Carzy Zarx’s PC Gaming Emporium - Catch Up on All the Latest PC Gaming Related News

[Jizz_Beard_thePirate]

Bofferbrauer2 said:

Captain_Yuri said:

Except that's not showing how the 2500k has aged and how it's so called "lack of threads practically killed the chip" compared to the i7.

That video shows you how exactly they have aged including Shadow of Tomb Raider. Majority of the games, the i5 did quite well but there are some edge cases like Shadow of Tomb Raider where it doesn't do as well. But it's far from getting killed due to a lack of threads considering how well it does in so many games.

Like I said, he pointed out that most of those games are lightly threaded, which wasn't true for an increasing amount of games anymore even at the time. They mostly went with games that all 3 could play in that video instead of the ones that were on their usual benchmark list. Had they gone with those games, the outcome would have been very different in the video you posted.

Also keep in mind the video I posted is one year older than yours, predating the PS5/XSX release, and yet it shows some serious issues with 4c/4t CPUs even back then.

I am not denying that a CPU with more threads will age better than a CPU with less threads. I have said that a few times already in other posts. The question is whether or not it's actually worth it for budget minded people and to me, I still don't see it as both the i5 and i7 are sub 60fps in Shadow of Tomb Raider but granted the i7 is closer to 60. It's basically a scenario where both aren't ideal for gaming, just the i5 is less ideal than the i7.

The i5 2500k still plays games much better than PS4/X1 despite having half the cores which was the point of my reply to Conina so that hasn't changed as PS4/X1 doesn't play Shadow of Tomb Raider and other games using the same settings as PC ultra.

Last edited by Jizz_Beard_thePirate - on 19 April 2022