Windows 10: 3 Questions about the i5 Processor for Gaming

I'm rocking mostly 8 year old hardware and I'm running some games at decent framerates, nothing to shout home about, I can play fallout 4 at medium settings at 40-50 fps at 1080p, I know I need to upgrade, but the CPU isn't the be all and end all of gaming, if you want a CPU that will be playing the latest games in 5 years time, get one that is OP now, if you are planning to upgrade in 3 years time, get one that will be sufficient for the job, cooling is not a problem unless you are overclocking, and overclocking WILL reduce the lifespan of your CPU, keep that in mind, if I were in your boots, I would get an AMD system and save your money for a decent GPU

 

AMD FX series are very good processors and are much more affordable.

 

well, gosh darn it @BunnyJ *Biggrin read above *Tongue

 

I totally agree with your post. AMD makes great chips for a great price.

 

I've read and heard horror stories about AMD chips. That's why in staying away from them until they fix them. For now I'll be buying the Nvidia 970.

 

MrNeeds.......

There is a lot to be said about your recommendation for an AMD system with more GPU power.........

I have built some very nice AMD systems and thinking about putting one together for the wife for her next system......

 

There will always be Intel Fan Boys (and gals) ready to flame AMD.........LOL

One of the best gaming systems I put together was on the ASUS Crosshair V board with a ASUS ROG Matrix GTX-580......been a couple years ago but I am thinking that system will still rock the games of today.....

Here is the link to the review of the board I did for ASUS when I was reviewing for them and moderating on their ROG forum......

Crosshair V Review

 

You're wrong. I'm no fan to Nvidia, AMD or anything else. I could care less about those brands. The only thing I'm a fanboy of is me. I'd rather be safe than sorry cuz its my money and no one else's. That's why I'm getting the Nvidia 970 cuz of the bad press about AMD. Its not my fault some guys are romantically fixated on certain brands.

 

I have Both AMD and Intel in the real world you will not notice much in gaming but video decompression you will notice big time programs that need CPU power you will see it but other than this AMD chips are alright i have a FX8320E I bought for $100.00 coupled with a GTX 970G1 so i mean they run just not the best benchmark scores but Benchmarks don't mean all that

 

lol Spot on

 

With all due respect, don't you think what you said is contradictory? On one hand you said I should get a CPU that's OP, which I assume is overclockable to remain current for next 5 years. On the other hand you said overclocking will reduce the life of the CPU.

So overall we're back to square one on whether I should buy either the non-clockable CPU or the clockable one.

I honestly believe I should get the clockable CPU so I can overclock it to keep up with more demanding games in the future for the next 4 - 5 years.

 

That would be the best choice in the end you'll end up selling yourself short if you don't

Look at it as a Investment for the future *Wink

 

You can get a CPU which is OP now by not overclocking, for example my CPU is 8 years old, it's quad core, it's got about half the performance of today's processors and better still, it's never been overclocked and still going strong, overclocking isn't something to just enable a better framerate, it's a very unstable way to push your processor past it's recommended specifications, that's not a decision I would consider to be an easy one to make.

What I meant in the above quoted post was, you can get a CPU what is considered an overpowered CPU right now, and it will keep up without overclocking in a few years time, or you can get a CPU that can be clocked and would require overclocking to achieve the same results in 5 years time to keep up with future hardware, but run the risk of the CPU dying prematurely due to overclocking (which is why people upgrade every 3 years), so it's completely your choice and your circumstance will be taken into consideration *Smile

 

So you're saying there's no difference in a K and non K processor when it comes to gaming, right?

And that in 3 years time I'd have to upgrade the CPU anyway, right?

But still, there are others who advised me to get a K to keep current with future games without spending money on upgrading the CPU for 4 - 5 years. They say if I get a non K, I'll have to upgrade it in 3 years.

So what do you think?

---------- EDIT ----------
OK I re-read your previous post and understand what you're trying to say. I think I'll get a K and overclock it when the time comes to do so to keep up with future hardware and future games. But I definitely won't overclock to its limits and risk degrading it. I'll o'clock it just enough without going overboard. I think it's the smart thing to do and the best compromise without having to upgrade it in a short period of time as you would with a non K.

 

You're overthinking this. The difference between the two you listed is the k can be overclocked and the other can't,.

Don't worry about what's going to be usable that far down the road.. just get the one you want. If you think you want to or can overclock get the K and if you don't then get the 6500. Either one is more than adequate for the job. Keep in mind that overclocking is tricky and you can damage the processor/motherboard if you do it incorrectly.

Jeff
Edit: Check this out.. Intel Core i5 6600K vs 6500