• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

2550k vs 2500k overclocking

Associate
Joined
24 Dec 2011
Posts
980
The 2550k would be expected to go about 100mhz higher, as they are chips that are clocked 100mhz higher at stock, so you'd expect intel to cherry pick the higher potential chips, and then disable the GPU.

Obviously this would not hold true in all situations.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
5 Sep 2010
Posts
24,828
As I said above, they should technically clock slightly better.

A 100MHz bump over the 2500K is no indication that they should clock faster.

You'd struggle to find a 2500K that won't clock well over 4GHz.

If Intel released a 25xxK version at, say, a comfortable 3.8GHz would that be any indication it would clock better than a 2500K?

Anyway, I assume that you still stick to your advice to get a 2500K over a 2550K?
 
Associate
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Posts
283
Location
Mid-Wales
2500k's are great overclockers so I personally don't realy see the point in buying the 2550k it's just less for your money. I don't use the onboard gfx right now but one day when it's no longer my gaming pc it will be used :p
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Jun 2011
Posts
3,673
Location
Livingston
If you aren't going to use the Intel GPU the 2550k may be the better option for overclocking. There is a good chance the 2550k will need lower volts than the 2500k for the same clocks and if so, you'll likely find it'll clock higher. Of course this is a bit of a generalisation, you may be really unlucky and get a crappy 2550k.

I'd say comparatively the difference between the 2500k and the 2550k will likely be the same/similar as the difference between the 2600k and 2700k.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
20 Jun 2011
Posts
3,673
Location
Livingston
A 100MHz bump over the 2500K is no indication that they should clock faster.

If Intel released a 25xxK version at, say, a comfortable 3.8GHz would that be any indication it would clock better than a 2500K?

If 3.8Ghz was stable with the same stock voltage of the 2500k then yes, it likely would be a better clocker.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Feb 2010
Posts
9,744
Location
East Midlands
The 2550k would be expected to go about 100mhz higher, as they are chips that are clocked 100mhz higher at stock, so you'd expect intel to cherry pick the higher potential chips, and then disable the GPU.

Obviously this would not hold true in all situations.

This just isn't true at all. The 2550K is just a 2500K with a failed iGPU. They will clock exactly the same (taking into acount that all CPU's vary as far as overclocking is concerned).
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Sep 2010
Posts
24,828
If 3.8Ghz was stable with the same stock voltage of the 2500k then yes, it likely would be a better clocker.

No it wouldn't.

Most (I'm tempted to say virtually all) 2500Ks will run 3.8Ghz without increasing the voltage.

It's no indication that one is a better clocker than the other.
 
Associate
Joined
16 Dec 2010
Posts
1,793
Nope there isn't, and as stated, the 2550k is simply the 2500k with no onboard iGPU.

I'd go for the 2500k over the 2550k anyday. The 2500k is cheaper (albeit only £6), and you're paying less for more. The onboard iGPU will be useful if you end up in a situation where the GPU is not available for whatever reason, and the 100mhz overclock is achievable in less than a minute.
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Jun 2011
Posts
3,673
Location
Livingston
No it wouldn't.

Most (I'm tempted to say virtually all) 2500Ks will run 3.8Ghz without increasing the voltage.

It's no indication that one is a better clocker than the other.

What I was getting at is less voltage required = better overclocker. There seems very little testing done on these, would be interesting to see :)
 
Associate
Joined
11 Jul 2011
Posts
1,525
Location
Abertillery - S.Wales
Same story as with AMD Phenoms....the X4's were released, some had bad cores, so they were locked and became X3's. Same story (so I assume) with the 2500k and 2550k, although you would have thought that the 2550k would be the one with GPU and the 2500k would be without.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Jun 2009
Posts
3,412
Location
Weston-super-Mare
An Intel rep commented on the 2550k on another forum. He basically said that people were crying how they didn't need an integrated GPU, so the 2550k was created to shut them up. the people crying obviously didn't understand that it makes more economical sense to make all the CPUs the same, then bin them regardless of whether in IGPU is used or not, so Intel decided these people were probably foolish enough to pay more for the 2550k than the 2500k. (note the Intel rep didn't say the 2nd sentence, that's just my thoughts lol).
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
18 May 2010
Posts
21,568
Location
London
I was just wondering if not having the IGPU would change the heat and or voltage characteristics of the chip and have a bearing on the overclockability of it vs the 2500k.
 
Top Bottom