2500K longevity ?

wildman · 31 Mar 2013 at 23:19

I built my rig back in march 2011 around an MSI P67 GD65 and a 2500K which is running comfortably at 4.4ghz. I can get 4.8 out of it but untill I get it under water the temps are a bit toasty.

So I was wondering how much lifespan is there in this cpu ? I was thinking of upgrading to a Z77 and an ivy. But when I though it through it seemed almost like a waste of money considering that my 2500K isn't exactly holding me back.

So I guess my main questions are is it worth upgrading now to a Z77 + ivy or hold out for the next gen from Intel ?

How much real performance increase would you see and how does the 2500K bench against an equivalent Ivy ?

PooBrain · 31 Mar 2013 at 23:24

You can keep that for another 5 years..

Akagi · 31 Mar 2013 at 23:35

Plenty of life in the 'old' gal yet. If it starts to become a bottleneck, overclock it more. When its incredibly old, whack on the volts and overclock it even more because it wont matter too much if you fry it.

the1gooner · 31 Mar 2013 at 23:39

Plenty of years of decent performance left.

I am still running an i5 760 which is plenty quick enough for anything i do and will be or a long while yet.

No major need to upgrade on a regular basis anymore for most people.

Akagi · 31 Mar 2013 at 23:48

There are still many people gaming with heavily clocked Q6600's perfectly happily. And they were released in what... 2007?

Smoogels · 1 Apr 2013 at 09:17

If you notice that the processor is slacking then it's time to upgrade. If it does everything great, no need to upgrade

Generally the 2500K should be 'decent' for a few more years.

ince · 1 Apr 2013 at 10:04

It's fine for now

shadow_boxer · 1 Apr 2013 at 11:14

4 to 5 years I'd say. My i7 920 @4.2GHz is still going strong.

Akagi · 1 Apr 2013 at 11:56

People usually upgrade before they *need* to upgrade. Money tends to burn a hole in the pocket of many a PC enthusiast

Technically I suppose you could say that I didn't need to get my sig rig. My Core 2 Duo E8200 + HD4890 was still plenty enough to play anything if you turned the settings down.

It depends on how you look at it

Dom86 · 1 Apr 2013 at 13:40

acme15 said:
People usually upgrade before they *need* to upgrade. Money tends to burn a hole in the pocket of many a PC enthusiast

This, I upgraded my 7850 to a 7950 within a few months I didn't need to but had the spare cash and it was on special.
The 2500k is still a great cpu and will last for quite a while yet.

Something Else · 1 Apr 2013 at 14:04

I went from 7850-7970 as it was on offer at ocuk gran opening.

im hoping my 2500k @ 4.7 will last a few years yet!

MissChief · 1 Apr 2013 at 14:30

I built my rig early last year and I'm expecting it to do me until at least the end of 2014, hopefully the end of 2015. My 670 may not last that long but that's how I usually work it. New MB, CPU, Ram and Board, old card. Upgrade the card in between then carry that card over into new rig. Usually a decent card will last 18-24 months, any CPU and board combo should last three years easily so you've got some sort of upgrade, usually around the same cost every 18-24 months.

Alkalinepro5 · 1 Apr 2013 at 14:34

Considering my 965BE is still able to play every game I throw at it I doubt you will have a problem with a 2500k.

Rooster212 · 1 Apr 2013 at 16:58

I don't think the 2500K will be obsolete for many years. Even a mild overclock on a 2500K will eliminate a bottleneck in Crossfire/SLI setups in the majority of games. I run 4.5ghz when I need it and 4.0ghz the rest of the time. Does great, and not planning on upgrading (unless I get a job, in which case in goes Haswell). Not that I would need Haswell. The 2500K would be a fantastic LAN machine which I'd take to uni.

Akagi · 1 Apr 2013 at 17:04

I plan on keeping my 2500K for a long while yet

I have a loose plan to get a custom loop in my rig at some point to reduce the core temps further and hopefuly extend its life as a result.

It will then allow for me to overclock further in the future if it becomes needed with any luck, as i'm on 4.6 with 1.37v at the moment.

rankftw · 2 Apr 2013 at 04:58

I've had my 2500k running 4.8Ghz at 1.335vcore for the last 2 years and although it's an awesome CPU it has started to show its age in one of the latest games. Since it still sells for a good chunk I'm probably going to upgrade to an i7 Haswell when they come out.

But yeah the 2500k is one of the greats.

Phil2008 · 2 Apr 2013 at 13:19

rankftw said:
I've had my 2500k running 4.8Ghz at 1.335vcore for the last 2 years and although it's an awesome CPU it has started to show its age in one of the latest games. Since it still sells for a good chunk I'm probably going to upgrade to an i7 Haswell when they come out.

The thing is it worth the upgrade? Im on of these people that upgrade when pc is really struggling and then the upgrade is a lot more worth while as you can see a huge performance gain.

But upgrading just for a few more fps seems pointless and you haven't really much to show for your money.

ValentineRob · 2 Apr 2013 at 13:36

Purchased one the month they were out, overclocked to 4.6ghz with almost no voltage increase, still working smoothly as ever. I don't expect to replace this for at least another 2 years.

One of the few early purchase decisions that has worked for me (i'm not mentioning the motherboard issues here).

Alkalinepro5 · 2 Apr 2013 at 14:54

rankftw said:
I've had my 2500k running 4.8Ghz at 1.335vcore for the last 2 years and although it's an awesome CPU it has started to show its age in one of the latest games. Since it still sells for a good chunk I'm probably going to upgrade to an i7 Haswell when they come out.
But yeah the 2500k is one of the greats.

repost

Alkalinepro5 · 2 Apr 2013 at 14:55

rankftw said:
I've had my 2500k running 4.8Ghz at 1.335vcore for the last 2 years and although it's an awesome CPU it has started to show its age in one of the latest games. Since it still sells for a good chunk I'm probably going to upgrade to an i7 Haswell when they come out.
But yeah the 2500k is one of the greats.

lol dude... An i7 Haswell is no better than an i5 Sandybridge!

There has been no progress in CPU specification over the past two years on Intel's "Vanilla" range apart from power improvements and a die shrink. The spec sheet has stayed the same. (Cache, Speed, Cores)

Unless you count 5% increase in performance as a sensible upgrade. In real world gaming you won't see any noticeable improvement. If you want to see a sizable improvement you would have to go for a 3960/3970X @ 5.0ghz.

The way I see is it this. Intel have the architecture ready to make some serious CPU's, however given the lack of competition there is no incentive to improve specs, however If AMD were to release a "surprise" performance CPU with Steamroller you can bet your bottom dollar Intel would up the specs within T-1 month to (6-8 cores) no problem.

Feel free to spend monies on Haswell, but you won't reap any benefits whatsoever on the gaming front bro.