Search
Search
Sign on Options
Theme: [Light Selected] To Dark»
Forums › Computer Hardware Discussion › Core i3-2120 vs Core i5-2500k

The Computer Hardware forum is the place to discuss hardware. Important! Asking for Windows keys or circumventing the copy-protect to accommodate multiple installs can lead to a moderation with revoked community permissions.

Core i3-2120 vs Core i5-2500k

Forum Actions
New Message
  • Mystic-G
     
    Level 34
    Paramecium
    Posts: 6477
    May 1, 2012 5:21 pm GMT

    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?

    Edited on May 1, 2012 5:24 pm GMT Edited 2 total times.

    ------------------------

    Core i3-3220 @ 3.3Ghz / 8GB DDR3 G-Skill @ 1600Mhz / MSI GTX460 768MB / 256GB SSD

    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?

    Report Abuse
  • ChubbyGuy40
     
    Level 45
    Mishima Zaibatsu
    Posts: 25502
    User is Online
    May 1, 2012 5:24 pm GMT

    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.

    Origin ID: Madmatt727

    Steam ID: matthewfjr

    3DS Friend Code: 2234-7317-025

    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.

    Report Abuse
  • WiiRocks66
     
    Level 49
    Kidd Thunder !!
    Posts: 3405
    User is Online
    May 1, 2012 5:24 pm GMT

    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=288

    The 2500k pulls way ahead in other tasks.

    __________________________________

    My Rig: i5 2500k @ 4.5ghz w/Cooler Master Hyper 212+, MSI Z68A-G43(G3), NVIDIA-built GTX 660 ti, 16gb 1600mhz Corsair RAM, Corsair TX750 V2 PSU, 2tb WD Caviar Green HDD, 120gb Samsung 840 SSD, Cooler Master HAF X Case, Logitech G510 KB, Logitech G500 Mouse, LG 32CS560 monitor



    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=288

    The 2500k pulls way ahead in other tasks.

    Report Abuse
  • Mystic-G
     
    Level 34
    Paramecium
    Posts: 6477
    May 1, 2012 5:25 pm GMT

    ChubbyGuy40 wrote:

    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.

    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.

    Edited on May 1, 2012 5:36 pm GMT

    ------------------------

    Core i3-3220 @ 3.3Ghz / 8GB DDR3 G-Skill @ 1600Mhz / MSI GTX460 768MB / 256GB SSD

    [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.

    [/QUOTE] 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.

    Report Abuse
  • painguy1
     
    Level 46
    Mutoid Man
    Posts: 8682
    User is Online
    May 1, 2012 6:20 pm GMT

    Its much faster for general purpose computing

    NEW BLOGGER POST!!! Annoyed Gamer:I'm back

    Its much faster for general purpose computing

    Report Abuse
  • NoodleFighter
     
    Level 38
    DJ Boy
    Posts: 6544
    User is Online
    May 1, 2012 7:16 pm GMT

    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

    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

    Report Abuse
  • James161324
     
    Level 42
    Karnov
    Posts: 8219
    User is Online
    May 1, 2012 7:17 pm GMT

    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

    My Rig: I5 2500k 4.6 GHZ, Asrock P67 Extreme 4, Sapphire HD 7970 , 16 GB DDR3 Corsair Vengeance 1600 MHZ, SanDisk 120 GB SSD, Seagate Barracuda 1 TB, 500 GB HD, Antec True Power 650W, Haf 932 Advanced Case, Microsoft Sidewinder x6 Keybord,LogitechMX518, 2x Acer S321HL and S232HL 23" 1920 by 1080, Sennheiser HD558, Logitech 5.1 Speakers

    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

    Report Abuse
  • NoodleFighter
     
    Level 38
    DJ Boy
    Posts: 6544
    User is Online
    May 1, 2012 7:18 pm GMT

    James161324 wrote:

    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

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

    [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

    [/QUOTE]

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

    Report Abuse
  • seercirra
     
    Level 12
    Rad Racer
    Posts: 305
    May 1, 2012 8:52 pm GMT

    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.

    Edited on May 1, 2012 8:53 pm GMT

    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.

    Report Abuse
  • RazorGR
     
    Level 51
    Alien Hominid
    Posts: 1591
    May 2, 2012 12:23 am GMT

    Mystic-G wrote:

    ChubbyGuy40 wrote:

    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.

    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.

    Core i5 2500K@4.5Ghz// CM Hyper 212+ // Asus P8Z77-V LE+ // Corsair XMS3 8GB@1600Mhz

    GTX 660 OC //Intel 335 240GB SSD //WD 1TB HDD// Corsair HX650W // Lian Li PC-A10

    [QUOTE="Mystic-G"]

    [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.

    [/QUOTE] 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.

    [/QUOTE]

    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.

    Report Abuse
  • C_Rule
     
    Level 42
    Karnov
    Posts: 9443
    User is Online
    May 2, 2012 2:01 am GMT
    seercirra wrote:

    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.


    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.


    Intel 3570K 4.4GHz | ASUS GTX 670 SLI 1150MHz | G.Skill 16GB RipjawsX 1600MHz | ASRock Z77 Fatal1ty Pro
    NZXT Matte Black Switch 810 | Corsair H110 | Corsair AX750 | Intel 520s 120GB | 4TB RAID0 + 1TB WD Greens
    BenQ XL2420T | Logitech Z-5500 | MS Sidewinder X4 | Gigabyte M8000X

    [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.

    [/QUOTE] 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.
    Report Abuse
  • valium88
     
    Level 42
    Karnov
    Posts: 4363
    User is Online
    May 2, 2012 4:40 am GMT

    ^ C_Rule = The_Rule

    _______________________________________________________________________________

    | i7 2600k 4.0GHz | Z68 ATX | GTX 560ti DC II TOP | 12GB VIPER EXTREME 2000Mhz |Cooler Master V8 | Chieftec 850w | Cooler Master Silencio 550 |

    ^ C_Rule = The_Rule

    Report Abuse
  • 04dcarraher
     
    Level 64
    Easter Egg
    Posts: 17069
    User is Online
    May 2, 2012 7:45 am GMT

    NoodleFighter wrote:

    James161324 wrote:

    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

    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.

    Edited on May 2, 2012 7:56 am GMT

    loosingENDS Wisdom:

    My PC is not a gaming PC in the sense that does not have a GPU that will run games in playable frame rates, other than that is a DX11 GPU that will run any game in any setting

    Was xbox 360 based on a 9800 pro of 2003 ?

    No, it was based on a 8800GTX of 2006

    [QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

    [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

    [/QUOTE]

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

    [/QUOTE] 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.

    Report Abuse
  • Mystic-G
     
    Level 34
    Paramecium
    Posts: 6477
    May 3, 2012 5:38 pm GMT

    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.

    ------------------------

    Core i3-3220 @ 3.3Ghz / 8GB DDR3 G-Skill @ 1600Mhz / MSI GTX460 768MB / 256GB SSD

    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.

    Report Abuse
  • 04dcarraher
     
    Level 64
    Easter Egg
    Posts: 17069
    User is Online
    May 3, 2012 6:00 pm GMT
    Mystic-G wrote:

    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.


    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.

    loosingENDS Wisdom:

    My PC is not a gaming PC in the sense that does not have a GPU that will run games in playable frame rates, other than that is a DX11 GPU that will run any game in any setting

    Was xbox 360 based on a 9800 pro of 2003 ?

    No, it was based on a 8800GTX of 2006

    [QUOTE="Mystic-G"]

    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.

    [/QUOTE] 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.
    Report Abuse
  • seercirra
     
    Level 12
    Rad Racer
    Posts: 305
    May 3, 2012 6:50 pm GMT

    Mystic-G wrote:

    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.

    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.

    Edited on May 3, 2012 6:53 pm GMT Edited 2 total times.

    [QUOTE="Mystic-G"]

    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.

    [/QUOTE] 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.

    Report Abuse
  • godzillavskong
     
    Level 42
    Karnov
    Posts: 7799
    User is Online
    May 3, 2012 7:36 pm GMT
    painguy1 wrote:

    Its much faster for general purpose computing


    I hate general purpose computing!!!

    My PC-FX-6100 @ 4ghz / 2 IceQ6870s / Gigabyte 990xa mobo/ 8gb Kingston Hyper X DDR3 @ 1866mhz/ Thermaltake Liquid cooler/ 600 watt power supply/SeaGate 1tb HD(7200rpm)

    [QUOTE="painguy1"]

    Its much faster for general purpose computing

    [/QUOTE] I hate general purpose computing!!!:)
    Report Abuse
  • godzillavskong
     
    Level 42
    Karnov
    Posts: 7799
    User is Online
    May 3, 2012 7:39 pm GMT
    C_Rule wrote:
    seercirra wrote:

    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.


    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.

    My PC-FX-6100 @ 4ghz / 2 IceQ6870s / Gigabyte 990xa mobo/ 8gb Kingston Hyper X DDR3 @ 1866mhz/ Thermaltake Liquid cooler/ 600 watt power supply/SeaGate 1tb HD(7200rpm)

    [QUOTE="C_Rule"][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.

    [/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE] 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.
    Report Abuse
Forum Actions
New Message
Forums › Computer Hardware Discussion › Core i3-2120 vs Core i5-2500k