Core i3-2120 vs Core i5-2500k

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Mystic-G (6460 posts) -

Before I begin, I'm discussing sandybridge. I'm aware the Core i5 series is superior. Despite the Core i3 performing so closely to the Core i5, why do people still not recommend it for gaming? The vast majority of the benchmarks leave the Core i3's real world performance trailing by a margin of 4 fps. Am I missing something?

At the end of the day what matters to me is real world performance. My question is, when you pit these processors against each other in gaming, is the bottomline performance of the 2500k truly worth the $100 more?

#2 Posted by ChubbyGuy40 (26100 posts) -

It should be recommended more, because it beats AMDs that are priced at a similar level for gaming. Is the $100 jump to the 2500k worth it? Hell yes, and even more if you overclock it. Is it needed? No. The i3 will handle everything you throw at it. It just can't overclock.

#3 Posted by WiiRocks66 (3488 posts) -
#4 Posted by Mystic-G (6460 posts) -

It should be recommended more, because it beats AMDs that are priced at a similar level for gaming. Is the $100 jump to the 2500k worth it? Hell yes, and even more if you overclock it. Is it needed? No. The i3 will handle everything you throw at it. It just can't overclock.

ChubbyGuy40

Overclocking isn't something I'm really into. The only reason I even overclocked my E8400 was because it was essentially a free overclock without having to tinker with much. I'm just done with games like BF3 struggling because of me having a dual core processor. I want a stable framerates out of games that recommend quad cores.

#5 Posted by painguy1 (8686 posts) -

Its much faster for general purpose computing

#6 Posted by NoodleFighter (6982 posts) -

Because people think just because its a dual core it's going to perform like crap even though it beats most of AMDs Phenom II X4 series and AMD FX 4100

#7 Posted by James161324 (8315 posts) -

Becuase buying a dual core right now unless your a extereme budject just isn't smart. Quads are better for normal computing and will last longer

#8 Posted by NoodleFighter (6982 posts) -

Becuase buying a dual core right now unless your a extereme budject just isn't smart. Quads are better for normal computing and will last longer

James161324

The core i3 2120 is more powerful than quad cores in the same price range as it..............

#9 Posted by seercirra (305 posts) -

if you dont want to overclock you shouldnt be looking at a 2500k, you should just be looking for a 2500.

the 2500k is identical to the 2500, except it can be overclocked. thats why its more expensive. from 3.3ghz to 4.5 ghz is alot of gain from overclocking, especially across 4 cores. you can probably get 25% extra performance just from overclocking quite easily.

the benchmarks you see for the 2500k are probably at stock speeds, not overclocked, which is why it doesnt seem like a good deal.

#10 Posted by RazorGR (1605 posts) -

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

It should be recommended more, because it beats AMDs that are priced at a similar level for gaming. Is the $100 jump to the 2500k worth it? Hell yes, and even more if you overclock it. Is it needed? No. The i3 will handle everything you throw at it. It just can't overclock.

Mystic-G

Overclocking isn't something I'm really into. The only reason I even overclocked my E8400 was because it was essentially a free overclock without having to tinker with much. I'm just done with games like BF3 struggling because of me having a dual core processor. I want a stable framerates out of games that recommend quad cores.

Overclocking in sandy bridge requires even less tinkering than c2d and has more headroom as well. It's just a little different but it's easier so even if you don't plan on doing it right away, I'd say it's worth getting an unlocked i5 over an i3 so that you can do so when you need the extra performance.

#11 Posted by C_Rule (9739 posts) -

if you dont want to overclock you shouldnt be looking at a 2500k, you should just be looking for a 2500.

the 2500k is identical to the 2500, except it can be overclocked. thats why its more expensive. from 3.3ghz to 4.5 ghz is alot of gain from overclocking, especially across 4 cores. you can probably get 25% extra performance just from overclocking quite easily.

the benchmarks you see for the 2500k are probably at stock speeds, not overclocked, which is why it doesnt seem like a good deal.

seercirra
Yes but even if you don't think you'll be interested in overclocking now, buying a locked CPU still isn't advisable. You'll feel like a derp when you realise how easy, safe and worthwhile overclocking can be and you're stuck with a locked chip cause you wanted to save ~$10.
#12 Posted by valium88 (4455 posts) -

^ C_Rule = The_Rule

#13 Posted by 04dcarraher (19215 posts) -

[QUOTE="James161324"]

Becuase buying a dual core right now unless your a extereme budject just isn't smart. Quads are better for normal computing and will last longer

NoodleFighter

The core i3 2120 is more powerful than quad cores in the same price range as it..............

However when using multithreaded based apps/games, those quad cores pull away and beat it. The icore's are only around 38% clock per clock then Phenom 2's , In single threaded based test with cinebench the i3 got 5090 as a score while a Phenom 2 got 3675. however in miltithreaded test i3 got 11,000 while the Phenom 2 got 13,200.

#14 Posted by Mystic-G (6460 posts) -

All this and nothing hard-hitting as to why the 2500k is worth the $100 more. The Core-i3 being hyperthreaded allows it to keep up with quad-cores. In my opinion, the Core i3 merely seems like slight step down from the 2500k stock in terms of real world performance. Does the Core i3 not hold up as well in terms of framerate? My Core 2 Duo seems to have frequent framerate dips in BF3, if the Core-i3 does the same then I can understand, but if it holds up like a quad core then I really don't see why I'm putting out $100 more for other than a 4- 5fps increase.

#15 Posted by 04dcarraher (19215 posts) -

All this and nothing hard-hitting as to why the 2500k is worth the $100 more. The Core-i3 being hyperthreaded allows it to keep up with quad-cores. In my opinion, the Core i3 merely seems like slight step down from the 2500k stock in terms of real world performance. Does the Core i3 not hold up as well in terms of framerate? My Core 2 Duo seems to have frequent framerate dips in BF3, if the Core-i3 does the same then I can understand, but if it holds up like a quad core then I really don't see why I'm putting out $100 more for other than a 4- 5fps increase.

Mystic-G
Hyperthreading dont do a thing if the cpu cores are being used to nearly 100% because the left over cpu resources go to those other two virtual core. So if your dual core is at 90% usage those other two virtual cores(threads) only use 10% of the available cpu cycles. also note that even with hyperthreading an i3 2100 vs a Phenom 2 with multithreaded apps the Phenom 2 beats that i3. 4 cores 4 threads>2 cores with 4 threads, even with the i3 being 38% faster clock per clock faster then Phenom 2.
#16 Posted by seercirra (305 posts) -

All this and nothing hard-hitting as to why the 2500k is worth the $100 more. The Core-i3 being hyperthreaded allows it to keep up with quad-cores. In my opinion, the Core i3 merely seems like slight step down from the 2500k stock in terms of real world performance. Does the Core i3 not hold up as well in terms of framerate? My Core 2 Duo seems to have frequent framerate dips in BF3, if the Core-i3 does the same then I can understand, but if it holds up like a quad core then I really don't see why I'm putting out $100 more for other than a 4- 5fps increase.

Mystic-G

ive already told you why its worth $100 more than the i3. because an i5 2500k would just destroy an i3 when its overclocked. forget 4-5 extra fps, it will be more like 20-40 extra fps, perhaps more. it beats an i3 already easily at stock speeds. with an overclock which makes it 30% faster than stock speeds, it just shreds an i3. think of it like this. i3 2120 = 2 cores at 3.3ghz i5 2500 = 4 cores at 3.3ghz i5 2500k = 4 cores at 4.5ghz. because even though the 2500k isnt sold at 4.5ghz, it will easily overclock to 4.5ghz when the others wont. this is why its a good deal, and probably the best bang for buck cpu for gaming.

encoding stuff for youtube videos and all that kind of thing, the i5 will trash the i3 too.

#17 Posted by godzillavskong (7891 posts) -

Its much faster for general purpose computing

painguy1
I hate general purpose computing!!!:)
#18 Posted by godzillavskong (7891 posts) -
[QUOTE="seercirra"]

if you dont want to overclock you shouldnt be looking at a 2500k, you should just be looking for a 2500.

the 2500k is identical to the 2500, except it can be overclocked. thats why its more expensive. from 3.3ghz to 4.5 ghz is alot of gain from overclocking, especially across 4 cores. you can probably get 25% extra performance just from overclocking quite easily.

the benchmarks you see for the 2500k are probably at stock speeds, not overclocked, which is why it doesnt seem like a good deal.

C_Rule
Yes but even if you don't think you'll be interested in overclocking now, buying a locked CPU still isn't advisable. You'll feel like a derp when you realise how easy, safe and worthwhile overclocking can be and you're stuck with a locked chip cause you wanted to save ~$10.

Indeed. Overclocking my cpu from 3.3ghz to 3.9ghz was a breeze, even with a stock cooler. I pulled it back down to 3.7ghz just to be safe, at least until I get a good cooler.It would be worth it for him to spend the extra $$ like you said. You never know, he may want to overclock it later, or become interested in doing so later.