> Ok so I'll try to oc my cpu to 4,9ghz and if it doesn't help I'll just get 6600k.


no swap the monitor lad, 1080p


Regards,


----------



## jboydgolfer (Oct 12, 2016)

keep  the 2500, I sold mine and got a 4690 K, as well as the Xeon eight thread it wasn't worth the upgrade

1920x1200


----------



## Mussels (Oct 12, 2016)

as an owner of a 2500k and a 3770k, i directly compared to my brothers 6700k.

As far as pure CPU performance goes, NO. you are not being held back.

Ram performance you might be a small limitation (stock is 1333Mhz, and you can go all the way to 2133 iirc, on a 2500k)


----------



## Aquinus (Oct 12, 2016)

You know, Sandy Bridge had a good long run but, I think it's starting to get to the point where an upgrade would make sense. I'm thinking that skt2066 might be what gets me to upgrade next year from my 3820.


Mussels said:


> As far as pure CPU performance goes, NO. you are not being held back.


I've encountered single-threaded bottlenecks on more than one occasion. If the OP is almost maxing out all 4 cores then, it might be about time.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 12, 2016)

Oh and next time i see 'lower res = more CPU usage' stated as a fact, someones going to end up in the mineshafts behind my house. I do not get why that ridiculous myth persists.




Aquinus said:


> You know, Sandy Bridge had a good long run but, I think it's starting to get to the point where an upgrade would make sense. I'm thinking that skt2066 might be what gets me to upgrade next year from my 3820.
> 
> I've encountered single-threaded bottlenecks on more than one occasion. If the OP is almost maxing out all 4 cores then, it might be about time.



with a K chip, he can just keep clockin. my 2500k OC'd matched my brothers stock 6700k in all the benches we threw at it. if a 4.5GHz sandy/ivy gets choked, it'll choke on anything.​


----------



## jboydgolfer (Oct 12, 2016)

Mussels said:


> with a K chip, he can just keep clockin. my 2500k OC'd matched my brothers stock 6700k in all the benches we threw at it. if a 4.5GHz sandy/ivy gets choked, it'll choke on anything.



i agree, As i stated, I sold norton my 2500k, and it was a beast, went with a 4690k (which SEEMED like a reasonable enough upgrade) I was wrong.
then got a 1231V3 xeon 4C8T, and still, it doesnt justify a $250 purchase. 
is the 2500k getting long in the tooth? Yes, is that on its own, reason enough to upgrade? not unless you need one of the "improvements in technology" a newer chip might provide, but if its a upgrade because a buyer feels perf will be increased in a more than small amount, its not justifiable IMO.


----------



## LightningJR (Oct 12, 2016)

Mafia 3 is a different beast. I have my 2500K at 4.8Ghz atm running Mafia 3 I am getting CPU bound. I have found that using "unlimited" as the FPS cap hurts you, it would be more prudent to use the 60FPS option, I can't say why but it uses less CPU which in turn keeps the min framerate higher. I run at 1080p and it's still bottlenecked a lot of the time especially in certain areas and while driving.

You may need to upgrade the CPU if it bothers you that much.


----------



## Ungari (Oct 12, 2016)

Wait for Zen before choosing.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 12, 2016)

LightningJR said:


> Mafia 3 is a different beast. I have my 2500K at 4.8Ghz atm running Mafia 3 I am getting CPU bound. I have found that using "unlimited" as the FPS cap hurts you, it would be more prudent to use the 60FPS option, I can't say why but it uses less CPU which in turn keeps the min framerate higher. I run at 1080p and it's still bottlenecked a lot of the time especially in certain areas and while driving.
> 
> You may need to upgrade the CPU if it bothers you that much.



Just a passing thought.

Could also be your 2500k being 'unstable' with that OC. you're pushing what the VRMs are capable of on your motherboard.


----------



## LightningJR (Oct 12, 2016)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Just a passing thought.
> 
> Could also be your 2500k being 'unstable' with that OC. you're pushing what the VRMs are capable of on your motherboard.



Possibly but I did have it at 4.6Ghz which is perfectly stable and it was still CPU bound, I pushed harder to see if it would help, didn't seem like it did.

When I do the CPUZ benchmark my score @ 4.8Ghz is almost exactly what a 6600k gets at stock, which is a little depressing.


----------



## hat (Oct 12, 2016)

Short answer: no.

Long answer: If you want to spend a bunch of money, you'll get a little more performance, energy efficiency, and maybe some other features that may be of interest to you (like M.2 SSDs). Is it worth all that money spent to you?

To clear up bottlenecking:
When people talk about higher CPU usage at lower resolutions, that happens because at low resolutions the GPU and crank out frames faster than at a high resolution. In other words, you've made the GPU's job significantly easier. What happens when you do that? You are isolating the CPU, seeing just how much it can deliver to the GPU, which is now processing much faster in this fake situation.

If you buy a bigger monitor and raise the resolution, you're going in the other direction. You're forcing the GPU to do more work than what it was before you started running a higher resolution. You could see reduced CPU usage here, but that happens because you're maxing out your GPU faster than your CPU.

In short, unless you have a GTX1080 Ti and a Pentium D, stop worrying about bottlenecking. It's not going to matter unless you have a really huge difference. Of course, there are some exceptions, like heavily CPU bound games (think RTS games). I can always get better performance in Supreme Commander 2 by upgrading my processor, but it won't matter which GPU I have, within reason. If I get a GTX1080 Ti, it won't touch my SIM score.


----------



## Slizzo (Oct 12, 2016)

Ungari said:


> Wait for Zen before choosing.



This is what I am doing. My 2500k is currently at 4.5GHz because I deemed it good enough there. Haven't really seen any issue with my gaming, even after the GTX 1080.

If Zen is even close to Intel's greatest, at a cheaper price, I'm jumping back to AMD (had an old Opteron 170 system for a while. It was awesome).


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 12, 2016)

My answer is no, just oc the unit further.


----------



## Outback Bronze (Oct 12, 2016)

It looks to me like your GPU is under more strain than your CPU.

I say get the GTX 1070. It wont hurt.

If it does hurt your CPU then you can decide what CPU you would like to upgrade but for the time being, a 1070 would sit nicely.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 12, 2016)

D007 said:


> Absolutely. Try to get at least a 3k (1440p) capable one, if you want my opinion.


is there such thing as 3K??

2560x1440 (WQHD)I think is what you were going for. It's also sometimes (incorrectly) called 2K (2048x1080 is 2K).



> Oh and next time i see 'lower res = more CPU usage' stated as a fact, someones going to end up in the mineshafts behind my house. I do not get why that ridiculous myth persists.



As far as a lower res being more cpu bound... I'm going to have to see otherwise before believing what is commonly held as true. Do you know how many reputable review sites intentionally lower resolution to expose more clearly a cpu bound scenario? Can you kindly clarify/support what you are saying?


----------



## 64K (Oct 12, 2016)

OP I would stick with the CPU you've got until Cannonlake late next year. I've got an i5 Ivy Bridge and that's what I plan to do. The IPC improvements have been fairly small each generation after Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge but eventually they do add up so I think Cannonlake at 10nm will be a significant improvement for me and you.

As others have said the CPU usage does go up when resolution goes down but that's because the CPU is no longer waiting on the GPU to render the frame at a higher resolution before the CPU sends the instructions to the GPU to render the next frame so basically the CPU is just processing more frames to send instructions to the GPU to render at a lower resolution. That's not really a CPU bottleneck unless for example you were getting less than 60 FPS avg at your resolution with your CPU at max usage but your GPU was at 50% usage.


----------



## peche (Oct 12, 2016)

"looking for the op....." he might be gone already...


----------



## D007 (Oct 12, 2016)

I looked at charts and posted actual testing info about the 2500.. You should upgrade.. It's not the GPU.. You have a 970..lol.. That's not a bad card.
Look at the link I posted previously about the testing.. That cpu is holding you back pretty big time, according to that link.
Or just wait for the next cpu update.. Whatever..lol.. But upgrade that first imo..


----------



## Mussels (Oct 12, 2016)

D007 said:


> I looked at charts and posted actual testing info about the 2500.. You should upgrade.. It's not the GPU.. You have a 970..lol.. That's not a bad card.
> Look at the link I posted previously about the testing.. That cpu is holding you back pretty big time, according to that link.
> Or just wait for the next cpu update.. Whatever..lol.. But upgrade that first imo..



that link shows exactly what i said - if you run faster ram (2133 is shown in that article, max the 2500k can do) with a 4.5GHz OC (super easy for a 2500k) then you effectively match a stock i5 6500

when it comes to K chips, you just dont talk about stock performance because even a 10 year old could overclock one.

(i also like that they show the 2500k -> 3770k upgrade path and the results show exactly what i went through. Incremental upgrade, with the biggest benefit being a better IMC for faster ram speeds)


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 12, 2016)

And let's not forget you can overclock Skylake too... 

Nobody ever said the SB to IB was worth it. The point was SB to Skylake which is about 25%.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 12, 2016)

25% faster (at best), at a huge cost.

apart from very badly optimised games, nothings going to need that much juice. Games are designed to run on the 'average' PC, they dont require or need an OC'd skylake to run well.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 12, 2016)

Worth it is up to the person buying it, not us. As you can see on several titles, while it is still a mlre than viable cpu, it can also be the cause of bottlenecks and will only continue to have more as time goes on. If you want to minimize bottlenecks, and upgrade to skylake or to wait for KL seems like it can be a good choice.

Huge cost? Over not upgrading, I agree. Otherwise, it's part of doing business when upgrading anyway.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 12, 2016)

i just think in a generation or two it'll be worth upgrading - but with such a small increase for a large cost the second hand market for 3xx0 and 4xx0 chips is far more cost effective (hence my 3770k)


----------



## Bluescreendeath (Oct 12, 2016)

MemQ said:


> Lower resolution = higher cpu usage? So maybe i should get a new 1920x1080 screen?



Lower resolution = LOWER cpu usage
Higher resolution = HIGHER cpu usage

However, lower resolution also = much LOWER GPU usage, so you're able to see your cpu bottleneck more effectively on lower resolutions.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 12, 2016)

Mussels said:


> i just think in a generation or two it'll be worth upgrading - but with such a small increase for a large cost the second hand market for 3xx0 and 4xx0 chips is far more cost effective (hence my 3770k)


Consider the OP though...only path without upgrading mobo is 2600k... no way should he do that for his uses.

Think about it...Ivybridge over SB is a meager increase but needs a mobo and processor. Why do that?

Haswell over SB requires mobo, cpu too and gives you what, 15% increase over SB? Getting warmer...

SB to skylake needs cpu, mobo, and ram, but offers ~25% IPC. Still warm...


...this is where the OP needs to figure out what is best. Clearly if the budget allows go skylake (always get the best you can/want to afford). If not, get haswell. If not haswell, save your money for KL. There is zero reason to look at less than the last unless your budget won't allow it.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 12, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Consider the OP though...only path without upgrading mobo is 2600k... no way should he do that for his uses.
> 
> Think about it...Ivybridge over SB is a meager increase but needs a mobo and processor. Why do that?
> 
> ...



OP's board can take a 3770k. so he can spend a lot and get 25%, or spend a little and get 10-15%


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 12, 2016)

Shoot, thought IB wouldn't slide in to p67...

IB 10-15% over SB is being awfully generous...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7003/the-haswell-review-intel-core-i74770k-i54560k-tested/6


----------



## Mussels (Oct 12, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Shoot, thought IB wouldn't slide in to p67...
> 
> IB 10-15% over SB is being awfully generous...




i5 to i7. I'm accounting for a boost with HT there, higher ram speeds, and the greater amount of CPU cache.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 12, 2016)

With HT it's more than that, actually... I was strictly talking IPC since few games use more than 4 threads. 

Bottom line, to me, is he should get the best he can afford. I've never been one to get 2nd best when I could afford the best. YOLO!


----------



## erocker (Oct 12, 2016)

You rig IS pretty capable. I'd go with a new monitor first. Go with a nice 1080p IPS monitor, it's the most noticeable upgrade you can do and it might take a little stress off of the CPU. 
The biggest issue here is the game itself. It is a pretty poor port from a performance standpoint with even GTX1080's and new CPU's going under 60 fps sometimes. There could be a few more patches coming for the game too.


----------



## Aquinus (Oct 12, 2016)

Mussels said:


> with a K chip, he can just keep clockin. my 2500k OC'd matched my brothers stock 6700k in all the benches we threw at it. if a 4.5GHz sandy/ivy gets choked, it'll choke on anything.


That's not the point. If the OP is running things that max out the 2500k (which means they can eat up *at least* 4 full cores,) don't you think that any i7, Sandy or newer would stand to improve his situation? Clearly the situation the graphs are showing indicate that the CPU is pretty close to being maxed out.


Mussels said:


> at a huge cost.


My 3820 was had at a "huge" cost but, it has lasted me almost 5 years now? You say this like someone who invested in Sandy Bridge hasn't gotten their use out of their hardware in the last several years.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 13, 2016)

Aquinus said:


> That's not the point. If the OP is running things that max out the 2500k (which means they can eat up *at least* 4 full cores,) don't you think that any i7, Sandy or newer would stand to improve his situation? Clearly the situation the graphs are showing indicate that the CPU is pretty close to being maxed out.
> 
> My 3820 was had at a "huge" cost but, it has lasted me almost 5 years now? You say this like someone who invested in Sandy Bridge hasn't gotten their use out of their hardware in the last several years.



Providing i can claw my 3930k back up to 4.6Ghz -- It will be fine for another year or two, Im not gonna let it die.


----------



## Kanan (Oct 13, 2016)

The i5 2500K with high OC is really good, but newer games - it starts to lack somewhat because it misses HTT for example. Mafia 3 - just could be one of those games (like BF1). 

Also to all who said an 1070 would run good on this. Good joke. My friend uses a i5 4670K @ 4.2 GHz (Haswell IPC is over 10% better) with 2400 MHz RAM and is bottlenecked in BF1 with an 980 Ti - and that was @1440p not 1080p even. 980 Ti = same or more performance compared to GTX 1070. So that i5 2500K + GTX 1070 isn't a really good balanced setup. The highest GPU I would run that with is a GTX 980. But GTX 970 fits already very good to it. Just switch to 1080p and you have more headroom and better graphics on top. 

In the end coming to the topic: the CPU is okay, rather change the monitor to alleviate CPU bottleneck by increasing GPU usage via higher resolution. If you want to go for a GTX 1070, also go for a better CPU - and consider an i7, they are the better gaming CPUs now (and more future proof) - at least coupled with semi highend GPUs like 1070.


----------



## silkstone (Oct 13, 2016)

I couldn;t even imagine upgrading mine before getting a higher-res screen and better GPU. The 2500K @1080 paired with a reasonable graphics card should have no problem giving 60fps in the majority of games. If you're not getting that, it's more likely to be down to the gpu.

The only way it makes sense is if you are a heavy RTS player.


----------



## MemQ (Oct 18, 2016)

Whoa guys sorry I've been away for so long - had a shitload of things to do in work. 

I've read all your posts  and decided to stay with my 2500k for now. I will upgrade to skylake, but probably not in another couple of months. I'm considering a new 1080p screen and 1070 first.


----------



## peche (Oct 19, 2016)

MemQ said:


> I'm considering a new 1080p screen


thats your unique upgrade, also its a must... forget about other things...


----------



## jboydgolfer (Oct 19, 2016)

@MemQ  as You can see from these results, My 2500k @ just 4.6Ghz, didnt do Too bad against the 8 threaded Xeon in the 1st image.not to mention the generation gap.and just for reference, that is the exact same Ram, and SSD's, only the chips, and MoBo have changed, as well as some incidental other parts.
I realize that there  are obviously benefits, but in day-to-day use obvious turns into not so obvious


----------



## Beastie (Oct 19, 2016)

MemQ said:


> Whoa guys sorry I've been away for so long - had a shitload of things to do in work.
> 
> I've read all your posts  and decided to stay with my 2500k for now. I will upgrade to skylake, but probably not in another couple of months. I'm considering a new 1080p screen and 1070 first.



What range of frames/sec are you getting at the moment and what speed(s) does your current monitor support?


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 20, 2016)

jboydgolfer said:


> @MemQ  as You can see from these results, My 2500k @ just 4.6Ghz, didnt do Too bad against the 8 threaded Xeon in the 1st image.not to mention the generation gap.and just for reference, that is the exact same Ram, and SSD's, only the chips, and MoBo have changed, as well as some incidental other parts.
> I realize that there  are obviously benefits, but in day-to-day use obvious turns into not so obvious




If you ran that without the threads, the z97 would be a hair faster. Memory bandwidth isn't a bottleneck. That really doesn't show much outsode of the fact that aida64 memory test is multi threaded. Try running maxmemm and see how similar it is....as it should be.. they are both ddr3 with the only difference being cpu performance, not memory.


----------



## MemQ (Oct 21, 2016)

Beastie said:


> What range of frames/sec are you getting at the moment and what speed(s) does your current monitor support?



Right now in Mafia it's 44-60. I notice drops mainly while driving in the city, that's why I thought it's CPU that's not fast enough. In other games I mostly get 55-60fps. My monitor is 60hz.


----------



## Komshija (Oct 21, 2016)

Your CPU and GPU are still very capable for gaming. I wouldn't change them, but I would definitely change the monitor. Right now it's a good time to buy 1080p 23-24" IPS monitor, since they are not expensive and can offer exceptionally good image quality.


----------



## BiggieShady (Oct 21, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Memory bandwidth isn't a bottleneck.


It isn't "usually" ... but in some of the heavier games you can see noticeable FPS increases on the same sandy i5 with faster memory (both latency and frequency should have an effect provided there is enough gpu headroom):




In these games, stock sandy with 2133MHz ddr3 is almost as capable as OC 4.6 with 1600MHz ddr3


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 21, 2016)

True.. it is only in a rare few titles. For DDR4, you are looking at 3 titles with anything significant increase.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 21, 2016)

MemQ said:


> Hi,
> 
> While playing Mafia 3 tonight I started to wonder why my fps drop while cruising through the city. I know the game is poorly optimized but still.. So I did a log of CPU usage and GPU usage and here's how it looks like. The questino is: is my cpu bottlenecking my GPU ? And if not can I switch 970 to 1070?
> 
> ...



My i5 3570k @ 4.2 Ghz (which is going to be strikingly similar to your 2500k @ 4.4 in terms of performance) does present an every-so-slight bottleneck in a few games, most notably in The Division where it can take up to 15% bites out of max GPU utilization.

So a slight clock bump may already remove that issue for you on a GTX 1070. I wouldn't hesitate and upgrade GPU, and try to get out 200 mhz more of that 2500k at least. It's going to be worthwhile if you can keep that 2500k for another 6-8 months, because by then the CPU landscape will be more interesting with Zen on the shelves.

Important note: in the example table above you can see that this is mostly a bottleneck at high FPS - if you run a 60hz monitor, I wouldn't even worry about it for now.


----------

