[dlee7283]

Will a 2500t 2.3GHZ push a 7850 just fine?

I am wondering if the low clock speed would hurt performance in the 1920x1080 range even though its a SB. Has a Turbo of 3.3 but who even knows if that even kicks on correctly lol.

Can't find any benchmarks on this chip in gaming but it seems to be on par with a FX 4170 according to passmark(take it at what you will)

My honest guess is that this chip is on par with a i5 750 at stock.

got this chip for 70 bucks shipped last fall so not really looking to upgrade it at this very moment as I would rather run a quad than an higher clocked i3 and will upgrade to an i7 non K at some point.

 

[edalbkrad]

your i5 2500T wont bottleneck the 7850, especially when the turbo kicks in.
I've seen my friend's i5 2310 go to turbo when he games so it works just fine

 

[dlee7283]

Quote:

Originally Posted by edalbkrad

your i5 2500T wont bottleneck the 7850, especially when the turbo kicks in.
I've seen my friend's i5 2310 go to turbo when he games so it works just fine

2310 is a 2.9 GHZ, 2500t is 2.3, so a 600 MHZ difference could mean something....

 

[[CyGnus]]

You are fine no problems there

 

[solar0987]

gtg

 

[Cores]

You should be fine and not experience any bottleneck.

Sent from my Nexus 4 via Tapatalk

 

[MisterFred]

Meaningless question.

Relevant post I made on the subject:

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

There's a difference between different definitions of bottlenecking. If you mean the correct (according to me) definition, then no.
Correct definition: A bottleneck is a result of one piece of hardware not permitting another to function at its full capacity in any circumstance.

Correct definition example: You have a SATA3 SSD plugged into a SATA2 port on your motherboard. The SATA2 port is bottlenecking your SSD - you can never get faster than SATA2 speeds out of it, even though the SSD could perform much better.

Solution: Plug the SSD into a SATA3 port, possibly requiring a motherboard upgrade.

HOWEVER, lots of people use a different definition of bottlenecking. According to me, the incorrect one.
Incorrect definition: A bottleneck is when one piece of hardware is not performing up to its maximum potential in a specific task because another piece of hardware can't keep up.

Incorrect definition example: You have a 5850, which is capable (or nearly so) of displaying SC2 at maximum graphics settings at your monitor's resolution & maximum refresh rate (best possible image quality at maximum effective FPS), however, because your CPU (i5-2320) cannot run SC2 at maximum FPS (your monitor's refresh rate) when large armies are on the field, you aren't getting maximum theoretical potential out of your 5850.

The difference is that the second (incorrect) definition is task-specific. Sure in SC2, there's a CPU "bottleneck," but for the vast majority of games it's the opposite: your i5-2320 is more than enough power to do everything you want other games to do, but your 5850 will hold you back.

So to answer your question:
Your system has no bottlenecks (first, correct definition).
Your question is meaningless without giving us context in terms of what software you're running (second, more common but incorrect definition).

The reason the term bottlenecking bugs me so much is that people hear they have a bottleneck (incorrect definition) and assume they have a bottleneck (correct definition) and that there are magic hardware configurations that will never have bottlenecks (incorrect definition) when that outcome is, in fact, impossible.