-
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.
i5 2500K - When Will It Die?
- Thread starter albert
- Start date
Minor performance increases, lack of competition in the CPU sector.
IF you're just gaming then the GPU is going to give you the biggest boost. I've thought about upgrading to a i7-6700k or the newest gen CPU's but for the price it's just a waste of money compared to a 4790K.
What latest games.? For me even some older games like Crisis 3 were dropping to around 40fps at times and that with 2500K clocked at 4.8Ghz.
After upgrading to [email protected] + 3000Mhz RAM its the minimum fps that is getting the biggest boost. Where before it would drop to around 40 now it stays at well over 60.
But if you are talking about average frame rate then yes that was still good.
Last edited:
Because Intel's priorities have changed (partly due to market forces, partly due to the increasing difficulty in improving silicon CPU technology) and there is a lack of competition.
It *is* dated, but Intel generations 3-7 have only added 5-10% IPC each time without improving the overclocking headroom. And in some cases, reducing it. It was nigh impossible to get 5GHz out of Ivybridge or Haswell, IIRC, but there were some good Sandybridges that managed it.
That said, a 7600k @ 5GHz will be faster. Just... not necessarily an improvement to your gaming experience. And if your particular games/programs aren't demanding more CPU speed, then it's not worth worrying about.
As to how it can happen; feedback effect. Game devs know there is nothing faster than an overclocked i7, and that most people run a slower quad core. They've had to optimise for that market, in many cases shunting the load on the GPU (e.g. PhysX), and thus providing even less reason for anyone to make a faster CPU. As long as there are ways to not require a faster CPU, there is no incentive to make any...
(Personal note; I thought my 2500k was finally on its way out last month... but it turned out to be dodgy nVidia drivers making bluescreens. Back to a stable, ancient rig again.)
That said, a 7600k @ 5GHz will be faster. Just... not necessarily an improvement to your gaming experience. And if your particular games/programs aren't demanding more CPU speed, then it's not worth worrying about.
As to how it can happen; feedback effect. Game devs know there is nothing faster than an overclocked i7, and that most people run a slower quad core. They've had to optimise for that market, in many cases shunting the load on the GPU (e.g. PhysX), and thus providing even less reason for anyone to make a faster CPU. As long as there are ways to not require a faster CPU, there is no incentive to make any...
(Personal note; I thought my 2500k was finally on its way out last month... but it turned out to be dodgy nVidia drivers making bluescreens. Back to a stable, ancient rig again.)
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 11,159
- Location
- Crowmarsh
I only recently swapped my 2500k for a 6700k.
Minimum fps are definitely higher but overall it's not a huge difference.
The 2500k will be a decent cpu for a couple of years yet I'm sure.
Minimum fps are definitely higher but overall it's not a huge difference.
The 2500k will be a decent cpu for a couple of years yet I'm sure.
A 7 year old CPU will be exactly the same speed as it was 6 - 7 year ago, as long as it hasn't been running with excessive voltage or too hot. The fact that an i5 2500K can still perform well is because software demands have not massively increased. As eddiew mentioned, software developers are generally going to write apps/games that perform well on the CPU technology that's available. It's a blessing to our wallets that CPU speed increase has slowed down over the past few years.
Meanwhile GPU technology has moved on a fair bit since 2011, so although an i5-2500K still performs well in 2017, the chances are you've upgraded your graphics card since then.
Some good answers but I especially like these. The supply side:
If the question is "why do my games still run fine?" then the simplest answer is probably right - games haven't got much more CPU intensive in recent years.
I don't see that changing tbh, especially if APIs get more efficient (looking at you DX11). The only exception might be massive strategy games (e.g. Total War series).
and the demand side:
If the question is "why do my games still run fine?" then the simplest answer is probably right - games haven't got much more CPU intensive in recent years.
I don't see that changing tbh, especially if APIs get more efficient (looking at you DX11). The only exception might be massive strategy games (e.g. Total War series).
.
I asked a similar question to your title on the LTT forums but didn't get much of a response. While the body of your OP is referring more to how long will the 2500k be useful (which is discussed endlessly) I'm actually curious how long my little chip will last before it fries itself.
My 2500k has been running at 4.8/5.0 Ghz (with speedstep) pretty much continuously since 2011. That's just been using a H60 - not a bad cooler by any means but it's no custom loop. Think temps of 60-80 degrees while gaming and 30-40 at idle along with 1.448v at load.
I'm constantly reading how higher temps and volts will reduce the lifespan of a CPU and so many people put a lot of effort into lowering temps by a few degrees and volts by a few mv. But nobody seems to have a clue how much higher temps and voltage typically reduce CPU lifespan. As far as I can tell nobody has conducted a long-term study. My anecdotal evidence seems to suggest it makes far less of a difference than people think it does.
My 2500k has been running at 4.8/5.0 Ghz (with speedstep) pretty much continuously since 2011. That's just been using a H60 - not a bad cooler by any means but it's no custom loop. Think temps of 60-80 degrees while gaming and 30-40 at idle along with 1.448v at load.
I'm constantly reading how higher temps and volts will reduce the lifespan of a CPU and so many people put a lot of effort into lowering temps by a few degrees and volts by a few mv. But nobody seems to have a clue how much higher temps and voltage typically reduce CPU lifespan. As far as I can tell nobody has conducted a long-term study. My anecdotal evidence seems to suggest it makes far less of a difference than people think it does.
Honestly in the next gen or 2 we might see the old 4 cores start to drift away. With ryzen next month and coffeelake in the next year or so we should see worthwhile 6 and 8 core in the mainstream. Games are slowly starting to make better use of more cores... so maybe, just maybe, it will be worth leaving the 4 cores behind
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 8,617
My 2500k is still great 5 years on. They must have been some of the best chips ever made.
I went from a [email protected] to a [email protected] and there was quite a difference in one game and that was arms 3 and that was it really. Now I'm on a 6700k and I can honestly say I won't be upgrading until the CPU actually holds me back.
For what it's worth, I've been running mine at [email protected] and similar temps for most of it's life, but recently it's only really willing to deliver 4.3 at that. Might be something else in the system not quite stable, but overall it's happier with the reduced clock. Seems to be running very hot for the speed too, touches 82 under stress testing, although that might just mean I need to switch the paste out.
Never expected to own it this long else I'd have bought an i7 at the time :/