Where were you when the i5-2500k fags and AMD-tards got

*stock 2500k
*not overclocked i3-6100
fixed

>>58563378
>5 years
>1/5 the price for the same performance
This is what I expected.

i5 2500k fag here and i have no idea why that old thing is still making headlines.

>>58563378
It's gonna be funny when people think all pentiums are like this cause this single one has hyperthreading

>>58563378

Is it 2017?

The 2500K has been left in the dust for YEARS.
Just look at benchmarks of 2500Ks overclocked to insane (unstable) frequencies and yet still lagging behind some piss poor current CPU.

>>58563378
>new cpu beats a 6 year old cpu

Wew

>>58563442
This is not true at all, 2500 lk has held up against all of the i5 k cpus released since.

Only skylake and kabby have made significant gains against it.

>>58563378
>it took 5 fkn years for 2500k performance to progress down to a cheaper entry level processor

CPU industry is dead. There is no more progress.

>comes with Hyper-Threading Technology. It has four threads and this is the first time Intel has enabled the technology on Pentium series processors

P4s had hyper threading. Fuck this retard and his "benchmarks" and (((((reviews)))))

>>58563378
Amd has been losing for a while now, they are simply taking too long with ryzen

Although in multi threaded applications the FX chips will still be faster

>>58563473
You wish.

File: 1468059482385.jpg (25KB, 458x418px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 458x418px

>>58563473
>Skylake offers single percentage points boost over Haswell yet the former "made significant gains against" Sandy Bridge

>>58563573
except pentiums were their top line before core, retard
also kill yourself back to >>>/pol/

>>58563628
I don't wish at all, I know.

And I have a 6700k before you accuse me of having a 2500k.

>>58563655
>except pentiums were their top line before core, retard
Uh ok? What does that matter

>>58563473
the biggest performance jump between the sandy and kaby was the move from ddr3 to 4

File: 538.jpg (95KB, 421x834px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 421x834px

>>58563655
why the fuck do you think he's from pol

>>58563657
Your grammar is awful, I bet you're poor. No wonder you used a 2500K for 6 freaking years.

>>58563683
because you can't compare netburst pentium HT to core pentiums, you fucking retard
he's right it's the first time intel enables HT on core pentiums

>>58563657
If you don't have a 2500k and yet claim that it's just as good as a modern i5 then you're an idiot.

It loses to an i3 6100 in almost everything

>>58563441
all pentiums above it are like that. But the price scalates very quickly, a G4620 which is the highest Pentium, has slightly better performance than an i3-6100 and a better IGPU, for the same price. But the i3-7100 also costs the same

>>58563719
Author says Pentium series, that means Pentium brand

>Intel shills implying new releases actually give the performance suggested by other intel shills' benchmarks

4.5Ghz 2500k is literally fine

wasn't the gen right after 2500 the last one that had large improvements, then intel barely did shit after that?

>>58563719
>he's right it's the first time intel enables HT on core pentiums
I like how you added "core" in there

>>58563694
The ((())) is a common thing on pol to indicate that the one posting it is a racist.

>>58563694
Obvious. Lurk more

>Get a used 2500K with mobo for £90
>Get a 970
>Can literally play any new releases I like
>fucking £90
>£
>9
>0

>>58563784
Well it is true, there are "atom" pentiums too.

>>58563796
It actually indicates involvement with jews, get it right cuck.

My i5 2500k runs stable at 4.6GHz. Why would I need a new processor?

>>58563813
The author didn't state core

>>58563820
And since y'all don't even know what a jew is anymore it pretty much just indicates that the poster is a racist. I swear y'all will be saying "Mel (((Gibson)))" before long.

>>58563378
>2017 cpu faster than 2012 cpu
really makes ya think what OP's mental developmental level is

File: 1482779727582.jpg (117KB, 646x574px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 646x574px

>>58563767
>4.5 GHZ

http://www.overclock.net/t/1578480/i5-2500k-4-5ghz-vs-6700k-4-5ghz-in-games

You CANNOT make this shit up
>third worlders on suicide watch

>>58563719
nigger no it isn't
http://ark.intel.com/products/86348
http://ark.intel.com/products/89611
http://ark.intel.com/products/89612
http://ark.intel.com/products/61272
http://ark.intel.com/products/91561
http://ark.intel.com/products/91557
http://ark.intel.com/products/91559
http://ark.intel.com/products/68333
http://ark.intel.com/products/78169

>b-but some are atoms
not all of them faggot

>>58563857
Look at this subhuman 80IQ negroid who can't understand abstract applications of funi memes.

>>58563862
I believe OP is shitting on the fact that everyone with a 2500k always says it's still great and still doesn't need to be replaced, which in all honestly, is probably true for most usage

>>58563873
>http://www.overclock.net/t/1578480/i5-2500k-4-5ghz-vs-6700k-4-5ghz-in-games

Now compare that to a 6600k instead of an i7.

Not saying that it won't be faster, but you're comparing a 4c8t to a 4c4t CPU

>>58563896
>most usage

Yep, shitposting about the """""""""greatness"""""""" of the 2500K on 4chan and masturbating to anime

File: 1464816081747.jpg (111KB, 404x462px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 404x462px

>>58563873
>my random forum post proves me right!
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/10

>>58563916
Sure and not everyone is playing the newest cowadooty at 4k 144fps

>>58563883
>hehe i don't like jews i sure am a funny guy heheheh black people aren't good god im so funny

such humor

>>58563873
This shit doesn't even make sense, 38fps in Skyrim because the 4.5ghz 2500k and switching to Skylake suddenly gets 84fps?

What fucking mods is he using, prime95? I got 100fps sync'd with mine and a ton of mods, never dropping and if it ever did it would be because of the GPU. Skyrim is fucking old. It does not get 38fps on an i5 2500k.

>>58563911
>I did bother to scroll down the forum posts and only read the title

Maybe you want me to post a direct link to the post which is literally 9 posts down the OP?

Same results with HT off.

>>58563953
Here's your (((You)))

>>58563958
Why the fuck was it running in DX9 too, isn't Skyrim DX10 with a DX9 compatibility mode?

>>58563972
>hehe me and my 4chan friends sure are funny hehe I called him a jew, he sure must be embarrassed

Just...be better.

File: FmmlI61.gif (725KB, 229x264px) Image search: [Google]

725KB, 229x264px

>>58563917
>comparing CPUs
>with GPUs slow enough to introduce GPU bottleneck

So a 64€ CPU is finally on par with my 5-year-old 2500k that I bought for 170€. Not really amazed.

File: 1316967803610.png (10KB, 429x410px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 429x410px

>>58563873
Why do you find it funny that an i7 beats a 6 year old i5?

Of course it beats it, why wouldn't it? Are you retarded?

>>58564008
No, Skyrim is DX9.

File: 1458681887109.png (35KB, 646x243px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 646x243px

>>58564013
>moving the goalposts
What, do you want them to run a quad SLI Titan X setup to satisfy your autism?

I mean sure, you were fine with a forum post using a GTX 970, but man, a GTX 980 is too slow my mang.

But I already have an i5-6600.
No K, because thats a rip off.

>>58564050
You're the one who is mentally challenged. The cause of laugther doesn't reside in that. I suggest you to read the previous posts again, I'm sure you'll eventually get it.

File: trashman4.jpg (167KB, 650x429px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 650x429px

>no AVX2

>>58563805
>Get a used 2500K with mobo for £90
2500K + 970gtx
No plans of upgrading the next 2 years

>>58564068
>maybe if I bring up an imaginary goal and call him an autist this will show him!

It really is not on me if you can't grasp how irrelevant you've been you and your Anandtech IPC tests (which really are not) on GPU intensive games with a GTX 980 and an R7 240.

Yeah too bad that doesnt translate to a the $250 7600k being ~4 times as fast.

Don't know why people seem to find it amusing that new CPUs are finally beating a 2500k.

It has taken Intel six (6) years to finally progress performance.

When Sandy Bridge came out the 'i5' 2500k matched the performance of the 'i7' 920 which was the fastest mainstream i7 at the time.

The £300 2600k gave near i7 980 performance which was the fastest enthusiast i7 of the time and cost £900.

Since then all we have had no real performance increase, well until now with sky and kabby.

File: 1484440011579.jpg (19KB, 199x295px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 199x295px

>>58564164
you've gone into incoherent babbling territory mate

What is wrong with poor people?
They always seem to post the same shit over and over, making the most inane points ever.

>AMD this, AMD that
>2500k blabla golden
>R9 290 I'm set for life
>SSDs are memes
>16GBs of ram? LOL!

>>58563414
another 2500k nigger here
its been and continues to be a great cpu

File: 1481784777457.jpg (15KB, 348x350px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 348x350px

>>58563873
>5 fps faster

definitely worth the 500 dollars for a new mobo and cpu

File: 1482611116815.png (2MB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1440x900px

>>58564346
>5 fps

are you ok?

>>58564199
>well until now with sky and kabby.
SKylake and kaby has done even less than previous gens. It's just that all the little 7% better per gen is finally stacking up, and intel is releasing better lower end CPUs (with more features unlocked)

There's still no reason to upgrade from 2500k to 7600k.

>>58563873
>i7 with more cache

Not a fair comparison at all

I'm using an i5 750 that I bought in 2009, still haven't found a good reason to upgrade.

>>58564467
a-are you me?

>>58564535
yes

>>58563873

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-is-it-finally-time-to-upgrade-your-core-i5-2500k
"Ram speed doesn't matter" meme is dead, bub. 2500K is perfectly adequate if you overclock it, the main problem is minimum framerates and framedrops.
Sauce: I used to use budget 1333mhz ram for my 2500k, then I read the article, bought a cheap kit of 2133mhz ram, and it definitely helps.

>>58563378
It's 2017 though, and the G4560 is dual core and not overclockable. Good value for now yeah, but I wouldn't be surprised if Ryzen comes along with an overclockable 4-core 2500k contester for 100<$ to comletely kicks its ass

i5 6400 @ 4.5GHz here. Can't be beaten for the price. Anyone who bought a K for gaymen got cucked.

File: 1408393639149.gif (481KB, 500x321px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 500x321px

>>58564535
>>58564555

>>58564580
>2500K is perfectly adequate if you overclock it, the main problem is minimum framerates and framedrops.
>perfectly adequate
>main problem is minimum framerates and framedrops

Oxymoron.

>>58564453
>the comparison the /g/ makes isn't a fair comparison

okie dokie :^)

read the rest of the post, duh

>>58564012
You have to go back

>>58564732
>Hehe muh sekrit 4chin internet cloob xD, go back to plebbit lool

Look at you, how cute.

>>58564069
>already have an i5-6600
>No K, because thats a rip off.
>rip off

actually its only like what, $20 more for unlocked plus a cpu cooler

stop lying to yourself

>>58564069
Congrats on losing about 90% of your CPU's resale value. No K, no resale value. Even if you don't intend to overclock, you should always get the K.

>>58564849
>>58564899
>trying to knock sense into pajeets

protip: they don't listen

>>58563958
newer games in general have shown some pretty big strives in performance with faster memory. i honestly think it has more to do with the memory than cpu for skyrim's at least. bethesda games as a whole have shown some pretty sizable increases in performance with faster memory. his skylake build was running ~3ghz dual channel ddr4 while his sandy was on 1600mhz dual channel ddr3. the gap would have been much smaller if he at least tried ddr3 2133mhz / 2400mhz.

for the longest time ddr3 topped off around 2133 - 2400mhz range. the price for such kits was high enough to where the performance improvement wasn't worth it over 1600. with the release of ddr4 and its higher frequencies for affordable prices we can easily start seeing the benefit of higher clocks again. its why a lot of users on enthusiast sites like ocn recommend ddr3 3000mhz dual channel bare minimum. at that range you see a nice, noticeable increase over ddr3. games like bf1 actually have shown a nice boost with ddr4, 4000 kits. even quad channel has been showing its benefits. quad channel 2400 performs very similar to ddr4 4000 dual channel kits. quad channel 3000 is off the charts. i just wish more people did quad channel vs dual channel benchmarks for we can get a more accurate data.

also:
>Skyrim+Mods
>2500k 38.2fps http://abload.de/img/tesv_2015_08_25_13_17tmsse.png
>6700k 56.3fps http://abload.de/img/tesv_2015_08_25_19_150asse.png
>38.2fps
>56.3fps
i don't know where you are getting the 84fps for the 6700k from.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys24AJh42xA
>the only time an amd cpu comes close to beating intel, it literally dies
I don't see why people are still supporting this big fuck up of a company.

>>58564899
>selling a used processor
Who would buy one?

bumping for justice

>>58564279
>They always seem to post the same shit over and over
It's just different people expressing the same thoughts
Retard.

>>58563378
>only 2 cores
worthless for anything other than facebook gaymes

>>58563826
>My i5 2500k runs stable at 4.6GHz. Why would I need a new processor?
This. The only real reason is so you can use a newer ram/mobo/graphics combo, which is probably going to be the only convincing reason as intel utterly fails to increase performance anymore.

I know /v/'s rig building sub is probably not the best place to ask this but what is the best bang for you're buck dual core processor available right now?

>>58565985
Read the OP

>>58563826
>what are instructions per clock improvements and TDP savings

anon pls

>>58565833
A lot of people

r/hardwareswap

>>58563378
That's bullshit tho, the i3 6100 is better in pretty much every test.

>>58566122
Read wrong, ignore my retarded post

File: 1310567657364.jpg (86KB, 515x589px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 515x589px

>mfw i can OC my Core2 Quad and get respectable results in the year twenty seventeen
dunno wtf intel and amd are doing

File: 1470290945900.jpg (100KB, 543x550px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 543x550px

>>58566051
>2700K has 95 watt TDP
>7700K has 91 watt TDP

>>58563378
>Where were you when the i5-2500k fags and AMD-tards got BTFO by a $65 processor?
I was in 2017

This might have been impressive if it happened the same time last year.

File: 1479254524793.png (884KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

884KB, 1920x1080px

>>58566153
>still using a 1090T at 4.1ghz
gonna buy me a Zen I think.

File: 1375366365604.gif (984KB, 149x158px) Image search: [Google]

984KB, 149x158px

>want to buy a pc for video editing
>everything is SUPER XXX GAYMING ZXOEWJN SERIES BOEZINGA RAZER ALIENWARE APPROVED
>now intel is doing the exact same shit

>>58566176
nah, 2014

>>58566227
http://www.l337gaming.com/l337_why.htm

>>58566155
But did they move more functionality from the ich to the cpu die???!?

File: Sans titre.png (87KB, 1062x659px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1062x659px

post your cpu-z bench,
im ready to upgrade.

>>58563414
same, I just got it because it was in a gaming cpu build that that tripfag made

>>58563873
Wonder what mods he's using on skyrim. Mike's heavily modded and hardly ever drops below 60.

File: Capture5.png (111KB, 1028x505px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1028x505px

>>58566483

>>58566155
You can take ~15 watts off if you don't use the iGpu.

>>58563378
what a shitty fucking review.

>>58563857
>it pretty much just indicates that the poster is a racist
Jews aren't a race, though.

>>58565833
>implying processors feel any kind of wear or deterioration due to usage

i'd gladly?

>>58563378

>got BTFO by a $65 processor

it's not a bad thing though. 2500/2600 users are always just wondering how long it will last and it's good to see that the same performance can be bought for only $65 should their CPU die

>>58566808
How do I do that??

>>58567107
...buy a gpu, and don't use the integrated one?

>>58567154
Oh so the load/tdp gets subtracted by default? Makes sense I guess. Thought the post implied there was some bios setting for turning it off additionally

>>58563857
Nigger

File: I'll be stuck with this thing for the next decade.png (57KB, 830x413px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 830x413px

>>58566483

I can't even imagine when I'm going to have to upgrade this thing.
Probably when they move away from silicon or if it suddenly dies on me.

>>58567171
There is a setting to do just that

File: tumblr_nxpkq7F3nS1s78qmfo1_500.jpg (19KB, 480x322px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 480x322px

>>58563880

>>58563378
Is this overclockable? Not gonna probably buy g-series anymore, they're pretty shitty in real life scenarios.

>>58563378
FX-8120 fag here
always had respect for the 2500k, but both platforms compared to the Pentium is like how people compare a 2017 hot hatch with an early 90's supercar. Of course it can do that well, it's 5 years newer.

>>58563378
>A cpu from 2017 finally beats one from 2011 for 1/3rd price
>You remember when in three years cpus could progress 4 fold in speed

Someone missed the point with 2500/2600k.

Protip: CPU being relevant after 5 years after its introduction is a _new_ thing. In 1998, when I was replacing my venerable Pentium 60Mhz from 1996 I replaced it with a _budget_ option of K6 233mhz.

To keep such progress 7700k would have to be ~7ghz in relation to 2500k.

>>58570430
makes me wonder if we will switch to a different kind of architecture in the next decade or so. once we hit the molecular wall, we will have to move to a different design than x86

>>58567218
You're good for 5 years alright.

I have 4790 and 4590 for workstation and gaming stuff. 2670s and 1220Lv2 for server stuff.

I believe I'm quite well off till next used server cpu market flood hits ebay. I love my dual 2670 setup.

>>58570473
>tfw bought a dual socket 2011-v3 for $400 and hoarding it for when that day comes
I really should test the damn thing to see if it works properly

>>58566937
Wut. Yes they are you stupid fuck.

It's a race and a religion.

>>58563378
>Where were you when the i5-2500k fags and AMD-tards got BTFO by a $65 processor?
They said the same thing about the i3 6100 being as fast as the i5 2500k.

I recently got an i3 6100 to replace my i5 2500k (that I never OC'd anyway) and guess what? The i5 2500k was faster.

Quad core > dual core, always.

>>58563378
>wccurrytech
Come on now, as much as i want this to be true /g/ should know better than this.

https://ark.intel.com/products/97143/Intel-Pentium-Processor-G4560-3M-Cache-3_50-GHz

THANK YOU BASED INTEL

AYYMD IS FINISHED & BANKRUPT

AYY LMAO three years after the G3258 Anniversary came out for the same price and the only difference is multithreading and a locked multiplier Xddddddd

>>58563805
your 970 was free?
Or you can't do addition

My fx4300 was 60euros new.
Only 95 watt, fast and quadcore.
Beat that Intel.

>>58571526

Bait

>>58563392
>not overclocked i3-6100
and it never will be, retard, because it's locked

File: e5-1650v2.png (44KB, 806x402px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 806x402px

>>58566483
>>58566770

>>58567218
Got this used on the cheap, and literally see no need to replace it for years to come. Just lets me focus on other parts of the system. Maybe if v2 8c/16t cpus ever go down to the dirt cheap territory, I'll jump on that. But for 1000$ it's just not worth it to me.

File: Capture.png (94KB, 834x423px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 834x423px

well, an upgrade over what I had

>>58567013
cpus dont die but motherboards do.

>>58572660

Pretty accurate. Same goes for shitted video cards; the issue is practically never in the silicon or anywhere on the interposer itself.

>>58563378
>Intel's Celeron 540 Reviewed - FASTER than AMD K6!!!!1!!1!

>>58571350
This is probably first Pentium G line-up that is worth getting.

Who cares? If you own a 2500k your next upgrade is Zen or "don't."

>>58571547
Why is so much of /g/ utterly clueless about modern technology?

>>58563442
Not true, my 2500k preforms the same as a skylake i7 is overclocked

>>58563378
>no ECC support

found the problem with babbies first cpu

>>58572804
>>58571447

>>58564849
>$20 more for unlocked plus a cpu cooler

And those are at least $30 for a decent cooler. So we're adding 20% to the cost of the processor. Then you need to jump up to a better chipset to overclock. Which, depending on motherboard form factor could be another $20-50.

And then you have to start considering the concept of diminishing returns.

>>58564899
>Congrats on losing about 90% of your CPU's resale value.

Moore's Law is dead, anon. Why would you ever need to sell an old processor?